Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 5 March 2021

Poland B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Institute of National Remembrance appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Institute of National Remembrance, a Polish research institute on modern Polish history, has been in a center of recent Polish politics? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/April.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Institute of National Remembrance/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Repeated deletions of a list of professions for which lustration is obligatory

I guess, for POV issues Polish friends delete the information about professions which undergo obligatory lustration in Poland.

This passage was deleted by user Piotrus unwilling to read the sources with following comment "adding your old sentence with a new ref is amusing but please don't do it: quote on talk sentences from this new ref which support it".

Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for 53 categories including all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials, judges, prosecutors, tax advisers, attorneys, all academics (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyzszego).

I find it amusing that user Piotrus censors and hides the truth from the readers misleading them about current situation in Poland and doesn't give clues as to why Polish history article in Misplaced Pages are so POV for rest of the Wikipedians.

USTAWA z dnia 18 października 2006 r. o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów (dokument w formacie PDF) (wersja - na potrzeby wewnętrzne IPN)

Art. 7. 1. Obowiązek złożenia oświadczenia, dotyczącego pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z tymi organami w okresie od 22 lipca 1944 r. do 31 lipca 1990 r., zwanego dalej "oświadczeniem lustracyjnym", mają osoby, o których mowa w art. 4, urodzone przed 1 sierpnia 1972 r.

Art. 4. Osobami pełniącymi funkcje publiczne w rozumieniu ustawy są: 1) prezydent RP; 2) poseł, senator, poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego; 3) osoba zajmująca kierownicze stanowisko państwowe w rozumieniu ustawy z 31 lipca 1981 r. o wynagrodzeniu osób zajmujących kierownicze stanowiska państwowe (DzU nr 20, poz. 101, ze zm.); 4) członek Rady Polityki Pieniężnej; 5) członek Zarządu NBP; 6) członek Kolegium IPN; 7) prezes Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia i jego zastępcy; 8) prezes Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i jego zastępcy; 9) prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego i jego zastępcy; 10) przewodniczący, zastępcy przewodniczącego oraz członkowie Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego; 11) osoby wchodzące w skład służby zagranicznej w rozumieniu ustawy z 27 lipca 2001 r. o służbie zagranicznej (DzU nr 128, poz. 1403, ze zm.); 12) osoby powołane lub mianowane na podstawie przepisów innych ustaw na inne, niż wymienione w pkt 3 - 11 i 14stanowiska przez prezydenta RP, Sejm, Prezydium Sejmu, Senat, Prezydium Senatu, Sejm i Senat, marszałka Sejmu, marszałka Senatu lub prezesa Rady Ministrów; 13) prezes sądu; 14) sędzia i prokurator; 15) kierownik powszechnej lub wojskowej jednostki organizacyjnej prokuratury; 16) radca i starszy radca Prokuratorii Generalnej Skarbu Państwa; 17) organ i członek organu jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, organu związku jednostek samorządu terytorialnego oraz organu jednostki pomocniczej jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, której obowiązek utworzenia wynika z ustawy; 18) rektor i prorektor publicznej lub niepublicznej szkoły wyższej, członek Rady Głównej Szkolnictwa Wyższego, Państwowej Komisji Akredytacyjnej i Centralnej Komisji do Spraw Stopni i Tytułów; 19) członek rady nadzorczej, członek zarządu, dyrektor programu i jego zastępcy, wydawca lub autor audycji publicystycznej lub informacyjnej oraz dyrektor terenowego oddziału i agencji Telewizji Polskiej - Spółka Akcyjna, Polskiego Radia - Spółka Akcyjna, a także członek Zarządu, członek Rady Nadzorczej oraz członek Rady Programowej Polskiej Agencji Prasowej - Spółka Akcyjna, dyrektor oddziału, dyrektor biura, redaktor naczelny Polskiej Agencji Prasowej - Spółka Akcyjna oraz członek rady nadzorczej, członek zarządu, dyrektor i jego zastępcy w spółce radiofonii regionalnej; 20) członek zarządu lub rady nadzorczej osoby prawnej, która uzyskała koncesję na rozpowszechnianie programów radiowych lub telewizyjnych oraz osoba fizyczna, która uzyskała taką koncesję; 21) członek zarządu lub rady nadzorczej wydawcy, wspólnik spółki osobowej będącej wydawcą lub osoba fizyczna będąca wydawcą w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe (DzU nr 5, poz. 24, ze zm.), a także redaktor naczelny w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe; 22) dyrektor generalny NIK oraz pracownicy NIK nadzorujący lub wykonujący czynności kontrolne; 23) członek organu zarządzającego, nadzorczego lub kontrolnego podmiotu podlegającego nadzorowi Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego; 24) pracownicy urzędów państwowych oraz członkowie korpusu służby cywilnej, zajmujący kierownicze stanowiska: a) w urzędach organów władzy publicznej, w tym naczelnych i centralnych organach administracji państwowej: dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej, b) w administracji rządowej w województwie: dyrektora i jego zastępcy, kierownika zespolonej służby, inspekcji lub straży i jego zastępcy, kierownika w organie administracji niezespolonej i jego zastępcy; 25) osoba zajmująca wysokie stanowisko państwowe w rozumieniu ustawy z 24 sierpnia 2006 r. o państwowym zasobie kadrowym i wysokich stanowiskach państwowych (DzU nr 170, poz. 1217 ze zm.), inne niż wymienione w pkt3, 7, 11 i 24; 26) pracownicy Urzędu Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego zajmujący stanowiska dyrektora pionu i jego zastępcy, dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej i jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej; 27) pracownicy NBP zajmujący stanowiska dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz doradcy prezesa, terenowego koordynatora inspekcji, głównego specjalisty kierującego zespołem, kierownika zespołu, kierownika sekcji i głównego specjalisty; 28) pracownicy IPN; 29) członek Rady Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia, dyrektor i zastępcy dyrektora oddziału wojewódzkiego Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia, dyrektor i zastępcy dyrektora departamentów (komórek równorzędnych) w centrali Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia oraz główny księgowy Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia; 30) dyrektor (kierownik) komórki organizacyjnej w centrali Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, dyrektor oddziału w Zakładzie Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i ich zastępcy; 31) dyrektor biura centrali Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego, dyrektor oddziału regionalnego Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego i ich zastępcy; 32) skarbnik województwa, powiatu lub gminy oraz sekretarz powiatu lub gminy; 33) prezes, wiceprezes i członkowie samorządowych kolegiów odwoławczych; 34) pracownicy regionalnych izb obrachunkowych zajmujący stanowiska: prezesa, członka kolegium, naczelnika wydziału oraz inspektora do spraw kontroli; 35) dyrektor generalny Poczty Polskiej i jego zastępcy oraz członek Rady Poczty Polskiej; 36) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej banku państwowego; 37) dyrektor przedsiębiorstwa państwowego, jego zastępca oraz osoba zarządzająca przedsiębiorstwem na podstawie umowy o zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem państwowym; 38) osoba sprawująca zarząd w spółce powstałej w wyniku komercjalizacji przedsiębiorstwa państwowego, której sprawowanie zarządu zlecono w oparciu o art. 17 ust. 1 ustawy z 30 sierpnia 1996 r. o komercjalizacji i prywatyzacji (DzU z 2002 r. nr 171, poz. 1397, ze zm.); 39) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej spółki handlowej z udziałem SP, w której udział SP przekracza 50 proc. kapitału zakładowego lub 50 proc. liczby akcji; 40) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej w spółce handlowej z udziałem jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, w której udział jednostki samorządu terytorialnego przekracza 50 proc. kapitału zakładowego lub 50 proc. liczby akcji; 41) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej spółki o istotnym znaczeniu dla porządku publicznego lub bezpieczeństwa państwa w rozumieniu art. 8 ustawy z 3 czerwca 2005 r. o szczególnych uprawnieniach SP oraz ich wykonywaniu w spółkach kapitałowych o istotnym znaczeniu dla porządku publicznego lub bezpieczeństwa publicznego (DzU nr 132, poz. 1108, ze zm.); 42) osoba będąca przedstawicielem SP w radzie nadzorczej spółki handlowej innej niż wymieniona w pkt 39; 43) osoba będąca przedstawicielem jednostki samorządu terytorialnego w radzie nadzorczej spółki handlowej, innej niż wymieniona w pkt 40; 44) pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego: a) pracownik naukowy, naukowo-dydaktyczny lub dydaktyczny zatrudniony na stanowisku profesora zwyczajnego, profesora nadzwyczajnego, profesora wizytującego, docenta, adiunkta lub starszego wykładowcy, b) osoba zajmująca w publicznej lub niepublicznej szkole wyższej, w PAN lub w jednostkach badawczo-rozwojowych stanowisko kierownika lub zastępcy kierownika podstawowej jednostki organizacyjnej, w szczególności dziekana albo prodziekana wydziału, c) osoba zajmująca w publicznej lub niepublicznej szkole wyższej, w PAN lub w jednostkach badawczo-rozwojowych stanowisko dyrektora instytutu, wicedyrektora instytutu, kanclerza, kwestora, prezesa, wiceprezesa, sekretarza naukowego; 45) dyrektor szkoły publicznej lub niepublicznej; 46) dyrektor Centralnej Komisji Egzaminacyjnej i dyrektor okręgowej komisji egzaminacyjnej; 47) adwokat, radca prawny, notariusz; 48) komornik; 49) biegły rewident; 50) doradca podatkowy; 51) audytor wewnętrzny w rozumieniu ustawy z 30 czerwca 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (DzU nr 249, poz. 2104, ze zm.); 52) dziennikarz w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe; 53) członek organu zarządzającego, organu nadzoru lub organu kontroli wewnętrznej polskiego związku sportowego lub spółki kapitałowej zarządzającej ligą zawodową w rozumieniu ustawy z 29 lipca 2005 r. o sporcie kwalifikowanym (DzU nr 155, poz. 1298 ze zm.). Vlad fedorov 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful please. Misplaced Pages must be cautious to avoid providing incorrect legal advice. I would be very careful about translating any of the above terms into English (some are quite complicated). A link to the text of the law in the External Link sections would do the trick.

Just to illustrate the problem, it was claimed that "all teachers" fall under lustration. Why? I do not see any such category among those listed above. Did I overlook it? Balcer 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Vlad misinforms.Xx236 10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel is considered as personal attack in Misplaced Pages, Xx236. If you once again would lie about me, I would report you on admin noticeboard. Besides, you could meditate over the meaning of 44 paragraph of article 4. Vlad fedorov 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We could indeed write which professions in Poland have obligatory lustration. Find other arguments for not including them apart from your logical fallacy in labelling my citation from law as "legal advice". Legal advice, at least, as I was told at many universities including Warsaw University, presents what in Misplaced Pages is called original research. Citation of law is neither "legal advice", nor "original research". Vlad fedorov 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel is considered a personal atatck in Misplaced Pages, Vlad. You have written "all teachers". I don't know why you have written, it's your problem. When informed you are wrong, you attack me. You misinform the readers of the article (see below). Why is the IPN your hobby if you lack knowledge? Xx236 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, you are the one who starts every second post with accusations that your opponents are falsifying, censoring, deleting, lying or whatetver - so please, if you have nothing else to say, go ahead, report this incident and we will see who will get blocked.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, before we trust your skill in translating Polish legal documents, could you please kindly explain to us how you made the "all teachers" mistake? What was your reasoning, and which category above led you to believe that? It would be very helpful. Balcer 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pan Balcerowicz :-), previously words "all teachers" was sourced with Russian journal "Ogonyok" article. There is no place for reasoning here in Misplaced Pages, but just sources. Vlad fedorov 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that when you made the "all teachers" edit, you specifically referenced it with a link to the Polish law. Do you admit then that you have not even read it? Surely you must understand that if you make a claim and support it with reference A, that claim must actually be present in reference A, and not in some other reference B that you are not citing.

Also be aware that name-twisting is an activity for elementary school students. Are you operating on that level? Balcer 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, neither "all academics" is better. Note that point 44 (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego) is split into subpoints listing which of the "academics" are affected: some professors (note it excludes pl:Profesor uczelniany and pl:Profesor tytularny, nor professor emeritus (yes, Polish professor ranks are confusing)), and while it includes "directors" and some lower academic ranks, it doesn't include "lektor" and "instruktor" (see pl:Pracownicy uczelni for the Polish academic ranks). So saying "all academics" is confusing, and all teachers was completly wrong (as teacher applies to below-high education level). So yes, Vlad, please don't spice the articles with your translations (or with those from Russian newspapers) - especially after we have pointed out the errors in both.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Friends, Romans and Non-Countrymen (sheepish grin): It is obvious to all who read and write here that many of us sincerely hold disparate views as to what the facts are, how they should be emphasised and what should be included or excised.

However, we need to focus on producing a more informative article for our readers so that they can make up their own minds. All relevant sourced facts should be included - the difficulty comes in deciding what is relevant.

My ignorant (I do not read any slav languages) opinion is that if it is relevant to include Lustration in the article (and there seems to be a clear consensus that Lustration is an important function of the institution) then it almost automatically follows that we must attempt to accurately illustrate the scope, procedures and effects (`good and bad') of the Lustration process.

I think there are enough people here with good Polish to provide an accurate English translation so that Vlad does not feel aggrieved?

Then, armed with this translation, we can discuss what is relevant?...Gaimhreadhan • 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, although I'd strongly suggest adding details to lustration article, Poland's section, and only summarizing key points here. Lustration, while important, is only one of the several functions of IPN, its newest one and arguably not the most important (although perhaps the most controversial). My quick reading of the documents shows no support for "all teachers", briefly it may support "all politicians, all civil servants and all lawyers", as for educators, "some professors and directors (rectors, etc.)", but I'd be careful with generalizations (the texts names quite a few very specific and small categories (like "director of Polish Post" or "employees of IPN" and I am not sure if its not missing anybody who belong to general groups of politicians, civil servants or laywers). A reasonable compromise would be "many politicians, civil servants, lawyers and high-ranking educators)", perhaps? PS2. I find the current version with "Lustration by IPN is currently only obligatory for 53 categories of people born before August 1st, 1972 and holding positions of significant public responsibility" quite satisfactory, with the exception of word "only" (sounds weaselish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, Vlad?

Could you provide a contracted list giving the flavour and scope of the compulsory lustration `victims'/subjects for inclusion in this article and another (larger and more extensive) list for the lustration article?

It would be wonderful if we could actually agree the text of both lists here first before any unilateral editing/revertion/deletion occurs on the article pages! (I'm getting a bit fed up at having to keep re-doing the translations into better English only to see them whapped by mistake...)...Gaimhreadhan • 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that I am the only one here making translation from Polish so far amid a horde of Poles criticizing my "bad spelling" ;-). Roll on your translation then, just to keep the spirit of competition, Poles. I have already revised translation of Piotrus with Irpen to find out that "resistance" and "opposition", according to Piotrus, are actually the same thing (c) Piotrus. I have published the relevant texts for transalation. Vlad fedorov 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vlad, it's always easier (in the short term) to delete and revert rather than to discuss, improve and keep moving forward. That's why I think we need not be so hasty on editing the article pages. Obviously neither of us can force anyone to provide a better translation here on this page but assume good faith! Many editors here genuinely want to make a better article and we should give them time - at least 3 or 4 days...

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you present your two lists here; one should be the most abbreviated and concise one you think is reasonable for the main article and the other one can be more comprehensive and detailed for the lustration article.Gaimhreadhan • 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have an article about Lustration in Poland - write it. This article is about the INR, which has 5 divisions.Xx236 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I can't believe I've had to protect this article again. Posting a statement on a talk page is not the same as discussion. Discussion goes back and forth, and should not be punctuated by a revert of the article after each editor says something. Most (if not all) of the parties involved here are very experienced editors who should know that.

To give you all a chance to try to reach consensus before editing the article or removing any tags, I have locked the article for 2 days. I hope everyone will use that time to either come up with a compromise, seek mediation, or at least cool off a bit. Kafziel 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am at loss how can we "discuss" with an editor whose best arguments resolve about accusing others of "propaganda" and such...? :( I am going to ask for article's RFC/TO, but I doubt it will help much.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, in my edit summary I said that the reasons for tagging is your revert warring to undo this edit without explanation. I also said that one only needs to click on the diff above to see that it is self-explanatory. However, forcing your opponents into lengthy discussion with no substance in order to filibuster the change you object is not new on your part, and raised at your ongoing ArbCom. I will not allow this to happen here again. So, only briefly as per this diff

• you don't allow the change of the lead that would correctly define the IPN in agreement to its real functions, a gov institutions with research, prosecution and lustration prerogatives. You say, that your definition (merely a research institution) follows from the mission published at the institution's web-site. USSR Stalin's constitution made also some startling statement about the all-positive nature of the Soviet state. We do not define the USSR according to this self-published source. The fact that the purpose of the institution is three-fold is referenced and not doubted. Nevertheless, you try to avoid this being presented properly and want to define IPN merely as a research institution. Doing so helps make it seem a more credible source than it is and counterfactual
• You insist on introducing the academically non-defined term called Communist crimes. It is ORish to stretch the established definitions of Nazi crimes and the "Crimes of the Communist regimes" to this term that somehow implies, again ORish, that those fall in the same league
• Holocaust in Poland was not conducted just by Germans. It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it happen. Nevertheless you keep restoring the unfactual "by Germans" clause
• Every crime committed against Poles has the "by who" explanation (by Red Army, by Soviet or Nazi authorities, by Lithuanians, Germans, etc.) Every crime committed by Poles leaves the reader wondering, like who the hell mobbed the Jews in Kielce, Krakow and Jedwabne. I corrected that and you reverted on the spot
• You were so eager to revert me that you also restored my innocent correction of your spelling errors. Why else would you restore the non-English perogatives (prerogatives), particulary (particularly), occupants (occupiers)?

If you handle the good faith objections with immediate resorting to revert warring and go asking otherw for help when you use up "your revert quota", don't play the outrage that the articles are tagged and end up protected. --Irpen 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a basic error in thinking here. The purpose of the article is to report what is the scope of the IPN's investigations, as defined in its charter. We should just quote it and be done with it. The issue whether this charter correctly describes what happened during the war is an issue for another discussion.

Furthermore, in the listing of cases, we should list only those with a citation linking to a relevant IPN report or announcement of an ongoing investigation. Even then, the list should probably be cut down from its current rather long form (as the purpose of this article is not to list all crimes against humanity committed in Poland during World War II). Balcer 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply to your personal attacks and ArbCom allegations best describing yours, not mine, behaviour. Now that finally you decide to explain the reasons for your edits on talk with some detail, I will however address the isssues you raise.

• lead definition: We have plenty of sources explaining Stalin's constitution was not what it said. We have no sources putting IPN being primarily a research institute into question. Information Processing Centre defines it as jednostka badawczo-rozwojowa and makes no mention of lustration (, granted this entry might have not been updated yet considering lustration change is recent, but for now this is what this very reliable ref states). English "about" page about the institute does not list lustration (, again I agree it might have not been updated). It does mention prosecution. Polish "about" mentions existance of Lustration Bureau without going into detaiks . Legal act () mentions prosecution early on, but not the lustration. As such, I agree that the lead needs a rewriting (and I invite you to propose a version here we can edit without revert warring in the article). Briefly, I suggest that we should make it clear that it is primarily a research institute, with more stress on prosecution for past (communist/Nazi) crimes and less stress on lustration (which is reflected on IPN's own page); after all the entire lustration issue is both very new to IPN and likely overblown by current media attention - we should not define the institution by a minor function it acquired in the past few weeks. Here is my propsed compromise version of the lead:

Institute of National Remembrance — Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Template:Lang-pl; IPN) is a Polish government-affiliated research institute with prosecution perogatives founded by special legislation. It specialises in the legal and historical sciences and in particular the recent history of Poland. IPN investigates both Nazi and Communist crimes committed in Poland, documents its findings and disseminates the results of its investigations to the public.

Since March 15, 2007, IPN is mandated to carry out lustration procedures prescribed by Polish law.

• Nazi crimes redirect to Nuremberg Trials which make it a not very useful redirect. I will prioritize translating pl:Zbrodnia komunistyczna, it is a notable term from Polish legal system. Please note that IPN in English text uses phrases like "major responsibility of the Institute is to investigate Communist and Nazi crimes", implying some equality on the definition level and the article is merely following its phrasing. Extrapolating from it that "communist crimes were as bad as Nazi crimes" or sth like this is only your conclusion, the article makes no such assertion - we could as well pick apart the phrase "as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity and peace" and discuss whether war crimes, crimes against humanity and against peace are equal or not.
• "It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it happen." Keep your "well-known" unreferenced facts to yourself, please. The purpose and research sections are based on the best source there is - definitions from IPN pages and what they sumbitted to IPC. If they don't say something, we don't include it in those sections. Crimes committed by Poles are of course investigated by IPN too, and several (Jedwabne, Kielce, Bloody Sunday) are mentioned in the second part of 'Research' section; but please don't include your own ideas what IPN should investigage - or what it does - in the official parts, until IPN decides to do so itself (feel free to write them a complain letter about their POV).
• the 'by whom' section is inconsistent; Bloody Sunday mentiones "by Poles", Massacre of Lwów professors does not state "by Germans". I have no objection to adding "by Poles" where needed, I reverted you because I found "by the mob" to be inelegant. Perhaps a much better suggestion is copying a lead of every of those articles? Or no description at all, just the titles? Or as Balcer suggests, drop this subsection since it has a potential to be an overblown content fork indeed.
• I am sorry if I missed some of your spelling corrections, they become hard to see when you are changing entire sentences, not words. In the future, may I suggest doing a separate spellchecking edit with an edit summary of 'typos only' or something along those lines, so if a revert happens, the reverting editor has an easy way of keeping beneficial minor changes.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If pl:Zbrodnia komunistyczna is a definable term within the framework of Polish legal science, it does not make its translation a valid term, not a subject of the article whose name would imply the term is universal. You are welcome to translate the article, but if its scope is going to be a Polish-based definition, the title should clearly say so. If you find any PA's in my entry, take it elsewhere. Try to convince the ArbCom or anyone that this is a PA indeed. So far, because of misuse of the term and the policy, two boards were thankfully deleted by this community.

If some sources prefer to not mention the institution's non-research functions, it does not mean that we should follow the suit. These functions are included in the article and properly referenced.

If the complicity of Poles in Holocaust is not known to you, take a look at Gross and Piotrowski I cited elsewhere.

If you dislike "by the mob" as inelegant, you should have changed it to something more elegant. You simply deleted the description, thus leaving only the perpetrators of massacres of Poles in and keeping the perpetrators of the massacres by Poles out. --Irpen 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Communist crime has been translated per requests. Other issues you raise are covered sufficiently by WP:V and WP:NPOV, I am getting tired of citing them in discussions with you. If our sources don't say "A", we will not add "A" to the article, it's as simple as that. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Piotrus, wikilawyering and filibustering. It is too obvious to be convincing to anyone. --Irpen 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Irpen, complete ignoring of our policies - I see you started from WP:CIV months ago, added WP:RS recently and now are challenging even the basic content ones...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And again the case of Volodarka: on one hand we have a plethora of sources, on the other we have... Irpen's judgement. Sorry Irpen, but I find your behaviour highly disruptive. You're a sensible man, why don't you focus on building this project rather than fighting those who do? //Halibutt 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References

1. ^ (in Polish) Nowelizacja ustawy z dnia 18 grudnia 1998 r. o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej – Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu oraz ustawy z dnia 18 października 2006 r. o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944–1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów. Last accessed on 24 April 2006
2. ^ Nauka polska: Instytucje naukowe - identyfikator rekordu: i6575

Lead should be neutral

While the 2-3 comments above are not most eloquent or neutral, I agree that the lead has become non-neutral, unduly focusing on modern events and biased towards undue criticism of IPN due to that. It is possible that some of this stuff could be summarized and perhaps 1-2 sentences can describe modern developments, but generally such controversial recentism is not advisable, hence I removed the lead paragraph. Interested readers can get all the details from the relevant sections (or entire subarticles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the paragraph I initially removed per reasons above. Some parts of it may be restored, perhaps, or made more neutral.

Pursuant to a new law which went into effect on 15 March 2007, the IPN was tasked with lustration; however, on 11 May 2007 this was found by Poland's constitutional court to be unconstitutional. A new 2016 law, formulated by the Law and Justice-led government, stipulates that the IPN oppose publication of matter that dishonors or harms the Polish nation, and that history be made available as "an element of patriotic education". The new law also removed the influence of academia and the judiciary on the IPN, and four Law and Justice candidates were appointed to the IPN kolegium, replacing former independent members. A 2018 amendment to the law, often referred to as the Holocaust Law, added an article 55a that attempts to defend the "good name" of Poland and its people against any accusation of complicity in the Holocaust. Originally a criminal offense, an international outcry to to the modification of the act so that it is a civil offense. The IPN is tasked with making charges under article 55a, though these may also be made by accredited NGOs. Historian Idesbald Goddeeris sees changes in the IPN as marking a return of politics to the IPN, and Holocaust scholar Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs sees the post-2015 IPN as a body promoting historical revisionism.

1. (in Polish) Nowelizacja ustawy z dnia 18 grudnia 1998 r. o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej – Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu oraz ustawy z dnia 18 października 2006 r. o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944–1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów. Last accessed on 24 April 2006
2. "Polish court strikes down spy law". BBC News. May 11, 2007. Retrieved June 5, 2018.
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goddeeris" was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hackmann was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference George2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Ambrosewicz-Jacobs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

My thoughts:

• lustration - brief episode and in the past. Is this really worth mentioning in the lead? IIRC this did lead to some controversies/coverage in the past, so I guess this could be restored, but I think one sentence would be enough
• 2016 law - problematic, but does it deserve such a long summary, if any, in the lead? Also, I don't think the 2016 got much coverage in the international press
• 2018 law - ditto, through that got more international coverage.
• opinions of Goddeeris and Ambrosewicz-Jacobs - minor POVs that while welcome in the article should be given undue weight in the lead

Here's my shortened version without undue stress on recent events. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Until 2007 the IPN was tasked with lustration. Recent changes to IPN governance and powers in 2016 and 2018 have led to some controversy both in Poland and abroad.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Goddeeris and Ambrosewicz-Jacobs are not opeds or "minor POVs". The first is a chapter in The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945. The second is published in Holocaust Studies. Both, as several other 3rd party sources, state this as fact. I suggest you find a way to incorporate mainstream coverage of the IPN - Misplaced Pages does not, usually, use the "about page" of a topic as a source. All, or almost all, recent academic sources cover the political nature / memory games / revisionism of the IPN - as outright fact.Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you show more than two sources saying that? Preferably with quotation. A list here would be good.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well Behr2017 (pre dating these two) states this is scientific consensus - "As a result of these contentious public debates, the IPN has been mainly referred to as a ‘Ministry of Memory’ (Stola, 2012) or a political institution at the centre of ‘memory games’ (Mink, 2013) in the scientific literature.". And comes to a similar conclusion himself (one should he goes much farther in 2019 given developments). Now - I have provided more than sufficient mainstream sources. We reflect acadmic consensus on Misplaced Pages - which is very clear amd rather uniform here in pieces that cover the IPN itself as a subject - and we should do so clearly and in WikiVoice. Icewhiz (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

e.g. Goddeeris -

"However, many of these studies were dubious. The bulk of them dealt with the secret service’s perception of or the reaction to particular events, organizations, individuals, ethnic or social groups, or topics. They all described this in a very chronical and factual style and with a political focus, even when they dealt with economic, social, or cultural themes. They often reduced cases to a particular region or a short period and lacked comparison or contextualiza-tion. They made few attempts to connect to international literature or to the trends and turns that have occurred in historical sciences. They mostly limited their sources to the secret services’ archives, from which they extensively quoted. Moreover, few authors questioned the quality of the reports...On the contrary, most of these books only aimed to reveal the “real truth” of the past events. However, they reduced the entire history of the Second World War and the Polish People’s Republic to a simplifed narrative by dividing the world into two camps: the good Polish nationalists, and the bad communists, Russians, and Germans. Moreover, the IPN had the fnancial means to spread this image. Thousands of copies of a new history book about the twentieth century were distributed for free to Polish schools and libraries (Dziurok e.a. 2010)."

- not stated as opinion, but as fact. When covering institutions that are covered in this manner in scientific literature - we follow the scientific literature - not the about page of the institution or an editor who states mainstream science is a "minor POV".Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly think that all of this should be discussed in the body of the article, but I don't think it represents the prevailing view. Most scholars, in Poland and abroad, are still citing IPN and unaware or uncaring with regards to this criticism. In either case, this is true for many other topics, from Trump to religion to whatever - we rarely mention controversies and criticism in the lead, unless they are a major defining part of the topic. And this is not the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that the IPN is seldom cited in general in an academic context - though specific works - e.g. Wokół Jedwabnego are cited (per google scholar - 55 citations for 2002 work - respectable - though far less than Gross's Neighbors which is at 911 citation - and I'd note that some of the Wokół Jedwabnego citations are analysis of the public debate in Poland - and not historical use) - various pulp books and popular publications are hardly ever cited. Even when cited - some of these citations are analysis of the IPN/Polish-government (e.g. in sources covering the IPN as a topic, or sources noting outlier positions or statements). Regardless of our own personal opinions here - we should be sticking to independent 3rd party sources that study the IPN itself - I produced several such sources in this discussion. Our lead covering institutions generally does cover analysis of them - which in this case (the political nature) - is a defining characteristic in most sources covering the IPN in depth - as noted by Behr in 2017 - in scientific literature the IPN is "mainly referred" in this context. Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you show us examples of comparable organizations which discuss such criticism in lead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The IPN is described here like an elephant studied by blinds. The IPN has had a number of presidents, plenty of historians including professor Dudek. The IPN has published hundreds of books of different values. The "Jedwabne" two volume set is a basic text.

Icewhiz is revisionistic himself, he transfers German Nazi responsiblity to Polish peasants. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We cover topics, such as the IPN, per coverage in external 3rd party independent reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The are no "we". There is you and your supporters (FR). Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead should inform. "between 1939 and the Revolutions of 1989" - "committed between 1917 and the 1990".Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No edit warring, please

• Kornas is important.
• Śliwowska is unclear.
• Kaluzna is interesting, but needs context.
• A section on the effects on international relations seems due, as there are now several incidents in which the IPN has been involved (Arad, Rajs, Kupriyanovich).
• Michnick is DUE, but can be put under "public opinion" or "other criticisms", as he's not a scholar.

François Robere (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Inviting involved editors to share their views. Mine above. François Robere (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, first there is the issue of the material being added by what looks like an obvious sock. Volunteer Marek 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Take it to WP:SPI. What about the content? François Robere (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh please. Most of these socks that have flooded this Poland related articles, especially modern Polish politics, ever since the ArbCom case ended have been hiding behind proxies, so you know just as well as I do that check user is very limited here. So your injunction to "take it to SPI" is at the very least not helpful, and more likely a deflection from the issue at hand. At the same time this "ShooBeeDoo" account is a 100% obvious sock (first edit with perfect complicated Wiki mark up, knowledge etc). Volunteer Marek 16:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. If the content is valid and the user isn't disruptive, then it's not my concern who or what they are. That is the case ATM; if it changes, message me and I'll file at ANI with you. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah.... except you seem to pop up to every article that one of these socks comes to. Previously you and Icewhiz ... "cooperated" on a large number of articles together . You would support him and restore his edits. Now we have all these Icewhiz-related socks which are making exactly the same kind of edits, and wherever they are, you're there to. Supporting them and restoring their edits. So perhaps you should care, because it's not a good look at all.

One sock just got banned. On the same article you have yet another brand new account making edits of the same nature. This one actually went to the trouble of going through that whole "WikiAdventure" silliness to establish its "look, I'm really a new user" bona fides, yet somehow seems to be aware of the Gdansk vote from ... 2005. Oh, and look it was created right after one set of socks was banned (though this time the numbers are at the beginning of the username rather than end, so who knows, ey?) Volunteer Marek 06:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This page must present neutral scholarly opinion on the Polish INR, which is overwhelmingly negative. The heroization of the Home Army mass murderer Romuald Rajs, a man who indiscriminately enslaved and killed Belorussian peasants, is covered in scholarly literature: . It is also a major diplomatic issue between Poland and her neighbors that oppose heroization, by Polish INR and state, of Home Army murderers.--007Леони́д (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere:, @ShoooBeeDoo: I consider Wiktoria Śliwowska as very important. I added English language citation that calls her a doyen of Polish historiography and has the quotation in English: . 007Леони́д (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you quote the original Polish? We'll ask someone to assist with a clearer translation. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Polski: "Historyk musi dążyć nie tylko do tego, by odtworzyć daną rzeczywistość, ale również starać się zrozumieć tło wydarzeń, sytuację, w jakiej działali opisywani przezeń ludzie. Łatwo jest potępiać, trudniej pojąć skomplikowaną przeszłość. Również plotka jest swoistym faktem historycznym. .... Niestety, trudno zaprzeczyć, że od czasu objęcia kierownictwa IPN przez Janusza Kurtykę pod patronatem tej instytucji wychowano też pokolenie pseudohistoryków, dla których słowo ubeka jest święte i nie podlega żadnej weryfikacji. Powstają grube tomy, do których bez żadnego zastanowienia wrzucane są kolejne świadectwa kompromitujące różne nieżyjące już osoby (a zatem niemogące się bronić), a także wiodących jeszcze żywot starych ludzi - znanych i nieznanych. Powstaje wrażenie, iż PRL nie tylko w pierwszych stalinowskich latach, ale w całym okresie była królestwem ubecji, której w istocie nikt nie potrafił się oprzeć." English in Traba : "The historian must strive not only to reconstruct a given reality, but also to understand the background of events, the circumstances in which people acted. It is easy to condemn, but difficult to understand a complicated past. thick volumes are being produced, into which are being thrown, with no real consideration, further evidence incriminating various persons now deceased (and therefore not able to defend themselves), and elderly people still alive – known and unknown. The impression is created that the entire PRL – not only in the early Stalinist years, but throughout the entire period – was a UB kingdom, which no one was able to resist.".--007Леони́д (007Leonid) (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We can't quote her directly (which I think is clearer with the use of the phrase "pseudo-historians"), but we can use Traba. This can be summarised as "Śliwowska believes that the IPN is more concerned with assigning blame than with historical understanding." François Robere (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: what do you think of: "Two Dimensions of History: An Opening Sketch" by Robert Traba (quoting: "historian, Professor at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He is the Director of the Center for Historical Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Berlin since 2006, Co-Chairman of the Polish-German Textbook Committee, and Editor of the journal Borussia. He concentrates in his research on the topics of cultural change and collective memory") published in "Teksty Drugie" journal. --007Леони́д (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevant and due. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

One sock has been blocked already, I doubt the second one will last much longer. Some content may be relevant at Romuald Rajs or other subarticles, no need for anything more than a single sentence summary link for such undue minor stuff here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, we may want to open an "international incidents" subsection, as this seems to be a recurring theme. François Robere (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How about we don't. The article is already a hit piece, partly because of edits by an indefinitely banned user and his likely socks, so let's not make it even worse. The fact that you and him worked closely on a lot of articles together previously kind of suggests you should give special consideration as to the nature of various changes proposed by all these come-out-of-nowhere brand new SPA accounts. Volunteer Marek 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, don't post on my talk page again. I have asked you not to multiple times previously. Volunteer Marek 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, also, please stop following my edits. This is like the fourth or fifth article where you all of sudden pop up right after I made an edit (usually to undo edits by a suspicious account). This is WP:STALKING. Volunteer Marek 16:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the personal attacks, do you have sources that can support the assertion that what we've put here isn't a proper representation of reality? In other words - contemporary, reputable RS that claim that the IPN isn't eg. a heavily politicized institution? François Robere (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How about I'll stop complaining about your behavior when you stop stalking my edits or harassing me on my talk page? And sorry, but if there's disruptive sock puppeting going on, I'm going to point it out. There already is plenty of criticism in the article. It's wildly skewed as is. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, to show that it's "skewed" - that is, that the criticism section is disproportionately long - you'll have to provide sources that establish the IPN's good reputation. You haven't, so you can't make any claim other than style, and I don't think style should override new legitimate criticisms by RS that would be interesting to the reader. François Robere (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you're in violation of your T-ban yet again. François Robere (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

GCB too. François Robere (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

What a wonderful way to win a discussion, isn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Not the intention.
2. If I file, you ask why I didn't warn. If I warn, you complain that it had an effect. Any suggestion you'd be happy with?
3. I asked for PP, invited everyone to discuss, and urged VM to focus on content; VM violated his T-ban, edit warred, then PA-ed against me on three separate pages. I do not find your criticism appropriate. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Best: don't file, we are all here to AGF. The topic bans are unnecessary now that the main troublemaker has been identified and indef banned. There have been no major editing issues until he joined the fray and antagonized many people into battleground. We should go back to the friendly, peaceful atmosphere of pre-2018 or so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

1. That's the point - I didn't, and you still complained. Seems you'd like me to ignore some people's violations outright.
2. Are you kidding? The TA was flooding in conservative propaganda and nationalistic narratives, from wartime "Zydokomuna" to MJC. I couldn't even get an Irena Sendler quote in if it didn't fit with the narrative, and I recall a wave of additions from one supposed RS who turned out not being a real person at all, but whose agenda - which is antisemitic, by all scholarly accounts - fit the scheme. Those aren't "major editing issues" in your view? François Robere (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Per discussion on talk"

Re: this - where did the discussion take place? François Robere (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Uh, look just above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Where? There wasn't any discussion. I invited everyone to discuss but only two people participated, of which one didn't even comment on content. François Robere (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

IPN is not ideal, but this article shouldn't be dominated by a laundry list of complains. At the very list, I'd limit them to those criticisms published in reliable sources, preferably academic. And attribute them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless to sourcing, some parts of this page read like parts of "The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich". They should not. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. I suspect the addition of the trivial items was meant to support more prominent content, eg. criticism of politicization. As a first step I'd rewrite the "director" and parts of the "purpose" sections into a "history" section, and continue from there. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I will leave this to you, guys, but this is not good. Just saying. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Check the rest of their contribs... François Robere (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Georges Mink

Georges Mink isn't overwhelmingly negative about IPN as it might seen from use of his publication-there is an extensive section in his publication on efforts by IPN to address criticism and openness to dialogue on controversial issues.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added a summary of Mink to the relevant section. François Robere (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Stola

I've undone this addition, as it looks cherry-picked to me :

• While critcal of IPN, Stola also notes that some of its critics suffer from oversensitivity.

The full context from Stola is this:

• An academic environment heavily dominated by one institution, which is not itself famous for inner diversity, excellence and innovation (unlikely in most government offices), does not provide the best conditions for progress in research. Such a situation may be particularly dangerous when the dominant institution shows a tendency for a questionable vision of interpretations of the past.

There were moments when the Institute or its senior officials were justifiably blamed for insufficient neutrality towards party politics or for highly controversial public statements. Oversensitivity of some of IPN critics does not invalidate the argument that misconduct in the delicate and highly emotional matters of the recent past may have dangerous consequences.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Further, I explanded on the recent addition , to provide more context. My edit: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked" is an understatement. This borders (?) on dishonesty. François Robere (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Stola 2

Re: "revisionism" - Stola doesn't use the term - I chose it to convey the essence of statements like these: "...the dominant institution shows a tendency for a questionable vision of interpretations of the past"; "A particular figure of militant historian has emerged out of my profession... Producing dissensus around memory a cheap means of attracting media attention, sharpening ones ideological profile and strengthening position on the partisan scene" (emphasis in source); "IPN has a tendency to polarize the Communist past of Poland... Soviet-imposed totalitarian regime... “the society,” the people or the nation... these are the opposite Poles so to speak, that give an orientation to the authors and the readers, probably a moral orientation they desire." François Robere (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and NPOV

Individual incidents may or may not be WP:UNDUE, but the central criticism of the IPN is that it is not a scholarly research institute engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth, but exists to build national memory. This is not really a "criticism", as it relates to the central purpose of the institution, but is absolutely essential to mention for precisely that reason. Any type of researcher may be searching for the objective truth, or promoting a particular cause or ideology, but can't do both at once. If you are looking for the institution that does scholarly historical research into Polish history, that is the Polish Academy of Sciences. Similar criticism and controversy exists around many other national memory instutitons, such as those in Lithuania and Ukraine, which are much less known internationally. For example, academic journals published by the Slovak Academy of Science will be more DUE and better regarded internationally than the journal of the National Memory Institute (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should discuss the aspect of IPN being a national memory institution more, and de-emphasizing the POV inherent in the word criticism. Many research institutions have various missions, goals and biases, which do not make them less reliable, as long as research is subject to the same standard (peer review, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Many research institutions have various missions, goals and biases, which do not make them less reliable except that it usually does. Institutions with "various missions, goals and biases" (other than an impartial search for truth), such as think tanks, are generally dispreferred to scholarly sources, because they exist to promote an agenda (and will end up twisting the truth to that end).

Now, the IPN is primarily reliability-based, but that does not mean that its publishing is necessarily up to academic standard. Another editor stated above, My impression is that the IPN is seldom cited in general in an academic context... that is mine as well. A google scholar search finds that IPN publications sometimes achieve respectable citation counts (50–100) but compare that to basically any academic publisher. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside that I don't think it is good to quote indef-banned editors per WP:DFTT, your first claim "are generally dispreferred to scholarly sources, because...", while plausible, needs a citatiom. Are you familiar with any studie that have arrived at that conclusion after looking at non-anecdotal data? As for the comparison of IPN to Syracuse UP, this is apples and oranges. Google Scholar is not very good at indexing non-English language works. For example, a reliable Polish university publisher, from the most famous Polish university, Wydawnictwo UJ, generates only half the citations (or at least mentions, as this is what our search is showing) of Syracuse: , . If we compare IPN to WUJ, we see that IPN mentions are 20% that of WUJ, but to conclude they are less impactful we need to check compare the volume of publications. I.e. what we would need is a statistic that shows that an average publication of IPN has a citation index of y, compared to an average publication of WUJ. And I'll repeat that using Google Scholar for non-English works is problematic, so when we compare English to Polish we are getting major errors due to systemic bias present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Critiques have pointed out that many think-tanks do not contribute research in any real sense, and frequently serve elite, government or business interests instead."
• "My assessment of their research is critical. It is often polemical and of limited theoretical value. It pays too little attention to the politics of debt reduction and follows rather than leads partisan debate."
• "The post-Communist think tanks do not focus on long-term academic research and their studies are neglected in academic circles. Few of them publish in respected journals and few publish academic books. Only 29 of the institutes devote more than 50 per cent of their time to policy research. " Ivan Krastev 10.1080/14683850108454635
• "Doberstein has shown, in experimental research, that even those policymakers who profess a belief in evidence-based policymaking may not hold think tank output in the highest regard as they consider it substantially less credible and more ideological than, for example, academic output (Doberstein, 2017).... Similarly, in an extensive study of the media representation of seven think tanks, Haas found that think tanks, regardless of whether they were advocacy-oriented or not, were presented by the media as credible sources in almost all cases. This occurred whether or not professional norms of academic research were followed (Haas, 2007).... Some claim, still with regard to climate change but in a U.S. context, that the ways in which media treat think tanks as credible sources of objective information means they have achieved the status of an “alternate academia” while falling short of academic standards of rigor, transparency, and impartiality (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013, p. 701)... However, as other research has shown, there could be a problem regarding think tanks’ credibility and also the (perception of the) quality—or, rather, the lack of it—of their output on the side of government policy analysts (e.g., Ceccarelli, 2011; Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008)." https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420
• "the politicization of think tanks that usually comes with a close affi nity with, and advocacy on behalf of, a particular administration or political party has been identifi ed as having a more subtle and detrimental impact on the scientifi c integrity and scholarly credibility of think tanks... organizational survival is a pre-eminent concern and one that takes resources away from ‘ thinking ’ or policy research towards marketing, advocacy and PR." 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x
• "Rather than promoting scholarly inquiry as a means to better serve the public interest--a goal embraced by think tanks in the Progressive era •6• advocacy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Policy Studies have come to resemble interest groups and political action committees by pressuring decisionmakers to implement policies compatible with their ideological beliefs" 10.3138/CRAS-025-01-05
• "Some academics have warned of the spotty rigor of some think tank or advocacy organization research (Ceccarelli 2011; Jacques et al. 2008)" 10.3138/cpp.2016-067

Whether IPN is reliable for a particular claim has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, your search is showing that Wydawnictwo UJ is cited more than IPN: its books are cited 199, 192, 152 times, which is higher than any of the results for IPN. I would tentatively conclude that WUJ is a more reliable publisher.

I don't agree with the evil things that Icewhiz has done to advance their agenda, nevertheless, they are not wrong about everything. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "criticism" relates to the fact the institute is often assumed to be (or presented as) objective, while in fact serving some purposes other than just research. François Robere (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. But we should present its actual purpose, according to RS. Whether that purpose is a good or bad one is not for Misplaced Pages to decide. (t · c) buidhe 08:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, though it doesn't preclude criticisms by RS of whatever aspect of the institute they perceive as problematic. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of criticisms

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: Between 03:09 and 07:38 you made 39 edits removing the following from the article:

1. The statement is a reasonable reading of a longer quote given in the source (p. 58). Given the RS status of the author, the statement should've been amended rather than removed. This has been discussed in the past.
2. Same. You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago.
3. Few of the IPN's "hundreds of investigations" resulted in international incidents, hence WP:DUE. Also previously discussed.
4. Concerns current, rather than historical affairs. While we can certainly up our quality of sources, this has been an acceptable standard in the TA thus far.
5. Of course this is about recent affairs (the IPN has only existed for a couple of decades), and how are "personal disputes" relevant to removing a major RS who is hardly unique in his criticism? And BTW, you have your own "dispute" with Grabowski, so if that doesn't matter (as you previously opined ) I can hardly see how his disagreements with the IPN do.
6. Yes, that is literally the title of Dariusz Stola's chapter in the second source.
7. You can hardly say that it's "unsourced" if it links to a whole article full of sources on a subject no one denies exists. If you're bothered by the lack of an inline citation, use {{cn}}, don't remove the statement.
8. This isn't "cherry picked" nor "misrepresentative" - it accurately represented an entire chapter dedicated to the IPN, including the use of the phrases "Ministry of Memory" and "Orwellian". You can argue on "speculative", but then you'd be doing OR.
9. Again current affairs.
10. Both NFP and ToI use the phrase "far right" and note his reception of the Bronze Cross of Merit.
11. As you can see by clicking on "about us", NFP was founded by Stanley Bill, Director of the Polish Studies Programme at the University of Cambridge, and Daniel Tilles, an assistant professor at the Pedagogical University of Kraków; is ran by a team of journalists with a long resume (Wilczek writes for The Times and Balkan Insight, Wądołowska was with multiple Polish newspapers including GW, Koschalka has a long list of publications in multiple roles), and advised by the likes of historians Norman Davies and Timothy Garton Ash, and Nobel Prize recipient Olga Tokarczuk.
12. Explain?
13. The text clearly stated that the disturbance was organized by GP activists. If you thought this needed further clarifying, you could use {{clarify}} rather than remove this notable and widely covered incident.
14. Again, current affairs.
15. p. 1023: "gross imbalance between the quality studies it publishes and the massive amount of writing of no real scientific interest it also publishes".
16. Stola discusses politics from p. 55 onwards
17. Tomasz Stryjek is a political scientist at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The entire paper is a discussion of the evolving "remembrance and identity policy" in Poland, including the IPN.
18. Investigations have at least two subjects: the investigator and the investigated. As IPN was the investigator here (with the investigated being a major study and a watershed line in Polish historiography), how can you claim this is a "POV fork"? Also, your summary of Behr isn't exactly representative: he doesn't "commend" IPN for taking in young historians, just describes a situation. Most of his paper has a very factual tone, with few overt commendations or criticisms. That said, his statement that the IPN "mainly in historians from the fringes of the academic field. Due to their ideology and/or their failure to achieve a prominent academic career, they were disposed to look for alternative pathways towards legitimization as historians", most of which do not hold academic positions at the same time. He also notes that the IPN's mandate seems to attract historians who "might feel very comfortable with the totalitarian paradigm and the schematic opposition between state and society, as their political views are closer to the right-wing camp. The so-called ‘militant historians’... do not hide their sympathies for conservative or nationalist interpretations of the past." This seems more relevant to the "research" section than a commendation "for being an outlet which offers hiring opportunities"
19. "Outdated recentism"? It's either/or, not both. Also: how is it either?
20. That's hardly just his opinion, isn't it?
21. "a 2018 Polish statute attempted to protect the “good name” of the Polish state and people against any charges of complicity in Nazi atrocities" (p. 157). The amendment itself uses the phrase "Whoever claims... the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes".
22. Again not representative of the source. Behr does not "praise" the IPN for "creating hiring opportunities", he merely notes that the IPN has a huge budget and lots of openings. Again, his paper is for the most part very mellow and detailed.
23. This tags a statement that two days ago had three sources representing perhaps five historians. BTW, the "low quality source" is historian Gideon Greif, interviewed on a prime time news show on Kan 11.
24. Explain?
25. Explain?
26. Explain?
27. Indeed dated. As of 2019, the IPN's lustration office constitutes around 8.8% of the total IPN workforce, including 34 prosecutors (pp. 371-372 here).
28. The issues here have to do with the institutional responses to far-right extremism, not with the length of the event or level at which it occurred. With respect to that, these cases do merit a mention, if not a section.

François Robere (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• B-Class Poland articles
• High-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles