Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 6 February 2022

Feel free to push my button: Help!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

DDSOS

Different day, same old stuff. When ArbCom decided to let the prior COIN thread to be closed with no further investigation, by a razor thin vote of 8-7, their disinterest unfortunately sent a message that pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior would have no consequences. I think you might consider how to raise the issue again based on the new activity, and request a decisive answer to the question of whether it is appropriate for academics to import a real life intellectual dispute into Misplaced Pages. Hopefully you have learned from my experience and can make better progress. Jehochman 20:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hopeful the UTP discussion has resolved it and it won't come up again. Levivich 21:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope so too. Jehochman 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dalej jest noc and Talk:Dalej jest noc seem to be the same stuff all over again, it makes me stop contributing. Davide King (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King: maybe these fun statistics will cheer you up: that article has been edited 266 times by 40 editors since its creation . 145 of those edits (55%) are by 3 editors. What do those 3 editors have in common? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Another reason not to care: nobody reads that article (less than 5 views/day in its lifetime), so it just doesn't matter. That's why I don't bother editing in that topic area: except for the main articles, nobody is reading anything, and it's way too difficult to try and get anything done, it's just not worth the cost/benefit. There are other, more impactful, articles to edit. Levivich 00:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It made me chuckle but it is still depressing. As much as I see your point, it is sad that "it just doesn't matter", especially because that is a book clearly relevant to the Holocaust in Poland, and is that not the heart of the matter? The conflict is "in fact not 'Polish authors vs. the world' but IPN-affiliated authors vs others (including Poles)", but some users continues to make it about ethnicity or ignore the societal context and that of the right-wing government and organizations. If this was Putin or Russia, or even Orbán and Hungary (I do not know much about the latter topic but if I recall correctly one user was banned for whitewashing it or engaging in disruptive edits), I bet we would not even debating this or would not be as controversial. Again, I could be wrong though, you know better. Davide King (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, in researching the historiography of MKuCR, I've found sources about recent Polish history like . Levivich 01:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want and are able to read them, I would love to hear a summary from you, and if they mention either Communism or Dalej jest noc. They should be enough be very cautious about using IPN sources, especially about the book; have you ever thought about taking it to the WP:RSN? If those two academic sources indeed confirm the problems, we should seriously consider taking IPN sources at the noticeboard. Davide King (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are some quotes:

From "Who Controls the Past?":

However, since the victory of the nationalist Law and Justice Party (PiS) in both parliamentary and presidential elections in 2015, communist-style politics

of memory has once again returned to the government’s policy palette. Most controversial was the 2018 Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) that initially criminalised, worldwide, any suggestion of Polish national or state complicity in the Holocaust with prison terms of up to three years ... The IPN, a once-respected research institution, has undergone a radical change in personnel, incorporating many nationalist historians with a governing body composed exclusively of PiS nominees.81 As a result, some of the IPN’s actions have distorted rather than elucidated history: it has stopped the publication of books that, allegedly, have failed to embrace the patriotic narrative;82 it has denied the 1946 genocidal antiByelorussian activities of the Polish partisan leader Romuald Rajs in direct contradiction to the IPN’s own investigation of 2005;83 and its president, Jarosław Szarek, has publicly denied Polish responsibility for the genocidal massacre of Jedwabne Jews in July 1941, again in contradiction to the IPN’s definitive 2002 publication.84 Direct political interference in history museums, aiming to produce a simple patriotic narrative of the past, have produced numerous ongoing scandals. The Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk was opened in 2017 amid much political acrimony, where PiS politicians described it as anti-Polish, pseudo-universalist, cosmopolitan, and excessively oriented towards civilian wartime experiences. Following a lengthy legal battle, the museum’s founder, Paweł Machcewicz, was dismissed, and blatant ‘patriotic’ modifications to the main exhibit were implemented, including the replacement of a panel showing total war casualties in different countries (where the Soviet Union comes out on top) with one that highlights a list of war casualties per capita (where Poland comes out on top), increasing the number of active and armed resistance Home Army soldiers in 1944 from 40,000 to 350,000, and the installation of a panel featuring a photo of the Ulma family – who were executed while trying to save Jews – with the caption ‘Poles in the face of the Holocaust’ (thereby falsely generalising heroic Polish behaviour).85 This last distortion has been fully institutionalised in the ‘Ulma Family Museum of Poles Saving Jews in World War II’ (Markowa, southeastern Poland). Hosting hyped political events (such as a visit by Polish and foreign dignitaries in a live international broadcast to 29 Polish diplomatic posts) and benefiting from 95% central government funding, it portrays mass Polish heroism while ignoring Polish-Nazi collaboration in persecuting Jews. Ironically, the very person who denounced the Ulma family to the Nazis was an officer of the Polish collaborationist Blue Police.86

Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation:

Polish “politics of history” has risen to international political attention in January 2018, when a revised bill was introduced, which in media outside Poland is mostly referred to as “Holocaust law.” 1 Although this is not the official term – the act defines the tasks of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN2) – there is a seed of truth in such a shortcut, as will be shown below. This act, which met with harsh international criticism, was once again revised end of June 2018. These revisions are part of a broader strategy by the current national-conservative government led by Law and Justice (PiS3) party, which aims to impose nationally as well as internationally a specific vision, how Polish history shall be publicly presented and commemorated, first of all with regard to World War II and the socialist period. ... My main argument is that Polish politics of history since the 1990s has covered a wide political spectrum but has become in recent years subsequently dominated by a rightwing discourse closely connect to the PiS government, which aims at defending the “good name” of Poland and the Poles in order to build a new patriotism. These attempts, however, are clearly contested, within the Polish society as well as in international relations ... The institutional core of these debates is the IPN, the Institute of National Remembrance ... The cases discussed here allow the conclusion that a major interest of current historical policy by the government led by the PiS party is to put Poles and Jews upon an equal level of victimization ... In internal politics the situation seems to be clear: the main goal is taking control of institutions by PiS and marginalizing opponents through shaping a monolithic view of the ethnic Polish nation, which appears as the first victim of Nazi and Soviet rule.

They both mention communism, esp. USSR. "Defending the Good Name" cites Dalej and discusses Engelking and Grabowski's work, the other one doesn't cite Dalej but cites another work by Grabowski.

I wonder what Buidhe thinks about taking IPN to RSN? Levivich 15:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's contextual. The organization has gone through dramatic changes over time, based on who was in charge of the Polish government. For example, they repudiated their own findings regarding Rajs. Although the quality of its researchers is generally lower and more ideological than those who work at Polish universities, reputable historians such as Adam Puławski have worked there (note: he was fired because he published the results of his research, rather than following the party line). Anything published by them in the last couple years should be viewed with skepticism however. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

..@User talk:Buidhe - he was fired because he published the results of his research, rather than following the party line.. Can you source this please? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Singular they removals

You posted on my talk page; I responded there. This is to let you know, in case you did not know already. I'm looking forward to reading your answers to my questions and your comments on my arguments. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate the merits of singular they. Stop trying to remove it or you'll be tossed from the website. I understand you haven't been here for a while, maybe this kind of thing was once tolerated here, but not anymore. Levivich 16:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Soviet and Communist studies

They literally did what you thought no one could seriously do. By the way, I command you for your comments at MKuCR for reducing my 'work' there (having to repeat the same stuff) but I do not think you will be getting anything good from them. TFD was correct that some users are believers, e.g. they actually believe in what Ghodsee, Neumayer, et al. describe for us, that is why they do not appear to understand what we mean and why memory politics are important and relevant. Davide King (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I looked at the article's history when you pinged me and saw that before I made my comment. I was surprised to see it. How many different pages is this argument happening on right now? Levivich 18:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess Talk:The Black Book of Communism as well. You may also find this of interest. Davide King (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I saw those two, too. TFD hit the nail on the head in that diff you posted. Levivich 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think you may get that same point better and more concisely than I ever could to make them understand. I also missed this one at Talk:Double genocide. Davide King (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

On the fence

A great shame. Was just about to vote too. Some of those oppose comments were enough to make anyone give up and walk away. Maybe next year? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Democracy was such a mistake. Levivich 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

obvs. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What on earth is going on at Talk:Bible?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Only 19 more years of wandering to go! Levivich 01:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite Apt

Per this, do you reference gate keepers? In any case I find that statement to be very true. More thought provoking is our mantra “RFA isn’t a big deal” isn’t necessarily true at all, and I believe that RFA & antecedent shows we consider RFA to be a big deal. What a huge letdown.Celestina007 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Yup! And thanks. It was a let down, but chin up, I think our young colleague is quite a bit smarter than most people. I think they could have overcome 50 opposes and gotten in on a crat chat, but it'll be better in the long run if they withdraw and run again later, in which case they might sail in nearly unopposed. The decision to not go to crat chat is further evidence of the candidate's good judgment and maturity, IMO. If they run again (and I hope they will, if they want to), I predict it will reflect well on them, and lead to a happier adminship in the long-term. ​Levivich 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Very true! I really do hope they run again. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Much better to become an admin by acclaim than by crat chat. valereee (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Lopez

Please clarify or strike . VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA, mate. Please expedite your striking the attack. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)