| Revision as of 08:32, 10 March 2018 editChumchum7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,027 edits →POV← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:28, 10 March 2018 edit undoPoeticbent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,717 edits →POV: feedbackNext edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| :::::::::As you rightly say, the answer is a plurality of views, judicial use of reliable sources only, and fair weight. We include the IPN historians, we include Gross, we include Blatman and Rossino and many more. The more the merrier. | :::::::::As you rightly say, the answer is a plurality of views, judicial use of reliable sources only, and fair weight. We include the IPN historians, we include Gross, we include Blatman and Rossino and many more. The more the merrier. | ||
| :::::::::Per BOLD I am hereby going to cut down down the 2013 section, add some Rossino and remove the banner. I will then support greater balancing of views from other editors. Unless it's already been done, there is also a place in the article for the so-called Holocaust Law controversy, in which Jedwabne has been brought up. -] (]) 07:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC) | :::::::::Per BOLD I am hereby going to cut down down the 2013 section, add some Rossino and remove the banner. I will then support greater balancing of views from other editors. Unless it's already been done, there is also a place in the article for the so-called Holocaust Law controversy, in which Jedwabne has been brought up. -] (]) 07:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::{{ping|Chumchum7}} Working with you has always been a pleasure; we go a long way back. But the Rossino bit was in fact a balancing view (as you say) and nothing would justify its removal. The real challenge here is to separate history from ideology ... and focus just on history and nothing else. Reading about the Holocaust bill is troubling because of an incredible amount of backlash it received. But that's ideology, not history. We cannot allow ideological agendas and partisan political interests (expressed by the various angry editors also), take precedence over our core content policies such as the ]. ''']''' ] 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:28, 10 March 2018
 | Jedwabne pogrom is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2015, and July 10, 2016. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 Archives | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
No texts were copied from other wikipedias
Poeticbent, no texts were copied from other wikipedias--Slav70 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Anna Zalewska quote
Malik, for info I can fully support your edit, short of the word 'denied'. I agree that her comments are indeed strange, twisted, inappropriate and immoral; but WP:SAID tells us: "be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability." This makes the allegation that the person denied something a WP:BLP issue: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." A lawyer can argue here that while she did equivocate about the subject, she never specifically denied anyone's culpability; therefore Misplaced Pages would be liable to compensation for damages to the reputation of this living person. That the journalistic source editorializes by using the word doesn't justify our use of it, because in policy terms WP:BLP overrides WP:V. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. Were this a denial about her own actions, or party actions, or anything contemporary - you might have a point in that per WP:SAID this implies culpability. However since Anna Zalewska was born in 1965, some 24 years after the pogrom in 1941, there is no way that her statement implies any culpability by herself. Her stmt, rejecting the scholarly consensus that there was a Polish pogrom as a "viewpoint" (along with other things she said in the interview, was clearly a denial - and this was reported as a denial by WP:RS. We do not have to go into a full analysis of each point she made in said denial - what is interesting for an encyclopedia is that this is a denial. The BLP provision in SAID is irrelevant as no culpability is possible for a BLP born 24 years after the event.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Icewhiz, thank you for engaging in discussion. I understand your point, and my position remains the same. So I propose we take this up at the BLP noticeboard. To expand my point further, she is saying that anti-Semites committed the murders, instead of saying that Poles committed them, the latter being the generally accepted reality. (It seems that a loose parallel might be an American politician saying racists, not true Americans, undertook the black lynchings of the Deep South). It's a bizarre, quasi-intellectual point, but it is not the same as pinning the murders on Germans, or anyone else, or denying the murders happened. Moreover it is the newspaper's editorializing commentary that says she denied it, but Misplaced Pages does not treat newspaper commentary the same as a reliable source: per WP:RS at WP:NEWSORG... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Therefore we can lift her quotes from the source, but not the newspaper's commentary about her quotes, unless we identify this commentary as the opinion of the newspaper rather than as a statement of fact. All newspapers have an agenda. By the same token, Misplaced Pages doesn't treat the New York Times as a reliable source for statements of fact about what Donald Trump denied; but it is fine to lift his quotes as reported in that newspaper. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well clearly anyone who kills Jews for being Jews is anti-Semitic, and she is not denying the existence of the pogrom but rather Polish participation. This would be an interesting point for BLP/n - I'm disagreeing on the applicability of SAID her as this isn't any admission or denial on her part - this a pre-birth event and she isn't denying the event but rather is "only" denying any Polish participation in the event. Another option is perhaps to skirt around deny and use has questioned as per for instance: Museum Concerned Over Polish Education Minister’s Remarks on Jedwabne Pogrom
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is concerned over recent public statements by the Polish Education Minister, Anna Zalewska, questioning that Poles participated in the murder of hundreds of their Jewish neighbors during a Holocaust-era pogrom in Jedwabne.
. Here too - - they don't use deny, where here - they are saying "appearing to deny". I think I'll be BOLD and modify this to "expressed doubt" per the language here .Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)- Thank you for your great efforts. To my mind the most universally acceptable and accurate rendering is from Reuters - that she "refused to openly admit Poles’ complicity in the pogrom" -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thats from a week later and after some backtracking in a subsequent stmt, and is more focused on calls for a an apology than the stmt itself. If we were to use that we would definitely have to cover calls for an apology... In a paragraph that is aleeady longish (and which should probably be summarized/shotened).Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your great efforts. To my mind the most universally acceptable and accurate rendering is from Reuters - that she "refused to openly admit Poles’ complicity in the pogrom" -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well clearly anyone who kills Jews for being Jews is anti-Semitic, and she is not denying the existence of the pogrom but rather Polish participation. This would be an interesting point for BLP/n - I'm disagreeing on the applicability of SAID her as this isn't any admission or denial on her part - this a pre-birth event and she isn't denying the event but rather is "only" denying any Polish participation in the event. Another option is perhaps to skirt around deny and use has questioned as per for instance: Museum Concerned Over Polish Education Minister’s Remarks on Jedwabne Pogrom
- Icewhiz, thank you for engaging in discussion. I understand your point, and my position remains the same. So I propose we take this up at the BLP noticeboard. To expand my point further, she is saying that anti-Semites committed the murders, instead of saying that Poles committed them, the latter being the generally accepted reality. (It seems that a loose parallel might be an American politician saying racists, not true Americans, undertook the black lynchings of the Deep South). It's a bizarre, quasi-intellectual point, but it is not the same as pinning the murders on Germans, or anyone else, or denying the murders happened. Moreover it is the newspaper's editorializing commentary that says she denied it, but Misplaced Pages does not treat newspaper commentary the same as a reliable source: per WP:RS at WP:NEWSORG... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Therefore we can lift her quotes from the source, but not the newspaper's commentary about her quotes, unless we identify this commentary as the opinion of the newspaper rather than as a statement of fact. All newspapers have an agenda. By the same token, Misplaced Pages doesn't treat the New York Times as a reliable source for statements of fact about what Donald Trump denied; but it is fine to lift his quotes as reported in that newspaper. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments and your edits to the article. While I relied on the wording ("denial") from Haaretz, please note that Wprost says that she described the assertion that Poles burned Jews in a barn in Jedwabne as "a theory repeated by Tomasz Gross" and that she said other historians believe it to be "biased" (their quotation marks, not mine). It's hard not to describe that as a denial, but the current wording is acceptable.
As far as the idea that she was differentiating between antisemites and "true Poles", I understand the point but see No true Scotsman.
Finally, Chumchum7, could you please clarify what you meant when you wrote "the continuity Polish resistance state"? "Continuity" doesn't seem to belong there. Did you mean that it was the consistent policy of the Polish Underground State to execute people who murdered Jews? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Malik, Happy New Year. Let's be careful not to jump to conclusions. I'm well aware of the point about no true Scotsman; please note that I never said I buy or support her point. Note that I have referred to it as 'quasi-intellectual' and 'bizarre', so there's no need to persuade me that what she said is inappropriate. Understanding a point is not the same as endorsing a point. In any case, we mere Wikipedians are meant to represent what the sources say, our wishes to express our feelings through the sources should be irrelevant, per WP:NOR. By 'continuity' I am not emphasizing anything about its policies, I am clarifying for the reader who has never heard of the Underground State that it was a continuity organization from Polish prewar government that went on operating in defiance of the German occupation. 'Continuity' belongs here as the commonly understood political term "continuity of government" per e.g. Continuity IRA. For the record, I'm well aware that some representatives of the Polish Secret State murdered Jews, and that this is yet to be properly accounted for. If you can find a source that says that in connection with Zalewska's comments, then please add it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Happy new year to you, too. Thank you for your reply. I had never heard that use of "continuity" before, but now I understand. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you supported the argument about antisemites and "true Poles", and I apologize if my message seemed to suggest that you did. Thanks again. — MShabazz /Stalk 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of Polish senate hearing as a source for historical fact
A senate hearing can not be used as a RS for history. It is not peer reviewed and is politically biased. It contains statements both from the state-run IPN (which has its issues in and of itself - particularly in a setting that wasn't peer reviewed) as well as statements by Polish politicians (which were actually used in our article to source historical fact). Such a hearing may be used for attributed statements, to the speaker, relating to the IPN investigation (so - for section 5) - not for historical fact - and it is probably preferable to source to a published report and not the hearing unless you are sourcing the reception of the report by the Polish politicians at the time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. The testimony of the head of the IPN at a senate hearing is a reliable source, just as a report from the IPN is. — MShabazz /Stalk 07:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond WP:BIASED issues with IPN and the Polish senate, An academic speaking in a non-peer reviewed setting is not a RS - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - and at the very least should be attributed (it is reliable as a WP:PRIMARY that the academic said something - not that that something it true). Furthermore, the senate hearing also includes other speakers, such as Tusk and Senator Jadwiga Stokarska, which generally would not be considered an authority on history at all - and in the version you are reverting to they are being used to source statements being made in Misplaced Pages's voice. There is no lack of academic journal papers and books covering Jedwabne - there is absolutely no reason to use a Polish senate hearing. Certainly will be an interesting spectacle at RSN trying to defend the use of such a source for history.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a statement from the head of the IPN (I'm guessing Kieres - and no, BIASED does not apply), then it's reliable. If it's a statement from Stokarska (who's a farmer), then no, not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- There was some of both (Kieres & Stokarska) throughout the article. Kieres if sourced from the hearing (as opposed to a peer-reviewed publication) would need to be attributed - there's a marked difference between a peer-reviewed paper (or book published in a reputable publisher) and talking in a setting that is not peer reviewed (where you have a notable opinion, but not RS for facts) - that's the standard used elsewhere on Misplaced Pages for WP:SCHOLARSHIPs.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- If this is a statement from the head of the IPN (I'm guessing Kieres - and no, BIASED does not apply), then it's reliable. If it's a statement from Stokarska (who's a farmer), then no, not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond WP:BIASED issues with IPN and the Polish senate, An academic speaking in a non-peer reviewed setting is not a RS - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - and at the very least should be attributed (it is reliable as a WP:PRIMARY that the academic said something - not that that something it true). Furthermore, the senate hearing also includes other speakers, such as Tusk and Senator Jadwiga Stokarska, which generally would not be considered an authority on history at all - and in the version you are reverting to they are being used to source statements being made in Misplaced Pages's voice. There is no lack of academic journal papers and books covering Jedwabne - there is absolutely no reason to use a Polish senate hearing. Certainly will be an interesting spectacle at RSN trying to defend the use of such a source for history.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
POV
The article, as presently construed, relies heavily on Polish nationalist sources and heavily promotes (going as far as stating this as fact) two highly disputed theories that allegedly reduce Polish culpability:
- The German forces were actively involving (as opposed to being passive in the area).
- Victim blaming by overemphasizing alleged Jewish cooperation with Soviets, framing the Polish actions as anti-Soviet (and not anti-Jewish) - assigning collective responsibility to Jews due to said alleged collective support for Soviets. This discourse, one should note, was initially promoted by Nazi propogana in 1941 upon invading the Soviet area.
Sourcing in the article relies heavily on supporters of Polish nationalism over mainstream Holocaust scholars. There is also an overemphasis of coverage of various internal Polish inqueries (whose result varied across the years) instead of covering the actual event. Tellingly the article presents in Misplaced Pages's voice in several places the low-ball IPN estimate of around 380 victims and not 1600 as Gross estimates (and one should note that Gross is highly cited). Pre pogrom atrocities by Poles (e.g. burying alive a group of Jewish men, or throwing Jewish women with their babies into a lake are omitted). All in all - this seems to be translated from a modern Polish nationalist source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
What you are doing is Historical negationism -
"Polish nationalist sources" - IPN is not nationalist source also research was conducted durring social-liberal rule.
two highly disputed theories - there are not disputed. maybe by Historical negationists
was initially promoted by Nazi propoganda in 1941 upon invading the Soviet area. - Ok that is just disgusting - you are denying fact that jews colaborated with soviets and pushing it into nazi propaganda.
Sourcing in the article relies heavily on supporters of Polish nationalism over mainstream Holocaust scholars. - So only jewish sources are mainstream ? Or maybe gross is? what hipocrisy.
low-ball IPN estimate of around 380 victims and not 1600 as Gross estimates - and gross is not highly reliable, his book is only historical fiction maked for money and publicity, he is anti-polish and this estimates (pre war information about number of jews living at jedwabne shows there wasn't even so many jews in first place - and don't forget tat we talking about 2 years after war - nkvd sources show that in 1940 there was only 540 jews linving there ) show why he should not be used as source.
(and one should note that Gross is highly cited) - and not rightfully so.
there is no way that we can reach consensus with person who want's remove all polish sources (as he tried and failed) and instead of using reliable historical research of IPN want's create some sort of historical fiction based on gross books which are not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.136.20 (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Collective Remembrance in Jedwabne: Unsettled Memory of World War II in Postcommunist Poland Ewa Wolentarska-Ochman vol. 18, no. 1, 2006, page 152–178.
- WP:NPA please. I removed (and this will go - RSN will resoundedly reject such a source for history) a single source - a Polish senate hearing. Outside of Poland, where it has been (and will be) legal both the crticize the communists and the nationalists, there are plenty of reputable Holocaust historians who have wrote on Jedwabne. The Polish IPN (run by a political appointee) is by its very definition of a lustration/investigative institue against Nazi and Communist crimes, a biased source with a clear agenda. Polish gvmt funded research before the 90s portrayed the communists as saints and Nazis and nationalists as villians. Since the 90s this has flipped (still villifying Nazies) to anti-communism and veneration of previous nationalist organizations (some of whom have a clear antisemitic record). We should not remove all Polish sources, however we should primarily rely on sources not affiliated with a Polish government (past or present) - of which there are plenty. Using reputed sources to reflect consensus, in this case worldwide consensus, is what we do on Misplaced Pages even if is allegedly "insults the Polish nation" due to bringing up the uncomfortable past.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding casulties, Anna Bikont has estimated 900. The IPN figures are very the bottom of the range and not a mainsteam figure.Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NPA please. I removed (and this will go - RSN will resoundedly reject such a source for history) a single source - a Polish senate hearing. Outside of Poland, where it has been (and will be) legal both the crticize the communists and the nationalists, there are plenty of reputable Holocaust historians who have wrote on Jedwabne. The Polish IPN (run by a political appointee) is by its very definition of a lustration/investigative institue against Nazi and Communist crimes, a biased source with a clear agenda. Polish gvmt funded research before the 90s portrayed the communists as saints and Nazis and nationalists as villians. Since the 90s this has flipped (still villifying Nazies) to anti-communism and veneration of previous nationalist organizations (some of whom have a clear antisemitic record). We should not remove all Polish sources, however we should primarily rely on sources not affiliated with a Polish government (past or present) - of which there are plenty. Using reputed sources to reflect consensus, in this case worldwide consensus, is what we do on Misplaced Pages even if is allegedly "insults the Polish nation" due to bringing up the uncomfortable past.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Anna Bikont- oh great, daughter of editorial member of "People's Tribune" (comunnist propagnda outlet) who works in 'Gazeta wyborcza' ( which had controversy with "whitewashing former communists" ) - great source. Polish gvmt funded research before the 90s - IPN was established in 1999 . what you telling about was communist research done by diffrent people, a biased source with a clear agenda. - that is yours POV not consensus. however we should primarily rely on sources not affiliated with a Polish government (past or present) - maybe we should not use jewish sources instead which have clear agenda of vilifying Poles? - that is based on your exact point. veneration of previous nationalist organizations - source? Using reputed sources to reflect consensus - this is yours POV not consensus. due to bringing up the uncomfortable past - here is problem, you think that you have right to deny evrything because everyone is antisemite - no you don't have because these sources are NOT anti-semite, just accept the truth already and stop writing this Israeli nationalist negationists aspersions. There is consensus here, and you are not needed medling and trying to rewrite history. maybe you think that you can change past to reflect yours ideas - there is nothing to change here, and stop forcing your pov on neutral sources - this is vandalism. is what we do on Misplaced Pages even if is allegedly "insults the Polish nation" - this is about history here and you are vandal nothing more (no we don't remove sources because "they are writen by people of diffrent nationality" - this is propaganda not information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.136.20 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus does not mean IPN - headed by a Sejm political appointee whose stated goal is to prosecute crimes by communists. We have Gross, Bikont, and yes - Jewish and non-Jewish sources from outside of Poland - who have no particular reason to villify/venerate Poles over other national groups (and who treat the situation in Ukraine, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, etc. quite critically). The reason to remove the senate hearing was not nationality but due to this being a non-peer reviewed source (WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Though perhaps IPN should be rejected for non-attributed statements (in light of the new suppression legislation - it should definitely be rejected for publications after 2016 or 2018, quite possibly before) When we have multiple source who disagree - we need to reconcile and reflect the diversity of opinion - not fill 90% of the article with what one source (IPN and researchers affilated with it) says.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please start your own blog if you wish to continue. IPN is not "a modern Polish nationalist source" that "should be rejected"" according to your own personal opinion. Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought. — Poeticbent talk 18:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I said perhaps, and post 2016. We have multiple sources for what happened in Jedwabne. The article should reflect what historians such as Gross have written and not take IPN's line where there is significant disagreement between sources. The article, as written, currently does not reflect consensus among mainstream Holicaust historians and engages in quite a bit of victim blaming.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz, thank you for raising this. First of all we need to get back to Misplaced Pages basics. Source-based content is the basic foundation of Misplaced Pages. The threshold for including sourced content in Misplaced Pages is the reliability of the source, and its verifiability. If you feel that a verifiable source is not reliable on the grounds of its nationalism, then please take it up on the reliable sources noticeboard, as you may have a case. Our trouble is that the allegation "nationalist" is a matter of opinion, and can be used in a pejorative way to reduce the credibility of a source. Most history books are written by people with a bias; how is the great Max Hastings not a nationalist? And is E.H. Carr not a reliable source because he is a Marxist? The Misplaced Pages solution is to use a plurality of views, asserting that none of them are fact.
- I'm not clear what you mean by "allegedly reduce Polish culpability". That would mean someone has made an "allegation" that culpability has been reduced. But it's not an allegation, it is perceivably an attempt. So I think you mean "two highly disputed theories that appear to attempt to reduce Polish culpability".
- So please point out which verifiable, reliable sources support the assertion that it's a "highly disputed theory" that German forces were actively involving (as opposed to being passive in the area)? From the sources I've read, my understanding is that there was nothing passive about the German occupation of territory in Operation Barbarossa. That in no way reduces the culpability of murderers, whether they were Polish or anything else.
- Jan Gross in 'Revolution from Abroad' points out that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland 1939-1941 aggressively set classes and ethnicities against each other. Jews and Poles seen as undesirable were deported to Siberia, shot and caused to flee even to German-occupied territory. Jews and Poles seen as useful to the Soviet terror were given jobs. It's generally understood that Jews preferred Soviet occupation to German occupation while there was little difference for Poles; it's on the historical record that a disproportionate number of Soviet officials in Soviet-occupied Poland identified as Jewish; this gave the false impression that the overall Jewish population was pro-Soviet, this fed latent antisemitism. This is historical context - none of this is "victim blaming" nor does it reduce the culpability of the murderers.
- There has been twenty years of international and local modern academic research into Jedwabne. Gross was at the vanguard, and by his own account did not have all the information; he opened the topic up for future research, including forensics. By definition, this means Gross is not the last word on the topic. For example, he did not know that there were German bullets in the skeletons of Jewish children buried at Jedwabne, which were only found during excavation of the crime scene, which only happened thanks to Gross opening up research. Gross praised the findings of the IPN, and other sources, some of whom found that German death squads were in the area thanks to archival research in Germany. That doesn't reduce Polish culpability.
- -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies on the overuse of allegedly. Regarding German involvement in the atrocity - there are a variety of views here. Recent nationalist Polish literature attempts to portray a very active role (with town folk being present and mainly passive). Other sources, such as Gross, portray the German role as one of encouragement (whether by creating a general atmosphere, or inciting). I would suggest that Gross (who is by far the most cited here) be more widely used, perhaps Bikont as well. In general - while we should present the modern Polish nationalist narrative - I would suggest reducing the amount of Polish based sources used (including expat Polish-Canadian TV interviews). In terms of academic literature - I actually do not see all that much that is widely cited post-Gross (in fact - it would seem that there is more scholarly coverage of the debate in Polish society instigated by Gross's publication than of the massacre itself). Blatman, Daniel. "Were these ordinary Poles?." Yad Vashem Studies 30 (2002): 51-68. provides an overview from a non-partisan to the issue.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- For your initiative to gain support, including potentially mine, I'd recommend you specify whether your issue is with WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT.
- We've also got to watch out for our own prejudice. Who says what constitutes (i) non-partisan and (ii) nationalist literature, and why? Who says Polish or Polish-Canadian sources are inferior, and why? Who says Daniel Blatman is a superior source, and why? I'm all for adding more of a plurality of sources, and I agree that there are too few post-Gross and non-Polish sources here, but throwing out the reliability of a source based on national identity could be open to allegations of racism. This is not in keeping with the ethos of Misplaced Pages. If you feel that a verifiable source is unreliable, the onus is on you to take it up at WP:RS/N.
- For the record: Alexander B. Rossino, a research historian at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. wrote: "while Neighbors contributed to an ongoing re-examination of the history of the Holocaust in Poland, Gross' failure to examine German documentary sources fundamentally flawed his depiction of the events. The result was a skewed history that did not investigate SS operations in the region or German interaction with the Polish population." (Alexander B. Rossino, "Polish 'Neighbors' and German Invaders: Contextualizing Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa"; Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Volume 16 (2003))
- -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jan T. Gross is regarded by the historical profession as the most authoritative source on this pogrom, and on the history of and teasing out culpability for other attacks and massacres of Jews in Polish lands in this period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I had thought so too, but if you read the academic paper from the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum linked above, it would appear to disagree. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- My reading of the sources is that that there is a range of opinions here. Gross himself is surely notable and well cited - much more than other sources. The opinions range from (in simplistic terms) - "the Germans did most it, some townfold or collaborators joined in or were forced, the Jews themselves were in cahoots with the communists and hurt the Poles during 39-41, and casulties are on the low side" (which is what IPN and related modern Polish sources are pushing) to "The Poles did it, Germans mildly encourgaed this or did not prevent it, and casulties are on the high side". And there are sources that are in between these two views. Our article, at present, violates WP:WEIGHT in that it heavily tilted to presenting and using sources that promote the first view, instead of presenting the breadth of views. There are also RS issues as some of the sources used were not published in a peer review setting or by reputable authors in the field - which is something that should be preferred for history. I am not saying we should throw out every Polish source - but that there should be a balance and that we should reflect scholarly consensus which is different from the view of Polish government associated institutions.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that there are a range of opinions. This said, we must not inadvertently confuse progress or change of research across time with a range of opinions. Gross endorsed later research which had different findings to his, namely the IPN's 2003 findings. The IPN is an internationally respected umbrella organization of historians and archives, so I disagree with the characterization of it as the representative one homogeneous case or fixed agenda.
- I agree that Gross is notable and well sighted. He is effectively the 'father' of the research subject, which others then built on, adjusted and sometimes contradicted, such as Rossino, more of which should be added. Gross is not a sacred cow among academics - he broke the ground, but his initial work was slim. I agree that too much weight is put on the 2013 finding - it's also no more of a 'breakthrough' than any other finding so the word in subheading is inappropriate. Again, please take up your RS issues head-on, at RS/N, as I have recommended above.
- A side note about nationalism, neutrality, reliability and prejudice. Just because an institution or person is Polish, that doesn't make them nationalist. It's inconsistent to say the IPN can be thrown out because its Polish historians are imbued with nationalism, while Israeli sources can be included with the assumption that Israeli sources are immune from nationalism. Nothing makes an Israeli academic such as Blatman non-partisan or non-nationalist by virtue of his Israeli nationality alone; I assume you're aware that some Israelis, particularly on the liberal left, argue that their nationalist compatriots have a vested interest in inflating European anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial. (Fwiw Anne Applebaum has touched on the role of Israeli nationalism in the recent Polish controversy, here )
- Please be careful not to conflate the IPN with the controversies around the new Polish government, which has been in place for about 2.5 years whereas the IPN was been around for 20. The IPN is an archive and an umbrella group of academics with varying opinions, it is thereby comparable to Yad Vashem, the USHMM and UK National Archives. Gross has worked with the IPN, and endorsed them.
- The significance of German involvement at Jedwabne is not necessarily a Polish whitewash, and at the same time German involvement doesn't reduce the culpability of the Polish murderers. I have still not seen evidence that German involvement is a "highly disputed theory". Gross supports it. Rossino supports it: have you read his paper that I linked for you?
- As you rightly say, the answer is a plurality of views, judicial use of reliable sources only, and fair weight. We include the IPN historians, we include Gross, we include Blatman and Rossino and many more. The more the merrier.
- Per BOLD I am hereby going to cut down down the 2013 section, add some Rossino and remove the banner. I will then support greater balancing of views from other editors. Unless it's already been done, there is also a place in the article for the so-called Holocaust Law controversy, in which Jedwabne has been brought up. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Chumchum7: Working with you has always been a pleasure; we go a long way back. But the Rossino bit was in fact a balancing view (as you say) and nothing would justify its removal. The real challenge here is to separate history from ideology ... and focus just on history and nothing else. Reading about the Holocaust bill is troubling because of an incredible amount of backlash it received. But that's ideology, not history. We cannot allow ideological agendas and partisan political interests (expressed by the various angry editors also), take precedence over our core content policies such as the Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. Poeticbent talk 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- My reading of the sources is that that there is a range of opinions here. Gross himself is surely notable and well cited - much more than other sources. The opinions range from (in simplistic terms) - "the Germans did most it, some townfold or collaborators joined in or were forced, the Jews themselves were in cahoots with the communists and hurt the Poles during 39-41, and casulties are on the low side" (which is what IPN and related modern Polish sources are pushing) to "The Poles did it, Germans mildly encourgaed this or did not prevent it, and casulties are on the high side". And there are sources that are in between these two views. Our article, at present, violates WP:WEIGHT in that it heavily tilted to presenting and using sources that promote the first view, instead of presenting the breadth of views. There are also RS issues as some of the sources used were not published in a peer review setting or by reputable authors in the field - which is something that should be preferred for history. I am not saying we should throw out every Polish source - but that there should be a balance and that we should reflect scholarly consensus which is different from the view of Polish government associated institutions.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies on the overuse of allegedly. Regarding German involvement in the atrocity - there are a variety of views here. Recent nationalist Polish literature attempts to portray a very active role (with town folk being present and mainly passive). Other sources, such as Gross, portray the German role as one of encouragement (whether by creating a general atmosphere, or inciting). I would suggest that Gross (who is by far the most cited here) be more widely used, perhaps Bikont as well. In general - while we should present the modern Polish nationalist narrative - I would suggest reducing the amount of Polish based sources used (including expat Polish-Canadian TV interviews). In terms of academic literature - I actually do not see all that much that is widely cited post-Gross (in fact - it would seem that there is more scholarly coverage of the debate in Polish society instigated by Gross's publication than of the massacre itself). Blatman, Daniel. "Were these ordinary Poles?." Yad Vashem Studies 30 (2002): 51-68. provides an overview from a non-partisan to the issue.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2015)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2016)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
- High-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Start-Class Poland articles
- Mid-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles