Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 24 March 2018

Jan Grabowski (historian)

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

• ... that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing research that estimated Poles killed some 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust? Source: see

5x expanded by Icewhiz, MyMoloboaccount, Nihil novi (talk). Self-nominated at 13:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

• STRONGLY oppose, the estimate has been highly contested and rejected by several historians. Criticism of Grabowski in question has been removed from the article by user Icewhiz. Also misleading is the claim I have expanded the article-my edits were deleted by Icewhiz. This nomination is highly contentious.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• The work was generally positively received - in reviews in peer reviewed settings, including winning a major award for Holocaust studies. Clearly it did not go over so well in some Polish circles - leading to death threats, calls for his sacking, a boycott, and even some linking this research to the new Polish "Holocaust Law". The criticism is present in the article. MyMoloboaccount did add information published in an op-ed by Grzegorz Berendt which is in the article at the moment, and I believe in credit where credit is due - however if MyMoloboaccount objects to being name a contributor - he could be struck from contrib list, no? That Grabowski published a 200,000 estimate and received death threats should not be contentious.Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't well received as you try to show, for example Grzegorz Berendt professor of the University of Gdańsk and member of The Jewish Historical Institute critized Grabowski's statements, stating that Prof. Grabowski alleges that Poles may have killed more than 200,000 Jews who escaped from the ghettos and camps. He knows full well that this number is “hot air.” The knowledge we possess allows us to estimate that at least 50,000 Jews escaped in the entire territory of occupied Poland. No other number has yet been proved by research. There are other historians who also sharply disagree with Grabowski and they should be included.And presenting this higly controversial claim as of hand statement of fact isn't neutral.In general the did you know nomination shouldn't be used to spread false or highly contested information as statement of fact--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Several praising reviews by historians. A major Holocaust studies prize. And yes - some very strong criticism from Poland (historians in op-eds, and the general public). The DYK hook makes it clear that this is an estimate, not fact, and that it is contentious in some circles.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• And criticized by historians in articles including scientific journals.Your hook presents Grabowski's claim as a matter of fact, not as a highly controversial claim that was strongly contested by historians, including ones in The Jewish Historical Institute.Anyway the matter is so controversial and requires so much analysis that I don't believe it is a suitable hook materialMyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• "that it is contentious in some circles" nice, but the hook states death threats, while we are talking about critical reception of his claims.Obviously the two are not the same and it wouldn't be neutral to allege otherwise.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• An editor above has expressed concern regarding the article's neutrality. As with all hooks, the article must be neutral before it can be on the main page. Another concern: the article itself does not share the same information as the hook; instead of death threats, the article says "sharply criticized". Considering that the article is still experiencing substantial changes, I think it would have been wise to communicate with other contributors before launching this proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  in-article Hook fixed. the POV concern was expressed some 15 minutes after the DYK nom. At present, the article covers negative criticism (in non-peer reviewed settings) at much greater length than more numerous positive reviews (which are in peer-reviewed settings).Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  As long as the tag is present, my hands are tied. It appears there is an ongoing discussion; perhaps you can resolve it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Date, size, references, copyvio check, ok. Fails on the grounds of hook neutrality - the claim is that he made in his research is highly controversial, and the hook does not make that clear. This could be perhaps fixed by addition of the word controversial to the hook, through I am unsure if even this would make the hook acceptable. As I argued in other discussions, his research is reliable, if controversial, and his estiamte can be cited in relevant articles, but to make it a focus of a high visibility DYK without at least a qualifier is problematic. PS. I also couldn't verify if the picture is indeed free, will update (currently the picture's source is insufficient for verification). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  English language sources do not refer to it as "highly controversial". Beyond the positive reviews (in English language peer reviewed journals) and major holocaust research prize, news orgs treat this as follows (and his figure has been covered multiple times by multiple top notch news orgs, particularly in light of the new Polish law):

  1. BBC does not mention controversial at all. It frames this as Some of that anti-Semitism ends up in Mr Grabowski's mailbox. In the past it was sent anonymously, he said. Now it is signed, and it includes threats against his family.. Grabowski's work is dicussed favorably previously in the article.
  2. Haaretz covers the work favorably in its own voice, framing criticism as coming from the Polish AD leauge and The subject touches a raw nerve for many in Poland.... or Those protesting Grabowski's research have been encouraged by a nationalist government.
  3. CBC Grabowski ... has faced much criticism from some Polish historians for his years of research, including his controversial conclusion that 200,000 Polish Jews were killed — directly or indirectly — by Poles during the war. and Poland's embassy to Canada, in Ottawa, has criticized Grabowki....

  However in the spirit of compromise (for the sake of hook berevity overstating the controversial aspect by not stating who is objecting while not mentioning the wide support):

  ALT2 .. that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing controversial research that estimated Poles killed some 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust? Source: see

  Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is better, but I am still unsure whether putting a very strong and controversial claim like this on the Main Page is both a good idea, and allowed by the DYK neutrality rules. Let's hear about this from some other DYK reviewers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• A possibly overly sanitized and less hooky shortet version would be:
• ALT3 ... that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing research on the Polish role in the Holocaust? Source: see
• Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. You maybe on to something Here's my version: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• ALT4 ... that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing research related to the Holocaust in Poland?

Article is completely ineligible. It is a Misplaced Pages:NPOV nightmare with neutrality disputed at the top of the target page. Not a single academic reference is used for a professional academician; but only the publicity stunts orchestrated by the subject himself, claiming to have received death threats. This nomination is a means for furthering the "Polish death camp" controversy editing wars, at your expense. Poeticbent talk 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Pending DYK nominations