Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:47, 26 March 2018

The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to Eastern Europe, including this article. Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Canada Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Start‑class Low‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

At the moment the article isn't neutral

At the moment the article isn't neutral, as it lacks information about nature of criticism by historians and when such information was presented it was either deleted or reduced. Currently the presentation is focused on praising the figure in question, however in discourse, Grabowski has been much critized. The current impression of the article is that this irrational and consists of death threats, but there was serious historic debate about him, questioning his research. This needs to be included for neutral point of view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And is present. Reviews in peer-reviewed publications are present. As are the Polish League Against Defamation's allegations, and we even have a Polish historian who published his opinion in an op-ed (not in a peer reviewed publication).Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We currently have 9 lines (in one paragraph) for 5 positive reviews (on the more current and expanded 2013 book in English) - all published in peer reviewed journals of some weight.

In contrast we have 22 lines (in multiple paragraphs) for 2 negative reviews + 1 op-ed in response to a newspaper feature - Bogdan Musiał writing in Dzieje Najnowsze (an open access Polish journal), Łukasz Męczykowski in histmag.org (which is popular audience website in Polish) and Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed (that is not about the book, but in response to Haaretz's feature on "jew hunting" which also included an interview with Grabowski). Męczykowski has no basis for inclusion (insignificant author - PhD grad in non-peer reviewed setting), Berendt is a journeyman academic in an op-ed (in response to a feature) - highly marginal for inclusion, and Musiał is somewhat notable (all be it with a few strings attached) writing in a venue that might merit inclusion.

So if there is a POV problem - it is the amount of weight and space given to the less significant negative reviews. If we're scraping in histmag.org - there are plenty of positive reviews in popular publications.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Berendt is a journeyman academic"' - ummm, what? Berendt is a historian who specializes in the topic! He's published numerous works on the topic, is a faculty member at the University of Gdansk and works at the The Jewish Historical Institute . Your false and unfounded assertions sort betray your bias here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at his h-index, citations, and publication list - I did not say he was not a professor at the university of Gdansk (and the Jewish institute, and the IPN). You added an IPN bulletin to his opinion - which is still not a peer reviewed journal.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see a section of criticism, balance is needed. The length of each section is not that relevant, both can be expanded further if more material is deemed relevant. I thought about reviewing some of the publications you mention for and against, but I cannot find relevant sections. I'll just confirm that Biuletyn IPN does not appear to be peer reviewed and is classified (on pl wiki) as a historical magazine. I'll note, however, that his book 'hunt for Jews' is likely notable, and it should be only briefly summarized here. Relevant content should be split there. This article needs only a short paragraph on it. (Will I have do do another split...?). Ps. Grzegorz Berendt seems like a normal reliable academic, don't understand what makes him a 'journeyman' (weird use of this term, IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I said nothing otherwise about Berendt. I think the 3 negative reviews should be summarized to a reasonable length (say 4-5 lines in total), and I would omit the review in histmag. Most of the content relating to hunt for the Jews here, excluding these long negative review summaries, are directly related to Grabowski - criticism of him personally (including death threats and calls for his sacking), as well as shoews of support.Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid the article still requires work. For example the criticism isn't only in regards to his book or inflated nuber. And there is over-emphasis on supposed death threats without describing scholarly criticism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The death threats are sourced to multiple top line RSes, who covered this at length and over a period of time. Scholarly criticism, which is favorable, is described - from five different peer reviewed journals. If we have a problem it is the overemphasis on FRINGE/highly-biased views such as Musial and the review on histmag.org a website/blog, which are UNDUE. Do you any specific concerns other than general statements?Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Do any of the sources state outright that the death threats are corroborated by any relevant authority? Is there an inquiry in this case, material evidence? No? Then it is a claim, a plausible claim but as yet unverified. I will also note that the article currently ties these alleged threats with even more claims of harassment, and both with the boycott by Polish organizations: however stupid, the boycott is not the same as a threat or harassment, and it is terribly POV, and terribly bad writing, to put them all in one phrase. Dahn (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Several top-line RRS state in their own voice that he received death threats. They do not say that he said he has received death threats. They also report that the campus has beefed up security.e.g. see AP "Since then Grabowski has received several death threats, leading to security patrols in his department.". Reporting on this hails back to 2013 at least, and is done in the RS's voice most of the time (not a problem to find multiple such accounts). Considering these threats are probably mail, email, or phoen (recorded) - these are fairly easy to verify 3rd party. RSes report on the threats and harrassment together, e.g. CBC "His research has brought death threats against him and his family and angry letters to his employer demanding he be fired.", or JC "He has suffered death threats and is boycotted by the Polish community in Canada, where he lives today.". RSes report jointly - so we follow the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Precisely because they are easy to verify, and yet there is no talk of legal action, we should not use wording that states this is a fact: the RSes you cite either attribute the claim ultimately to him or use vague language -- they are journalists in the business of journalism, which involves taking sides, we have our own guidelines. Increased security need not be based on actual evidence of threats, but can simply reflect his claim, just as well -- I mean, they are under contract to protect him at even the slightest allegation, them doing so is no evidence that the threat exists or is credible. This also goes for how journalists conflate two issues: not only is there no requirement to parrot them on phrasing, and several reasons why we would not (for instance, they can easily be made to retract or taken to court by people they arguably smear with such conflation), but it simply makes no narrative sense that we should do so -- what point can this "following the sources" serve, other than suggest that boycotting him is somehow the same as sending him threats? Dahn (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

RSes report this in their own voice - not attributed to Grabowski -attributing this to him would be WP:OR - it could have come from someone else, e.g. a campus official or police report copy. We do not usually write "according to the BBC, CBC, New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters X has Y" - which is basically what you would have to do here. When multiple RS say something in their own voice - we do not attribute. I will not intepert to why RS report boycotts and threats jointly. They do. If you want to separate this out to a separate paragraph you could. I think it would be clunky, but I have no strong opinions on the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: No, beyond the headlines several of those sources don't report "in their own voice", they actually attribute the claim back to him -- for some reason, you omitted citing them as sources here. Here's BBC: "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." See also CBC's other report. AP and the like report that he received death threats, but this already contradicts the more detailed accounts -- they could all simply pass on Grabowski's claim as fact, which we have seen routinely happen in this day and age of activist journalism and unabashed bias. That said, there's nothing wrong or unusual with stating that "according to multiple reports, he has received threats" (we neither take on the claim as our own, nor imply that it is fringe -- we simply state what we mean, namely that multiple RSes believe it to be true); I mean, when we have a person who actually confesses to a crime, we still call him "suspect" or "alleged perpetrator", yet here a claim with absolutely no substantiation is The Truth. For the rest: my comment was not about why they do it (we can only speculate about that), but about why we would do it as well; I mean, we both see the risk here now, and we both seem to agree that we can at least separate the alleged (and criminal) threats from the documented (and nonviolent) boycott. I refrain from editing the article at all, but maybe you can incorporate this suggestion in your edits. Dahn (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The ones I quoted above were in their own voice (without attribution) - dating back to 2013 and through 2018. The BBC report you quoted did attribute part of the stmt to Grabowski (on threats being signed) while attributing to AP that antisemitism in Poland is on the rise and saying in its own voice some of that antisemitism reached Grabowski's mailbox. We typically do not place "accordning to multiple reports," prefixes in such situations - the refs at the end of the sentence are typically enough (which is why they are there - per BLP policy and policy in general for such stmts) - we usually trust non-tabloid news orgs to do their job properly (particularly when we have several such reports). I do not see a need to separate the boycott from threats - but do not object if you maintain cohesive flow. As for your claim this is a claim - that is not borne out by the RSes reporting this who do not treat this as a claim. Instead of ORing how the multiple news orgs verified this (police report? Look at the mail themselves?) - when you have multiple strong sources it is usually correct to assume they verified it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I rearranged the boycott / threats blurb so that they are not in the same sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for accepting the objection. Concerning the other one: in the absence of any quote from any report by any authority saying that these threats actually happened, and where the only source for the claim that is actually mentioned by any secondary source is Grabowski himself, it strikes me as entirely unnecessary to parrot what journalists say and not attribute the claim to them. This is not OR; OR would be saying that "we know they picked it up from campus police", or "we don't know if they picked it up from campus police". I have suggested a wording that would neither interpret reality, not coach the read into who they are to believe. I believe this is quite consistent with WP:IMPARTIAL and reflects what those source which go into any level of details actually say. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, this issue of death threats is mentioned twice in two separate points of the article, for no apparent reason. The second time it has a section of its own, with "threats" as a component of the title, but in both cases it is only mentioned with one sentence, and citations that also mentioned the supposed fact only briefly (even when they make a headline of it). It's really looking like WP:UNDUE: surely one coherent mention, with all the sources put together, will do. Even with more details, and quotes if need be, but not repeated over and over in the text. Dahn (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dahn: While I disagree on some points (particularly on the UNDUE point - most historians are not subjects of continuing international news coverage, particularly not of death threats - and here we have coverage spanning 6 years) - I have toned this down.Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you, I appreciate that. I will note that the simple repetition of a claim does not make it more reliable: what would've been more reliable would've been a statement by a(ny) mandated authority in these years where harassment supposedly took place. Dahn (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, as I we were discussing this, Main Page included a link to Woozle effect. Dahn (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Important update on numbers by Grabowski

See here

I am just reading the articles and this will need a much longer description but the article states that the number of 200,000 Jews supposedly murdered were taken on basis of estimating surviving Jews in Poland at 20,000 from a book by historian , a figure that was estblished based on registered Jews by June 1945 in Central Jewish Committee in Poland, and assuming that anyone Jewish that didn't register by this time in this organization was murdered. According to the article, this number was then doubled by Polonsky(historian Grabowski uses for basis of his estimate) as the author believe it isn't reliable(that's what the article states). According to the article Grabowski took the number of 250,000 fleeing Jews from Ghetto from Szymon Datner's estimates but rejected his estimates about numbers of survivors. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also this article states that Szymon Datner never stated that 200,000 were murdered by Poles, and the article says that the number of 100,000 Jewish deaths by Datner includes people who died but weren't murdered(for example from famine or cold during winter while hiding in the forest, etc)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also there is an official statement by IPN on the 200,000 number Never, in any of his works, did Simon Datner mention any number of 200,000 murdered Jews, nor did he ever describe such a number of victims as the result of crimes perpetrated by Polish people in the occupied territories. Imputing these statements to Datner amounts to falsifying the scholarly record of this undisputed authority on Holocaust studies. Datner differentiated between the actions of German State officers and armed German services and the attitudes of civilian people in all occupied areas. Some of the participants of the current debate ignore such distinctions, either due to lack of knowledge or intentionally --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The Polish IPN has its own opinion (which we cover via IPN member Grzegorz Berendt - who basically says what you posted in the links above). Most international scholars, writing in peer reviewed journals, disagree. Note that statements from 2018 and onwards in Poland are problematic due to Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past, BBC, which hampers speech on the subject in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Most international scholars, writing in peer reviewed journals, disagree" - this is completely false and is unsupported, unsurprisingly, by any citations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on Holocaust research in Poland, besides Holocaust Denial, just like in many other countries.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It would seem the WP:RSes do describe limits beyond what is in "many other countries", including per DW "Poland has passed a law criminalizing suggestions the country was complicit in the Holocaust" or per the WSJ "Law mandates fines or imprisonment for people who accuse the Polish population of responsibility or complicity in war crimes".Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not spam this talk page. If you want to discuss Polish laws on holocaust denial there are seperate pages for this.It has been explained countless times that the law is not banning any research into Holocaust--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly trying to resist the urge to close this as another poor attempt at WP:SYNTH (exactly how I predicted it, see here). Anyway, the source does not explicitly discredit the Grabowski (or Datner number). At most, it casts some small doubt on it's accuracy, but neither Grabowski nor Datner say "the death of exactly 200 000 Jews was caused as a result of Polish collaborationism " (hell, it's clearly described as an "estimate"). Anyway, 200 000 technically has only one significant digit, and so by writing "200 000" what is actually meant is "some number around 200 000 (technically, between 150 000 and 249 999, but this isn't of much importance here), rounded so as not to create false precision".

Quoting the above (I don't understand Polish, so no way to check except Google translate, and we all know how reliable that is) - and ignoring whether it actually accurately represents the source or whether we are missing some details: somebody who has access to the original book by Datner should check - "a figure that was based on registered Jews by June 1945 in Central Jewish Committee in Poland, and assuming that anyone Jewish that didn't register by this time in this organization was murdered. According to the article, this number was then doubled by Polonsky ( historian Grabowski uses basis of his estimate) as the author believe it isn't reliable." Unless you can find a reliable academic source to support your claims, don't argue based on your personal opinion because you are not a reliable source, per WP policy. Personally, and again not being an expert, I don't see any obvious fault with the above estimate - the number of false positives (i.e. number of persons falsely thought as being dead) wouldn't be large enough to seriously affect the accuracy of the "200 000" number, significant digits taken into account.

And, sincerely, stop attacking straw men. Icewhiz said the law "hampers speech on the subject in Poland", not that it " any research into Holocaust". And, the Polish laws might be better discussed (in-depth) on more specific pages, but they are also strongly related to this page's subject. Don't try to discredit statements on technicalities: the BBC is a reliable source and if it says the law restricts research on the Holocaust (even mentioning this author's book directly!), then we must report what the BBC (and other reliable sources say), not what you (established above: not a RS) think, per WP:NOR. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what a 'significant digit' is suppose to mean in this context. That appears to be an attempt to use some fancy sounding, but meaningless, terms to appear to be legit, when in fact, it's just blowing smoke. At the end of the day Grabowski does indeed claim that close to 200k Jewish escapees from the ghettos were killed by Poles. This number is simply impossible since the overall number of Jewish escapees (according to established literature and sources) was between 50k and 100k (roughly 50k in the countryside and 50k in Warsaw, with some double counting going on). You can try to obfuscate as much as you can but this is what the whole thing comes down to; that. number. is. just. logically. impossible.

And that's putting aside other issues such as 1) the way Grabowski calculates the number assumes that all escapees who were killed were killed by Poles, rather than Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians or other non-Poles. 2) He bases it on an extrapolation from a single county which was very unlikely to be representative for a whole host of reasons. 3) He cherry picks and fudges the sources to arrive at his % of people killed in that county anyway, to make it as high as possible.

Now these last three (which are also discussed in sources) are also deeply problematic but they are ADDITIONAL problems, on top of the fact that his number is impossible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

May I also interject (repeating myself, but because I'm made to) that the IPs claim according to which Grabowski "rounds up to 200,000" is apparently contradicted by Grabowski himself, when he says (as the article currently quotes him) that 200,000 is a "very conservative estimate"? Dahn (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

All not impossible hypothesis (though they all bring into question the integrity of a (respected) scholar's work), however, lacking WP:RS which clearly say why it is inaccurate (not some newspaper or politically motivated or legally constrained institution simply saying "the number is inaccurate"); there are just that: slightly far-fetched hypothesis not supported by a source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources saying not just that it is, but why it is inaccurate. And they're only formally less reliable than the sources who simply repeat the claim without investigating it. Historians who react to a claim with newspaper articles are no less historians; and "claims made buy newspapers" doesn't seem to work at all for the various claims made by the plethora of newspapers cited in Grabowski's favor. Please, let's be consistent here.

Not that this was about accuracy, this was about his own claim, quoted in sources added to support his claim. And right there he says that he uses 200,000 as his benchmark, not as an estimate which could be much lower. That was not to address whether the number is or isn't reliable, it was to note that your claim is inaccurate: as you can see, he does not in fact go lower than 200,000 ("technically, between 150 000 and 249 999"), only higher. Dahn (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're saying. What is a "slightly far-fetched hypothesis not supported by a source"? Grabowski's numbers? Well, then it's not just "slightly far-fetched", it's downright impossible (according to sources). If by "slightly far-fetched hypothesis not supported by a source" you mean the criticism of a number then no, you're wrong. The criticism is not a "hypothesis", just a logical observation that it is impossible to kill 200,000 escapees, when there were only 50,000-100,000 escapees to begin with. And yes this observation is backed by sources which say exactly that, for example Grzegorz Brendt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What is slightly far-fetched is your hypothesis in your previous comment "And that's putting aside other issues such as ...". The number by Grabowski is "supported by sources" (his book, to begin with, and all the positive criticism of it). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's own book cannot be a source for itself. That's ridiculous. And it's not "my" hypothesis, this is what other reliable sources state. "Positive criticism" (an oxymoron) do not validate his number in any way. If you know of any independent studies which confirm this result, by all means cite them. And you still haven't bothered to address the simple logical impossibility of this result.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that raw IPs can close debates. If you're an admin, please identify yourself. Dahn (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not an admin, however, applying Template:collapse top (and bottom) tags (or even actually closing the thing) is possible by anyone in good-standing (and uninvolved, which is why the sentence about closing was metaphorical, since I'm clearly involved) - this isn't AfD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And as an uninvolved editor under that definition, I would simply reopen the discussion, because clearly it was not given time to be resolved. Also, how you're uninvolved and also commenting taking sides is beyond be, but let's leave it be.

To your claims and point, let's note that this is currently in the article: "according to Grabowski his estimate of 200,000 Jews killed by Poles is very conservative, as he did not include victims of the Polish Blue Police". Now, leaving aside the point that people killed by the Blue Police were in fact killed by the Nazis (the Blue Police had no agency of its own), or that killing many hundreds of thousands of Jews is not proof that there were many hundreds of thousands of killers (which would be a semblance of an argument about collective responsibility), let's note that, if true, this directly contradicts the claim that he's only talking about "some number around 200 000". "Conservative estimate" and "some number that could be 150,000" don't go together. Dahn (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said he rounded up to 200 000. Maybe he got a higher number (which seems to be what he implies with "conservative estimate"), then carefully analyzed it and concluded that there could be some false positives, and rounded it down. Anyway, I clearly said the thing about significants digits was only from a technical point of view. If you don't know what "significant digits" are, see the linked article in my previous comment. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep using these phrases "significant digit" and "false positive" in a context where they don't make sense and in a way which shows you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't regression analysis. This isn't statistical analysis. We're not discussing whether the true number was 200,543 or 200,547. Indeed, there was hardly anything "technical" about how Grabowski came up with this number (basically he made it up). Basically what he did is the equivalent of multiplying (a miscalculated) number of apples by the acidity of oranges and then claiming you've measure the length of a banana.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You have said that the number could be lower or higher than 200,000. As you can see, Grabowski himself does not accept that it could be lower, and uses 200,000 as the minimal estimate. His minimal estimate is already viewed as implausible by other historians (those who bother to check his numbers, that is). That is the substance of the controversy. Dahn (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Anon IP:Misplaced Pages uses non acacemic sources, they are perfectly acceptable and this doesn't violate RS. IPN is an academic institution and extremely reliable source. Secondly Grabowski here uses the number 200,000 on basis of Szymon Datner'sWiększość nie mogła nawet o tym myśleć - byli głodni, zmęczeni, zaszczuci, nie mieli ani znajomych Polaków ani pieniędzy, żeby im zapłacić. Historyk Szymon Datner oceniał, że około 10 proc. populacji Żydów podjęło walkę o życie. Rachując zgodnie z tym założeniem, otrzymuje się liczbę 250 tys. Żydów, którzy szukali podczas okupacji schronienia na terenie Polski. Większość badaczy zgadza się z szacunkiem, że 40 tys. z nich przeżyło wojnę. Odejmując jedną liczbę od drugiej otrzymujemy dane podane (w pierwotnej wersji tekstu "Złotych żniw" - PAP) przez Jana Tomasza Grossa - nie wiemy, co się stało z 200 tysiącami ludzi, którzy próbowali przeżyć okupację na terenie Polski" - powiedział Jan Grabowski I can translate it later. Third-the article mentions that IPN responded to Grabowski's claims of 200,000 that were repeated in the media. Fourth-the unreliable nature of counting Jews by June 1945 was stated by Polonsky hence arbitrarily he doubled it, the criticism was that it was arbitrarily, you could just as well triple it, this wasn't based on any factual data. Anyway, this shows that there is much to be covered in the article-there was extensive criticism of Grabowski's claim of 200,000 Jews, and this happened seperate from his book as far as I understand.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Point of order. We will not resolve here what the correct number is or whether Datner's calcalus is relevant or accurate. What we do have is various Polish sources calling this inaccurate on various grounds. Conversely we have non-Polish sources treating Gross, Grabowski, and Engelking as leading figures in contemporary Polish Holocaust research. The article should reflect the crticism and praise - attributing where it has come from.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"What we do have is various Polish sources calling this inaccurate on various grounds. Conversely we have non-Polish sources " - I've repeatedly asked you to stop judging sources (and editors) on the basis of ethnicity. You've repeatedly ignored that request. If I'm not mistaken, you are aware of discretionary sanctions in this area. If you persist with this practice, which violates Misplaced Pages policy and is abhorrent on its own, then this will wind up at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any notable criticism of the number should appear (no, it doesn't have to be in peer-reviewed publications or any other artificial criterion) as should any notable praise (also not limited by artificial criteria). Dahn (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to caution however against labeling sources "Polish" and "non-Polish", if that is what is being suggested. We should assume intellectual independence on both sides, and prepare for at least the hypothetical scenario that the numbers are/will be questioned by sources outside Poland; just as there are already sources from within Poland that express praise for Grabowski. Everyone has a bias, but it's not immediately apparent, nor particularly honest to imply, that they have bias X because they're Polish, and bias Y because they're not. This is a debate carried out in a civilized setting, where both sides actually have the same assumptions about what is evil in the Holocaust and the participation of various Poles in it as perpetrators. It's not, as is implied in some newspapers (and is frankly getting disgusting), a battle between decency and antisemitism. Even if we suspect the Poles of holding on unreasonably to their national pride, and not simply of having a point: it's a pride that incorporates the basic notion that the Holocaust happened and was evil, which is at least theoretically incompatible with antisemitism. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A very important point. Ad nationem arguments should be avoided. Thank you, Dahn. Nihil novi (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may (slightly) object - if the majority (read: almost all) of sources which currently (not "potentially" - that's WP:CRYSTAL - we are interested in what is currently in reliable sources, not what they could eventually say) criticize Grabowski are from Poland (i.e. hence Polish, in the geographic sense) and it is described as such by sources (including the BBC calling it "a product of the current political moment in Poland"); then that information need be included too. The "academic sources" criterion isn't artificial. Of course, newspapers can (and usually, are) be reliable. However, per WP:SOURCETYPES, academic sources are usually considered the most reliable, and should take a bit of precedence over newspapers, which are subject to many kinds of pitfalls to which peer-reviewed sources are not, or are but to a much lesser extent. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Some fair points, however: there is simply no necessity of constructing sentences such as "Polish sources say that" and "sources from outside Poland say this, but the Poles etc."; the sources represent themselves, unless they're on an official basis -- and in the latter cases it would be inevitable that we mention who they represent. Institutional affiliation or even mention of nationhood per each individual involved ("Polish historian XY argues that") is of course a neutral wording, but blanket claims about "what the Poles say" are quite unacceptable. I mean, it might be tempting to signal to the reader the assumption that there's a nationalist bias or a collusion or a groupthink -- but imagine for a moment if someone were to theorize that all Israelis or Jewish historians need to be labeled on the other side of the debate, on the assumption that their ethnicity or location has shaped their viewpoint, that they don't say what they say because it makes sense, but because their collective belonging orders them to. If you feel the article needs points about the political current in Poland (and always those that reflect commentary by the BBC, not by, say, the Spectator), you can quote what the article claims and attribute the claim to its author; its existence doesn't authorize us to transfer such inferences into the realm of fact, and BBC is certainly not without bias. (And btw, you can match any claim about groupthink in Polish institutions with claims about collective bias in Western academic institutions. Not that I advocate reflecting that in the article, but as a general point about biases.)

Invoking CRYSTAL is pointless here, because I wasn't suggesting writing in the article "be sure there's going to be more negative commentary published at some point" -- I was simply stating, as one more reason not to label sources collectively, that the entire qualifier may become pointless the moment someone publishes a critique that is not "Polish". (Also, are praises of Grabowski by Polish authors not equally "Polish"?)

I also wasn't making a point about which sources should be given priority, nor do I claim that newspapers are more, or as, reliable. In fact, I wasn't even commenting on reliability, but on exposure: if a divergent viewpoint has so far only been covered in newspapers, the claim that it should be quoted more briefly or removed from the article is baseless. If you feel that some criticism of Grabowski is overdetailed, it is sterile to point out imagined flaws and artificial criteria such as "the newspaper is not peer-reviewed"; you should add more content from the sources you cite in Grabowski's favor, let all sides of the debate be present with what they say, and every reader will have ample material to decide what is and isn't the more truthful story. For now, let's note that as many academic sources praising Grabowski we add, not one of them seems to have looked at his numbers critically, to either reject or endorse them after processing them; the empty praise that they lavish on him can of course be repeated ad nauseam (like similar praise for Foucault or Piketty in various academic publications), but the substance of any argument about his numbers would not be lost under the sheer weight of words. So by all means, quote the praise, and quote the criticism -- readers will note how one is already substantially different from the other. Regardless of which one is ultimately right, one currently says "I looked at his numbers, and they don't make sense", the other says "oh he's such an erudite". Dahn (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that both sides should indeed be included. However, per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't spend more time negatively criticizing the book if the majority of sources actually criticize it positively. What I am saying is not "oh he's such an erudite", rather "I (nor anybody else in this discussion) do not have the expertise necessary to criticize the numbers. Therefore, we should stick to sources. If there are more sources which describe the book positively, then have more content on those, per WP:UNDUE. If there are sources which describe the criticism as being mostly from Poland, then write that too, per WP:NOTSYNTH. If there are sources which criticize the book, then yes write that too. However, saying "I looked at his numbers and I don't think they make sense because of (own arguments)" is not acceptable and we cannot include it". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

We are largely in agreement. In fact, I also agree that positive commentary should be covered more extensively -- and we can easily achieve that simply by quoting the sources with what they say, and we will inevitably quote more of them saying positive things about him -- because there are more of them. I also don't object to quoting sources saying "his critics are mostly Polish"; I object to us taking that notion as fact and running with it -- the only way that sort of observation can stay in the article is if it is attributed. Now, personally (you don't have to agree) I believe that doing that would actually expose the very nature of the debate as it currently is: on one side, generic accusations or empty praise, with a systematic refusal to address the point, and, on the other, a rather serious critique of the numbers of Jews supposedly killed by Poles. So there's even less reason to object to a more thorough presentation of the debate, in which one side, the "Polish" side, will take up less space, but will make its pertinent points. The other can be quoted at length with its, well, chaff about how "illuminating" the book was etc. Dahn (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I made a few changes in my comment, they seem to have been caught in an edit conflict. This diff is essentially what I wrote. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the solution to UNDUE is to add more from the sources that praise him, not to suggest that we should chop into the negative ones to where we can't see the exact point they're making. Three--four paragraphs of negative commentary is not by any definition excessive in the overall article, and you can easily "dwarf" them by adding more to other sections. This proportion works even if the "Polish" side adds more content, and will work in perpetuity, or at least until such time as Western academia begins being critical of Grabowski's claims, if ever. Can you see my point here? Dahn (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Searching for English language usage of the 200,000 figure, one generally finds favorable use of it:
  1. Covered in news media favorably: e.g. , , , , , .
  2. Academic books:
  3. Journals: Janicka, Elżbieta. "The embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relations." Studia Litteraria et Historica 5 (2016).].Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That "Academic Book" is an essay by a ... PhD candidate. And right below you're trying to exclude a source by someone who does actually have a PhD. And that "favorable use of it" consists of the author saying "no definitive numbers exist" (which actually isn't true, he's just not familiar with the literature) then mentioning Grabowski's number.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And your link in #3 to a pdf doesn't work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As for Polish censorship, it would seem that "Polish authorities tried to censor the speech of an Israeli mayor.". The Polish authorities specifically were unwilling to accept the 200,000 figure: "“We received the speech last week,” Ferenc said. “Unfortunately, some of the content was historically unproven.” He said that among other things, Dukorsky’s speech included the claim that “Polish farmers killed 200,000 Jews during the war, and that of the six million Jews who were murdered, 200,000 were killed by Poles.” “It was impossible for me to accept this,” he added.". Quite a bit of coverage of this. If speech on the 200,000 estimate is actively censored and suppressed in Poland, use of recent sources from within Poland in regards to the estimate is questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

additions to "Works"

Generally, since this is the English Misplaced Pages, it doesn't make sense to add non-English language works to the "Works" section unless they are of particular significance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also we generally avoid long quotes from sources as that violates WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't call the kettle black. We're currently giving UDNUE weight to a teacher writing in histmag.org (a website or blog). Regarding works - we actually often have a list of notable works on academics (set by some criterion - e.g. number of citations), regardless of language.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What does the kettle have anything to do with it? At best your response is WP:OTHERSTUFF (or whataboutism) and fails to address the issues raised.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages under discretionary sanctions
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Start-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles