Talk:Ewa Kurek

Less than 50% of a BLP, biased

• The page lacks biographical informations.
• Kurek's views are summarized by her critics mostly. Here come Kurek's texts in Polish [1].
• As far as I understand Kurek claims that some Jewish leaders regarded ghettos as a form of Jewish authonomy (1939-1941). I don't know the texts to comment her opinions. However an opinion the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system is similar to Grabowski's description of complicity of terrorized peasants.
• Kurek has published a number of texts in Polish, not mentioned here. Jan Karski has written a foreword to one of her books. Strange that the fact isn't mentioned here.

Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We should reflect what is written about Kurek in WP:RS, noting guidelines for WP:FRINGE and WP:NFRINGE as well as BLP. If what is written in RS is negative - then that is what goes in. Note that as we have fairly high quality English sources, there is no need - per WP:NOENG (under which we prefer English sources of a similar or higher quality) to use Polish sources - particularly not for contentious subjects.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic Poles continued September 1939 war against Nazi Germany (Henryk Dobrzański) until death or until German revenge made the fight irrational. Ethnic Poles emigrated to fight. Ethnic Poles organised hundreds of underground groups, decimated by Germans. Kurek describes that at the time Jewish leaders helped to transfer Polish Jews to ghettos, does it make her "far-right"? Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

far-right

If Kurek is far-right the same "Haaretzs" is far-left. We don't know Kurek's opinions about economy or law, to describe her position. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Polish sources Newsweek and Gazeta Wyborcza are also close to Haaretz. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We have multiple RSes labeling her in similar terms - though Haaretz should suffice.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please define what is "far-right". Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

My definition is not relevant. She is clearly labelled as such by top notch RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Far-right" is frequently used as a propaganda tool and you pretend you don't know it. How leftist Haaretz may define who is far-right?Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Berel Lang

He isn't a historian but a Professor of Philosophy and Letters [2].Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But he's also written on Holocaust history and he was described in the source that quoted him as a Holocaust historian. History is often a multidisciplinary field.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I want competent historians rather than propagnada writers. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Multibook.pl or an iUniverse book are acceptable sources.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

iUniverse is SPS. multibook does not meet any rs criteria. Note that per WP:FRIND for fringe theory proponents we must use high quality 3rd party sourcrs, which neither of these are.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz that such publisher blurbs are usually written by the author. That said, I am unsure if they are seen as unreliable enough to be removed on spot. Was this discussed at RSN? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:ABOUTSELF which would allow limited use (though we have an issue with caveats 1,4,5 here) and WP:FRIND which for this case would preclude it entirely this being a fringe theory proponent. This is not a RSN question - more fringe/n or npov/n.Icewhiz (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we can use them for some uncontroversial bio claims about herself (her life, career, etc.). Everything else we would need to consider carefully. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to use them for DOB or hometown - that should probably OK. But definitely not for any thing relating to her professional activities. e.g. saying she is "screenwriter, filmmaker and author of historical books" is a no-go. You would have to have someone else refer to her movie making activities and refer to her as such. Referring to her work as "historical books" is a no-no either - as they are quite obviously mostly referred by others as a-historical.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Kurek a Holocaust denier

Can you explain this entry? [3]GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Most indpendent sources that cover her clearly note she is known for Holocaust denial or distortion. We have a few such sources in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you precisely reference this substantial claim? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Strong claim (and category) requires a cite. I concur. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is only in Poland today, in year 2018, where such zoological anti-Semites are not being put behind bars - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21728 . Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Jewish children after the war

pl:Wielka trwoga: Polska 1944–1947: ludowa reakcja na kryzys by Marcin Zaremba discusses the subject, too.

A similar subject - the fate of Chrisitian children kidnapped by Germans. Some of the children were unhappy in Poland, they preferred their German parents.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

moral or racial?Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

See also https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/general/difficulties-in-rescue-of-children-by-non-jews.html

not shatter their tranquility, particularly if coercion was used...

Zezen (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Lede

The stmt "is a Polish historian, screenwriter, filmmaker, and author of historical books. She is a researcher of Polish-Jewish relation" is sourced to Kurek's own writings. Haaretz (and most other outlets - e.g. Tablet) - merely describe her as a far-right historian. Describing her books as "historical books" in our own voice is a NPOV violation given the contents and reception of some of them. Her role as a screenwriter/filmmaker is poorly attested and seems to be limited to a few documentaries - one would expect 3rd party coverage, in the body of the article, if these are significant - however this is lacking and all we have to attest to this is a self-authored self-published book jacket - we are essentially introducing puffery by echoing the self-WP:PROMOTION in a self-published setting. In general - independent 3rd party sources are preferable for any article, all the more for WP:FRINGE articles where WP:FRIND indicates only such sources should be used.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd remove 'of historical books'. She is an author. Of what, it is not needed for the box, and anyway if she is a historian, it is logical and obvious her books are historical books. Btw, describing her as historian is correct per official Polish gov't classification of her in [4]. Of Polish-Jewish history is also correct, per WP:DUCK and various sources. Whether to add 'far right' classification to the lead is would be more controversial, since such a description is sourced to 'the other side' in this debate, and might require discussion at WP:BLPN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We use SECONDARY RS to describe subjects - which http://nauka-polska.pl is not - and several such RSes use far-right (and frankly - the "other" side here seems to be most of the world - including the current Polish gvmt which recently cancelled an event with her). Where are we sourcing screenwriter/filmmaker from, and why does this accurately reflect her work?Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Kurek is not “far right," "alt-right" or any other rubbish such as a "Holocaust denier" as you attempted to describe this living person previously Icewhiz --->[5] Everything else is in the sources including the list of her documetary films. GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"the sources" being the book jacket of her self published book?Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

How about this?

• Ewa Kurek (born 1951) is a Polish historian whose research focus is on Polish-Jewish relations before and during World War II. In her later career, he became known for her controversial views regarding the Holocaust in Poland.

I think this is reasonably neutral and reflects the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Works with me if it is written exactly as you recommend. (except “he” -> it suppose to be “she”.GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I can live with that.Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure this is ok with WP:BLP? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Berel Lang (2)

I readded the statement from article history: diff. My rationale was: "an attributed opinion; on the same theme (Irving)". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that covering a BLP subject in the manner she is covered in RSes - as well as covering the BLP's subject own words - as reported in a RS - is not a BLP violation. Coverage of this subject in English mostly focuses on issues similar to those raised by Lang. In Polish media her views on various issues are covered as well, and such notable well-covered views, entered in accordance to their weight in coverage, are not BLP violations or "attacks".Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be better presented though. For example:

She has been accused of downplaying the suffering of Jews in World War II,[7][8] anti-semitic views, and described as 'divisive'.[9]

A better approach would be to perhaps indicate the events that led to this descriptions to put them in context. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That bit was in there from when [6][7] @Piotrus: made the stub. I can see however why he worded this in this manner, as AP (TOI is reprinting AP), was not specific of who was making this (though - seeing how widely this accusation is made - I can see why they didn't) - AP said: "Polish officials have intervened to prevent an author accused of anti-Semitism from receiving an award at a Polish diplomatic outpost in the United States" and in their own voice - One, Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II. Kurek’s views are offensive to relatives of Holocaust survivors..Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see the "attack" in In 2018, following Mateusz Morawiecki’s statement in Munich in which Morawiecki said that there were also Jewish perpetrators in the Holocaust, Kurek agreed with Morawiecki, saying that Jewish sources prove Morawiecki right. According to Kurek, the correct Jewish sources to use are those written by Jews murdered during the war, which can be used in defense of the Polish nation. According to Kurek, sinister forces are trying to assign responsibility for the Holocaust to the Poles. - surely the subject's own views (published well beyond Newsweek) represent the subject?Icewhiz (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

My problem with Silkerkland and Lang is that this paragraph presents their views as facts, implying that yes, Kurek is a HDenial, and comparing her to Irving. This is a problem, as she is NOT universally seen as a HDenier. A few people made such claims, but there is no consensus for that. Those are controversial claims, and while I think we may want to include them we have to make it clear they are just that - claims, not representative (yet?) of any consensus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The question of whether this distortion is "Holocaust Denial" - is a matter of opinion. However, several RSes have called her views/works a "Holocaust distortion" (and synonymous terms) in their own voice, as well as antisemitism. The question of "Holocaust Denial" is on the technicalities of what constitutes denial of the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I see the earlier point on the AP article material, but the tone did not strike as what would be expected in a bio ("accused", "described"). In any case, it does not appear to be necessary to say that she's "devisive". The current version of the article section seems pretty clear as to why her later-career views are controversial. Neither do I see the need to quote Kurek's own words extensively. 3rd party sources provide their evaluation, and I think it's preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Tags?

Should the tags be removed? Everything in the article appears to be cited, while the reception section appears to be reasonably balanced, i.e. Kurek's later-career views are controversial, and sources reflect that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please let me analyze it first.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reception positive = 48 words
• Reception critical (from "However, Michlic describes Kurek's...) = 371 words

Sorry, but how is this balanced? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The BLP sources is (and was) wrongly placed - everything is sourced. As for positive reception - outside of very particular and limited circles - the reception of her later career is overwhelmingly negative, and per BALASP we reflect the balance in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry but the current form the article is not balanced I think.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The correct tag would have been pov, not blp sources (as sources were here). Find positive coverage of Kurek from the past decade (since the fun in ghettos "research") in an English RS - there isn't any.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted to furnish this BLP article with balanced appearance form[8], but I was %100 reverted[9], so the tag must stay, unfortunately. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You removed sourced content, used "some" to attribute, and misrepresented Michlic by retaining her praise only (for some aspects), while omitting her criticism. If you think more positive content is needed - find some (if there is any), don't misrepresent a source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry but on what grounds are you saying that I misrepresented the sources. This is very unjust. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Leaving in Michlic's praise (without a clear ref) for her 2001 work, while omitting Michlic's rather serious revervations to said praise.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If the article is left in the current state[10] the POV tag can be removed I think. What other editors think? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Michlic

I believe that this content should be restored. Otherwise, "groundbreaking" just hangs there:

• However, Michlic describes Kurek's chapter on postwar recovery of the children as a "rather biased perspective colored by anti-Jewish prejudices", saying Kurek's assumptions are questionable from historical and moral points of view. In the chapter, Kurek implies that Jewish children would have been "better off" had they been left in the hands of Polish convents and families, blaming Jewish organizations and individuals for traumtic changes in the children's lives, rather than the war and the genocidal destruction of Jewish families.

References

It also helps the reader understand how her view could have evolved to become more controversial over time. The rest of the removed content I don't feel strongly about, as long as it would help get the page to the state that most could agree on. I removed "sale of children" as it's rather out of the left field. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sale of children is actually not out of left field for the period. Removal of Michlic's crticism, while leaving in the praise, is a gross misrepresentation, a NPOV issue, and a BLP issue vs. Michlic who is misrepresented.Icewhiz (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about Kurek (who is alive), not Michlic. The undue weight towards %80 of criticism within the article is an NPOV issue and a BLP issue. If not, then why removal of Michlic's criticism is NPOV/BLP issue (the article is not about her) but it is not an issue for Kurek? If we continue expanding the criticism then we need to add a positive/neutral response to her work to balance it out. [11] I’m personally not a fun of Kurek but I’m trying to be fair and follow WP BLP guidelines. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresenting a BLP, so that it seems like she's supportive of a different BLP widely accused of anti-semitism, is a BLP issue. Inclusion of Michlic - needs to include both the positive and negative. And no - we do not have to find positive/neutral material for Kurek - we reflect the sources - if the sources are overwhelmingly negative - then so are we.Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

She is criticised for her 2018 position regarding the IPN law but not for earlier work. So no, this is an UNDUE criticism in my opinion. Again, I’m not a fun of Kurek but we need to be neutral and balanced.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually not, she is mainly criticized for her 2006 work that claimed that "Polish author Ewa Kurek, who previously said Jews had fun in World War II ghettos",[12] and subsequent statements such as "Jews behave like a [herd] of lions in a threatening situation,” Kurek says in a YouTube video. “Lions are said to throw the weakest ones to death, to save the rest. And this is the norm among Jews. We Christians, since the beginning of … time, we have one principle: In the situation of a threat, the strong protect the vulnerable. If someone tells you about a Judeo-Christian civilization, then there is no such thing because this [Judaic] law excludes our civilization.”.[13] Coverage in English has had an uptick in 2018 following the cancelled award and US visit - not because the IPN law. Coverage in Polish dates back a while - e.g. [14] a 2006 Gazeta Wyborcza piece.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This book was supposed to be a habilitation dissertation - however it was rejected by John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin -- "Praca "Poza granicą solidarności" miała być rozprawą habilitacyjną. Przeczytali ją historycy z KUL-u. Uznali, że nie spełnia wymogów."[15] - who decided it did not meet the requirements.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Jews "had fun in the ghettos". What exactly did Kurek write in Polish? The quoted article quotes Ringelblum.

Rich Jews had fun in the ghettos at the beginning.

Ethnic Polish children were kidnapped by the Nazis and recovered by Poland after the war. Only now some Polish journalists criticize some cases of the recovery.

Is it possible to describe neutrally the recovery of Jewish children? Marcin Zaremba describes some aspects of it. We should listen to the Children of the Holocaust [16] rather than to Michhlic. Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Issues

The issue of WP:BALASP continues in the article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Merely stating that there are WP:BALASP issues is not sufficient. You'd need to present sources the addition of which would help solve the issues. If someone's career / scholarship is controversial, that's how they would be covered. Suggesting otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Do Rzeczy" letters

The recent "Do Rzeczy" publishes two letters precizing, that Kurek described situation in ghettos till Summer of 1942. Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

POV tag

What present POV issues are in the article?

BLP sources tag

We currently have a BLP sources tag reverted back in here - what passages are not reliably sourced? I'll note that the revert re-instated this approach was praised by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz in his review of the book - which is indeed not quite in the source (which does mention the review, but not quite the praise. There is another source by Michlic that covers the praise in a secondary manner - however I suggest we just cut out Chodakiewicz).Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

How are the subject's own views a "hit piece" ?

This reverted passage - Kurek's 2006 Poza granicą solidarności: Stosunki polsko-żydowskie, 1939–1945 presents Jewish-Polish relations as a conflict between incompatible civilizations. Kurek's interpretation of ghetto development in German-occupied Poland was described as "outlandish" by Laurence Weinbaum. According to Kurek ghettos "were essentially autonomous Jewish provinces built in the years 1939-42 by Polish Jews with the approval of the German occupation authorities", and the Jews "for the first time in over 2,000 years built their own framework of Jewish sovereignty". Kurek has also said that the situation of ethnic Poles in the years 1939-42, outside the ghetto, was far worse than the situation of the Jews who were held in confinement in the ghettos. - presents the subject's own views - the sole criticism (which we have to present due to NPOV) is the labeling of this, in an attributed manner, as "outlandish". The subject's own views and writings are a fair representation of themselves, one would think.Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Szmul Zygielbojm

Szmul Zygielbojm opposed the cration of the Warsaw ghetto. Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link [17]. I removed the vague language such as "Some critics say..." while restoring reception by peer-reviewed sources. I also removed ext links from the list of works. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Tablet's writer Armin Rosen is an expert in sports, Israel and Ewa Kurek.[18] He believes that Wladyslaw Bartoszewski is a Holocaust survivor. English language nonsense is always reliable. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you read your reliable source? Władysław Bartoszewski wasn't Jewish so how was he a Holocaust survivor? If a sport jourrnalist believes to be a Holocaust expert is he one?Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not following; "Bartoszewski" is not mentioned on the page. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean reference 5 which says "Holocaust survivor Wladyslaw Bartoszewski". Not any English language article is reliable.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ref #5 is this one:

• According to David Silberklang, editor-in-chief of Yad Vashem Studies, Kurek "is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar to have become an alleged Holocaust revisionist or distorter during a later phase of her career", with Irving being a possible precedent, however Irving lacked Kurek's credentials.

References

The Ewa Kurek (added) article copy does not mention Bartoszewski. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It does. Are there two copies of the article, one for me one for you?Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I clarified above; sorry it was confusing. The source is used to support the sentence provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source isn't fully reliable, so maybe it shouldn't be quoted here? It's a Wikipedia, not "The Poles are beasts" forum. Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system

They were complicit exactly like Polish Baudienst workers were.Xx236 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Both Poles and Jews (Polish Jews...) were forced by Germans to do some administrative or labor tasks. Through the Jews were subject to much stricter/swifter penalties (death...) in case of disobedience. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, let's blame the victims... --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Vitcims are not always blameless. Anyway, TBH, this discussion serves no points, talk discussions should be clearly relevant to the article. WP:NOTAFORUM. I should've known better then to reply to a post by xx236... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a series of pages blaming Polish victims. "Yeah, let's blame the Polish victims..." To blame the Polish victims one has to understand the German terror. Neither many readers nor some editors do understand it.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The alleged quote by David Silberklang

It's not obvious that Silberklang said that Kurek "is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar". Silberklang said "could only think of the British Holocaust denier David Irving, who lacked Kurek’s extensive formal credentials and was never taken seriously as an academic historian."

If Kurek is alleged, so who's opinion is it?Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Ewa Kurek notable?

• She is a doktor only, which is very little in Poland.
• Any comparison to Irving, who has published mnay books in many countries and is a Holocaust denier, is unfair.
• The Jedwabne petition isn't notable. There are many petitions in Poland, is any one of them notable here?
• Kurek's biography is here very short, unproportionally short. It's a kind of dehumanization - an elderly person is deprived of her complicated life.
• The page contains mainly critics of rather unknown texts by Kurek.
• She has published two (rather standard) books about nuns. It didn't make her notable.
• She has published a controversial book Polish-Jewish Relations 1939-1945: Beyond the Limits of Solidarity, still not notable.
• She became notable on May the 16, 2018, which is a case of Man bites dog (journalism). Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You can try to make the point she is not notable per WP:ONEEVENT. I am not sure right now, but you are welcome to start WP:AFD whenever you like. She is probably not notable on the virtue of WP:PROF, I grant you that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Kurek credible?

Skimmed the recent edits, as well as this talk and I sincerely believe this person's bio should not appear on Wikipedia:

• Above all, someone questioned whether Kurek holds PhD in history. While I am not omniscient, could not find anything substantiating this claim (that Kurek is PhD historian)
• Even if it is true, it is alleged Kurek got her title from some Polish catholic school. With all due respect, it is next to nothing as far as academia is concerned.
• The above can be substantiated with ease: while massaging the egos of Polish antisemites and/or Holocaust denial may appear sweet to some, Kurek's views are not academically acceptable. While there are thousands of Holocaust scholars and researchers, I cannot find any legitimate article citing Kurek as a source and/or reviewing Kurek's work.
• That apparent lack of scholar follow-ups is understandable when quality of Kurek's methodology is assessed. Setting her strong bias aside, she does appear to have problems with basic factual matters. I am Jewish and can tell Kurek talks nonsense about many aspects of Jewish culture or religion. In normal circumstances, such person is simply ignored, let alone being treated seriously (aka "stop making stupid people famous").
• If you let this article exist, you will invite a ton of uneducated, usually antisemitic Poles, who will use this article as a venue to preach views which go hand in hand with Holocaust denial. I am not sure whether raids from people who allege that "Jews guard their version of history" would do any good here.
• I have serious doubts whether alleged historian using phrases such as "Jewish mongrel" or "Jews take money from the goyim" can be treated seriously.

To summarize: Notability is a good criterion to have living person's bio published on Wikipedia. Being "controversial" does not. In other words: being minor league alleged historian should not lead to having one's bio published on Wikipedia just because one's views are far from common knowledge and common sense.

Why do you have to start two separate threads about the same issue...? Please merge them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability and credibility are separate issues. I did not start the previous one anyway. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.127.231.154 (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So why do you summarize your post on credibility by discussing notability? And anyway, there's no Wikipedia policy on credibility. We discuss notability and reliability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Why isn't the instance when Polish officials stopped her from getting an award mentioned?

It's here."Polish officials prevent award to author accused of anti-Semitism""How Ewa Kurek, the Favorite Historian of the Polish Far Right, Promotes Her Distorted Account of the Holocaust""Polish Consulate In Nyc Nixes Event After ‘Antisemitic’ Author Honored " Doug Weller talk 19:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be in. I probably would have AfDed this article without that incident (and the coverage it generated - she fails PROF by a mile, the claim here is GNG off of this sort of outrage coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But I only got here sideways and have too many other articles to work on, so I hope someone else will add it. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also covered in Polish media: [19]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't let WP:V issues stand in a BLP

I saw that this article has had an 'unbalanced section' template on its 'Reception' section standing for a year. If this section does not clearly meet our verifiability criterion, then the inadequately sourced material should be removed; it is not enough according to our BLP rules to tag it.

AFAICS all claims are well-sourced, assuming the material attributed to Michlic and Weinbaum has been correctly handled. Are there any issues with removing the tag? If there are, please raise them here or be WP:BOLD and remove poorly sourced claims.

Given Kurek's antics in NY, I expect journalists are providing us with low-hanging fruit. I'll look for some when I have time. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh - there are new antics now? Interesting. The text is all supported by inline citations - it's not a V issue. The tagger seems to have thought we should have more positive coverage of Kurek in the section. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: My reading of the article is that she seems to have found some interesting material, but several scholars think she framed it in a toxically anti-semitic manner, including her dissertation committee. Demanding "positive coverage" is like asking that climate-change deniers should be given equal time, unless she actually has credible, well-qualified defenders. I'll have a look, but I kind of think we should have a different tag; what it would be, though?

Take a look at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/holocaust-distorter-new-york-churches - "Holocaust distorter" is an interesting neologism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

TPM is rehashing sources from a year ago - e.g. Tablet that had lots of historians commenting. "Distorter" is used by the sources covering her as she does not deny the Holocaust itself - "just" the Jewish (and Polish) role in it. I am unaware of any defenders that aren't part of the far right.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Kurek uses wrong language, but the problems exist. The ŻOB was formed on 28 July 1942, after almost three years of German occupation. History of Jewish Military Union is controversial.(Dariusz Libionka & Laurence Weinbaum) Theaters worked in Warsaw (180 spectacles in a month) and Lodz ghettos. https://culture.pl/en/article/artists-of-the-warsaw-ghetto In her excellent study of entertainment life in the ghetto, Barbara Engelking gathered over ninety addresses of cafés and nightclubs - Engelking, not Kurek.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I was referencing her NY activity: the fact that she has become a totem of the far right internationally, together with documentation of the reasons for that support, deserve to be covered in the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in the lead (Undue, BLP) but certainly a section on this is relevant. She gained notoriety for her comments (I am not sure if this is due, I haven't read her book, and it is possible some claims by her have been taken out of context). See this (somewhat negative, but also presenting her own defense) article in Wyborcza (already in 2006). I will see if I can dig up any academic reviews, since outside Weinbaum it's all media reports. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not precise. We also have Michlic. And while AP is straight media reporting, the in-depth pieces by Tablet and Forward have analysis by several scholars in the field. As for DUE - all coverage on this subject in RSes (including Wyborcza in 2006, which is a bit dated) follows the same vein. Do you have any sources that cover her in a different manner (that aren't clearly unreliable far-right blogs/media)? Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh right, sure, Michlic is totally fine. The point is that Kurek's early work received mostly positive academic reviews. Her later work received mostly negative mainstream media reviews (and a single critical paragraph in academic source, i.e. the book chapter). To portray her as a Holocaust denial supporter or such in the lead based on that is not IMHO balanced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Her very early work - her thesis or thereabouts. From at least 2006 and onwards It is all the same. See for instance Gudonis, Marius. "How Useful is the Concept of Post-Truth in Analysing Genocide Denial?: Analysis of Online Comments on the Jedwabne Massacre." Zoon Politikon 8 (2017): 141-182. -- "Analysis of comments to Newsweek Polska article 3: Article 3, entitled Will a Film be Produced that Negates the Truth about Jedwabne? ‘It wasn’t the Poles who did the killing’, was published on 3 August 2017 (Kumór 2017). .... The article also reports on denialist and anti-Semitic remarks made by nationalist activist Ewa Kurek who has publicly denounced the 2017 decision by the PiS Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro not to reopen the criminal investigation into Jedwabne" - a peer reviewed publication associated with Collegium Civitas (see Zoon Politikon). that doesn't quite refer to her as an historian, but rather as an activist. (Rather confirmed by the sparsity of references to Kurek in an academic context in the past decade or so). Any actual sources to support your assertions regarding coverage of the subject? We generally follow mainstream media. Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(reply #2) I think the tag as it stands is positively bad for the encyclopedia, regardless of what we decide about what should go in the lead. By suggesting the article is not being fair to her, the tag will be taken by some as showing that she is being unfairly covered, which we have no evidence for, and that suggestion supports pernicious views of the Holocaust, which itself is at least as serious an issue as BLP (cf. Netzdurchsetzunggesetz, here in Germany). I'll remove it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the article is reasonably neutral now, through it could be expanded a bit with the (Polish?) media coverage (Wyborcza, etc. [20] ), which seems somewhat negative, but reliable/mainstream. I did find a few minor academic reviews. Fort, interestingly, I found a somewhat neutral review of her 2006 work by... Chodakiewicz. Who both praises her on some issues (approach that ignores political correctness...), but criticizes on others (methodology). [21]. Probably merits citing too for completeness. There is a review in [22] but I think it's not online? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Kurek circulated a petition

What makes a petition notsble? There are plenty of them.Xx236 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ucieczka z zesłania

Kurek has published such book. Is it a real memoir, edited by Kurek, or fiction?Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)