Talk:Jan Grabowski/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Enemies of Grabowski with conflict of interest editing this page

I am acquainted with Dr. Grabowski, though distantly. I raise concern here that users "Volunteer Marek", "Nihil novi", and "Piotrus" editing his biography are doing so while being engaged in a feud with Dr. Grabowski. Dr. Grabowski, writing in Gazeta Wyborcza, has named these editors with respect to falsification of Polish history in English: https://wyborcza.pl/alehistoria/7,121681,25732654,wrzuc-brednie-na-wikipedie-polscy-nacjonalisci-wciskaja-kit.html

Stop socking User:Icewhiz. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed: "In 2021 Grabowski and co-editor Barbara Engelking were found guilty of defamation by a court of law and ordered to apologize...". Found Guilty should be removed as Grabowski and Engelking were never guilty of anything as this was a civil suit. The international condemnation of this verdict should be added as well. Finally, the appelate court over ruled it today so the successful appeal is more significant than the finding of the lower court.
• Why it should be changed: sources
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

80.51.76.250 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: From the source: Despite finding them guilty of defamation in a book, the Warsaw court did not order them to pay damages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

New opinion piece

This new opinion piece may be useful to document what Grabowski’s positions are: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/opinion/holocaust-poland-europe.html Jehochman ^Talk 00:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Number of supporters

Yes, I agree about only the best quality sources. For example, see the phrase in the end of the page: As On 19 June 2017, about 200 historians of Holocaust and modern European history... [refs]. Where this 200 number comes from? One of the sources says >100, another says >170. What exactly letter(s) are we talking about and what is the exact number? Having such discrepancies in the number is a red flag. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was for something else. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Where did you get 170, though? The AP feed says >180. About 200 is a very reasonable approximation. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that 181 is the number. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Was this letter published somewhere? If it was, we can provide a link and verify the number.My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Peruse this edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, that fixes it! There is another remaining issue in the same para. We are saying in WP voice: "the Polish League Against Defamation (PLPZ) published a statement signed by about 130 Polish scholars — none of them, historians of the Holocaust..." Is it a fact that none of them was a historian of Holocaust? If we had a similar source or a link to the letter on the other side of the controversy, perhaps a reader could judge himself who the signatories on the other side were. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That statement is sourced from Barbara Engelking, Jacek Leociak and Dariusz Libionka, who I presume, had done their homework. You are welcome to verify the accuracy from the list. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, but which RS say that none of them was a historian of Holocaust (I do not see it from the letter), and can we use this source for a statement of fact in WP voice? My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The WP-thing

Generally I'm skeptical about including an article-subject's WP-whatevers in their article, WP:NAVELGAZING often applies. However, there are several in depth sources on this, and it may deserve a sentence or two. I was going to compare to Warsaw concentration camp, but I see WP is no longer mentioned in article-text there, it used to be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that the subject here is relevant to both WP:BLP and the Arbitration topics listed at the top of this talk page, it seems to me that anything on the WP-Grabowski issue would have to rely on high-quality WP:RS.

For anyone interested, the current arbitration is clearly a serious issue within Wikipedia, and is being prepared at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. In case anyone needs a warning: Wikipedia:Arbitration is not a WP:RS for a Wikipedia article.

To any journalists reading this, I would recommend that you be patient and wait a few months for this process to work itself through. I would say that the only fair summary that you could make at the moment is "Wikipedia is treating this issue seriously". Boud (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about only the best quality sources. The "WP-thing" is not really a pure academic research, but rather a part of political activism by the subject and yet another controversy and should be probably treated as such. I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that the "WP-thing" should be probably included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the assertion that this source "is not really a pure academic research, but rather a part of political activism by the subject" ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I will be interested in a source for "not really a pure academic research, but rather a part of political activism". This is a BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, after looking at sources, it appears he is usually described as an academic, not an activist, although he is definitely involved in a huge political controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia criticism

Grabowski and a co-author have recently published a big rant criicizing Wikipedia's coverage of Holocaust history. Maybe someone can add it to the article:

Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, doi:10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939.

I came across these via a Hacker News post but other than that, I'm unfamiliar with the biography subject and I don't edit in the topic area. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite unnecessarily rude to call it a "big rant". 2A04:4A43:8B8F:F4D7:9E17:2843:2509:9193 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Added: Oh my, I see the article above is a few months old and is already the topic of a bunch of discussion including in the ongoing arbitration case. Anyway, I will leave the link here and defer to the article maintainers about what to do with it. What a mess. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, I'm trying to update the article about information about the Wikipedia holocaust controversy as of right now. Feel free to make edit requests if you want to - I will look over them and accept if necessary. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 02:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Name one example of the distortion and one distorter. Why is Icewhiz not mentioned here? Jerzy124 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)