Talk:Jedwabne pogrom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

deposition of Józef Żyluk

Material has been cited to the "deposition of Józef Żyluk". Can those citing it explain who "Józef Żyluk" was, what the material says, and how historians view it? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The source cited begins by stating..."Budynek dawnego Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa w Łomży, w którym w 1949 roku odbywały się przesłuchiwania"... in essence... " In the former building of the UB in Lomza, in which this deposition took place in 1949". Is this supposed to be the source of the RS? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Tomasz Strzembosz went back to archives to examine the interrogations. Here’s what Józef Żyluk said in his own words, as quoted by Strzembosz: (15 I 1949 r.) "krytycznego dnia, kiedy kosiłem łąkę przyszedł do mnie burmistrz m. Jedwabne i wezwał mnie żebym szedł z nim do miasta. Ponieważ nie chciałem iść, Karolak powiedział mi, że jak nie pójdę, to dostanę kulę w łeb. Wobec tego poszedłem z nim."

Strzembosz quotes also the confession of Władysław Dąbrowski (11 I 1949 r.): "przyszedł do mego mieszkania żandarm z burmistrzem Jedwabnego Karolakiem i kazał mi iść na rynek pilnować żydów. Ponieważ nie chciałem iść i starałem się uciec niemiec uderzył mnie pistoletem w głowę (potwierdziły to zeznania kilku świadków) a ręką uderzył mnie w twarz i wybił ząb."

Speaking of the German mayor, here’s a sentence from the deposition of Antoni Niebrzydowski (10 I 1949 r.): "przyszedł do mego mieszkania Karolak burmistrz niemiecki i Bardoń Karol i dali mnie rozkaz iść pilnować żydów na rynku których oni zganiali na rynek." Strzembosz went on to say that Gross omitted a few dozen depositions pointing to direct German involvement.

But, there's more. Mayor Marian Karolak, a fraudster, most likely a Volksdeutsche according to Leon Kieres from IPN [1] settled in Jedwabne in the 1930s due to his criminal record in Silesia, according to yet another article by Strzembosz.[2]

What's good for the goose (i.e. Gross) is good for the gander (i.e. any other historian).
--Poeticbent talk 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast Poeticbent, please. First, be so kind as to translate anything you put in here for the benefit of those who do not understand Polish. Secondly, kindly understand that anything being deposed under the auspices of the UB, or the Gestapo is unfortunately suspect. Or is it not? As for your claim..."But, there's more. Mayor Marian Karolak, a fraudster, most likely a Volksdeutsche"... is about as weasely as it gets. Regarding the other underlined sentence, you are reading into it and trying to tell us that this "expert" witness, Niebrzydowski, was claiming that Karolak's ethnicity was German. I'm getting the sense that he's distinguishing that Karolak was under German direction or control rather than an independent mayor. Not a claim that he was German per se. How would he know since the "fraudster" was a relatively new face in the area? Summing it up, I think the information is definitely good for geese and ganders, but not for an encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell Józef Żyluk does not say he was German, and I don't see any reliable secondary sources making that claim. If you have one who does, please quote him directly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Strzemobosz says - comissioner mayor. Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bardoń was from Silesia

Who says that Karolak was from Silesia? Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Inserted claims

User:Poeticbent has inserted the following claims into the article:

by the order of mayor Marian Karolak, a Nazi collaborator

According to the deposition of Józef Żyluk (signed January 15, 1949 during interrogation at the Ministry of Public Security of Poland office in Lomza),

Regarding the first, does the cited source describe Karolak as "a Nazi collaborator"? And if it does, why is that detail significant here? Regarding the section, why is any of that detail significant in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Karolak wasn't a "Mayor", because he wasn't elected or nominated by Polish administration, so yes, any of that detail is important.Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xx236 -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I can find a dozen reliable sources stating that Karolak was the mayor of Jedwabne. However, what I haven't seen is that the cited source describes Karolak as a "Nazi collaborator". That is what Wikipedia requires. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Another question would be the reliability of evidence derived from the Stalinist secret police in communist Poland. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"I can find a dozen reliable sources stating that Karolak was the mayor of Jedwabne." No comments.Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Karolak was probably in reality the "Sołtys" (niech będzie Burmistrz), and whether or not he was "elected" or "self appointed" is irrelevant in so far as the massacre is concerned. He's called the mayor in most English historical renditions. The more important issue remains whether or not he was Polish, German, or Volksdeutsche. A secondary issue is the reliability of the PRL's secret police in the Stalinist era (or any other era) as a source to rely on. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"He's called the mayor in most English historical renditions" - this implies that English historians love anti-Polish stereotypes rather than Karolak was a mayor.Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it, Xx236? I sincerely doubt that "English" historians or any other historians who write in the English language (including Polish ones), focus on Polish stereotypes (anti or otherwise), let alone "love" them. Perhaps you are one of the few people who feels such an implication from the statement, ""He's called the mayor in most English historical renditions". Whether or not that is the case, is not important. More pertinent is if we should call Karolak, by the name of the position he held in Jedwabne in the English language on English WP, or not. Don't you think so? My experience has been that too many people around here love to put in variety of nonsense into the English version of Wikipedia. Let me give you an example. Here's a article on Tilsiter cheese. Here's another one. I guess it makes some people happier to have "two distinctly different" articles on the same subject. 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

'an armed Jewish militiaman was made to sit on every wagon onto which the deportees were loaded, in the third week of June 1941'

I just noticed the timing when I amended the chronological order of that section. Is this really accurate? If so, is it properly phrased? It says 'Jewish' militiamen deported people to Siberia just two weeks before Barbarossa and the pogrom. Surely, deportations were taking place for over a year prior to that, and can one really exclude Gentiles from the militia? I doubt it, but am all ears.-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To be exact, Jewish militiamen did not deport (as you say), only the Soviets did. According to Stenograph, (part 2.2) of the 90th session of the Senate of the Republic of Poland (the first reference listed with the above sentence[3]), Senator Jadwiga Stokarska made the following statement (quote in Polish, with my translation following): "Po wejściu Rosjan natychmiast z urzędów zwolniono Polaków i wszystkie urzędy, łącznie z miejskim, obsadzili Żydzi. Otrzymali oni od Rosjan broń i utworzyli miejscową milicję. Sporo młodych Żydów wstąpiło do NKWD, do Komsomołu, do partii bolszewickiej. W Jedwabnem Żydzi utworzyli listę Polaków do wywózki na Sybir, i bezpośrednio ją nadzorowali."
Translation. "After the arrival of the Russians, Poles were fired from the administrative offices immediately and all offices including municipal, were filled with the Jews. They received weapons from the Russians and formed the local militia. Quite a few young Jewish men joined the NKVD and the Komsomol, as well as the Bolshevik party. In Jedwabne [these] Jews created a list of Poles for deportation to Siberia, and directly supervised their transport." There's no dates in her statement.
The exact timeline of the Soviet deportations originates from the second source listed,[4] attributed to Alexander B. Rossino (Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Volume 16 (2003)). It reads: "witness from Jedwabne testified that during the deportation of local Poles to Siberia in the third week of June 1941, 'an armed Jew sat on every wagon" onto which the deportees were loaded.'" Quotation cited by Rossino originates from Danuta and Aleksander Wroniszewski, "Kontakty - Łomzynski Tygodnik Spoleczny (weekly)," no. 10 July 1988. The deportations did not take place gradually, over a year, but all at once in just one week. --Poeticbent talk 16:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In one week? So in that case, why were the deportations carried out only on the eve of Barbarossa? I'm interested in the reason behind that. Was it just a coincidence? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested too. Who exactly is Jadwiga Stokarska (obviously a member of the Polish Sejm), what party does she belong to, and more importantly what would qualify her to elucidate on the events preceding this massacre? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the Polish lang Wiki- she seems to have been in the Senat, not the Sejm - and an independent without party affiliation, but with some connection to rural Solidarity, it seems. I'm not quite ready to jump to the conclusion she's a Polish Catholic nationalist Endek anti-Semite who listens to Radio Maryja and is whitewashing Polish anti-Semitism ;-) Anyway, it is the extract from the highly credible Rossino that is causing more incredulity. I think I understand it now. Rossino was referring to one anecdote that took place during one week in Jedwabne just before Barbarossa. He is definitely not asserting that such anecdotes only took place in that one week. I'll amend the article for clarity. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Chum, if Rossino is "highly credible" there shouldn't be anything "incredulous" about it. Except we're getting back to "eyewitnesses" retelling anecdotes (your choice of words). Btw, employing these (or their synonyms [5]) is not the usual method that encyclopedias are written by. Thanks for the Senat clarification, I was thinking of the PLC. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - To clarify, I'm not incredulous about Rossino himself, it was the use of his material in this Wiki that was badly phrased and caused incredulity. Rossino is credible. Our text had implied that Soviet deportation only took place in one week shortly before Barbarossa. That isn't what Rossino said and the confusion was caused by our lousy phrasing. I've cleared that up - in my edits just prior to yours. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Great. Concerning the witness' statement..."an armed Jewish militiaman was made to sit on every wagon onto which the deportees were loaded, in the third week of June 1941"...I can only ask how the witness determined that they were Jewish. As for "made to sit" and "every wagon" strikes me as quite an unusual for an encyclopedia entry or even an argument. So, every deportation wagon had an armed Jew, who was made to sit on it? Interesting. Another interesting recent [6] entry ..."A number of young Jewish men joined the NKVD, the Komsomol, and the Bolshevik party. Some of them joined the Soviet militia"...What does that have to do with this massacre? Probably a number of young Polish men also joined the NKVD, the Komsomol, and the Bolshevik party and the Soviet militia. Again, what is the point being brought forth in relation to the article? Dr. Dan (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is all about how we transfer source material into the article - it isn't always about veiled anti-Semitism motivating edits, although it may sometimes look like it is. I've found the section of Rossino (2003) in question:

Scholars generally agree that the sight of Jews greeting the Red Army was abhorrent to Poles, but until recently there was little evidence to suggest that Jews had participated in the crimes of the Soviet occupiers. Detailed research carried out by Bogdan Musial over the past few years has resulted in a more nuanced understanding of Jewish involvement with Soviet occupation forces. Musial has been criticized for suggesting that Jews in eastern Poland were over represented in the Soviet administrative and police apparatus, but after examining numerous eyewitness reports taken from the inhabitants of eastern Poland, including Jews who survived the German occupation, Musial found that in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions. Take for example the statement of Aleksander Kotowski, a Polish inhabitant of Jedwabne. Kotowski recalled after the war that the in October 1939 the NKVD released "Jews and [Polish] Communists" who had been held in Polish prisons and then utilized these people as informants to denounce "Polish patriots."54 Another witness from Jedwabne testified that during the deportation of local Poles to Siberia in the third week of June 1941, "an armed Jew sat on every wagon" onto which the deportees were loaded.55 Correspondingly, Michel Mielnicki from the village of Wasilków, which lay near Białystok, remembered that his father, Chaim Mielnicki, hosted a gathering of NKVD commissars from Moscow in the family's home. According to Michel his father "served as advisor to the NKVD about who among the local Poles was to be sent to Siberia, or otherwise dealt with."56 As Michel explained, his father had at the time claimed that Polish "fascists" were "not good for the Jewish people" and deserved to be sent to Siberia.57

Other leading scholars of the "final solution" in the occupied Soviet Union have corroborated Musial's conclusions. Yitzhak Arad, for one, writes of extensive arrests by the NKVD in his hometown of Swieciany: "although there were also thousands of Jews among the exiles [who were arrested], Jews played a relatively large role in the Communist Party apparatus that was behind the action."58 Dov Levin has similarly concluded "the labeling of the Soviet administration as a 'Jewish regime' became widespread when Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send local Poles into exile."59 Furthermore, Jan Gross himself wrote in 1983 that "Jewish collaboration" with the Soviet authorities was behind the sudden upsurge of anti-Semitism among the non-Jewish population in eastern Poland.60 It is worth noting here as well the findings of Ewgienij Rosenblat, who concluded in a recent essay that the percentage of Jews in the Soviet administrative apparatus rose during the two-years from 1939-1941 in the Pinsk Oblast, which is located to the southeast of the Białystok district. In his examination of various sectors of local society, Rosenblat found that despite the fact that Jews comprised only 10% of the regional population they held 49.5% of the leading administrative positions in the Pinsk Oblast, including 41.2% of those in the judicial and police administration.61

-Chumchum7 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand what the witness claimed. The source also states that was what the witness claimed.

You say that "it isn't always about veiled anti-Semitism motivating edits, although it may sometimes look like it is" is an interesting caveat, but that doesn't answer how the "witness" knew they were Jews. It doesn't answer how the "witness" came to inspect every wagon used in the deportations. What it appears to be is an attempt to rationalize the behavior of the perpetrators of the Jedwabne massacre. I suppose its possible to rationalize anything, any crime, if one wants to. In fact all of the above is precisely the rationale that the Nazis used to implement the Final Solution. I think if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in some other article. I read it and re-read it. None of that information connects to the subject of this article. Please send me a link to Ewgienij Rosenblat's essay concerning the Pinsk Oblast. I'm curious if he mentions the Pinsk massacre as having influenced any of the "various sectors of local society". Regardless, that too would have nothing to do with Jedwabne. Right? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan, you are assuming bad faith. You seem determined to prove there is some kind of hidden agenda of anti-Semitism here. Take it easy, and with this article we'll all get there in the end, together. Rossino is a Holocaust scholar, and this extract is from his essay about the Jedwabne pogrom. There was no caveat in my last post: You may perceive anti-Semitism in the use of Rossino's extracts, but I do not. I'm assuming good faith. I think bad writing is the problem in the article, not malice. And I'm trying to reach consensus here in an inclusive, non-confrontational and reasonable manner - I invite you do do the same. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chum, please do not assume to assume what I'm assuming. If you think bad writing is the problem with the article, that's fine. I think that the problem with the article is a blatant attempt to include irrelevant material over and over again. I'm not going to rehash all the nonsense about Rosa Luxemburg and the Katyn massacre that was part and parcel of the problem earlier. I'm sorry to say that the ghost of that problem still lingers on. The easiest solution would be to not include information that is irrelevant to the Jewadbne massacre. That simple. Nothing confrontational or unreasonable about that. I'd still appreciate a link to Rosenblat's essay. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This idea from Rossino (2003) is entirely relevant, and should be included: 'Jan Gross himself wrote in 1983 that "Jewish collaboration" with the Soviet authorities was behind the sudden upsurge of anti-Semitism among the non-Jewish population in eastern Poland.' That may add context and explain the 'wagon' testimony, or it may serve to replace the 'wagon' testimony altogether. If the 'wagon' testimony has been disputed by another scholar, then we should include that. But it would be our own OR of if we disputed Rossino's use of a testimony. Incidentally, none of this mention of "Jewish collaboration" - to use Gross's phrase - diminishes the culpability of Polish Gentiles at Jedwabne, nor does it diminish the seriousness of their crime of racially motivated mass murder, and Rossino goes on to clearly state that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, weeks ago I added Zydokomuna and Endecja. I added Rosa Luxembourg and Felix Dzerzhinsky (a Gentile) as background on the rise of communism in Poland among Gentiles and Jews alike. The intention was to establish that collaboration with the Soviets was possible for all Polish citizens, it was meant to be balancing material ahead of our citations of scholars' reference to "Jewish collaboration". As I said at the time, I was building up material and was happy for people to whittle it down. This remains my attitude. I would dispute any accusations there are 'blatant attempt to include irrelevant material over and over again' from me, but I'll always welcome a rational dialogue, with anyone, about the content of this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've clearly explained why you added the information about Rosa Luxembourg and Felix Dzerzhinsky and Zydokomuna and Endecja to this article, and probably still think it is somehow relevant to the Jedwabne massacre, are you thinking about re-adding it? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As you know, I've said I'm happy for my contributions to be whittled away if the consensus is that there is too much. I talked through the basic scaffold of my contributions before I made them, and have no problem with excess material being cut back - so why should I restore them? Do you want them restored? There's nothing stopping you from cutting more, or contributing more to this article yourself. The only addition I'd be inclined to make right now is this from Rossino (2003): 'Jan Gross himself wrote in 1983 that "Jewish collaboration" with the Soviet authorities was behind the sudden upsurge of anti-Semitism among the non-Jewish population in eastern Poland' while at the same time quoting Rossino that none of this diminishes the culpability of Polish Gentiles at Jedwabne, nor does it diminish the seriousness of their crime of racially motivated mass murder. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, my point is not about your adding information that is only peripherally (if that) related to the subject of the article, and others having to "whittle" it away. It is about not adding it in the first place. Unfortunately you are constantly doing that. Adding the information from Rossino is quite a stretch, although much less than your addition of Rosa Luxembourg. You don't seem to see that its connection to Jedwabne is very vague, too vague. When I brought up the Pinsk massacre it was to show you that trying to connect one thing to another is possible, but not the way to go. Not if your looking for consensus. Why, because it's not specifically related to Jedwabne. The long and short of it is I see an attempt here to say "the Jews" were active in the Soviet occupation and terror in Poland 1939-1941, and this is why what happened at Jedwabne happened. Would it be appropriate to explain why some of these Jews preferred the Soviets to what they had experienced under the alternative regime (Ghetto benches), and all the rest of it? I don't think so. In another article maybe, but not here. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you restrain yourself, user Dr. Dan, from further comments of this sort. The Second Polish Republic (you piped) was not an "alternative regime" to 150,000 Jews who perished in the Ukrainian pogroms. Your veiled comparison of the Soviet genocide in Eastern Poland to classroom Ghetto Benches better be left unanswered, however, reading about what kind of stereotypes constitute anti-Polish sentiment could help. Before WWII Jewish masses were escaping from the USSR, not the other way around. --Poeticbent talk 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the present version of the background section I found that the description of the roots of the pogrom is fully one-sided and unsatisfactory. The pogrom is presented exclusively as a consequence of Soviet occupation and Jewish collaboration with the Soviets. Several important points are missing, including (i) the opinion that "any attempts to connect Jedwabne massacre and Jewish collaboration with Soviet authorities are historically false and morally untenable" (for exact quote and the author see this talk page's archive), and (ii) story of pre-war Polish anti-Semitism and Polish nationalism in general (I provided quotes and sources many times on that talk page). I believe the article in its present state deserves the corresponding tag, and I am intended to add it in close future if no attempts will be made to fix a situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. "to 150,000 Jews who perished in the Ukrainian pogroms" It would be interesting to see your source, because my source (Henry Abramson, Jewish Representation in the Independent Ukrainian Governments of 1917-1920, Slavic review, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 542-550) tells that only 31,071 Jews were killed during the acts of anti-Jewish violence in Russia/Ukraine during 1918-1920 (after that, for obvious reasons, no mass anti-Jewish violence was possible in the USSR).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: " Before WWII Jewish masses were escaping from the USSR, not the other way around" It would be interesting to see documented examples of mass exodus of Jews from the USSR in 1920s-30s.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, I suggest that you are hardly in any position to recommend restraint or objectivity regarding this article and your contributions to it. "an armed Jewish militiaman was made to sit on every wagon onto which the deportees were loaded, in the third week of June 1941" is just one of many entries that you think improves it. There are many others made by you of a similar vein. Whether I "piped" information concerning Ghetto benches, as you put it, or explained to Chumchum why too much detailed backround opens the door to all kinds of weird "theories", would be better debated by others. Incidentally, I don't remember comparing the Ghetto benches to "Soviet genocide in Eastern Poland". Even my explanation of why throwing in the Pinsk massacre here, would be inappropriate for the same reasons, seems to gone over your head. As for anti-Polish sentiment, all I can tell you was that the victims of the Jedwabne massacre were Polish, killed, as so aptly put by Gross, by their "neighbors". Women and children too. Children who were not "armed militia men. You need to focus on that more than the Soviets, Nazis, and the "Jews" themselves being responsible for this crime. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert that my additions of facts about pre-war anti-Semitism have been removed, they weren't removed by me, and somehow the point needs to be restored even if my details are deemed too much information. Personally, I added (i) a record of the antisemitic party Endecja, (ii) data on the tens of prewar antisemitic murders, (iii) a record of the Catholic antisemitic slur that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus (iv) evidence of demographic change and immigration widening the gap between Gentile and Jewish society (v) further points that Polish Gentiles and Polish Jewish cannot be stereotyped as anti-Soviet and pro-Soviet respectively. Somehow the point about prewar antisemitism should be restored, and I would recommend starting off with extracts from Rossino and Roszkowski. And when dealing with the issue of 'Jewish collaboration', it may be helpful of us to flag that this is a description of one of several possible motives and is NOT a justification for the element of reprisal in the Jedwabne pogrom that included the murder of innocent Jewish children. Thorough accounts of murder do include a discussion of motive, and motive is NOT a redeeming excuse for the culprit. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I view Dr. Dan's comments about me as personal attacks, and assumptions of bath faith. This also appears to be an allegation that I have a malicious hidden agenda, motivated by antisemitism. Dr. Dan, Poeticbent just asked you to restrain yourself, to which you replied with zero cooperation or diplomacy. I have lost patience. It is simply untrue what you say, that I am 'constantly' adding peripheral information to this article. I have looked up your page, Dr. Dan, first seeing the unusual and rather large photo portrait of yourself, then your note that you believe that a conspiratorial cabal exists. I would testify that I'm not a member of any cabal, and I would testify against any theory that I have a hidden agenda to whitewash history, I would testify against any theory that I want to blame Jews for their own trouble, I would testify against any theory that I want to blur or dwarf the truth with excess information. Reading on in your profile, I note that a Wikipedia moderator has given you a final warning because of your attitude. I consider it my duty to report there appear to be personal attacks and accusations of bad faith on this page, and from my perspective there appear to be allegations of a hidden antisemitic agenda motivating my edits. Anti-Semitism should always be investigated everywhere on Wikipedia, and it will be useful for a moderator to examine conflicting subjective perspectives here. Given you have had a final warning, it is my duty to take this up with the moderator who you most recently attracted the attention of. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Chumchum I can't help what you perceive to be personal attacks, but I can ask you to state which comments I made about you, that you consider to be personal attacks. Btw, who said or suggested you're a member of any cabal? Why would you even bring that up? So you looked up my personal page with my "rather large and unusual picture". Hope you liked it. Yep, I believe a cabal exists. Its being looked into at the moment [7]. Glad you claim you're not part of it. Never suggested that you were. Also hope that Poeticbent isn't part of any cabals either. But most of this needs to be discussed on our respective talk pages, not here. As for your comment..."I note that a Wikipedia moderator has given you a final warning because of your attitude", I think you didn't read down far enough [8], or that you haven't read my comment to him on his talk page. But go ahead and do your duty. Sorry you've lost your patience. So make up your list of all of my personal attacks against you, and your perceived assumptions that I believe you've acted in "bad faith", and I'll make a short list of the peripheral information that you've inserted into this article. Information that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this article, namely the Jedwabne massacre. But again, most of this dialogue doesn't belong here on this talk page. Since you've blanked your talk page [9] you can use mine (I prefer leaving mine as is, and that isn't always easy). I remember we've interacted before [10], not just here at the JM. Again, please understand there is no malice intended, Dr. Dan (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tangential material removed

Part 1

I've removed the following material as tangential to the topic of the article:

Amid the dispute, British comedian Stephen Fry, who supports the Labour Party, implied Poles were responsible for the Nazi German death camp of Auschwitz. The remark prompted a complaint from the Polish Embassy in London, an editorial in The Economist and criticism from British Jewish historian David Cesarani. Fry then posted a six-page apology on his personal weblog. On October 30th, 2009 Michael Schudrich, the Chief Rabbi of Poland, complained about the British political row playing on a "'false and painful stereotype that all Poles are antisemitic', whereas the truth was that the problem was around the same there as elsewhere in Europe."

The material itself didn't actually discuss Jedwabne, but rather dealt with various tertiary reactions to a political dispute involving Michał Kamiński's appointment to the European Parliament, and his years-earlier opposition to Poland's national apology for the Jedwabne massacre. The incident is already discussed in a level of detail that is not appropriate to an article about the Jedwabne pogrom; this level of detail might be relevant in the article on Kamiński. The third party reactions and responses to this 2009 political kerfuffle are certainly not relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

I've removed this lengthy quote from a review of a 2009 play from the article:

No German is represented on stage; their presence is only alluded to. And yet we’re told by Gross himself, on the basis of surviving testimonies, that the Germans were an active force on the scene. They were there in the town square on June 22nd, beating to death alleged Soviet sympathisers. Germans gave an order on 10 July ‘that all the Jews be destroyed’. Gross writes emphatically - ‘At the time the overall undisputed bosses over life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organised activity could take place without their consent… It is also clear that had Jedwabne not been occupied by the Germans, the Jews of Jedwabne would not have been murdered by their neighbors.’

The quote was referring to a recent play that itself was not particularly notable, and didn't actually mention Jedwabne, so it's hard to see why we bother even mentioning it. On top of that, to devote so much space was devoted to a verbatim quote from a review of said play seems somewhat absurd. This material and the previous, combined, were almost as long as the entire section devoted to the pogrom itself. We likely shouldn't be mentioning the play itself, much less the review of the play, but in the interim I've replaced the lengthy quote with two brief quotes from the article's conclusion. Let's try to devote more space to actual material about the pogrom, written by historians, and less space to reviews of local plays performed in 2009. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Radziłów

So the Radziłów pogrom was a separate event? Should the article be moved to Jedwabne and Radziłów pogroms? Were there more such events in the summer of 1941? Drutt (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of term "gentiles"

Here is my take on this : Using the term "gentiles" (goyim in Hebrew) identifies the narrator with the Judaic perspective and this violates Wikipedia's NPOV prerogative. Making a distinction between "gentiles" and "Jews" is the same as distinguishing between "Muslims" and "infidels" (the Islamic persepctive), "Christians" and "idololatres"/"infidels" (the Christian perspective), or "Hellenes" and "barbarians" (the ancient Greek perspective). And this is irrespective of the derogatory nature of these terms. We can use the term "gentiles" when we quote or describe a Jewish viewpoint but not when we, the Wiki contributors, are talking. A neutral observer, when describing something about the Jewish religion/nationality, should simply denote a demarcation between "Jews" and "non-Jews". This still keeps the focus on the Jewish element of the story (since it is obviously a narrative about a Jewish issue) but does not adopt the Judaic viewpoint. In exactly the same vein, one should talk about "Christians" and "non-Christians", etc. What do others think?-The Gnome (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"gentile" is simply a term for non-Jews, it's not a "Judaic" term in any way, and it's not pejorative.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where, outside of a Judaic context, do we use the term "Gentiles"? Nowhere. It is a Judaic term. As to its "pejorative" nature, I did not claim "gentiles" is a pejorative term! This is not about racism, bigotry, etc. It's about the use of appropriate terms in Wikipedia. In an article related to the Romani people (the gypsies), for example, we should NOT be referring to the non-Romani people as "gadjos", except to say that "gadjo" is the term with which the Romani often denote a non-Romani person.-The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "outside of a Judaic context"? Gentile is a word that is commonly used by both Jews and gentiles; it gets over a million Google book hits alone, they're not all written by Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Trials in Germany

The section "Trials in Germany" seems irrelevant to the article, as it only concerns the Radziłów pogrom, not Jedwabne. Moreover, according to the recent Polish IPN investigation, the Radziłów pogrom was perpetrated by Poles, not Germans. I think the section should be removed from the article. --Lysy^talk 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the IPN statement carefuly and refrain from making unilateral changes until WP:CONSENSUS has been reached in talk. First of all, the IPN investigation was suspended, not concluded. Secondly, the very brief IPN report dated 9 November 2010 said, that the Germans who arrived ordered a dozen local men in Radziłów to commit the crime (przyjechali Niemcy, którzy mieli wydać rozkaz przedstawicielom miasteczka, oczyszczenia miasteczka z Żydów... Broń palna w postaci radzieckich karabinów, została sprawcom wręczona przez Niemców). The Germans armed the men from Radziłów with Soviet guns. The source of this information is omitted. The IPN statement makes no mention of the perpetrators' ethnic makeup. And finally, the quotation from Alexander B. Rossino who conducted research in German WWII archives over several years, was specifically related to Jedwabne massacre. One freshly supplied webpage with no reading material and no author, is not sufficient enough to blank the entire section including removal of WP:RS material. — Matalea (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rossino named the SS unit present at the scene, based on his own groundbreaking research including evidence in the German language (i.e., Zwischenbericht No. 5 der Untersuchungsstelle für N.S. Gewaltverbrechen beim Landestab der Polizei Israel, 23 January 1963 in ZStL, 5 AR-Z 13/62, p. 70.) For everybody else in the writing community, "the Germans" were just doing their job. Whoever they were! "What is certain though – wrote Rossino – is that witnesses in Radziłów, Tykocin, and other locations not far removed from Jedwabne all remembered Gestapo men driving into their villages..." Szymon Datner suspected Birkner's Sonderkommando, but the German investigators found no hard evidence directly implicating him. Finally, Rossino noted, "the method used to kill most of the Jews of Jedwabne was exactly the same that had been employed by the Gestapo to kill the Jews of Radziłów only three days earlier." (Rossino, Polish "Neighbors" and German Invaders) — Matalea (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Datner deposited his own testimony at the Jewish Historical Commission in Białystok on September 28, 1946. Piotr Wróbel who studied his work suggested, that survivors who arrived at Białystok together, including Belawicki and Sniadowicz (omitted by Gross), and Wasserstein (who was not at the scene), had inadvertently created a "common" version of the Jedwabne events, shown through the repetitions in their separate testimonies. "We also know – wrote Wróbel – that Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich gave orders to organize "popular pogroms" but cautioned that the SS should leave "no trace" of its involvement in them" (Dagmar Herzog, Lessons and Legacies). Such circumstances are essential for the understanding of what happened, especially when supported by the WP:RS material. — Matalea (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation: changes made July 16, 2011

Careful reading of Note 1, IPN's announcement dated June 30, 2003, shows that Note 1 does not belong after the statement in the second paragraph:

" the Polish Institute of National Remembrance stated the crime was committed by Polish inhabitants of the town"

In fact, the June 30, 2003 IPN communique (in Polish) says nothing about who committed the atrocity. It describes the atrocity without assigning guilt, and states that since no suspected perpetrators have been discovered who are still living, the investigation is now closed. Therefore I have moved this Note to the section: 'IPN Investigation.' Also, IPN did not find that 'the Poles' of Jedwabne were responsible, implicating all of the Poles. Hence I have deleted 'the.'

Note 7 duplicates Note 1, and gives a translation of the title. The two Notes could be combined. I combined them on September 2, 2011.

These changes do not affect the overall content of the article, but are made for the sake of accuracy. Prospero10 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Off topic dicussions of Lysy and Chumchum7

Extended content

Profusest apologies for continuing the interesting discussion ;-) but am sure you'd agree the difference between Kielce and Jedwabne is that in the former, the importance of the Soviet presence and the possibility of Soviet incitement is hypothesized (e.g. by Jewish scholar Stanislaw Krajewski); in the latter, German presence has been evidenced by forensic investigation, and German incitement is a well-documented policy of the Third Reich. Both cases, as you rightly say, have prompted unacceptable excuses; but such excuses hold no weight if - per criminal law around the world - one doesn't accept incitement as an excuse for murder. For me that's a no-brainer. To describe Jedwabne accurately and to understand it, the German presence cannot be airbrushed out by German nationalists; at no point does this imply the murderers had any excuse whatsoever. Quite the contrary. Bear in mind the Polish Secret State sentenced Polish collaborators to death in absentia and then used Polish Home Army death squads to arrest and execute them, normally in broad daylight in central Warsaw. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC) You're right. If only things were that simple ... as I'm sure you know, the Jewish-Polish relations have been far from the black and white picture that many imagine. Fascinating, if you give it a closer look, though. The same Polish Home Army had no problems murdering Jews in other circumstances. But similarly to your comment on IPN being purely an institution, the Home Army was purely an organisation. With many faces. The overall Jewish perception of the Home Army was that it was mostly anti-Semitic. --Lysytalk 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, AK units in Nowogrodek fought against Jewish partisans. The Jewish Combat Organization was part of the AK. The Jewish Zagiew worked with the Gestapo. The chief of Zegota was a Polish anti-Semite. Go figure. Agreed, all organisations have many faces. Wikipedia too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) For the record, the Jewish Combat Organization was hardly part of the AK. Jewish Military Union was, but perished in the ghetto uprising. In fact some Home Army individuals would kill Jewish survivors in the Warsaw Uprising :( . Marek Edelman was also almost killed by Home Army fighters, and partly because of such problems Jewish Combat Organization would rather fight together with the communist Armia Ludowa. At the same time the Home Army liberated the Jewish inmates of KL Warschau, who in turn joined their case. Allegedly some of them were subsequently murdered by their AK combatants. --Lysytalk 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Ah, thanks for Jewish Combat Organization vs. Jewish Military Union - if you have good sources and time, maybe you could correct our article on the former, which states "In November 1942, ŻOB officially became part of and subordinated its activities to the High Command of the Armia Krajowa." That's what I had based my misapprehension on. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC) This is fairly complex and confusing, I'm afraid. Jewish Combat Organization was recognized by both Government Delegation for Poland and Polish Workers' Party, and armed by both AK and Gwardia Ludowa at certain points. Nevertheless, while they were clearly left wingish, they attempted to approach AK several times throughout the war but never quite successfully. I'll make a mental note to investigate this further and come back with RS later, when I have more time. --Lysytalk 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Interesting, thanks. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwasniewski speech

First, I added the full text to our external links section.

Then I saw the relevant paragraph has some problems:

In 2001 the President of Poland, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, officially apologized to the Jewish people for the crime on behalf of Poland.[57] This caused a certain amount of criticism, as some still believed Jedwabne to be solely a German crime, while others argued that the whole nation should not have to bear responsibility for the crimes performed by some. At the time of the apology the IPN investigation was not yet completed. The commemoration service on the 60th anniversary of the pogrom was overshadowed by the boycott of the service by the majority of the citizens of Jedwabne. When the service began, the priest of Jedwabne started to chime the church bells as a sign of protest. The mayor of Jedwabne at the time of the Jedwabne debate, Krzysztof Godlewski, emigrated to the USA due to these incidents.[58]

Aside from the issue that the first citation is a dead link and the second is in German, the paragraph simply doesn't have enough citations to back up what is being said. In fact it is misleading about the speech, which was much more complex and nuanced. Kwasniewski clearly states that (i) the murderers were Polish, (ii) they were incited by the Germans, (iii) that the crime was against Jews and (iv) also against Poland (i.e. the murderers were traitors). He states that Jedwabne was not the only incident where prejudice resulted in murder. He also specifically rules out the notion of collective guilt: that nobody other than the murderers is responsible for the murders - that means he does not see the Polish nation as responsible for the crime; at the same time he is not absolving the Polish culprits when he speaks of German incitement. He emphasises that the crime was sadistic and that Jewish women and children were burned alive, and that nothing justified it. He "begs pardon" - which is more accurately paraphrased as 'sought forgiveness' instead of our current 'officially apologized'. He does not in fact specify from whom, or from what, he begs pardon - so to construe this as an official apology to the Jewish nation from the Polish state looks like a breach of WP:OR. I'll rewrite the paragraph and look for proper secondary sources (we're meant to use primary sources as little as possible, but we can paraphrase the speech provided we draw no synthetic conclusions). Additionally, Kwasniewski's speech should be mentioned in the lede. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine, but the webpage you also used (http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/en/19/195/Manslaughter_of_Jewish_Inhabitants_of_Jedwabne.html?search=243050) doesn't state that Gross was "erroneous", and it's not the arbiter of all truth anyway. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no source is the arbiter of all truth and please do not assume that I think that. Clearly, the source doesn't use the word "erroneous" - and I did not quote the source, I summarized it. The source refers to Gross's work as a starting point for forensic investigation, and then asserts that the investigation partially contradicted Gross's work. Without any synthetic observations being made, wouldn't you agree that the source is saying that Gross's work was preliminary, as such it was both crucial to the whole process and could not possibly have been entirely accurate? Is there a difference between 'inaccurate' and 'erroneous'? Maybe 'inaccurate' sounds less harsh? To recap: (i) Gross's work in 1999-2000 was instrumental in starting the re-examination of Jedwabne (ii) Gross did not / could not forensically examine the graves for evidence at the time (iii) Gross did not use German military sources, as he himself states as a caveat in the first pages of Neighbours which I can quote for you if you don't have a copy (iv) Gross asserted that no Germans were present at the massacre (v) in early 2001 the IPN in cooperation with international war crimes investigators (some of whom had worked on the Srebrenica massacre) and the Chief Rabbi of Poland forensically examined the mass graves and also accessed German military sources (vi) Polish president Kwasniewski was privy to this IPN investigation, and later in 2001, the Kwasniewski speech at Jedwabne contradicted Gross by stating that the massacre was incited by Germans, notwithstanding that the Polish murderers carried full responsibility for their actions (vii) in 2003 the IPN's final conclusions asserted there were Germans at the massacre, and Gross endorsed the IPN's findings. In short, how do we say that while Gross's work was great and important, it was understandably incomplete or partially inaccurate at the time of publication - especially on the subject of German involvement? Gross and the IPN are not competitors, but complementary. I thought the word 'erroneous' seemed fair and uncontroversial; maybe you'd give it a second chance, now that I've explained the rationale for you? -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Stating a study is "erroneous" violates both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Just because you have many issues with Gross' study, that doesn't mean we can characterize it as "erroneous" using Wikipedia's voice. Also, studies "conclude", they don't "say", and there is nothing in WP:SAY that suggest we shouldn't use the word "conclude". Finally, Gross' study was not "preliminary", even if there were later studies. Gross did a study, others did later studies; later studies do not make earlier studies preliminary. If you want to qualify Gross' study in any way, you must do so by stating what reliable secondary sources explicitly write about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have many issues with Gross's study. Gross's work was vital. Gross then concurred with the international war crimes team that conducted the later IPN investigation, which drew different conclusions than he did. Do you have many issues with the IPN's study? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no issues with the IPN's study, but if you want to qualify Gross' study in any way, you must do so by stating what reliable secondary sources explicitly write about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/en/19/195/Manslaughter_of_Jewish_Inhabitants_of_Jedwabne.html?search=243050 is an RS? And it does explicitly write about the progression from Gross: after the publication of the book 'Neighbours' by Jan Gross, which contained a statement saying that allegedly Jedwabne slaughter was committed by Polish inhabitants of the town without any co-operation of the German SS squads, police or gendarmes, the investigation was reopened for the third time. Depositions currently being made by witnesses confirm complicity of both Germans and Polish inhabitants of the town. I was merely reflecting that. Maybe you can achieve better phrasing than I can. If so, please contribute it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely you see that a website stating "Depositions currently being made by witnesses confirm complicity of both Germans and Polish inhabitants of the town" in 2001 is not the same as saying "Gross is erroneous". Depositions are primary sources that must be interpreted by reliable secondary sources. What do reliable secondary sources say about Gross' study in their own voice? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get stuck on the word 'erroneous', its not important. IMHO when the IPN uses the word confirm here, it is exactly interpreting the primary sources by saying they confirm something. The IPN does not present the depositions without comment. The discrepancy between Gross's earlier work remains mentioned and contradicted, Gross has praised the IPN's findnings; if you don't like the words 'erroneous' or 'preliminary' as qualifiers, please help me find another. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Depositions are primary sources, and the page was apparently last updated in 2001, while evidence was still being gathered. We need to use secondary sources here, academics/historians, and qualifiers are not required - we state what Gross's findings were, and we also state what other findings were. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(i) I think we are getting at cross-purposes here and an RFC or 3O may help. As far as I can tell the IPN website is a secondary source, referring to depositions as a primary source and Gross as a premisory secondary source for their investigation; this information is still online in the present on an active website and a lack of update doesn't prove it has been superseded since then - in fact quite the contrary.

(ii) So I have a question for you which is honestly not meant to sound facetious so please take it in good faith. Imagine we were working on an article about a Viking settlement in Canada; one Norwegian academic finds manuscripts that enables him to break the story that the settlement exists and says it was an exclusively Viking town of 2000 people; but in his publication he says that he has not explored all avenues of enquiry and was not able to conduct an a comprehensive archaeological dig. Then, thanks entirely to the academic's excellent breakthrough, an international team leads the dig and concludes that yes as the academic said it was a Viking settlement but it was a mixed society that included Inuits and Vikings, and it only had 800 people; the team credits the academic as the initiator of the historical breakthrough and the academic endorses the findings of the team. Would an encyclopaedia then present the initial findings of the academic as one conclusion, and the findings of the team as a seperate conclusion, as if they are adversarial theses of equal merit? Personally I don't think so, and that is a loose allegory of my concern here.

(iii) By the way, I am reiterating that Gross' work was essential; I take this opportunity to say that in my view it didn't go far enough - there was a spate of some 20 pogroms in this particular region of north-east Poland specifically in the summer of 1941, and the phenomenon should be mentioned in the lede here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be brusque, but a) a website which discusses a work in progress and was last updated in 2001 is simply not appropriate for use here, and b) we're not interested in your views of Gross' work or various inapt analogies. Let's just present the findings of the various reliable secondary sources, without editorializing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The IPN's investigation has been conclusive and its 2003 report is available online here (in Polish of course). Gross himself commented favourably on the IPN's work in a number of interviews. Interestingly, the IPN's chief prosecutor in charge of the investigation found out (in its course) that he is Jewish himself .... which he was not aware of before.

Anyway, has there been since a lot of other research of the pogrom, beyond Gross and IPN ? Let's bring them up. --Lysy^talk 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides, frankly, I find all the discussion on whether there were any Germans present or not, quite pathetic. --Lysy^talk 00:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, that was unnecessarily brusque. I'm surprised that you as an old hand would go in for such a tone. You clearly are interested in my view about Gross because you earlier alleged that I have many problems with his study, which was a false assumption on your part. I have the right to reply to that, and to explain my position more than once if your discourse gives the impression that you are holding on to the idea. I used the analogy in an effort to work at a solution, in good faith. You know that your reaction could have been more constructive. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Lysy, there has been a lot of subsequent research from all kinds of POVs, the best is probably the US academic Michlic. Remember the IPN is purely an institution, it does not speak with one voice: several international scholars put in their subsequent studies under the auspices of the IPN, and they all represent a slightly different aspect and don't necessarily represent the voice of the IPN. The presence of Germans is important for one key reason: it is the threshold for the use of the term 'collaboration' besides 'anti-Semitism' and 'murder'. This was not just Polish anti-Semitic murder, it was Polish collaboration with Nazism as well as anti-Semitic murder. An encyclopaedia should tell it how it is. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Chumchum. Jayjg, in his surly mode, will probably rigthly reprimend me here for expressing my own opinion but still I cannot resist. During the Nazi occupation of Poland any activity, violent or not, against Jews can be considered collaboration and complicity in the Holocaust. It is estimated that some 200 thousand Jews out of the 250 thousand hiding in the occupied Poland died in result of the Polish-German (or Nazi if you like) collaboration. Therefore whether there were Germans present on the site of the murder seems rather irrelevant. Especially that it is known and not contested that they were present in the pogroms that took place in other villages in the area. My (strong) impression is that the issue of German presence is usually brought up by Polish nationalists in an attempt to "share the guilt". I've even read claims that the Poles of Jedwabne were forced to kill the Jews by the Germans. This is why I find discussing this rather futile. Regarding IPN, I used its name as a short for the "IPN investigation". I concur that IPN's researches can vary vastly in their quality from excellent to mediocre, depending on a number of factors. As for the IPN's Jedwabne investigation I think they did a very good job, given the circumstances. I doubt if this was their first project, as the article claims (after The Guardian), though. They inherited hundreds of open cases from the previous commission from which they took over already as they were founded. --Lysy^talk 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lysy. There is a difference between a collaborative pogrom such as Jedwabne and a non-collaborative pogrom such as Kielce; it's a long discussion obviously not for this page. Let's agree then that nationalist exploitation is reprehensible and has no place in Wikipedia; equally that relevant and verifiable information should not be wiped from Wikipedia for fear that nationalists might try to exploit it. Nationalists are well handled by Wikipedia through policies such as DIGWUREN, etc.

Now, I'd like to (i) rephrase the relationship between Gross and the IPN studies in terms of logical continuity rather than binary opposition; as far as I recall the words 'erroneous' and 'preliminary' have been rejected as terms for Gross' work (ii) reposition Gross, rather than the Kwasniewski speech, as the main reason for initial publicity about the pogrom (iii) add the wider phenomenon of the 20 or so collaborative pogroms in the summer of 1941, with verifiable explanation about why these incidents took place specifically in that area at that time. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I could only support all three. Again, pardon my unrelated comment but there are some similarity traits in both Jedwabne and Kielce progrom excuses, which follow the same pattern, that the participating Poles were "inspired" by the Nazis (in case of Jedwabne) or by the pro-Soviet communist conspiracy (in case of Kielce). In other words, "Poles would never do it by themselves" if not the bad guys who should at least share the responsibility. OK, enough. --Lysy^talk 18:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Given no further discussion for 4 days, I'll start the changes with point (ii). -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Neighbors

Gross first published his "Neighbors" in May 2000, not in 2001. The English translation/edition was published in 2001. --Lysy^talk 14:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so too, but then looked for and couldn't find a reference to show 2000. Have you got one? -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the book itself as a reference ? Gross, Jan Tomasz (2000). Sąsiedzi. Historia zagłady żydowskiego miasteczka (in Polish). Sejny: Pogranicze. ISBN 8386872136.

Also here: "Late May 2000. The publication of Sąsiedzi. Historia zagłady żydowskiego miasteczka by Pogranicze, Sejny. Two thousand copies are printed. However, because of public demand, the publisher makes the book accessible to readers free of charge on the Internet." in Antony Polonsky & Joanna B. Michlic (ed.). The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland. Princeton University Press. p. 454. ISBN 9780691113067. {{cite book}}: Text "year 2003" ignored (help). --Lysy^talk 18:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editions in other languages:

• English, Princeton University Press, 2001
• German, Verlag C.H. Beck, Munich, 2001
• Hebrew, Yad Vashem Publications, Jerusalem, 2001
• Italian, Mondadori, Rome, 2002
• Dutch, De Bezige Bij, Amsterdam, 2002
• French, Fayard, Paris, 2002
• Spanish, Editorial Critica, Madrid, 2002
• Romanian, Polrom, Cluj, 2002
• Russian, Text Publishers, Moscow

so, claiming that it was published in 2001 is ... rather U.S. centric. --Lysy^talk 18:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - please add the citation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Combative editing

Civility issues have already been raised higher up this page. Then we were mid talk-page discussion, which involved some agreement between myself and Lysy, to which Jayjg did not contribute. It fell silent for 4 days, then I stated that I would make changes given the silence. Then, without discussion, my changes were rearranged. Please can somebody, in a cool manner, explain what is going on? Failing that, it will be time for objective observation in the form of administrator intervention, per WP:DIGWUREN, which has special measures and guidance for conduct in the Eastern Europe topic area. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are unresolved issues, please consider asking for mediation at WT:POLAND first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd never heard of WT:POLAND. Does it have a record of finding solutions on subjects that are a matter of Polish national reputation? -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think so. Worst case, you've nothing to loose from asking for more comments before escalating things to the admin intervention level. See also WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Mediation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I only want to state that I did not ask Jayjg for this edit neither on nor off the wikipedia. Actually, my impression was that we are getting close to a consensus with Chumchum and are moving towards collaborative editing. --Lysy^talk 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding the issue here. I was away from Wikipedia for a week, then came back and made some edits to a section that removed repetition and trivia, and improved the writing and chronological flow. Since then other editors have made various other edits. There haven't been any significant "civility issues" or "combative editing" that I've seen - though it was obviously inappropriate, I certainly wasn't going to make a big deal of your description of me as "surly". What's the exact problem? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any major problems with your edit. In fact I see most of it being very constructive. I actually wanted to avoid the impression that Chumchum might have, that while trying to build a consensus with him I invited you to do some partisan edits. Probably this comment of mine was not necessary so I'll not explain any more in order not to continue this thread. As for the 'surly', hey, every editor on the wiki has some different flavour and there's nothing wrong with that. I joked if you have not noticed :) --Lysy^talk 18:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentence moved here for discussion

I've moved the following sentence here for discussion:

Jan T. Gross himself praised the conduct of the IPN investigation.

While Gross' investigation of the Jedwabne pogrom was certainly significant, as was the IPN's, this article is actually about the pogrom itself. It's not clear to me why Gross' comments on or evaluation of the IPN investigation is particularly relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It is relevant because it shows there is consensus between Gross and the IPN. I understand your rationale for having Gross' findings separated from the IPN's, but the problem is that this gives the impression there isn't agreement between Gross and the IPN - which is wrong. With this comment Gross is conceding that in 2000/1 he was inaccurate on two points, the figure of 1600 and the absence of Germans; moreover he even stated in his 2000/1 study that his research was not comprehensive (he didn't use German sources, nor did he excavate the site). One has to not presume that every qualification of Gross's findings and methodology here is derived from Polish nationalism. I propose the Gross/IPN studies are merged into one section, stating clearly that it is thanks to Gross that the investigation started, and thanks to the IPN that his findings were refined. The two are mutually complimentary, and not in opposition. The presence of German forces and the body count of 340 is an academic / investigative consensus that was only reached thanks to what Gross started. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, none of us has a monopoly on moving content here for discussion. The following information is present in the article without qualification, even though is has be superceded by the IPN and Gross has endorsed the IPN's findings:

Gross concluded that, contrary to Stalinist proclamations, the Jews in Jedwabne had been rounded up and killed by mobs of their own Polish neighbors without any supervision or assistance from an Einsatzgruppe or other German force. He referred to the number of victims (1,600) presented on a memorial stone in Jedwabne erected by communist authorities, later removed and deposited in the Polish Army Museum in Białystok.

In the interests of collegiality I have not moved this unqualified content, but it is hereby up for review. I suggest simply adding a sentence to explain that this information is outdated and has been revised by the academic / investigative consensus that Gross is an instrumental part of. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

O.K., we're running into the same problem here that we ran into before. Please keep in mind this article is about the Jedwabne pogrom, not Gross' book. Gross' book was important in that it brought this incident to the attention of the West, and spurred further academic research. This article does not, in any way, support Gross' conclusions or state he was correct - nor does it give this impression. Nor, for that matter, does it argue with Gross' or attempt to debunk him. It simply summarises his conclusions, and then moves on to more recent studies. This article is not a fight between Jews and Polish nationalists, and we must not write it as if it were - or, alternatively, to write it in order to undermine either "side". We cannot insert argumentative OR about Gross' work being "preliminary" or "superceded", or insist on arguing that he agreed with later studies, or supported them. These claims are not relevant to this article. This article is (or should be) simply a fairly dry, mostly chronological recitation of what happened, and what later research said about it; let's leave the polemics and apologetics for other websites. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First: regarding the sentence: 'Jan T. Gross himself praised the conduct of the IPN investigation.' I recommend that a SPECIFIC CITATION be provided for this sentence. The purpose is not to be contentious, but so that we know WHICH STATEMENT BY GROSS we are talking about. Gross made a number of comments on the IPN investigation, and he did not praise it unreservedly - for example, he questioned the conduct of the exhumation. The best citation that I know about is Gross' POSTSCRIPT to the paperback edition of 'Neighbors.' This postscript could be cited as Gross' 'praise,' where he welcomes the fact that IPN appears to accept his broad thesis. (If someone knows of a better CITATION, it would be welcome).

Second: while the points raised by Jayjg are very constructive, I DEFEND the inclusion of the sentence 'J T Gross himself praised...' (or a better CITATION) in the article. Why? Because 'Neighbors' is by far the best-selling English-language book on the Jedwabne massacre, it is the one an English-speaking reader is most likely to have read, or to read in the future, and - as far as I know - 'Neighbors' has never been revised since the original 2001 English-language edition. That edition pre-dates the IPN investigation. It is relevant for a Wikipedia reader to know whether subsequent IPN research corroborated, or conflicted with, the best-selling English-language account. Putting my point in different terms: EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE JEDWABNE POGROM TODAY is contained in a few documents such as 'Neighbors,' the IPN Findings ('Postanowienie....'), 'Wokół Jedwabnego' and a few other sources. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE READER TO KNOW WHETHER THEY AGREE (in fact, they are far from agreeing perfectly - but there's a common core, which is what IPN settled on).

Third: I STRONGLY DISAGREE with a proposal to combine the 'Neighbors' section with the 'IPN Investigation' section. THESE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS, even though unquestionably the furor created by 'Neighbors' caused the Polish Parliament to order the IPN investigation. THERE IS A COMMON MIS-APPREHENSION that IPN set out to either 'confirm' or 'refute' Gross' findings in 'Neighbors.' THIS IS FALSE, even though IPN's findings did confirm some of Gross' statements, disagreed with some others, and made no comment on a host of other statements in 'Neighbors.' IPN has statutory responsibilities under Polish law, with the powers of a prosecutor to identify violators; and IPN had a charge from the Polish Parliament. IPN WAS NOT GIVEN THE TASK OF AGREEING OR DISAGREEING WITH THE CONTENT OF 'NEIGHBORS.' IPN DID NOT 'REFINE' GROSS' ACCOUNT IN 'NEIGHBORS.' IPN stated its conclusions in its very carefully-worded July 10, 2002 statement (remember, Radosław Ignatiew was a lawyer, a very careful prosecutor) and in IPN's expanded, 203-page 2003 'Postanowienie.' IPN CONCLUDED EXACTLY WHAT WAS IN THOSE STATEMENTS, AND NO MORE. If you were to cut back the text of Gross' 'Neighbors' to those things which IPN confirmed, over half of the book would vanish!

Fourth: LET'S BE CAREFUL, TO MAKE ACCURATE QUOTATIONS ! Chumchum writes: 'Gross conceding in 2000/1 that he was inaccurate on two points, the figure of 1600 and the absence of Germans....' WHERE DID GROSS CONCEDE THIS? IS THERE A CITATION? On page 76 of my Hardcover copy of 'Neighbors,' I read: 'There was an outpost of German gendarmerie in Jedwabne, staffed by eleven men. We can also infer from various sources that a group of Gestapo men arrived in town by taxi either on that day or the previous one." In 'Neighbors,' Gross recognized that the Germans were present in Jedwabne during the massacre - the only issue was, WHAT ROLE DID THE GERMANS PLAY? Regarding the German role, a second quotation: "Gross concluded that......the Jews in Jedwabne had been rounded up and killed by mobs of their Polish neighbors without any assistance or supervision from any Einsatzgruppe or other German force." GROSS MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT, at least not in my copy of 'Neighbors.' Instead, what Gross actually writes, on page 77: 'At the time, the undisputed bosses over life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organized could take place there without their consent. They were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews. It was within their power also to stop the murderous pogrom at any time....' The word 'supervise,' in the above quotation, is especially inappropriate. Literally, to 'supervise' means to 'oversee', meaning to 'have before one's eyes,' and the German gendarmerie post on Jedwabne's square looked out on the place where the initial group of Jewish men were subjected to humiliation - the Germans had the first phase of the pogrom before their eyes, they (literally) 'supervised.'

NOTICE: I am considering contributing a re-editing of the 'Neighbors' section of the 'Jedwabne Pogrom' article. I believe this section needs to be ACCURATE, DETAILED, and written from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Prospero10 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Prospero10, for such a thorough contribution. I'm sure I haven't been able to absorb all of it, so why not write your proposed revision, right here on the Talk page. That way, we'd all have full visibility of what you're proposing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chumchum7. Good idea. Please give me a few days.Prospero10 (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Prospero10. Gross' views of the IPN investigation may be relevant, but we don't even know what they were, based on the vague quote we have. In any event, they'd need to be referred to by a reliable secondary source before we could really quote them. I've removed the problematic material you brought up. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the exact words on Gross on the IPN investigation were: "To było bardzo przyzwoicie zrobione śledztwo" (in his statement for Polish Press Agency). Easy to find references for this on the web. So I hope that at least nobody contests that Gross clearly praises the investigation conduct. He also repeated this in a number of interviews and press conferences later. --Lysy^talk 18:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that means "they did a decent investigation". It's not clear exactly what this means - is Gross saying he agrees with their results? That he repudiates his previous conclusions? That he agrees with some and not with others? Given both the unclear relevance and lack of clarity around what Gross said, this material really must stay out of the article until it's cleared up - please review WP:BLP very carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a sourcing issue, BLP has nothing to do with it. I ran that Polish quote through Google Translate, as I don't speak Polish, and Lysy's interpretation looks fine to me. Jayjg, you might win consensus if you show willingness to address all problematical content, not just the content you individually see a problem with. If you move the content I italicized above, as well as the content you have an issue with, in one edit, I will support your change. That would demonstrate collegiality. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When I say WP:BLP I mean WP:BLP. At that point, all reverting of the problematic material into the article stops, and discussion on a Talk: page commences - "collegiality" becomes irrelevant. I've already addressed other content that was raised as "problematic", but we're not horse-trading here. WP:BLPREMOVE is very clear - the material is removed immediately, regardless of any other material you may object to or wish to change in an article. We can discuss this, but do not revert it in again. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"To było bardzo przyzwoicie zrobione śledztwo" - literally, "That was a very decently conducted investigation". It means "That was a very well conducted investigation" or possibly "very thorough". Regardless that word "very" is very much in there. You can also read the introduction to later editions of Gross' book where he heaps lots of praise on the IPN investigation.

As Chumchum7 says, this isn't a BLP issue and invoking BLP here is inappropriate. Nor does this have anything to do with any kinds of arguments between various nationalists. It's also obviously relevant - you can't "just recite what happened" if sources disagree as to what happened. Here we're pointing out that two of them actually don't.  Volunteer Marek  15:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I should also be a bit more specific and point out that EVEN IF IPN was being critical of Gross, this would still NOT be a BLP issue. Otherwise, you could exclude any kind of disagreement or criticism of any work by any living author from any article, which is obviously NOT what the BLP policy says nor how it is applied. This is a sourcing issue (and the info is sourced), rather than a BLP issue. You can take it to BLP board or elsewhere and the good folks there (should) will tell you the same thing.

Hence I'm restoring the sentence. Volunteer Marek  16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. And for the record this, summarized as a "caution", was recently posted on my talk page:

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jedwabne pogrom. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC) [11]

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to discuss this, but WP:BLPREMOVE is quite clear; until this is resolved, it stays out. I can protect the article and even block editors who re-add it. I've also brought it to the relevant noticeboard. There's no urgency here, and the matter will likely be resolved in under a week. Until then, respect WP:BLP, and avoid sanction. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm surprised to read your comment "I can protect the article and even block editors who re-add it". I've edited with administrators on WWII subjects in the past, for example Future Perfect at Sunrise, who I once asked:

"I would like you to explain how you are going to work at consensus fairly on this article while you wield sanctioning power. To my mind, admins have the role of guidance and law enforcement; for reasons of professionalism comparable to the real world, they are at their best when they don't interfere in the ordinary, law-abiding progress of everyday life. You'll appreciate that one could be reluctant to join a party in which one man is carrying a gun, even if he is the nicest and wisest man in town."

He replied: "Obviously, now that I've become involved here as an editor, I won't be doing admin/enforcement stuff on any further conflicts related to this article... I'll just be a normal part of the editorial discussion." [12]

From this I'd formed the the impression that admins become editors when they start editing. So when FPAS used the word "obviously", should I interpret that as him talking not about a specific Wikipedia policy on administrators' conduct, but about his personal choice? -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, please take a step back and re-read WP:INVOLVED. As a participant in this spat, you are in no position to threaten to protect this article or block people for editing it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Malik, you should review WP:BLPREMOVE, which clearly states "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved.". WP:BLP overrides WP:INVOLVED. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE refers to "clear BLP violations", and you seem to be the only person who sees a BLP problem here. I'm sympathetic to your argument about not including the sentence, but I don't understand how it's a BLP problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If Gross' view on the IPN investigation is being misrepresented, is that not a BLP issue? Isn't it worth at least discussing, rather than insisting on immediate restoration to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you need further clarification as to why it's a BLP issue, please see this statement by Dominus Vobisdu below. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Malik) This is simply not a BLP issue. We have source A (Gross) which is used in the article. We have source B (IPN) which is used in the article. And then we have the statement to the effect that source A said something nice about source B. Where is the BLP issue here?

EVEN if Gross was being critical of IPN (an organization) this would not be a BLP issue. It would simply be the presentation of two different reliable sourced viewpoints, per NPOV. But we don't even have that.

And EVEN EVEN if this involved IPN being critical of Gross this would not be a BLP issue but simply presentation of two different reliable sourced viewpoints, per NPOV. But we don't have that either.

So again, where is the BLP issue? I'm very sorry but it seems like the BLP policy is being invoked inappropriately in order to remove a statement which a particular editor, Jayjg, doesn't like for some reason (perhaps due to unfamiliarity with the actual sources? I don't know).

Virtually EVERY article on Wikipedia makes use of sources written by living authors. To pretend that BLP implies that we are not allowed to use other reliable sources which ... not even disagree, but just comment, on them is silly. If that was the case we simply could not have an encyclopedia. To suggest that BLP implies that we are not allowed to use sources by living authors which comment on other sources (in this case by an organization) is even more out there.

And then templating established editors with nasty looking warnings, threatening to protect the page and block people who disagree with you on top of this inappropriate use of BLP policy... well, that just starts looking like bad faith.

I should probably also mention that there's at least 4 editors who disagree with Jayjg on this. A pretty clear consensus.  Volunteer Marek  18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed WP:BLPREMOVE yet? It says you should remove immediately any problematic material, that 3RR does not apply, and that I can protect the page or block if there are persistent issues. You should also review WP:NPA, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Now, the issue has been raised at the appropriate board, and there's no emergency to re-add this sentence. Start taking BLP seriously, and let the process complete. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have. Here's the thing. First it's irrelevant here as quite simply this isn't a BLP issue. Have you reviewed WP:BLP yet? By your logic we could never make use of any text which refers to other sources by living authors. That would not only be in direct violation of NPOV, it would essentially mean the removal of ... pretty much most of the encyclopedia.

Second, BLPREMOVE refers to "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" with a "see also Libel" . Here the material is well sourced, and essentially not contentious (yes, you object to it, for some unknown reason. Nobody else does - the usual term for this is "consensus is against you"). And obviously there's nothing close to Libel. You are invoking a policy which is simply irrelevant here.

Third, I take BLP very seriously. Part of taking BLP seriously means not cheapening, diluting it, or abusing it when it is inappropriate. Invoking BLP when it is very clearly not appropriate sort of suggest that you are the one who should "start" to take BLP seriously.

By invoking BLP where it doesn't belong, in this particular context, you've just given rhetorical ammunition to all the people out there who think that Wikipedia's BLP policy is a joke, because its "real" purpose is not to actually protect living people but for some editors to try and gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Which is what you're doing here. At the expanse of all the other BLPs out there. I don't think this was your intention, but that is the effect.  Volunteer Marek  18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim that you "take BLP very seriously". Perhaps you can explain, then, given that someone had stated it was a BLP issue, why it was an emergency to get this specific sentence immediately restored to the article? Why it couldn't wait even a day to be restored? Or for the outcome of a BLP noticeboard discussion? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, please see this statement by Dominus Vobisdu below. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

FYI: Here is a newspaper source citing Gross in greater detail, and here is a Google translation of the article. I don't know whether that's helpful to anybody. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: The page in question is page 2 of a three-page news article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the same source as the one that was being used in the article, just on a different web page, where Gross says "that was a very well conducted investigation" (he says "przyzwocie", which literally means "decently" but here it means "well" or even "professionally"). We could always use the quote verbatim. And like I said above (though I don't have Neighbors handy right now but in the introduction, postscript and throughout the second edition of the book Gross heaps praise upon the IPN investigation and defends it against "extreme right wingers" and such.  Volunteer Marek  18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that the sentence is used in a non-neutral way to make it seem that Gross agrees specifically with the conclusion of the IPN presented in the previous sentence (there being no more living perpetrators). This would amount to putting words in Gross's mouth, and as such would indeed be a violation of BLP. I also agree with him that Gross's opinion of the investigation is not particularly relevant or notable. I agree that the sentence should be left out entirely. I believe WP:BLP trumps consensus here, and that WP:BLPREMOVE applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's the problem then a clarification is necessary or just separating that part from the rest of the paragraph. Part of the problem may be with the preceding sentences rather than the sentence under dispute. Basically I can see how some may think that it isn't stated clearly enough that the IPN broadly agreed with Gross. This is sort of said at the end of the first paragraph but is not made explicit.

But either way, it's still not a BLP issue. Even if you were 100% correct it would be a straight forward misuse of the source. The fact that the source happens to be living is not enough to make it BLP - almost all sources used on Wikipedia are from living authors.

And yes, Gross' opinion of the investigation is quite notable. He comments extensively on it in the second edition of his book and it was subject of discussion in both popular press and scholarly work. Basically, the two sources validated and legitimized each other. Volunteer Marek  18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with VM. While clarification may be needed, it is an important quote, and most certainly not a BLP issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If "clarification is needed" about what someone stated, and it relates to their own expertise and professional credibility, then it is ipso facto a BLP issue. What you have said, in effect, is that "it's not a BLP issue, we just didn't represent Gross' accurately". Or, "it's not a BLP issue, it's just a BLP issue". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's not what I said at all (speaking of putting words in somebody's mouth!). "in effect" or otherwise. What I said is that even if there's something unclear here (which i don't think there is), then we just need to clarify it. The "unclearness" is not in relation to the sentence you're talking about but perhaps about some other portions of the paragraph. See the difference? Gross is being presented accurately.  Volunteer Marek  19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded to Piotrus, not you. Please follow the indenting to understand how threads work. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take your passive aggressive condescension somewhere else. As crazy as it may seem I happen to understand how threads work. And no, you were responding to both of us. Please conduct the discussion in good faith without insulting other editors. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take your unabashedly aggressive attitude somewhere else. As crazy as it may seem I both know how threads work and happen to know to whom I was responding. In this case, it would be the person who said clarification is needed, as would be obvious to anyone who was actually following the thread. Please conduct the discussion in good faith without insulting other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

VM has it in a nutshell, the two sources validated and legitimized each other. This is what the article needs to show very clearly and it isn't quite there yet. The point would equally be a problem both for (i) anti-Semites who wish to lie about Jedwabne or Gross, and (ii) anyone who seeks to characterize the Jedwabne debate as a simple battle between Gross and anti-Semitism. BTW, that's why I objected to the separation of the Gross and IPN paragraphs, because separation gives the illusion of divisiveness. They're interconnected in a way that the postwar and German trials are not. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Proposed reformulation: I propose the following formulation:

"While not specifically agreeing or disagreeing with all or any of the conclusions reached by the IPN, Jan T. Gross stated that he thought that the investigation was "decently conducted". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that actually seems to accurately represent what Gross said, as opposed to the sentence that was there before! Whether or not it is required is another question, but at least that's accurate and not a BLP violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it's more accurate? You read Polish, Jayjg? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the same way you somehow knew that Lysy's interpretation looked fine? The same way you had no objection when Volunteer Marek translated it? Anyway, I'm done responding to your pointless sniping, because I have only the time and interest to deal with the BLP issue. If you have any personal questions for me, feel free to post them on my Talk: page, where I'll deal with them appropriately. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You have still completely failed to articulate why exactly this is a BLP issue, either here or at BLPN. The tactic appears to be to invoke BLPREMOVE as an excuse for IDON'TLIKEIT edit, not bother to explain what in the hey this has to do with BLP (it doesn't) and then resort to this "I don't have time" excuse to just leave the issue in limbo. So again, how in the world is this a BLP issue? Volunteer Marek  19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did articulate it, in this statement and this statement. Or you could read this statement by Dominus Vobisdu. The rest of your comment was just a vague personal attack, so it was ignored. Next time, please read the comments of other editors, and discuss only article content. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh... no. Gross praised the IPN investigation. Saying "specifically agreeing or disagreeing" is original research unless you can provide a citation to that effect. So why not just say... "Gross praised the IPN investigation". And again, there is no BLP violation here unless you REALLY don't understand BLP policy. Which an administrator should. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Gross said it was "decently conducted". Did he make any comment about its conclusions? If so, what were they? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He said "very (decently) conducted". As I already said like four or five times, "przyzowicie" here means "well" or "professionally". But ok, let's go with "decently". So we put into the article that Gross said "the IPN investigation was very decently conducted".

What is the point of the other two questions? If I say "Person X is a good Wikipedia editor" are you going to question the fact that I said "X is a good editor" by asking someone "what else did Volunteer Marek say? did he agree with everything that person X ever did in their life?" - it's a pointless and irrelevant rhetorical trick. We go with what sources say Gross said. Not speculate about other stuff. Volunteer Marek  19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of the other questions is to understand the relevance and meaning of the statement; without that, there's no point including it. Or, to use your words, it's "pointless and irrelevant". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it sounds like you're trying to "mind-read" the source or Gross under the guise of "understand the relevance and meaning". Which is original research on your part. The statement by Gross is pretty straight forward. Volunteer Marek  20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it sounds like you're trying to "mind-read" and insult me under the guise of objecting to "original research". The statement by Gross is vague and unclear; if it weren't then editors would be able to actually state what the context was, and to what he was referring. The quote might as well say "Gross thought the IPN investigation was nice". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't insult you. You on the other hand have been rude, condescending and acted like a bully throughout this whole discussion, beginning with trying to intimidate established users by slapping up their talk pages with unwarrented templates. Since you have the audacity to ask others for apologies below, how about you begin by apologizing for this kind of behavior. Especially since one would expect a higher standard from an administrator.

There's nothing vague about Gross' statement. The context is simple - he is commenting on the IPN investigation. If the quote was "Gross thought the IPN investigation was nice" then that would be the text we'd be putting in the article. The quote is actually "the IPN conducted a very proper investigation" so that's what I'll be putting in the article. Volunteer Marek  02:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg, try to be nice. That was not me sniping, that was an honest, good faith question. How do I know whether or not you read Polish? Some people do, clearly DV does. I told you earlier that I used Google Translate to see that Lysy looked pretty much right. So am guessing from your reply that you used Google Translate to see that DV's version has improved accuracy. That's ok and it's really not a big deal. I'll ask DV instead.

@DV, thanks. I've a query that I wanted to put to Jayjg if he spoke Polish - obviously being 'Decent' has two meanings in English - either (i) highly virtuous or (ii) good quality. Virtuous decency is an issue here because some rabbis objected to the graves being disturbed obviously for religious reasons; decency in terms of quality might indicate the professionalism of the forensic examination. I suspect that whatever the Polish word is that you translated it from isn't quite as nuanced. Might there be a better word? Or does the Polish word really translate so perfectly? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

And FWIW my Google Translate also has 'properly' as an alternative word. That's more along the lines of VM's 'well', it seems. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What a controversy!! I never would have imagined that this innocent sentence by Gross could inspire so much excitement. Since I speak Polish, I will offer another translation: "This was a very properly conducted investigation"

(The adverb 'przyzwoicie' comes from the Polish adjective 'przyzwoity,' for which the best English translation I can think of is: 'proper').

On another subject: I am finalizing a proposed Revision of the 'Neighbors' section, as promised above in 'Talk,' and will soon post it on this page. In fact, I propose to revise some following sections also. Having seen the vigorous discussion so far, about just one sentence, after posting my proposed revisions, I will have to run for cover ! Prospero10 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Prospero. Assuming you're not a Polish nationalist and haven't deliberately misrepresented Gross's words, I propose you place that quote where the sentence paraphrasing it used to be. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Chumchum7, to quote you, "try to be nice". We don't need the mockery and sarcasm contained in the statement "Assuming you're not a Polish nationalist and haven't deliberately misrepresented Gross's words". Since you're the one who has consistently complained about an alleged lack of civility and collegial atmosphere here, feel free to set an example by apologizing for and retracting that dig. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a dig. I clearly addressed Prospero alone, told him or her I'm taking the translation on good faith, and encourage the use of the quote. Whether a paraphrase might be better than a Wikipedian's translation of the quote is something to think about, per a very strict or literal reading of WP:OR (unless we have guidelines on translating quotes, do we?). Jayjg, I'm respectfully letting you know I find some of your posts unnecessarily aggressive and counter-productive, and I do believe these are derived from innocent misperception. I have never once been sanctioned in any way, I have been involved in arbitration cases, and I'm confident of my record. If several editors have a problem with personal conduct on this page, then let's launch an objective WP:RFC/U on all parties, myself included. In the meantime, both WP:BAIT and WP:SHUN are options we all have as alternatives - and we should notify whoever we apply the latter to before using it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Gross on the IPN

Gross says the IPN conducted "a more than yearlong, intense, and scrupulous investigation" (p.346) and that "such deserved respect and admiration as the country has received in the world for boldly confronting its unflattering past was due [to] the unwavering clarity with which Poland's president has always spoken on the issue; the unflinching determination of Prof. Leon Kieres and the IPN to carry out an honest and thorough investigation..." (p.369)

in The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland by Antony Polonsky, Joanna B. Michlic (Editors) Princeton University Press; New Ed edition (24 Nov 2003)

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

From the same book, I'm inviting all parties here to also read this [13] article from Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, as I'm assessing whether it is worth us quoting excerpts from it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Are we all agreed then that the paraphrase "Jan T. Gross himself praised the conduct of the IPN investigation" is not a mischaracterization of Gross's comment "This was a very properly conducted investigation" ? Is someone going to add one of these quotes now? One could, alternatively or additionally, add that he said it was an "intense, and scrupulous investigation" that was "honest and thorough". -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so we don't have to waste our time going through this kind of nonsense again I think it might be best to just quote him directly.

To address Dominus Vobisdu (legitimate) concern above, the paragraph describing Gross' views of the IPN investigation should be separated from the already existing two paragraphs which summarize the IPN investigation itself, just to make 108% sure that no impression is given that Gross' opinions refer to any particular finding of the IPN, rather than the investigation as a whole. So, like, put in a line-space between the second paragraph and the info on Gross' views.

Other than that include all three sources - the quote about "very proper investigation" from the original source as well what you have up immediately above.  Volunteer Marek  00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@VM, Agreed.

@Prospero, would this edit fit well with what you are working on? Got something for us yet? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally concur, except that I would like to see A LOT more separation than a simple paragraph break separating Gross's comments from the conclusions of the investigation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Like what?  Volunteer Marek  12:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not yet posting my PROPOSED REVISIONS promised nearly a week ago. I hope to post them in the next 24 hours. My proposal will expand the present 3 Sections, 'Neighbors,' 'IPN Investigation,' Kwasniewski's speech,' into 4 sections TO REFLECT THE CORRECT CHRONOLOGY: 'Neighbors,' 'IPN Investigation,' 'Kwasniewski's speech, and Polish Public Opinion,' 'IPN's Final Findings.'

WHY? Because Kwasniewski's speech was given one year AFTER IPN commenced its investigation, but one year BEFORE IPN issued its Final Findings. The article in its present form gives the FALSE IMPRESSION that Kwasniewski spoke before IPN carried out its investigation. Leon Kieres of IPN had in fact made public a preliminary outline of IPN's findings in early 2001, and it was public knowledge by July 2001 when Kwasniewski spoke that IPN had found that a group of Poles were perpetrators in the Jedwabne massacre. The summary version of the Final Findings was only published on July 10, 2002, one year AFTER Kwasniewski's speech. The July 2002 summary version gave far more detail on IPN's Findings.

As for Gross' comment "this was a very properly/well/decently conducted investigation," there will be ample opportunity to insert this in my Proposed Revision, if so desired.

CAREFUL, CAREFUL: the statement "this was a very properly conducted investigation" DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY "I agree with the conclusions of the investigation" - THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS. It is CONCEIVABLE that one may say that an investigation was "conducted well," but nevertheless to disagree with part of the conclusions (or even all of the conclusions). Personally, I do not find Gross' statement problematical - he said exactly what he wanted to say. My own personal interpretation is, that Gross felt reassured that the investigation did not sweep politically sensitive issues under the rug, as is a common pattern in Governmental investigations of politically sensitive matters. The IPN investigation in fact came to conclusions different from Gross' 'Neighbors' on a number of points. But the differences (and I think that Gross implicitly aknowledged this) were not politically motivated.

On an unrelated point: Jan Nowak-Jezioranski in his article in 'The Neighbors Respond' was really participating in a debate which developed after the Jedwabne Pogrom became a public issue, he was not focussing on the facts of the pogrom. If his comments belong in the article, I think you would need a new Section with some title like "Debate about the Jedwabne Pogrom."

Finally, I apologize again about delaying my Proposed Revision. I hope to post it soon.Prospero10 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good and take your time. Better to get it right than to get it quickly. Volunteer Marek  17:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. Yes, Jan Nowak-Jezioranski was participating in a debate which developed as the Jedwabne Pogrom became a public issue, but he was surely contributing to publicity. If your plan was to have a section about "Kwasniewski's speech, and Polish Public Opinion" I suggest you tweak so that "Polish public opinion" moves to together with a section "Opinion and debate" because the debate was both popular and academic, in Poland and worldwide, including in Israel, Western Europe and America. The debate was about all kinds of things - the pogrom, Gross himself, Poland itself, the Kwasniewski speech, the IPN itself, etc etc. And Gross participated in it. Here's a bigger excerpt from around the Gross quote I provided above, describing the debate, we can block-quote in an "opinion and debate" section:

"During the yearlong public debate concerning the Jedwabne massacre, Poland's good name has been put to a hard test by assorted defenders from the nationalist spectrum of public opinion. And such deserved respect and admiration as the country has received in the world for boldly confronting its unflattering past was due instead to the unwavering clarity with which Poland's president has always spoken on the issue; the unflinching determination of Prof. Leon Kieres and the IPN to carry out an honest and thorough investigation; to first-rate investigative reporting on the issue by the two main daily newspapers in Poland, Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta Wyborcza; to excellent coverage and commentary in two most important Polish weeklies, Polityka and Wprost; to profound and gripping reflections on Jedwabne and its implications in the most highly respected venues of the Catholic intelligentsia - the weekly Tygodnik Powszechny and the monthly Więź; to the funding by Polish public television and broadcasting in prime time of a searing two-hour documentary by Agnieszka Arnold and to many a program and interview carried by various radio and television stations in Poland." That's Gross on p.369 in Michlic/Polonsky (2003). Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also this [14] pretty sour, if not aggressive, response from Gross's fellow American academic, Richard C. Lukas. It appears after Gross at pp.430-433 in Michlic/Polonsky (2003). -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Debate on the Jedwabne Pogrom

(FILL IN THIS SECTION?)

END OF PROPOSED REVISION

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. MAY I SUGGEST that anyone who wishes to suggest changes to the above Revision, should FIRST, COPY THE SECTION to be changed, THEN make the changes IN THE COPY – so that we can compare! Otherwise, we will have chaos!

2. IF THERE IS CONSENSUS on the Revision, possibly including suggested changes, PERHAPS IN A WEEK OR 10 DAYS a FINAL VERSION might be incorporated in the article.

I look forward to your reviewProspero10 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding work Prospero. My main comment for now is that it reads a bit like a Bloomberg newswire report, in that it is big on information but the narrative flow - and therefore readability for the casual encyclopaedia reader - might be improvable. The IPN report and Neighbours should probably be kept at equal weight. Additionally, we ought to make a clear assessment about whether information going into the 'opinion and debate' section is about (i) the pogrom or (ii) Neighbours, or (iii) both. At present my positions is that (iii) both makes sense, if clearly flagged as one or the other; I say this because the opinion and debate about Neighbours is inseparable from the opinion and debate about the pogrom, and indeed much of the dialogue has been caused by the overlapping of the two during reception of publicity about the pogrom 1999-2003. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work, Prospero10. I'll read it over carefully over the weekend. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The other thing is the issue which originally started the controversy above - the cross-references between the IPN report and Gross. I do think it is important and very notable to include the fact that Gross expressed his support for the IPN investigation. I think this was the "original bone of contention" here on Wikipedia (not in the sources) but at this point it has been established pretty thoroughly that Gross was very supportive of IPN. I'm not sure if this should be included in the "Debate" section, since it's not really a "debate" - for the most part the two sources agree on the basics (though of course there might be differences on the details, as usually happens). So perhaps it could go into one of the other sections. And again, at this point, and having gone through the above unpleasant experience, it would probably be best just to quote Gross directly here. Volunteer Marek  22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

VERY, VERY QUICK COMMENT: I agree with Chumchum7 that the flow could be improved. If in the 'Neighbors, 2000-2001' section one cuts out the first two paragraphs, from "Public awareness" to "...were also published" - keeping only a very short introductory sentence, like "In May 2000 Jan T. Gross published 'Neighbors" - then the flow is much better. (The two paragraphs could be moved to the end of the section).

Remember, however, that the issue and debate about the Jedwabne pogrom is and was about WHAT ARE THE FACTS? To report that, one cannot avoid listing the key factual issues.Prospero10 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is an major issue. Read what Jayjg said:[15] Please keep in mind this article is about the Jedwabne pogrom, not Gross' book. Gross' book was important in that it brought this incident to the attention of the West, and spurred further academic research. -- A. Kupicki (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@A.Kupicki, concur that WEIGHT must be especially kept in mind here, which is really what I was getting in my last post, that actually we have to include Neighbours and responses to it prominently, so long as we do not to emphasise it over the verifiably more empirical IPN findings. The Neighbours study of the pogrom, the IPN study of the pogrom, and the pogrom itself are all inseparable subjects.

@Prospero10, all understood and thanks again.

@VM, absolutely agree that yes, the original content "Jan T. Gross himself praised the conduct of the IPN investigation" should not have been revert-warred over, was not controversial, was not misrepresentative, was not pushed by nationalist Wikipedians, did not undermine Gross, was not a BLP issue, and we should not have had all of our time wasted for the last week or more because false preconceptions were made about this one sentence of content. And yet, we still have no resolution on that, just abandonment of the problem. If location/positioning of the clause in the text is still seen as a case of PPOV, then my hunch is that this can be solved through consensus editing without drama. Either way, the paraphrase or direct quote needs to be put back in at long last because it is the verifiable link between Gross and the IPN. The conclusion of this sorry episode appears to be that there's a myth out there that Poland is generally against Gross and Gross is generally against Poland; this is straightforwardly not the case, and we need to stay vigilant about that preconception as we continue to watch this page. In fact, I've a quote from the intro of the Hebrew edition of Neighbours, saying the Gross's study of Jedwabne is not anti-Polish and does not support the stereotype that the Polish nation is/was anti-Jewish. That's an important add for our opinion/debate section, and should work to dissolve nationalist tendencies from every nation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

From the intro to the Hebrew edition of Neighbours, by David Engel (historian), reprinted from p.410 in Michlic/Polonsky (2003):

• In stark contrast to the Polish self-image, Jewish historical consciousness has conjured over the years an image of Poles as a nation consumed by Jew-hatred, whose children 'imbibe anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk.'
• Gross's study does not point unequivocally to a long-standing tradition of Jew-hatred as the principle cause of the murder. Until the Germans came along, no signs of any special tensions between Poles and Jews in Jedwabne were apparent; on the contrary, it appears that between the two world wars the relations between the two groups were more or less calm.
• there are at present no scholarly grounds for viewing the Jedwabne incident as indicative of a general pattern. It can be assumed that, following Gross's lead, other scholars will devote attention to this matter, but in doing so they will automatically put not only Polish but also Jewish historical memory under critical scrutiny.
• Gross rejects any all-encompassing explanation of the massacre, so that anyone hoping to find in the blook scientific validation for the idea that the Polish people is distinguished by an inborn cultural propesnity to harm Jews will be sorely disappointed.
• Where does one draw a line between the legitimate demand for amends to those who have suffered historical injury as a way to national atonement and catharsis, and an unfair visitation of the sins of the fathers upon the second, third, fourth generations? Today, as the Jewish population of Israel also wrestles with various aspects of this problem, the appearance of Jan Tomasz Gross's book in Hebrew translation appears most timely.

Some of this might work in this article in the section dealing with responses to the publicity about Jedwanbe. Because these comments are not simply about the book, they are about the role of Jedwanbe in culture; in historical, inter-community and moral discourse. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• In 2008 Gross was taken to court by the son of wrongfully accused and tortured Czesław Laudański described in »Neighbors« as a murderer of the Jews. No apology was required in the court's decision. (IPN) Gross removed that statement from the next edition of his book. (IPN, 27/7/2009)
  — A. Kupicki (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Prospero10, for the hard work you put into this. I have a few thought and suggestions:

Neighbors, 2000–2001

'At the time, the undisputed bosses over life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organized [word missing] could take place there without their consent. They were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews. It was within their power also to stop the murderous pogrom at any time....' (As indicated, seems to be missing a word.)

Nevertheless, Gross concluded that the massacre was carried out entirely by Poles from Jedwabne and the surrounding area. As for the German role, he wrote, “the only direct German involvement was........taking pictures” (Does the use of the word "Nevertheless" introduce OR?)

Gross emphasized that Polish perpetrators were not coerced by the Germans: “the ‘’Einsatzgruppen,’’ German police detachments and various functionaries who imjplemented the “final solution” did not compel the local population to participate directly in the murder of Jews.......the so-called local population involved in killings of Jews did so of their own free will.” (p.133) On the broader topic of Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War, Gross wrote that “Poles hurt the Jews in numerous interactions throughout the war.” (strays off-topic)

‘Neighbors’ sparked a controversy in Poland. Some readers refused to accept it as a factual account of the Jedwabne pogrom.(REF, Pogonowski) While Polish historians praised Gross for drawing attention to a topic which had received insufficient attention for a half-century, several historians criticized ‘Neighbors’ on the grounds that it included accounts which were uncorroborated, and that where conflicting testimonies existed, Gross had chosen accepted as true that account which presented the Poles in the worst possible light.(3 REFS, Musial, Strzembosz, Chodakiewicz).

IPN Final Findings 2002-2003

Other sources gave somewhat different estimates. (It would be great if we could put some numbers here)

There are copy-editing issues, but overall I think you did a great job. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Malik Shabazz. In response:

1. Thanks, the MISSING WORD is 'activity.' I have edited it into the text.

2. The word 'nevertheless' was put in by me, as a device to recognize the apparent contradiction between the statement in the preceding paragraph: "(the Germans) were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews" and the statement in the following paragraph: "the massacre was carried out entirely by Poles....." Both statements are quoted from "Neighbors," both statements are by Gross. I don't exactly understand how this raises OR (Original Research) issues - please explain. (The word "Nevertheless" could be deleted, if it's an issue).

3. "On the broader topic of Polish-Jewish relations......(strays off-topic). YOU ARE RIGHT, this sentence can be eliminated (it was there to give a taste of Gross' broader critique of Polish actions, but this is not essential).

IMPORTANT NOTE, for those advocating a more prominent treatment of "Neighbors": MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF "NEIGHBORS' DEALS WITH ISSUES OTHER THAN THE JEDWABNE POGROM. Pages 122 through 173 are entirely devoted to "off-topic" discussions, such as Michał Głowinski in the coffee-shop, or the "Collaboration" chapter. Parts of pages 1 through 53 also discuss broader issues.

4. "Other sources give different estimates" of the number of Jewish victims: this was copied from the existing article, where the sentence talks about "200 to 400 victims." The Reference is to an article by Michlic and Polonsky in 'History,' but one cannot read that article without a subscription. I'm not sure that that reference provides any useful information (the opening sentences of the letter quote the "200 to 400" figure, which is hardly original). Thinking it over, unless someone can actually cite some different estimate, I am thinking of deleting this sentence and this reference.

Again, thanks for the comments.

UNRELATED ISSUE:

MISSING FROM THE ARTICLE: THE JEDWABNE MONUMENT. (This deserves a new paragraph) The present monument at Jedwabne, whose photograph is shown in the article, apparently dates from July 10, 2001 (the 60th anniversary, and date of Kwasniewski's speech)and bears the inscription (my English translation):

"TO THE MEMORY OF THE JEWS OF JEDWABNE AND ITS ENVIRONS, MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, OUR FELLOW CITIZENS OF THIS LAND, WHO WERE MURDERED BURNT ALIVE AT THIS PLACE ON JULY 10TH, 1941......July 10, 2001"

(The actual inscription is in Polish: "Pamięci Zydów z Jedwabnego i okolic, męzczyzn, kobiet, i dzieci, współgospodarzy tej ziemi, zamordowanych, żywcem spalonych w tym miejscu 10 lipca 1941...... 10 lipca 2001 R.")

This monument replaced an earlier monument dating from the 1960's, with inscription: "Site of the suffering of the Jewish Population. The Gestapo and the Nazi Gendarmerie Burned Alive 1600 People, July 10, 1941" (REF, article on website of American Jewish Committee, by Alvin Rosenfeld). Apparently, the old monument was removed in March 2001, in light of the IPN findings (Gross in 'Neighbors' called the monument "a lie"). The new monument may have been unveiled during Kwasniewski's visit - WE NEED DETAILS, A REFERENCE).

The new monument did not make everyone happy (this again, according to AJC). Several Jewish organizations wanted the new monument to name the Poles as perpetrators - but IPN's final Findings were still one year in the future.

SHOULD WE ADD A PARAGRAPH ON 'REPLACEMENT OF THE JEDWABNE MONUMENT' TO THE SECTION 'KWASNIEWSKI'S SPEECH, 2001'? Prospero10 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed without further discussion

The edit summary was insufficient, so why was this credible source removed from the main copy without further discussion? Polish-American Professor and member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council Marek Jan Chodakiewicz: "Research before conclusion: The Problems of Shock Therapy..." Collection 301, page 5; Glaukopis socio-historical Journal, 2007, ISSN: 1730-3419. See note 22: Leokadia Błajszczak, "Tragedia Zydów w Jedwabnem," manuscript; Jan Sokołowski to Andrzej Kaczynski, editor of Rzeczpospolita, 12 May 2000; Adam Cyra, "Jedwabne – Oswiecim – Sachsenhausen," Rzeczpospolita, 2 February 2001. — A. Kupicki (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz is the author of a 2005 book: The Massacre in Jedwabne, July 10, 1941: Before, During, After, published by Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-88033-554-8, a vital part of Jedwabne historiography, especially in the context of subsequent events mentioned here. See: 1. Google scholar. 2. Statement by prof. Peter Stachura. — A. Kupicki (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The connection between IPN research and that of prof. Chodakiewicz has always been strong. He conducted seminars at the IPN Warsaw headquarters, including in June 2006 on Polish-Jewish relations. He was also the first to examine little known sources showing the connection between Soviet secret police crimes and the anti-Jewish violence in Poland. — A. Kupicki (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

REVISIONS POSTED, October 31, 2011

On October 31 I edited the Proposed Revisions, posted above on October 20 and incorporating most of the comments received, and incorporated the Revisions in the 'Jedwabne Pogrom' article.

Apparently I did not follow correct procedure on References (there are red tags near the Reflist). If anyone knows how to deal with this situation (I have no understanding of the necessary computer procedures), it would be very much appreciated. And I still need to add some relevant 'References.'

A section on 'Debate on the Jedwabne Pogrom' could be added. CAUTION: a section on 'Debate' could be expanded AD INFINITUM. This is an extremely contentious subject. I SUGGEST THAT SUCH A SECTION CONTAIN ONLY A HANDFUL OF ITEMS. If you want to add something to a 'Debate' section, I suggest that you consider: would it be better added to the Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland article? Or, would it be better added to the article Polish-Jewish relations?

Regarding Gross' comments that 'Gross praised the conduct of the IPN Investigation': perhaps this topic might belong in a 'Debate' section? Gross wrote a book published in 2003, with title: Wokół Sąsiadów, Polemiki i Wyjaśnienia ('Neighbors, Polemics and Explanations') which I have not seen, but which is presumably on this topic. VERY IMPORTANT: if some quotation from Jan T. Gross on the IPN Investigation is posted, IT SHOULD GIVE THE DATE OF THE QUOTATION. If Gross voiced praise of the IPN Investigation, it is very important to know: did Gross praise IPN in 2001, when the investigation was under way? Or, did Gross praise IPN in late 2003, when the 'Final Findings' were published, including significant differences from the account in 'Neighbors'?

Again, thanks for the helpful comments. Prospero10 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Prospero10, for taking charge of this. I "hid" the sources that were causing the red tags. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)