Talk:John Radzilowski

Verification

Please provide the relevant text from this source to back up some of the potentially BLP violating claims in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

In regards to edit summary in diff - please WP:AGF. Goska focused on a subset of Polish-American individuals named in this chapter, wheres Krzywiec covered the chapter as a whole. I restored this with inline quotations. Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz --> "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..” GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - please indicate what you think is a BLP vio here? Our subject, Radzilowski, wrote this. Three separate academics, in a published academic setting, addressed Radzilowski's neo-Stalinism piece. We generally cover article subjects in the manner they are covered in independent reliable sources - and this is most probably (per my BEFORE of the subject) the work he is most noted for in independent which have analyzed this essay in depth. Our text is well supported by the sources its cites, and quotations have been provided.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No need to cherry-pick, not particularly relevant, serious NPOV concerns to the point of being potentially slanderous towards reputable scholar. (see WP:BLP) Clearly no consensus to include.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What specifically is cherry picked here? The entire piece by Radzilowski is about "neo-Stalinism" in academia in general and in regards to Poland. He has written another piece on this in Polish, asserting a different academic was blackballed due to this. There is nothing slanderous in fairly representing an author's work - which has been analyzed in depth by reliable sources. Saying no consensus without backing this up with sources or policy is not an arguement - multiple in-depth sources have been presented covering this.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll also copy VM request you so far failed to address --> "Please provide the relevant text from this source to back up some of the potentially BLP violating claims in the article” GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

While this is not required for English sources, I have done so inline in the referencs in the article. I shall repeat over here as well (text from pages 572-573 - The essays by John Radziłowski and Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński from the collection win the nonsense writing competition by several lengths. The former’s essay titled “The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States” was perhaps an attempt to characterize “a school of Polish historical study,” which, as one may conclude from his exposition, is a group of historians dealing with recent Polish history. What is “neo-Stalinism” and the “neo- Stalinist turn,” to leave the trendy word discourse on the margin? (Incidentally, Radziłowski misapplies that word). It is not at all easy to discern its constitutive characteristics in the tangle of the accusations. .... According to Radziłowski, it is not so much the chimerical nature of “neo-Stalinism” which is so intriguing in the text as the depth of the roots he thinks “new-Stalinism” has taken. The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. If one reads Radziłowski’s wordy essay literally then one may conclude that apart from him and a few authors (including the authors of the collection) most American historians are still engaged in that enterprise. Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246)." Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, so Radzilowski accused a particular “school of Polish historical study” as "neo-Stalinist. Then you, taking liberties with an obviously biased source turned that into the more extreme "Radzilowski asserts that "neo-Stalinism" is dominant since the 1960s in American social sciences and that most American historians (with the exception of Radzilowski and a few colleagues) are engaged in "neo-Stalinism". Hard to say which part of that nonsense is you and which is the author.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The academic journal article states "The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s." - my edit reflect this. Please note that BLPTALK applies to Krzywiec. Considering 3 separate sources cover this work on neo-Stalinism in a similar fashion, the authors' being mainstream academics, there is little reason to think they.are "biased". Radzilowski's words themselves (in English and in a separate article in Polish) are rather clear themselves - however we should prefer secondary academic sources covering this.Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Three separate sources" do not cover this work in this way. Goska explicitly notes that he is referring to a particular school of Polish historical study.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There is also Sarmatian Review. Radzilowski does both in this 18 page essay - he starts with general social sciences prior to addressing most historians (far from a particular school), in the US, that have written on Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

As our subject's work on "neo-Stalinism" is omitted from the article, despite being the most analyzed piece by our aubject in RSes, the article is not neutral as it does not reflect coverage of our subject in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• For the record - on 25 January 2019, Icewhiz has nominated this page to be deleted. (unsuccessfully) Details can be seen here:[1] GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no "work on "neo-Stalinism"". What there was in the article is your own gross misrepresentation of the sources and a obnoxious BLP violation. Tag is tendentious and spurious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Our subject's work on neo-Stalinism has beeb covered at length in 3 academic sources (the 2 cited ones + Sarmatian Review). If you have an issue with wording - please suggest an alternative formulation.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources:

1. Academic writing, in English: Krzywiec, Grzegorz. "Controversies: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 572-573
2. Academic writing, in English: [url=http://www.aapjstudies.org/index.php?id=123 Review by Danusha Goska]
3. Academic writing, in English: book review in Sarmatian Review.
4. Chodakiewicz in English: page 523 (conclusion) - published by Transaction Publishers. Probably should not be used, even though the publisher is reputable, academic reviews of this book have pointed out several issues.
5. Polish: Marek Jan Chodakiewicz+Radziłowski writing in Najwyższy Czas! - [2]. Chodakiewicz credits Radziłowski for coining the term. Should probably not be used due to the nature of the publication and authors.
6. Polish: Chodakiewicz writing in 2019 in Tygodnik Solidarność - [3] - again crediting Radziłowski. Should probably not be used due to nature of author.
7. Polish: Interview with Radziłowski on Radio Maryja discussing "neo-Stalinism" in depth - [4] - while possibly usable per WP:ABOUTSELF, probably should not be due to the nature of this radio station.

@Volunteer Marek: - how about you suggest wording on Radzilowski's work on neo-Stalinism? I would suggest sticking to the academic sources in English. Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's ok to mention that he views some other scholars as being NS, but the wording of such a note should be neutral, without editorializing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

None of these show "work on 'neo-Stalinism'". You're taking a couple stray comments and pretending they're something they're not. Has he published any papers on "neo-Stalinism"? And this aside from the issue that his comments referred to a coupe specific authors not "social sciences" in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

His CV lists a few works on neo-Stalinism, yes. The one that got the most attention is the book chapter (18 pages, a bit more than stray comments). As stated in RSes (and you should be able to verify easily in in the chapter itself) - he named names (much more than 2) , referred to US historians in general writing on Poland, as well as most of the field of social sciences in the US. As quite evident in RSes covering our subject - his neo-Stalinism work got more coverage than any other work he published. Per coverage of our subkect in independent sources, a significant chunk of this article should be devoted to neo-Stalinism.Icewhiz (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Radzilowski is not an Associate Professor anymore; he has been promoted to full professor in the Department of Social Science in 2019. He teaches European, U.S., World History, Geography and Art History. Source: his webpage at the University of Alaska Southeast: https://uas.alaska.edu/dir/jtradzilowski.html

Change: "He is an associate professor of history at the University of Alaska Southeast." To: "He is a professor of history at the University of Alaska Southeast, Department of Social Science, where teaches European, U.S. and World History, Geography and Art History." 24.2.126.191 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done in revision 1025144740 (changed to professor and added paragraph in Career section). TGHL ↗ 🍁 00:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)