Jump to content

Talk:Night Without End (history book)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

January 2022 edits

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "undue weight given to state-affiliated IPN publications and state employees; the refutations of them are unneeded." --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman You realize that with this edit [1] you ultimately removed all remaining scholarly criticism of the book, leaving behind the flattering reviews only. Right? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman I added a POV tag [2] following your removal [3] of referenced scholarly reviews. I don’t agree with a total removal of all criticism performed by you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
It would be great if said criticism came from sources that are not state-affiliated publications and not government employees. These are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources. The removal of such sources actually improves the neutrality of the article, since gov positions are not given WP:UNDUE weight. So the tag is not appropriate.
In contrast, here's a review by Stephan Lehnstaedt which has a nuanced discussion: [4]. You are welcome to add it to the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
What's wrong with state-affiliated publications? Which Wikipedia policy discourages using them? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTADVOCACY comes to mind, and I already linked WP:INDEPENDENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me K.e.coffman but WP:ADVOCACY (which is about article content, not sources), nor WP:INDEPENDENT say anything about state-affiliated sources. Yad Vashem, The Smithsonian, BBC are all state-affiliated. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Independent from what? You removed at least three reliable, scholarly reviews. Polish-Jewish Studies, pl:Zeszyty Historyczne WiN-u and pl:Glaukopis are all peer-reviewed publications (I checked their websites, they all clearly state they use double-blind peer review or like). The authors of reviews you removed are professional historians: pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk), Karolina Panz [5], pl:Dawid Golik, Piotr Gontarczyk... I fully support attributing all information, so if this wasn't clear, we should state, in text, that such and such opinion/review comes from Author A publishing in Journal B. And yes, I fully support adding the review you found (by pl:Wikipedysta:Xx236/Tomasz Frydel in pl:Acta Poloniae Historica). Perhaps some of the content here could benefit from rewriting, but removal of reliable, scholarly criticism is very much not a best practice. I support restoring the previous version of the article that has been stable for a long time (with no objection to rewriting anything, as long as we don't remove mentions of the book's reception in said reliable sources). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I will mostly agree with Piotrus here. We certainly should mention that they are publishing in state-affiliated sources/are supporting the current government policy, but even then, in the previous version, we put much less weight on govt historians than independent ones. I think it's undisputable the IPN's publications and Glaukopis are not exactly the top-notch peer-reviewed journals we are looking for - they are acceptable, but they do have that institutional/author bias problem as no one from the outside tends to publish there. However, regardless of whether IPN's officials are biased (they vast majority of them very certainly is), they are still historians and have the relevant credentials and expertise. Polish pro-govt scholarship on the Holocaust, though its quality is not high, is not nearly as bad as most Turkish scholarship on the Armenian genocide after all. The section should include statements of some scholars who describe IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign against the book (see e.g. Persak's comment included in pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk) and the Polish version of the article with the Polish Academy of Sciences intervening), but should not exclude IPN's historians altogether. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

BBC is known for its editorial independence; it's publicly financed but it's not part of the government, unlike the IPN. As to the IPN:

...the 2018 law officially changed the mission statement of the Institute of National Remembrance, a state research body created in 1988 to investigate Nazi- and Soviet-era crimes, to include “protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.” The rebranding immediately led many scholars to dub the Institute “the Ministry of Memory,” the Orwellian accent clear.

Source: "The Political Battle Over Poland’s Holocaust History: A libel verdict against two historians marks a new stage in the Polish government’s campaign to control the narrative of the country’s wartime past.", by Lawrence Douglas in the Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2021: [6].

As far as scholars describing IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign against the book, why enable the smear campaign further by including it, sourced to said historians directly, on this page? WP:BLP applies to the article on the book as well. If the controversy over the IPN statements is sufficiently impactful, then it would be covered in third-party sources. They can then be used to discuss the controversy, rather than including the unfiltered opinions as if they were dispassionate contributions to a scholarly debate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we aren't enabling the smear it if we provide adequate warnings to the readers. We would do so if we were to provide the information at equal footing with the independent researchers, or, even worse, skewing the interpretation towards the govt narrative. Simply excluding the information would mean that there was no fuss at all about the topic among scholars, even though there surely was. You may argue that IPN is compromised (and, to a large extent, it is), but it still hosts historians who publish, well, valid research, even if from a right-wing and nationalist perspective. We aren't the people who are making the judgment call to exclude historians based on their competences - it should be other historians (and other historians address the points raised by IPN's historians). Besides, it would be a disservice for a reader not to know about the reactions of these scholars if they exist. It's better to write more while framing in the proper context than not to write anything and make people wonder about the reason there was scholarly controversy about the book.
That they are, in a way, proxying for the government, would be relevant only if the government pressured them to publish these articles (directly or by threat of criminal prosecution) - as far as I am aware IPN is more of an echo chamber of nationalist historians who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. If there were pressure on the historians or if they were spoonfed ideas from "above" or if the historians operated in a country with limited or non-existent freedom of speech, I would say that indeed you were right when deleting the fragments, as effectively the opinions weren't theirs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I will also repeat that historians and publications are not required to be unbiased, in fact, very few are. Just like NPOV states that neutrality is next to impossible, it's just an idea to start. Per Weberian ideal type. Grabowski has a bias, his critics have their biases, so do we all here. The point is that if sources are reliable, and peer reviewed sources are, that's enough. We attribute them and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Btw, it is also incorrect to frame this discussion on the grounds of IPN - only one of the cited journals, Polish-Jewish Studies, is IPN-backed, the others seem run by some theoretically independent NGOs (although it is possible they are somehow connected to IPN through funds, ideology, or both). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The other two journals are rather niche and almost all people who publish there are nationalist historians. I didn't find any financial/institutional ties to IPN, but when comparing the historians publishing there and in IPN post-2015, you will see a lot of the same people. I would argue that the best journals don't simply attract one side of the political/historical debate, but I can't dismiss any of the two non-IPN journals as predatory, as I have no evidence for deep flaws within them. It might be, however, that IPN's reviews themselves are deeply flawed, but then we should show that by citations from 3rd-party historians.
Dreamcatcher25, well, I think no one has doubts about IPN's reliability back in 2004, when it in general was a respected institution and when people of all sorts of ideologies were publishing there. The question most probably arose due to the changes happening since about 2016. I don't think that blanket deprecation of IPN post-2015 is going to garner enough support, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Side comment: few can deny the increasing ideological bias of IPN under "new" management in the last few years. But ideological bias is not related to reliability, just to neutrality of a source. Attribution is solution enough in such cases. Anyway, I think we have a consensus here to restore the removed content (sources), since the original criticism was that they are UNDUE but that assertion has not been met with support? I'll add that if the reviews are given undue weight due to length etc. the solution would be to expand the article with coverage from other reviews. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, Yad Vashem example seems legit since it is "state/nationial memory institution" with similar mission like IPN. If en.wiki has no problem with YV, why not with IPN? Secondly, citing one press article to smear this institution is ridiculous. While I may agree that IPN's public image has been damaged in the last few years, is there any proof that there is consensus among the scholars to boycott IPN, not to cite its publications, not to participate in the science conferences organized by IPN, not to invite IPN's historians to participate in such conferences? Does the en.wiki community agreed not to use IPN publications? Last example, there is a book published by the IPN with contributing authors like Shmuel Krakowski or Dieter Pohl. Also, not credible source?Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
This is damning with faint praise:
  • to a large extent IPN is compromised;
  • from a right-wing and nationalist perspective;
  • IPN is more of an echo chamber of nationalist historians
Is this the best we can do in a BLP-related article? I generally agree that the controversy around IPN statements should be covered, but the proper context is achieved through the use third-party sources that would discuss such controversy. If other historians do it, then it can definitely be included, without raising BLP concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I would ask you not to quote me out of context, particularly with the first two bullet points. My opinion, for the record, was that the institution (IPN) was to a large extent compromised; the historians themselves - not necessarily ("it still hosts historians who publish, well, valid research"), but they are clearly biased and we have to take this into account. I don't think bias is negatively impacting reliability in every of these cases, but I would label the historians pretty suspect (yellow in RSP terms). Hell, even quite respected scholars as Norman Davies commit stupid blunders. Given that all the reviews of that particular book but one was favourable, and that one proved to be actually correct in one of its aspects (factual errors), I'm extra careful after that to remove minoritarian viewpoints. True, the IPN's historians might be disinforming - all the more reason to find sources stating this.
The Polish version IMHO covers it sort of OK in their last section, but maybe a sentence or two about the substance of rebuttal and some expansion of the IPN historians' complaints are in order. As the other reviews have been almost unanimously positive (at least basing on those presented), we can frame it as "controversial in Poland - Polish govt-affiliated/right-wing historians were critical, but otherwise it received positive reviews, both from other Polish historians and from non-Polish ones".
Do we actually have a reliable source saying that "reviews published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance have criticized Dalej jest noc for ...", or is that us editorializing by SYNTH the primary sources themselves (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) to say this? They are in the Polish article + those that got deleted. It's not editorialising, it's a summary of their ideas. If articles published in IPN-affiliated outlets or among the conservative historians simply repeat the same thing, we don't need a source to say that this indeed is a case, other than the reviews themselves + wikilinks to respective historians where their political/historical orientation is stated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we actually have a reliable source saying that "reviews published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance have criticized Dalej jest noc for ...", or is that us editorializing by SYNTH the primary sources themselves (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) to say this? Besides, if this (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) is the only remaining scholarly criticism of the book (e.g. it was mainly criticized by IPN's publications), which otherwise received positive reviews, it may be telling in light of BLP and the controversy. It is not unusual some sources are generally reliable but there is a period where they are not, or where other considerations apply, which may well be the case of IPN since 2018. Davide King (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I apologize -- I did not mean to suggest that all of the research published by these historians is unreliable. However, in this case we are not talking about research but about polemical statements of government employees, from the organization whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation." Your assessment, instead of allaying BLP concerns, make them more prominent. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Calling scholars and historians "government employees" is not ideal. Some of them work at the Institute of National Remembrance, so what? Others work elsewhere, many teach or taught at universities. Penz for example works in the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Sure, she is also salaried by the gov't. It's hard to find any scholar working in Poland who is not, as there are very few reputable private research institutions in Poland. Btw, Jewish Historical Institute is also sponsored by the Polish gov't. Is it also tainted by accepting their funding? C'mon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The full quote was: ... polemical statements of government employees, from the organization whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation". I'm talking about pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk), pl:Dawid Golik, Piotr Gontarczyk who are IPN employees. Karolina Panz of the Polish Academy of Sciences was not cited in our article, and consequently not removed by me as a source. Instead, she is a subject of an article by Golik because she's one of the contributors to Dalej jest noc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

So what I'm seeing here are 3 users clearly in favour of the restoration of the removed criticism, and 2 users are against it. The consensus appears to be to restore the text eliminated by K.e.Coffman. I'm going to act based on that. Thank you for participating in this consensus-building process. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Two against? I counted one (K.e.coffman). Who's the other one? PS. Also, I thought there were four users in favour. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to user talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Piotrus: Are you the same Piotr Konieczny mentioned in Domański's review (p. 715, n. 141)? And don't you have a COI here because of having written this article about Grabowski? Levivich 03:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you the same Piotr Konieczny mentioned in Domański's review (p. 715, n. 141)? Ummmmm… nevermind. Volunteer Marek 19:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
No, and, per COI thread, no. But don't take my word for it. Ping User:Nableezy who closed said COIN thread and who I believe explicitly wrote that I don't have any COI w/ regards to Grabowski (and if I am wrong, I am sure he will correct me). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article you wrote about Grabowski wasn't in the COIN OP and only two editors mentioned it during the discussion, one saying you had a COI and the other saying they weren't sure because they hadn't looked into it, so that coin wasn't about this COI (although related). I note that you didn't think you had a COI from the Haaretz article before that COIN thread, but consensus was you did. I think you should reconsider the relationship between you and Grabowski and WP:BLPCOI. How can one professor criticize the work of another professor "in the real world" and then come to Wikipedia and edit articles about the other professor's work? How is that possibly not a COI? (I said this about Haaretz and I was right. Can we avoid another COIN here? Will you stop editing about Grabowski and his work? You can't publish criticisms of people's work and then edit the Wikipedia articles about them and their work. It's basic COI. Levivich 14:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There was no consensus for a COI with Grabowski in the COIN thread because, as you note, only two editors even saw fit to mention it, and the arguments about a slippery slope applied to editing here in that it would allow for some person to disqualify editors on Wikipedia by writing harshly about them off-site, so I felt that argument was addressed and rebutted, but on the topic I dont know if publishing a column criticizing a column written by the subject here qualifies as a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual but that is a question for COIN and not one that one editor can assert and request that another editor follow his dictats to not edit. Not keeping this page on my watchlist, just responding to the ping. nableezy - 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I request that you follow my dictat not to characterize requests as dictats. Otherwise thanks for chiming in. If Piotrus agrees he has a COI and will avoid the topic area, there is no need for a COIN. If he disagrees, then COIN can resolve the disagreement. That's why I ask the editor first instead of just running to COIN, and I think my approach is a better one than just going straight to COIN, even if you think that's "request[ing] that another editor follow his dictats to not edit" (which is a pretty funny contradiction in terms, like "asking someone to agree to demands"). So it's up to Piotrus. Levivich 15:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Per Nableezy, I do not have any COI regarding Grabowski, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to imply otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Nableezy didn't say you don't have a COI (did you not read what he just wrote? "No consensus" and "that is a question for COIN"), and I'm not implying you have a COI, I'm stating it explicitly. The last time I said you had a COI and you dismissed me, COIN found you had a COI. So I'm asking you: don't just wave me away, is there anything you want to consider or discuss, because if you just keep on editing about Grabowski, I might start a thread at COIN again (or maybe ARCA since COIN was such a mess last time). I don't think you can argue with people in the real world and also add negative information about them on Wikipedia at the same time: you have pick one, and you picked "real world" when you published that article. Levivich 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For the record, I have very little interest in editing his biography. And the article here is not about him, he was just one of the two co-editors of the book, and I don't see what is the relevance that we had a polemic IRL to me copyediting this page. I am not particularly interested in working on this page further at the moment, but I will edit whatever articles I want, whenever I want, and if you don't like it, then go ahead and report me to whatever noticeboards you want. Also, what "negative information"? Improving reference format? Or do you have an issue with the addition of the review by Lehnstaedt (as suggested by K.e.coffman, whose suggestion I agree with and acted upon as nobody else bothered to do in the week+ since it was made)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I responded at User talk:Piotrus#COI so as not to derail this thread further (my apologies, I should have gone there in the first place). Levivich 04:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the content as the BLP concerns have not been addressed, given that the criticism is coming from one org, whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation". Additionally, I don't see the consensus for restoration. Szmenderowiecki mentions the need for context and some scholars who describe IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign. Arguments by Piotrus are based in part on the mistaken assumption that a citation to Karolina Panz of Polish Academy of Sciences were also removed. Panz is actually one of the contributors to the book. Etc. This is BLP related material and Wikipedia should not serve as a publishing platform for such a campaign. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that WP:PRESERVE often is a neglected policy element in such discussions, and this is just another example of this policy being forgotten.
It is also a shame that no one actually tried to do anything with the fragment and instead sat on the talk page waiting for some wonder to come (and in a way, that's in part my blame too because I haven't done anything myself). I will try to tackle the fragment as soon as I am able to, but before I or anyone else does that, I would advise against making unilateral moves here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I will only say at this moment that the current text is in a rather poor condition, because it doesn't reflect the TEH DRAMAH that appeared following the publication of the monograph. There are actually a lot of sources that aren't in the article and I will have to process before writing a coherent text, which should take several hours' worth of work. I don't expect to finish it until tomorrow evening at the earliest. At the first glance, though, I will say that the IPN-promoted sources will be there but neither their handling before K.e.coffman deleted them nor the current one-sentence mention is optimal, on the basis of the sources that I have so far analysed (about 15 or so). I would suggest in th.e meantime to expand the Content section, because right now it's certainly not good enough. See these articles for the examples of how to do that. It should be something that is the least controversial thing to do. I will try to take care of the rest and we'll see if that works. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Junes, Tom (2021-09-06). "Whither Poland's 'Ministry of Historical Truth'". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 2021-12-31.:

With its international activity below par, the IPN resonates almost completely in a national framework of memory politics. But as a state political (and politicised) institution, it functions rather as a propaganda outlet and a ‘Ministry of Historical Truth’ operating under the false presumption that there is one objective truth about the past.

Nonetheless, PiS had managed to gain a great deal of influence over the Institute of National Remembrance... Under the leadership of Janusz Kurtyka from 2005 until his death in 2010, the Institute became a lead sponsor of a historiography of rebuttal, obfuscation (with its emphasis on Polish rescuers) and denial, not of the Holocaust per se, but of growing evidence of Polish participation in it in studies published by the Center for Holocaust Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences... Of course, nothing threatened the Polish nationalist grip on the wartime narrative than scholarship on Poles who aided and abetted Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, particularly that of Jan Grabowski in his 2011 Judenjagd. Grabowski and his collaborator Barbara Engelking then took this model to organize a collaborative research project embracing nine counties and published as Dalej jest noc [Night without end] in 2018. Both scholars were soon subjected to a private defamation lawsuit whose claimant appeared to serve as a proxy for the government.

More at Institute of National Remembrance#Criticism. François Robere (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)



@K.e.coffman - When you initially removed [7] all negative reviews you claimed undue weight as your rationale:

  • ..my rationale was: "undue weight..[8]

Then you continued and added WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:INDEPENDENT:

  • WP:NOTADVOCACY comes to mind, and I already linked WP:INDEPENDENT.[9]

Then you removed the content again [10] this time claiming WP:BLP concerns:

  • I removed the content as the BLP concerns have not been addressed..[11]

What is it K.e.coffman?

PS - I studied through our WP:BLP policy - Negative reviews of a work are not WP:BLP violations - calling them such appear to be an abuse of our BLP policy. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022 additions

I expanded the "Reactions" section with material from the source already cited, plus a source from pl.wiki: diff. My edit summary was: "expand per source provided + source from pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk)".

Quote from Kończal, Kornelia (2020). "Mnemonic Populism: The Polish Holocaust Law and its Afterlife". European Review: 1–13:

...the Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical 'reviews' of Night without an End in Polish and other languages (Lyon-Caen 2019; Domański 2019).

Quote from Ninna Mörner (2020). "Constructions and instrumentalization of the past: a comparative study on memory management in the region". Stockholm. p. 129:

In order to oppose these devastating fundings, the IPN extensively promoted a 72-page critical review of Dalej jest noc, produced in 2019 by a young in-house historian called Tomasz Domański. In September 2020, the IPN launched and promoted Domański’s 110-page report, Korekty ciąg dalszy – a second response to the response of the editors-in-chief and individual authors of Dalej jest noc towards Domański’s first report of 2019.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

K.e.coffman. Apparently you think that including scholarly reviews of a person's work which are less than fawning constitutes "BLP violation" but at the same time you have no issue in including text in the article which attacks a young historian (Domanski). Likewise your off topic comments about IPN's "task" (it's task is research and education) are NPOV as they appear to be an attempt to poison the well and prejudice the reader. I'm going to revert your edit and I remind you that challenged text should not be restored unless you get consensus for it. Furthermore since you've now removed anything even remotely critical of the work from article but left in all the fawning, positive review, this article now not only violates WP:BALANCE but pretty much WP:PROMO as well. Given your insistence that reliably sourced scholarly work cannot be included here if it's critical of the book because it's a "BLP vio" (sic - that's not our policy at all) the only way to resolve it is to restore balance. I've included a POV tag for now. Volunteer Marek 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Amen. Removing criticisms of the book expressed by knowledgeable scholars in the field, and leaving only laudatory – especially when unsubstantiated – comments, creates an effect of simple puffery for Dalej jest noc. Nihil novi (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Szmenderowiecki - while some of your recent additions to the article are good, there’s also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR-stretching of what sources actually say. I appreciate the effort but it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed. I’ll begin making some changes to your version but I doubt I can immediately address all of it. There’s no deadline here and the tag needs to stay until we get to consensus that everyone is happy with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the article potentially falls under the ArbCom sourcing restriction - the one Jehochman recently added a notification about. Any kind of controversial or factual claims need to be sourced to extra strong sources. This is particularly true in light of BLP policy especially given the recent attempt to use the article as an attack vehicle against “young historians” who are critical of the authors’ work. Volunteer Marek 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will address some of what you have asserted to be OR/SYNTH stretching. Short and to the point.
A general statement applying to all points: WP:PRESERVE is a policy. If something is wrong, fix it instead of deleting it unless really absolutely necessary because there's no other way. See any problem - fix it yourself, don't ping me and ask me to answer. That reduces talk page demagoguery and does not make others mad at your deleting n KB of their work just because you find a defect you yourself don't bother to fix.
Addressing general statements here:
  • there’s also a lot of WP:SYNTH As to SYNTH: WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY applies. We don't need to cite other sources to summarise the main points the authors raised. We are indeed a tertiary source, which means by definition we will have to do some sort of summary. Specific examples of SYNTH requested, and ways to address them (either presented on talk or with posted diff). Look up the difference between synthesis and summary and tell me how the general conclusion may not be made based on the sources presented.
  • and WP:OR-stretching of what sources actually say There has been no assertion that a source/sources have been in any way misrepresented before you wrote it, either here on talk or in edit summaries. As this remark alone is too vague, it is not actionable and therefore nothing will be done about it if it stays that way.
  • I appreciate the effort but it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed The tags applied to the version which had 10K of text, it (had) 40K, so it's not as if these tags must stay until you give your permission to delete them. The expansion IMHO dealt with NPOV well, therefore, the tags were removed. For me to act on any of your proposals, point to exact text and source, say why it's wrong, propose an alternative. I accept no other way of talking here. Because, as my later analysis showed, you've provided no convincing
  • I’ll begin making some changes to your version but I doubt I can immediately address all of it. The immediate thing you did was deleting a third of the article in a space of 13 minutes, and it is not really possible to make firm conclusions about the quality of the article in that short timespan. If that's the way you have addressed it, well, thank you, but do try to find some less invasive way of doing so. Remember, WP:PRESERVE is policy.
  • Another thing to keep in mind is that the article potentially falls under the ArbCom sourcing restriction - the one Jehochman recently added a notification about. That's where we agree upon, but it will be imposed by an admin and not you. There is no reason for now to do just that, because the sources that have been previously added are reliable.
  • This is particularly true in light of BLP policy especially given the recent attempt to use the article as an attack vehicle against “young historians” who are critical of the authors’ work. Quoting from you *Apparently you think that including scholarly reviews of a person's work which are less than fawning constitutes "BLP violation" but at the same time you have no issue in including text in the article which attacks a young historian (Domanski). This works both ways. Grabowski is not immune from criticism, but neither is Domański. The text added initially was supported by two sources, and the statement of "heavy promotion of Domański's work by IPN" as sourced to two RSs is hardly a BLP violation. (And in fact, most of the criticism is not directed to Domański specifically but to IPN and the govt for their campaign against the book, which details you've removed for whatever reason. Domański is only mentioned in Persak).
Addressing edit summaries:
  • [12] In fact, the summary as you propose omits the fact that the only historians who protested about the book were those tied to the IPN. There was little controversy about it abroad - it got exported (in February 2019). This is important to note. Plus, you've simply removed the summary of most of the positive reviews; put an irrelevant OR tag for information covered in the text (four sources isn't enough? I'll add more) and a clarify tag that wasn't needed there (what's not clear about a court overturning the ruling and clearing the authors of libel charges?). If your point was to specify who was suing whom, you could've just as well written it (I will do that).
  • [13] The sourcing restriction is not automatical - admin will impose it, then we'll talk. Answering your question: I don't know if you are referring to the deleted quote (which refers to the whole book) or the methodology - the latter is described in reviews. I can't say if all settlements were described (rather not), but both cities and villages around them certainly were.
  • [14] Answering first sentence - the article as of the date of access contained the text that got cited here, which means The New Yorker stands by it as of the version published as of that date, which hasn't changed since (the earliest archived version on WebArchive, 26 Mar 2021, states just the same). That's all what matters. Corrections are normal in RSs, the magazine is considered RS. Answering second sentence - ethnicity in fact does not matter really much, but I had to split a long paragraph. Grouping by ethnicity here is not harmful. The division that matters here is IPN/rest of scholars, because it's IPN's reviews that sparked the DRAMAH. Same for [15]
  • [16] It was long-standing text, but I will consider some replacement for it. Fair point.
  • [17] Responding in your style: No, it's not obvious at all. It's not even SYNTH to begin with. Read up the policy you cite, and propose some other way to cite the three opinions of scholars if you believe this one is faulty.
  • [18] Hell no. It is precisely on topic and is connected to the IPN, to Domański's review, and to the disruption incited by nationalists' reactions to the book. If that article is a POV fork, it's that article's problem, not the one here. (FYI, the article did not get deleted, the result was "no consensus" back in 2021)
  • [19] If you have sources that state precisely the contrary, propose them here. I will at most add the qualifier "most". Otherwise, I see no reasons for the text to be deleted. If four sources is not enough, what is? How are all the sources cited not valid?
  • [20] The same could be argued about Domański (I have introduced RSs for that, you know), but whatever - we are not judges of who is more guilty or making worse attacks. All rebuttals here are relevant, as each address their respective fragment (just like Domański goes through all chapters); btw funny that you decide to delete all nine rebuttals from nine authors of Dalej jest noc but leave Domański alone - if anything, that's what I'd say is POV editing. As for this [21], if it is too general, expand. Being not sufficiently detailed is not implying something the sources don't say (the proper meaning of SYNTH), it's just being not detailed enough.
  • [22] Therefore, present a summary of that report that doesn't already cover the points made earlier (no, YOU PRESENT IT). WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY
Given that most of the reverted sections are based on plain misunderstanding on the policies or are not policy-based, and the fact that the editor showed no effort whatsoever to remedy the problems they outlined themselves (most of which not clearly enough), which they should have, the edits are reverted.
Responding to Piotrus:
  • [23] Singling out IPN's reviews is precisely the whole point. It's not because they are automatically wrong, but because it's the IPN's activity around the book that made most of the controversy about the book, including what was seen by many scholars and observers as a state-coordinated campaign. Therefore, it's not POV, it's precisely what it was: controversy around IPN's activity, as expressed in reviews of IPN-affiliated scholars and behaviour of state and pro-govt actors. You may propose another title for that, but that section is important for the reader. Dalej jest noc would have been a book discussed mostly in academic circles were it not for the controversy.
Nihil novi's edits were largely incorporated in the revert, but some post-copyedit copyediting has been done. I have tried to preserve most of their edits, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki quick note regarding my minor concern: section heading should be neutral. IMHO the controversy concerns the book, not the reviews (or maybe, on second thought, both, equally). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
If we simply title it "controversy", we'd have to include the litigation in there. If we title it "IPN reviews", then we miss the context about the EHESS conference and the whole media fuss that surrounded the book (both the conference and other aspects) + strictly speaking there were only two IPN reviews, both published by Domański; others were from IPN-affiliated scholars but otherwise only two of four of them were published in an IPN journal. Besides, the problem seen by the commentators wasn't the mere fact that the reviews appeared but who (seemed to, or did stand) behind them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Then I'd suggest titling the section controversies and discussing them there. I'd also suggest splitting reviews from the controversy about them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The whole problem is, again, that the reviews themselves are in part controversial because of the strong involvement of IPN in the process. If we merge the IPN reviews with all others, then it will be hard to explain how the cited researchers saw it as a campaign to intimidate scholars; moreover, I don't really imagine how the replies to Domański could be incorporated, as well as his counerreply. There was no scholarly debate about the non-IPN reviews; there was a lot about Domański and some about Gontarczyk. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note:

The tag was introduced by VM on 19 Jan 2022 somewhere around 2:00 am, which applied to the version of the text with the addition of K.e.coffman, saying that the text removed any critical material related to the book and therefore it violated NPOV. I in fact was the one who introduced it back (including IPN's reviews, Tokarska-Bakir and a rewriting of Lehnstaedt review, which, unlike Piotrus, I found to be not as positive of the work as was previously described). Moreover. I was not commenting IPN's "task". Therefore, the concerns seem to have been addressed, and therefore I removed them the first time.
The later addition of a tag has not explained the reasons why the article still failed NPOV in any way, neither on talk nor here, VM simply said it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed, without explaining how they were pertinent to the new version. Most of the concerns have been OR and SYNTH, but, as I hope I've explained above, they had no merit. There were no NPOV concerns voiced as far as VM's edit summaries went. Therefore, I found that there was no active discussion happening about NPOV at all, at least not the one where the merits were discussed. Moreover, as you might have noticed on my user page, any statements that cite a policy violation without providing specific examples where the problem exists, according to the editor who reverts content, will be not acted upon as too vague, and any deletions of content based on non-specified allegations of problems within the fragment will get reverted back, with the instruction to provide evidence that the fragment breaks the policy.
As WP:TAGGING#Disputes_over_tags says, POV tag indicates that a user has concern about NPOV, but this concern being not formulated to the new version other than simply an assertion this is the case, I felt it was appropriate to remove it until the user speaks up about his take on how this violates NPOV in any way. I do believe that the current (as of this edit) version follows NPOV pretty well, but my removal was connected only with the failure to explain. When the discussion on merits actually starts about the current version, and you introduce the tag, and I will not remove it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Szmenderwiecki - you're violating several of our policies both with respect to content and behavior. Let's get to the behavior first:
  • You plopped down 23k+ worth of text into the article without discussing any of the proposed changes with anyone in any substantial form. By itself that's fine, but then you should expect that people will edit what you added. I did you the courtesy of going through the text bit by bit and only editing the parts that I found problematic. You on the other hand, reverted wholesale back to your own version [25]. This is WP:OWN behavior.
  • You removed any tags, both inline and article level that have indicated where the problems were. I explained sufficiently in the edit summaries what the issues where, for example here. IF you were going to restore this text then you should've restored it with an appropriate tag (in this case the inline SYNTH tag). This is WP:OWN again. Tags should stay in the article until the problems are fixed.
  • You restored several instances of text that is badly sourced. Normally that would be a content policy violation, but in this case we have an ArbCom ruling which says that you CANNOT restore text which has been challenged: when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. This applies to for example JTA. If you want to put that sentence in you need a scholarly source. I will remove it again and you can either find a better source or get consensus to include, but in meantime, you are NOT allowed to restore. I'm happy to give you a pass this time (in the past this is something that people would immediately report to WP:AE) in interest of not propagating WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area but I ask you to please adhere to the ArbCom restriction.
  • You are misquoting and misrepresenting our Wikipedia policies here on the talk page. You invoke WP:PRESERVE as an excuse to edit war, basically arguing that once you add text it may not be removed because it has to be "preserved". This is of course absurd and not what the policy actually says. And I didn't see you bringing up WP:PRESERVE when other editors removed scholarly sourced text from the article. Thing is, if there's WP:OR in the article, the way to "FIX IT" is to remove it. If there's WP:SYNTH in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's WP:BLP vios in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's text which is misrepresenting the source, then we either reword, or depending on how badly it misrepresents the source, we remove it. Same goes for stuff which is simply off topic and UNDUE or worse, a WP:COATRACK (like the stuff about the conference [26]). Removing problematic text and cutting down wording is precisely what editors (at publishing houses, journals) do. In fact it's the biggest part of the job (mostly because a lot of authors have a tendency to write for themselves rather than for the intended audience). Making the author cut down a manuscript from 13000 words to 8000 words is basically what your job as an editor at a journal is. It's the same thing here. We remove stuff that doesn't belong. Edit warring to keep it in is WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
That's the behavioral problems here. Now on to the content... Volunteer Marek 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There's really much to deconstruct among the stuff you've written, but I will note one thing. WP:PRESERVE has never been about edit warring, and the edit war in fact is not there, at least not yet. We are only speaking of one revert I've done - you've already done two (one of which partial). The reversion has been done because, as has been shown above, you haven't adequately explained it. Had you been an IP, this would have been promptly reverted as unexplained removal of content - it's not enough to simply cite whatever policy you want to type on your keyboard, it must also be relevant to be seriously considered. Which is what I essentially said in the 10K edit just above the Note subsection. The other thing PRESERVE and other policies requiring that you explain the rationale behind the removals is not to create time sinks like this one, or at least, if it's inevitable, to make it less severe. You know, maybe you don't have better stuff to do than to quarrel with random editors on Wikipedia - who knows? - but I, on the other hand, do. Please respect it.
  1. The first point has been explained.
  2. The second point is essentially about the same: if you can't explain the problem and indicate the possible resolution, then I'm not obliged to second-guess your intentions guiding you when you were putting a "bare" problem tag.
  3. The third point, as has been said earlier, refers to two points: first, the content restrictions, which is not applied automatically but upon admin intervention; second, the challenge should also rely on some reasoning. It's not as if you can revert any source addition and says "I want to because." You assert this four times: twice as regards the New Yorker piece ([27], [28]) and twice time for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ([29], [30]). For the New Yorker piece, the only piece of information that is cited to that article is attributed and is about the sales and the general scholarly reception, which, as I showed, has not been changed since publication; then if you assert that the article was subject of widespread criticism for basic factual historical errors, you can just as well post links to that effect. Well, I've found one, but with no further corrections, or a retraction, issued, despite pressure from the Polish embassy in Washington (hardly a reliable source, I would say - applying your criteria of sourcing restrictions, none of the organisations noted there pass them), I have to assume that the New Yorker stands by the reporting, and it is in fact not out of order for an outlet to issue a correction, which is what WP:NEWSORGs do. Reading through the AP report you link, I've seen (justified) criticism of the initial byline but it was quickly corrected and the director of Auschwitz was satisfied, except for the irreversible damage done by the initially faulty byline. It would be much worse if the New Yorker did not correct it - I would doubt the usage myself. In any case, we have no choice but to consider it an RS. (If you want to see the scope of correction, there you go). Anyway, this is irrelevant, because the fragment we cite has not been changed. If you want to challenge the source, you don't need me to start an RfC - post one yourself. Good luck. As for JTA, you haven't explained at all what's wrong with the source. The template above doesn't say that WP:NEWSORGs are banned (I haven't seen you challenge the other JTA article, the Rzeczpospolita and the Newsweek PL article, so there's some sort of inconsistency there). That said, since no one actually cared to expand the content section and I don't think anyone will (you've just dissuaded me from doing so), in fact you can forget the JTA source you link. You won't need it anyway.
  4. Regards the last point, most of it has been addressed above. WP:PRESERVE essentially says not to throw the baby with the bathwater, which you've did on several occasions. You explain that if there's WP:OR in the article, the way to "FIX IT" is to remove it. If there's WP:SYNTH in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's WP:BLP vios in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's text which is misrepresenting the source, then we either reword, or depending on how badly it misrepresents the source, we remove it. Same goes for stuff which is simply off topic and UNDUE or worse, a WP:COATRACK (like the stuff about the conference [26]). It would have been true if it wasn't a case of WP:TAGBOMBING - excessive, mostly without merits, and with very liberal interpretations (if not to say misunderstandings) of policy, as well as stretched, to say the least, accusations of misinterpretation of underlying policies. They are going to be addressed, again, below. And even then when you say something "needs better representation", that's what you have editorial tools for. Then you say that Removing problematic text and cutting down wording is precisely what editors (at publishing houses, journals) do. In fact it's the biggest part of the job (mostly because a lot of authors have a tendency to write for themselves rather than for the intended audience). Making the author cut down a manuscript from 13000 words to 8000 words is basically what your job as an editor at a journal is. First, we are not publishing a book, we are editing articles here. Secondly, we aim to write a comprehensive account, without airbrushing or abridging events and behaviours. The journals/book publishers often have word restrictions, we don't. Finally, journals/book publishers need not represent all perspectives - we strive to do just that. The comparison is simply not apt. If that's your excuse to excessive deletions, you'll have to find a better one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok here are the content issues with the text Szmenderowiecki added (23k+ worth of text) here. I thought my edit summaries were sufficiently descriptive but given the blind revert of my edits by Szmender I'm happy to articulate here on talk:
  • [31] There is NO source which says "The book has been generally positively assessed by most non-Polish researchers of the Holocaust". This is Szmenderowiecki's OWN, subjective, assessment of the reviews that they found themselves on the internet. EVEN IF there was a source which stated this, you still couldn't say it in Wikipedia voice. You'd have to attribute it. But we don't even have that. So this is textbook, classic, WP:SYNTH. The thing is Szmenderowiecki, is that you're NOT "summarizing" text, you're inserting your own opinion into the text. This same problem reappears at several other points in the text you added.
  • Same edit as above - separating out sources by their ethnicity, as Szmenderowiecki does above is VERY problematic. Ethnicity of the author is NOT a criteria for RS, and is NOT relevant to the subject. This is original research which tries to portray the controversy as "Polish authors vs. the world" which is just false and is not supported by any source. As such it is SYNTH and OR and, like I said, kind of disturbing. It needs to go.
  • This text violates the ArbCom sourcing restriction. It cannot be restored if challenged (which I have done) without getting consensus or better sources.
  • Same applies to this text. The Gessen article in the New Yorker does not satisfy the sourcing restriction to begin with and worse, that particular article had to be corrected several times because it made some preposterous false claims. It was heavily criticized across the board, even by the Auschwitz Museum [32] [33] [34]. In the original Gessen actually blamed the "Polish state" for the Holocaust (in case we're not on the same page in terms of historical accuracy here, the "Polish state" during WW2 was the Polish Government in Exile in UK which fought against the Nazis on the Allied side and was the first to bring the Holocaust to the attention of the west). There is absolutely no way we're using this as a source.
  • More synth. The claim "Most of the Polish scholars have also spoken in favour of the book in their reviews." does not appear in any source. This is again Szmenderowiecki's own personal opinion (WP:SYNTH, WP:OR) and what's more, it actually contradicts their earlier WP:OR claim that the reviews can be split in Polish vs. Non-Polish.
  • This is also SYNTH, although I think here it's more out of laziness than anything else.
That's it for now. There's more coming. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
As for the points raised below:
  1. [35] The response you posted here suggests WP:BALANCE problems, but I haven't seen any sources you'd like me to consider to actually address it in any way. Moreover, the summary as presented is perfectly appropriate, as can be evidenced in FA-class articles about books and magazines, such as The Thrill Book, A Handful of Dust and A Voyage Round the World. Go ahead and challenge the FA statuses based on that interpretation - and I’m looking forward to the reaction. Besides, the fragment reflected the New Yorker source which you want to challenge, but neither did I know of the embassy's intervention nor, even if I knew of it, would I have changed my mind, given the correction and the generally high reliability The New Yorker has. If there's any other way for you to describe the general reception with 5 favourable reviews, one somewhat favourable and one rather negative one, let me know. (The IPN reviews is a whole different story, but that's described separately, and for good reason).
  2. As of ethnicity, the conflict is in fact not "Polish authors vs. the world" but IPN-affiliated authors vs others (including Poles), and I haven't pretended otherwise. This is in fact supported by the four sources that you decided to delete (together with the two paragraph about the conference and the criticism of IPN's activities) - find them here, numbers 8, 17, 20, 44. Pretending these sources don't exist because you've decided to delete the fragment which they reference, together with the references, cannot be described otherwise than disingenious. Other than that, ethnicity isn't probably the best separator but deleting it would create paragraphs that are difficult to navigate, so if you have any better ideas, find them (well, you haven't yet, so now you have an artificial split which makes me wonder of how it is in any way separate from the previous one).
  3. [36] It was supposed to be "non-affiliated with the IPN", but I did not add it, mea culpa. So at least here, that's a fair point. Again, however, this shows perfectly how you could've fixed it but for some reason didn't. Substitute "Most" with "Some" and you're done.
  4. Referring to "One more specific issue", you have the later source in French, which you pretend not to notice, which said that an IPN representative demanded to speak. First, you quote out of context about efforts of the (Polish) government, while the original text talked of government institutions (IPN is a government institution, TVP is not strictly a government institution but is state-run and heavily slanted towards the current govt it in its coverage; the interventions of the embassy of Poland in Paris has not been even mentioned as it really belongs to the main article). Second, the source is [37] and says at the bottom of the sentence avec victimisation de l'IPN qui conteste le caractère scientifique de l'événement puisqu'elle n'a pas été invité (with the victimisation of IPN that contests the scientific nature of the event as it was not invited). Kichelewski, earlier in the article, describes that the researchers indeed requested to speak, which he didn't object (Judith Lyon-Caen speaks more of "demanding" (or "requesting") to do that: Maciej Korkuć a demandé à prendre la parole, estimant que le « point de vue » de l’IPN n’était pas représenté. - Maciej Korkuć requested/demanded to talk, opining that the "point of view" of IPN was not represented). "Demanded" is probably not the best translation of French demander, but given the context, it is not really off the mark, either. The JTA cite refers strictly to the "controversial among the Polish diaspora" part; had I actually finished the whole piece of thought, I'd have placed a full stop, not a semi-colon. So cite 37 in the old version refers to the whole sentence, on both sides of the semi-colon, JTA refers to the parentheses only. Cite 38 could also be cited there.
Addressing WP:COATRACK concerns, the sources cited in the two paragraphs, i.e. Lyon-Caen, Political.fr piece, Neue Zuercher Zeitung and Kończal (referring to reviews critical of Dalej jest noc without naming it explicitly), and the proceedings of the conference published in 2019, explicitly note the connection of the book with the conference, so it's not me connecting dots, it's the authors of the sources. It actually merits one paragraph only, which is how I originally wrote it.
Now to your edit summaries:
  • [38] First, if someone files a defamation suit by proxy, it is assumed that the plaintiff considers the claim libellous. Second, expand the description yourself, why wait for me?
  • [39] The first sentence says Wieloletnie prace naukowe prowadzone w Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów PAN sfinalizowano w 2018 roku imponującą dwutomową publikacją (w sumie ponad 1600 stron) pod redakcją naukową Barbary Engelking i Jana Grabowskiego pt. Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski. I know of no dictionary that translates "imponujący" as "extensive". Same here: that they state it in a footnote is actually irrelevant - the fact is, the author considers it to be such, so so long he's not quoted out of context, it's alright to make an en passant mention just like they do in the review. If you need the quote, there you go: Les résultats ont été publiés en polonais dans un imposant ouvrage en deux volumes : Engelking Barbara, Grabowski Jan (dir.), Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski" For Papier's review, see quote Ponadto nieocenione na tym polu są badania prowadzone przez Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, bez których – jak się wydaje – nie sposób pisać o lokalnych historiach Zagłady. Mam tu na myśli przede wszystkim dwutomowe wydawnictwo Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski.
  • [40] Concurred with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN, not with the Holocaust deflection notion. Admittedly an unfortunate wording, though opining on the reviews themselves, as you did in the edit summary, does not belong to us.
If you need any more of these walls of text, let me know. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
if someone files a defamation suit by proxy - what's a "defamation suit by proxy"? Is that a legal term? Or is it... your own WP:OR? And yes, I do plan on expanding that part.
I know of no dictionary that translates "imponujący" as "extensive" .... .... .... you know that that sentence is translated into English right in the abstract, right? And it's translated as "extensive". This is how the authors themselves translated it!
Same here - Yes, if it's in footnote that's relevant as it suggests WP:UNDUE and the fact that someone is dredging the depths of the internet to support a particular POV. Same goes for Papier (though there at least it seems it's quoted accurately).
Concurred with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN, not with the Holocaust deflection notion. This is simply false. So yes, first thanks for acknowledging that the wording you initially inserted was, ahem, "unfortunate" (someone else may say "false"). But, it is also false that "Libionka concurs with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN". He says nothing like this. To his credit, unlike other authors, Libionka actually addresses the merits of the specific criticisms levied by Domanski. One can agree with Libionka here, or one can agree with Domanski, but Libionka is definitely doing what we here on Wikipedia call "discussing content, not editors" (same thing is not true for other responses to Domanski which seek to attack him personally). So, no, he isn't concurring with this either. You are once again falsely misrepresenting the contents of a source. Please stop it. Volunteer Marek 00:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
BTW, here is the Libionka source. Please quote the part in which Libionka supposedly "concurs" with being "attacked by an organised campaign by IPN". Volunteer Marek 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Domański nawet nie stara się ukryć poczucia wyższości wobec przedmiotu swoich analiz, raz po raz popada w ton mentorski. Cały czas konsekwentnie prowadzi czytelnika za rękę i uczy, jak należy naszą książkę czytać. Nie tylko punktuje błędy, lecz przede wszystkim obnaża, ocenia i stygmatyzuje. Od trzech tygodni broszura żyje własnym życiem i osiąga swój cel. Na razie w kraju, choć wkrótce ma zostać przełożona na język angielski, być może też na inne języki kongresowe, mimo że tomy Dalej jest noc dostępne są wyłącznie w języku polskim. Samo to pokazuje, że nie jest to sytuacja zwyczajna i mamy do czynienia z szeroko zakrojoną i sterowaną kampanią propagandową, or, in English: Domański does not even try to hide his feeling of superiority over the object of his analysis, and systematically adopts a condescending tone. Throughout his review, he guides the reader by the hand, and teaches them how our book should be read. Not only does he tally errors, but primarily tries to expose, pass judgments, and stigmatize. For several weeks, his text has lived a life of its own, and achieves its purpose. For the time being, his text achieves its purpose in Poland, but soon it is to be translated into English and other languages, even though our book is available only in Polish. All this alone shows that we are not dealing with standard practice, but with an extensive and orchestrated propaganda campaign. (underlined fragments indicate the fragment I was referring to). Anything else I can do for you? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Want some - get some!
  1. The qualification as a "proxy lawsuit" is present here and here, as regards RDI's involvement in the lawsuit, RDI being described as a proxy institution for the govt. This source says the same, just doesn't use the word "proxy". We also have the New Yorker, read the parentheses starting from This defamation-by-proxy approach has odd parallels in Russia. In this case, the New Yorker uses it to denote that the plaintiff is not the person against whom allegedly defamatory remarks were made, but rather a relative (and not even the closest one). Again, not my words. Also, I've got two stupid questions to you: you were the second editor to actually edit this article, first time on 13 March 2019, and you've since made three appearances. Why haven't you done it then, and secondly, given that the majority of your edits is deletion or reverts of deletion of additoon of content (as can bee seen here), how is anyone supposed to believe you are going to add something substantial?
  2. We are both right here. She says both "imponujący" (impressive) and "extensive". Note, however, that the abstract is not a translation of the first paragraph (notably the first sentence from the EN abstract is missing in the first paragraph). Therefore, we can't simply refer to the abstract and ignore the rest of the text; it's not as if the English abstract is more reliable than the Polish main text.
  3. Yes, if it's in footnote that's relevant as it suggests WP:UNDUE and the fact that someone is dredging the depths of the internet to support a particular POV. Which is a WP:BALANCE accusation (further confirmed by the template you've put on the top), which necessitates that you present sources that say otherwise. You've provided none. I have, on the other hand, introduced (or re-introduced) them, including critical voices. Remember that UNDUE is about not fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., and I see no reasons by which the inclusion of these sources is not doing just that. In fact, you are sort of right about putting the BALANCE template - it is giving undue weight to the IPN's researchers. Gontarczyk specialises in Communist Poland history, with only one book about a pogrom that occurred before WWII (1936), but apparently that makes him entitled to regularly speak about the Holocaust. Dawid Golik specialises in the anti-Communist military movements in the first post-war years, which is hardly a qualification to speak about the Holocaust, either. (In all honesty, Janina Hajduk-Nijakowska isn't a specialist of the era, while Vychytil-Baudoux describes makes research into the Polish diaspora; but both, unlike Gontarczyk or Golik, are mentioned in one or two words only).
  4. Now to the points below (please don't disperse the discussion on multiple threads, I will answer here because I'm not going to spread myself over three or four threads at the same time). WP:OTHERSTUFF explicitly refers to AfD and notability issues, it's not about the article quality. If we allow what you say is SYNTH/OR in FA articles (the cases, in fact, are identical - you have a description in the lead, not referenced to anything, then you have the body which may or may not (The Thrill Book) have a reference), then there are two options: either these articles shouldn't be FAs, or this is not SYNTH/OR. The secondary source you pretend does not exist is the New Yorker article. Other than that, I return you to this question: If there's any other way for you to summarise the general reception with 5 favourable reviews, one somewhat favourable and one rather negative one, let me know.
  5. I can't help but ignore the other two points, as the first seems to rely on deliberately not seeing what the sources write and the other on ignoring point 4 of the previous reply.
You finished yet? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
POV and balance tags should probably stay until issues are resolved, although overall I think we are moving in the right-ish direction. I do think that UNDUE weight is given to context and side issues like the Paris conference - paragraph instead of a sentence, it's too much. We should discuss the book, not the background politics (in depth, that is). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that the book has been described as "intentionally political" and as carrying a "clear scholarly goal and a political message", I'm afraid the discussion of politics around the book is inevitable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Sigh.
  • The response you posted here suggests WP:BALANCE problems. No. As I've explained about as clearly as can be explained, it's a WP:SYNTH problem. You are inserting your own personal opinion, not a claim which can actually be found in sources. (Yes, there's balance problems in the article too, but that is not what my point here was about). the summary as presented is perfectly appropriate, as can be evidenced in FA-class articles about books and magazines. No. First of all this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. It doesn't matter what other articles do, what matters what policy is. All the same I see no similarity between the FA articles you invoke and the situation here. There's nothing comparable there. Yes, A Handful of Dust, for example, says "The book's initial critical reception was modest", BUT crucially this is actually sourced to a secondary source. That is NOT the case here where there is no source to support your claim. Just your own WP:SYNTH.
  • I seriously doubt - and haven't seen - any source that say this is "IPN vs. the world". Yes, sources say IPN has been critical. Yes, there are some people out there who praised it. You CANNOT WP:SYNTHesize into this "IPN vs. the world" POV wording. This is elementary Wikipedia editing 101. This also applies to your next point ("It was supposed to be "non-affiliated with the IPN""). That too is your own WP:OR.
  • You included a sentence with a source at the end of that sentence. NONE of the claims in that sentence were in the least bit supported by the source! This is on you. If you don't want me to say that you are falsely representing sources, then... don't falsely represent the sources. I still want to know how in the world you wound up doing this - this was a pretty serious violation which does not appear to be a simple mistake. Please answer in the dedicated section below. Volunteer Marek 00:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Night_Without_End_(history_book)/Archive_2&oldid=1269461910"