Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Grabowski (historian)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Article has a neutrality dispute tag that was placed in March, and the article has been unstable for over a month (including being completely protected from editing for over a week); it's time to close this as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jan Grabowski (historian)
[edit]
[[File:|120x133px|Jan Grabowski ]]
Jan Grabowski
- ... that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing research that estimated Poles killed some 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust? Source: see [1][2][3]
5x expanded by Icewhiz, MyMoloboaccount, Nihil novi (talk). Self-nominated at 13:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC).
- STRONGLY oppose, the estimate has been highly contested and rejected by several historians. Criticism of Grabowski in question has been removed from the article by user Icewhiz. Also misleading is the claim I have expanded the article-my edits were deleted by Icewhiz. This nomination is highly contentious.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- The work was generally positively received - in reviews in peer reviewed settings, including winning a major award for Holocaust studies. Clearly it did not go over so well in some Polish circles - leading to death threats, calls for his sacking, a boycott, and even some linking this research to the new Polish "Holocaust Law". The criticism is present in the article. MyMoloboaccount did add information published in an op-ed by Grzegorz Berendt which is in the article at the moment, and I believe in credit where credit is due - however if MyMoloboaccount objects to being name a contributor - he could be struck from contrib list, no? That Grabowski published a 200,000 estimate and received death threats should not be contentious.Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't well received as you try to show, for example Grzegorz Berendt professor of the University of Gdańsk and member of The Jewish Historical Institute critized Grabowski's statements, stating that Prof. Grabowski alleges that Poles may have killed more than 200,000 Jews who escaped from the ghettos and camps. He knows full well that this number is “hot air.” The knowledge we possess allows us to estimate that at least 50,000 Jews escaped in the entire territory of occupied Poland. No other number has yet been proved by research. There are other historians who also sharply disagree with Grabowski and they should be included.And presenting this higly controversial claim as of hand statement of fact isn't neutral.In general the did you know nomination shouldn't be used to spread false or highly contested information as statement of fact--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Several praising reviews by historians. A major Holocaust studies prize. And yes - some very strong criticism from Poland (historians in op-eds, and the general public). The DYK hook makes it clear that this is an estimate, not fact, and that it is contentious in some circles.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- And criticized by historians in articles including scientific journals.Your hook presents Grabowski's claim as a matter of fact, not as a highly controversial claim that was strongly contested by historians, including ones in The Jewish Historical Institute.Anyway the matter is so controversial and requires so much analysis that I don't believe it is a suitable hook materialMyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- "that it is contentious in some circles" nice, but the hook states death threats, while we are talking about critical reception of his claims.Obviously the two are not the same and it wouldn't be neutral to allege otherwise.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor above has expressed concern regarding the article's neutrality. As with all hooks, the article must be neutral before it can be on the main page. Another concern: the article itself does not share the same information as the hook; instead of death threats, the article says "sharply criticized". Considering that the article is still experiencing substantial changes, I think it would have been wise to communicate with other contributors before launching this proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- in-article Hook fixed. the POV concern was expressed some 15 minutes after the DYK nom. At present, the article covers negative criticism (in non-peer reviewed settings) at much greater length than more numerous positive reviews (which are in peer-reviewed settings).Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- As long as the tag is present, my hands are tied. It appears there is an ongoing discussion; perhaps you can resolve it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- in-article Hook fixed. the POV concern was expressed some 15 minutes after the DYK nom. At present, the article covers negative criticism (in non-peer reviewed settings) at much greater length than more numerous positive reviews (which are in peer-reviewed settings).Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Date, size, references, copyvio check, ok. Fails on the grounds of hook neutrality - the claim is that he made in his research is highly controversial, and the hook does not make that clear. This could be perhaps fixed by addition of the word controversial to the hook, through I am unsure if even this would make the hook acceptable. As I argued in other discussions, his research is reliable, if controversial, and his estiamte can be cited in relevant articles, but to make it a focus of a high visibility DYK without at least a qualifier is problematic. PS. I also couldn't verify if the picture is indeed free, will update (currently the picture's source is insufficient for verification). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- English language sources do not refer to it as "highly controversial". Beyond the positive reviews (in English language peer reviewed journals) and major holocaust research prize, news orgs treat this as follows (and his figure has been covered multiple times by multiple top notch news orgs, particularly in light of the new Polish law):
- BBC does not mention controversial at all. It frames this as
Some of that anti-Semitism ends up in Mr Grabowski's mailbox. In the past it was sent anonymously, he said. Now it is signed, and it includes threats against his family.
. Grabowski's work is dicussed favorably previously in the article. - Haaretz covers the work favorably in its own voice, framing criticism as coming from the Polish AD leauge and
The subject touches a raw nerve for many in Poland....
orThose protesting Grabowski's research have been encouraged by a [the Polish] nationalist government
. - CBC
Grabowski ... has faced much criticism from some Polish historians for his years of research, including his controversial conclusion that 200,000 Polish Jews were killed — directly or indirectly — by Poles during the war.
andPoland's embassy to Canada, in Ottawa, has criticized Grabowki...
.
- BBC does not mention controversial at all. It frames this as
- However in the spirit of compromise (for the sake of hook berevity overstating the controversial aspect by not stating who is objecting while not mentioning the wide support):
- ALT2 .. that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing controversial research that estimated Poles killed some 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust? Source: see [4][5][6]
- Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- English language sources do not refer to it as "highly controversial". Beyond the positive reviews (in English language peer reviewed journals) and major holocaust research prize, news orgs treat this as follows (and his figure has been covered multiple times by multiple top notch news orgs, particularly in light of the new Polish law):
- This is better, but I am still unsure whether putting a very strong and controversial claim like this on the Main Page is both a good idea, and allowed by the DYK neutrality rules. Let's hear about this from some other DYK reviewers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- A possibly overly sanitized and less hooky shortet version would be:
- ALT3 ... that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing research on the Polish role in the Holocaust? Source: see [7][8][9]
- Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm. You maybe on to something Here's my version: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- ALT4 ... that Jan Grabowski received death threats after publishing research related to the Holocaust in Poland?
Article is completely ineligible. It is a Wikipedia:NPOV nightmare with neutrality disputed at the top of the target page. Not a single academic reference is used for a professional academician; but only the publicity stunts orchestrated by the subject himself, claiming to have received death threats. This nomination is a means for furthering the "Polish death camp" controversy editing wars, at your expense. Poeticbent talk 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have to add that I found numerous reports about the numbers being based on very flawed assumptions, and the article needs to be update in regards to this.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I share much of the exasperation regarding Grabowski's claims and the revisionist brouhaha (which I find just as intellectually honest and logically structured as John Sack's claims on the other side of the fence -- which is to say, not at all honest, not at all logical). However: "I found numerous reports about the numbers being based on very flawed assumptions, and the article needs to be update in regards to this" -- that sounds like an invitation to original research. Criticism of Grabowski needs to be based on what other published authors say about his work, not on what fault we find with it. Regardless of whether you or I find his assumption to be flawed, that's not what goes in the article; what goes in the article is that/if scholars have looked at his claims and have published commentary saying what they view as flawed in his work. Dahn (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I meant reports regarding Grabowski's numbers, sorry for not being clear.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I share much of the exasperation regarding Grabowski's claims and the revisionist brouhaha (which I find just as intellectually honest and logically structured as John Sack's claims on the other side of the fence -- which is to say, not at all honest, not at all logical). However: "I found numerous reports about the numbers being based on very flawed assumptions, and the article needs to be update in regards to this" -- that sounds like an invitation to original research. Criticism of Grabowski needs to be based on what other published authors say about his work, not on what fault we find with it. Regardless of whether you or I find his assumption to be flawed, that's not what goes in the article; what goes in the article is that/if scholars have looked at his claims and have published commentary saying what they view as flawed in his work. Dahn (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I also feel I should clarify something regarding the scope of the debate. To my knowledge, no Polish officials have ever claimed that there were no Poles involved in the mass murder of Jews; they have expressed quite justified and evidently verifiable claims: that the criminals were not a representative sample of Polish society (and were in fact renegade collaborators or opportunists), and that the Polish Underground State, as the sole representative of the Polish people, did not participate in any killing, and participated in quite many rescues of Jews. Regardless of other political positions, these are basic facts, and it is sickening that the current relativistic discourse relies on obscuring these facts. One can produce a legitimate critique of the Polish state based on it not having done "enough" to rescue Jews -- which depends on debatable definitions of what is "enough" (it's not enough that they supplied Jewish partisans with arms, that they helped Jews flee Poland, that they got their own people into Auschwitz to see what was going on there etc. etc.), but it is at least a superficially honest point. One cannot move from that sort of criticism and imply that the Polish people and/or State, together or separately, are responsible for the Holocaust. It is simply dishonest to do so, no matter how many time Haaretz and the Guardian produce articles repeating the nonsense.
- And other than that, there is a debate on the numbers of people killed by pro-Nazi Poles. In that debate, the argument "believe this number, because I was allegedly threatened with death for publishing it" doesn't really work, and is instantly suspicious. What works are verifiable data. Dahn (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, this article is about to fail DYK for yet another reason: the activity that has taken place since its nomination. The contributing editors seem to be mindful of each other's work, and take any issues they have to the talk page -- so this is not an edit war. However, the new additions are quite sloppy in matters of grammar and style, and the entire article would need a thorough copyedit when it reaches another stable version. Dahn (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- It would seem, that in an atypical fashion, a number of editors have taken some interest in this article following the nomination - tagging POV shortly after nomination, adding quite a bit of content, as well as prompting the addition of counter-content (e.g. the BLP's responses to various pieces, or due to the extensive negative reviews added (including one from a website/blog) - balancing with positive reviews published in significant settings). However, one would expect that this editor attention would possibly form a higher quality article based on consensus. It is possible for articles to linger in such cases for DYK, and one would hope that a reasonable and well balanced consensus would form in short enough time - if need be after attracting editors less involved in the subject matter to balance POV.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's anything atypical about the interest taken in the article, given the claim advanced by the hook and the controversial nature of the topic -- what attracted them is probably the exact same thing you expected would get hits for the DYK entry. I also don't see why you wound insist on labeling the source for criticism of Grabowski as a website (no, it's not a blog) -- we've already clarified that the objection is not grounded in policy. The issue of quality is independent of such insinuations: it simply happens when(ever) there's a flurry of edits, particularly when the edits are not in the editors' native language. It also happens when the edits are done in a hurried fashion, which is arguably prompted by the fact that the article as you proposed it for DYK featured absolutely no negative commentary on Grabowski's work. Incidentally, your own recent additions to the text were hurriedly written, and could use a copyedit. (And no, I don't agree with their removal, though I do see some need for toning down and attributing the narrative voice.) Dahn (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- A copyedit is needed on recent editions. The website is UNDUE (when all other critiques (positive and negative) are from notable historians and/or in peer reviewed journals). The article did not have negative commentary originally - as I used English sources (3 out 4 added negative pieces are in Polish) and did not include op-eds (at least 3 out of 4 added negative pieces are not in peer reviewed journals). (I was aware of the Haaretz op-ed, I think, but I didn't add other op-eds pro or con back then - I did not delve into Polish sources). To date - I actually have been unable to find a serious critique in English (in a peer reviewed journal or even an English language newspaper) - I might have missed one - but I haven't found one. I did mention the existence of Polish criticism based on English coverage of the existence of the criticism. While WP:NOENG allows use of non-English sources - editors are not expected to be able to find and source non-English content (and while I may be able to source some of the Polish sources - it is much harder for me than other languages - I sourced a Polish language response to a Polish accusation as it was DUE and required per BLP policy).Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying, not implying, that you were disingenuous in not putting in negative commentary, just that there factually wasn't any, and it is perfectly reasonable that other editors, who do not share Grabowski's thesis, would go looking for it. There's nothing controversial or scheming in this, just the expected confrontation of various ideas. And no, the "website" is not UNDUE, no matter how many times you repeat that: it is a reliable host for the claims it makes, which are by a reasonably qualified author (note that we don't even cite either for facts), and the whole critique fits within a paragraph; ignoring it would be UNDUE. But either way, there's no reason to ride the tails of my argument about copyedits by popularizing your claim about UNDUE here -- there's already a discussion about this on the talk page, anyone can find it. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- A copyedit is needed on recent editions. The website is UNDUE (when all other critiques (positive and negative) are from notable historians and/or in peer reviewed journals). The article did not have negative commentary originally - as I used English sources (3 out 4 added negative pieces are in Polish) and did not include op-eds (at least 3 out of 4 added negative pieces are not in peer reviewed journals). (I was aware of the Haaretz op-ed, I think, but I didn't add other op-eds pro or con back then - I did not delve into Polish sources). To date - I actually have been unable to find a serious critique in English (in a peer reviewed journal or even an English language newspaper) - I might have missed one - but I haven't found one. I did mention the existence of Polish criticism based on English coverage of the existence of the criticism. While WP:NOENG allows use of non-English sources - editors are not expected to be able to find and source non-English content (and while I may be able to source some of the Polish sources - it is much harder for me than other languages - I sourced a Polish language response to a Polish accusation as it was DUE and required per BLP policy).Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe there's anything atypical about the interest taken in the article, given the claim advanced by the hook and the controversial nature of the topic -- what attracted them is probably the exact same thing you expected would get hits for the DYK entry. I also don't see why you wound insist on labeling the source for criticism of Grabowski as a website (no, it's not a blog) -- we've already clarified that the objection is not grounded in policy. The issue of quality is independent of such insinuations: it simply happens when(ever) there's a flurry of edits, particularly when the edits are not in the editors' native language. It also happens when the edits are done in a hurried fashion, which is arguably prompted by the fact that the article as you proposed it for DYK featured absolutely no negative commentary on Grabowski's work. Incidentally, your own recent additions to the text were hurriedly written, and could use a copyedit. (And no, I don't agree with their removal, though I do see some need for toning down and attributing the narrative voice.) Dahn (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)