Talk:Institute of National Remembrance

Page protection

I can't believe I've had to protect this article again. Posting a statement on a talk page is not the same as discussion. Discussion goes back and forth, and should not be punctuated by a revert of the article after each editor says something. Most (if not all) of the parties involved here are very experienced editors who should know that.

To give you all a chance to try to reach consensus before editing the article or removing any tags, I have locked the article for 2 days. I hope everyone will use that time to either come up with a compromise, seek mediation, or at least cool off a bit. Kafziel ^Talk 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am at loss how can we "discuss" with an editor whose best arguments resolve about accusing others of "propaganda" and such...? :( I am going to ask for article's RFC/TO, but I doubt it will help much.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, in my edit summary I said that the reasons for tagging is your revert warring to undo this edit without explanation. I also said that one only needs to click on the diff above to see that it is self-explanatory. However, forcing your opponents into lengthy discussion with no substance in order to filibuster the change you object is not new on your part, and raised at your ongoing ArbCom. I will not allow this to happen here again. So, only briefly as per this diff

• you don't allow the change of the lead that would correctly define the IPN in agreement to its real functions, a gov institutions with research, prosecution and lustration prerogatives. You say, that your definition (merely a research institution) follows from the mission published at the institution's web-site. USSR Stalin's constitution made also some startling statement about the all-positive nature of the Soviet state. We do not define the USSR according to this self-published source. The fact that the purpose of the institution is three-fold is referenced and not doubted. Nevertheless, you try to avoid this being presented properly and want to define IPN merely as a research institution. Doing so helps make it seem a more credible source than it is and counterfactual
• You insist on introducing the academically non-defined term called Communist crimes. It is ORish to stretch the established definitions of Nazi crimes and the "Crimes of the Communist regimes" to this term that somehow implies, again ORish, that those fall in the same league
• Holocaust in Poland was not conducted just by Germans. It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it happen. Nevertheless you keep restoring the unfactual "by Germans" clause
• Every crime committed against Poles has the "by who" explanation (by Red Army, by Soviet or Nazi authorities, by Lithuanians, Germans, etc.) Every crime committed by Poles leaves the reader wondering, like who the hell mobbed the Jews in Kielce, Krakow and Jedwabne. I corrected that and you reverted on the spot
• You were so eager to revert me that you also restored my innocent correction of your spelling errors. Why else would you restore the non-English perogatives (prerogatives), particulary (particularly), occupants (occupiers)?

If you handle the good faith objections with immediate resorting to revert warring and go asking otherw for help when you use up "your revert quota", don't play the outrage that the articles are tagged and end up protected. --Irpen 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a basic error in thinking here. The purpose of the article is to report what is the scope of the IPN's investigations, as defined in its charter. We should just quote it and be done with it. The issue whether this charter correctly describes what happened during the war is an issue for another discussion.

Furthermore, in the listing of cases, we should list only those with a citation linking to a relevant IPN report or announcement of an ongoing investigation. Even then, the list should probably be cut down from its current rather long form (as the purpose of this article is not to list all crimes against humanity committed in Poland during World War II). Balcer 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply to your personal attacks and ArbCom allegations best describing yours, not mine, behaviour. Now that finally you decide to explain the reasons for your edits on talk with some detail, I will however address the isssues you raise.

• lead definition: We have plenty of sources explaining Stalin's constitution was not what it said. We have no sources putting IPN being primarily a research institute into question. Information Processing Centre defines it as jednostka badawczo-rozwojowa and makes no mention of lustration ([1], granted this entry might have not been updated yet considering lustration change is recent, but for now this is what this very reliable ref states). English "about" page about the institute does not list lustration ([2], again I agree it might have not been updated). It does mention prosecution. Polish "about" mentions existance of Lustration Bureau without going into detaiks [3]. Legal act ([4]) mentions prosecution early on, but not the lustration. As such, I agree that the lead needs a rewriting (and I invite you to propose a version here we can edit without revert warring in the article). Briefly, I suggest that we should make it clear that it is primarily a research institute, with more stress on prosecution for past (communist/Nazi) crimes and less stress on lustration (which is reflected on IPN's own page); after all the entire lustration issue is both very new to IPN and likely overblown by current media attention - we should not define the institution by a minor function it acquired in the past few weeks. Here is my propsed compromise version of the lead:

---

Institute of National Remembrance — Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Polish: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej — Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu; IPN) is a Polish government-affiliated research institute with prosecution perogatives founded by special legislation. It specialises in the legal and historical sciences and in particular the recent history of Poland. IPN investigates both Nazi and Communist crimes committed in Poland, documents its findings and disseminates the results of its investigations to the public.

Since March 15, 2007, IPN is mandated to carry out lustration procedures prescribed by Polish law.

---

• Nazi crimes redirect to Nuremberg Trials which make it a not very useful redirect. I will prioritize translating pl:Zbrodnia komunistyczna, it is a notable term from Polish legal system. Please note that IPN in English text uses phrases like "major responsibility of the Institute is to investigate Communist and Nazi crimes", implying some equality on the definition level and the article is merely following its phrasing.[5] Extrapolating from it that "communist crimes were as bad as Nazi crimes" or sth like this is only your conclusion, the article makes no such assertion - we could as well pick apart the phrase "as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity and peace" and discuss whether war crimes, crimes against humanity and against peace are equal or not.
• "It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it happen." Keep your "well-known" unreferenced facts to yourself, please. The purpose and research sections are based on the best source there is - definitions from IPN pages and what they sumbitted to IPC. If they don't say something, we don't include it in those sections. Crimes committed by Poles are of course investigated by IPN too, and several (Jedwabne, Kielce, Bloody Sunday) are mentioned in the second part of 'Research' section; but please don't include your own ideas what IPN should investigage - or what it does - in the official parts, until IPN decides to do so itself (feel free to write them a complain letter about their POV).
• the 'by whom' section is inconsistent; Bloody Sunday mentiones "by Poles", Massacre of Lwów professors does not state "by Germans". I have no objection to adding "by Poles" where needed, I reverted you because I found "by the mob" to be inelegant. Perhaps a much better suggestion is copying a lead of every of those articles? Or no description at all, just the titles? Or as Balcer suggests, drop this subsection since it has a potential to be an overblown content fork indeed.
• I am sorry if I missed some of your spelling corrections, they become hard to see when you are changing entire sentences, not words. In the future, may I suggest doing a separate spellchecking edit with an edit summary of 'typos only' or something along those lines, so if a revert happens, the reverting editor has an easy way of keeping beneficial minor changes.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If pl:Zbrodnia komunistyczna is a definable term within the framework of Polish legal science, it does not make its translation a valid term, not a subject of the article whose name would imply the term is universal. You are welcome to translate the article, but if its scope is going to be a Polish-based definition, the title should clearly say so. If you find any PA's in my entry, take it elsewhere. Try to convince the ArbCom or anyone that this is a PA indeed. So far, because of misuse of the term and the policy, two boards were thankfully deleted by this community.

If some sources prefer to not mention the institution's non-research functions, it does not mean that we should follow the suit. These functions are included in the article and properly referenced.

If the complicity of Poles in Holocaust is not known to you, take a look at Gross and Piotrowski I cited elsewhere.

If you dislike "by the mob" as inelegant, you should have changed it to something more elegant. You simply deleted the description, thus leaving only the perpetrators of massacres of Poles in and keeping the perpetrators of the massacres by Poles out. --Irpen 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Communist crime has been translated per requests. Other issues you raise are covered sufficiently by WP:V and WP:NPOV, I am getting tired of citing them in discussions with you. If our sources don't say "A", we will not add "A" to the article, it's as simple as that. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Piotrus, wikilawyering and filibustering. It is too obvious to be convincing to anyone. --Irpen 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Irpen, complete ignoring of our policies - I see you started from WP:CIV months ago, added WP:RS recently and now are challenging even the basic content ones...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And again the case of Volodarka: on one hand we have a plethora of sources, on the other we have... Irpen's judgement. Sorry Irpen, but I find your behaviour highly disruptive. You're a sensible man, why don't you focus on building this project rather than fighting those who do? //Halibutt 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Stola

I've undone this addition, as it looks cherry-picked to me [6]:

• While critcal of IPN, Stola also notes that some of its critics suffer from oversensitivity.

The full context from Stola is this:

• An academic environment heavily dominated by one institution, which is not itself famous for inner diversity, excellence and innovation (unlikely in most government offices), does not provide the best conditions for progress in research. Such a situation may be particularly dangerous when the dominant institution shows a tendency for a questionable vision of interpretations of the past.

There were moments when the Institute or its senior officials were justifiably blamed for insufficient neutrality towards party politics or for highly controversial public statements. Oversensitivity of some of IPN critics does not invalidate the argument that misconduct in the delicate and highly emotional matters of the recent past may have dangerous consequences.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Further, I explanded on the recent addition [7], to provide more context. My edit: [8]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked" is an understatement. This borders (?) on dishonesty. François Robere (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Stola 2

Re: "revisionism" - Stola doesn't use the term - I chose it to convey the essence of statements like these: "...the dominant institution shows a tendency for a questionable vision of interpretations of the past"; "A particular figure of militant historian has emerged out of my profession... Producing dissensus around memory [as] a cheap means of attracting media attention, sharpening ones ideological profile and strengthening position on the partisan scene" (emphasis in source); "IPN has a tendency to polarize the Communist past of Poland... [the] Soviet-imposed totalitarian regime... [vs] “the society,” the people or the nation... these are the opposite Poles so to speak, that give an orientation to the authors and the readers, probably a moral orientation they desire." François Robere (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and NPOV

Individual incidents may or may not be WP:UNDUE, but the central criticism of the IPN is that it is not a scholarly research institute engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth, but exists to build national memory. This is not really a "criticism", as it relates to the central purpose of the institution, but is absolutely essential to mention for precisely that reason. Any type of researcher may be searching for the objective truth, or promoting a particular cause or ideology, but can't do both at once. If you are looking for the institution that does scholarly historical research into Polish history, that is the Polish Academy of Sciences. Similar criticism and controversy exists around many other national memory instutitons, such as those in Lithuania and Ukraine, which are much less known internationally. For example, academic journals published by the Slovak Academy of Science will be more DUE and better regarded internationally than the journal of the National Memory Institute (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should discuss the aspect of IPN being a national memory institution more, and de-emphasizing the POV inherent in the word criticism. Many research institutions have various missions, goals and biases, which do not make them less reliable, as long as research is subject to the same standard (peer review, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Many research institutions have various missions, goals and biases, which do not make them less reliable except that it usually does. Institutions with "various missions, goals and biases" (other than an impartial search for truth), such as think tanks, are generally dispreferred to scholarly sources, because they exist to promote an agenda (and will end up twisting the truth to that end).

Now, the IPN is primarily reliability-based, but that does not mean that its publishing is necessarily up to academic standard. Another editor stated above, My impression is that the IPN is seldom cited in general in an academic context... that is mine as well. A google scholar search finds that IPN publications sometimes achieve respectable citation counts (50–100)[9] but compare that to basically any academic publisher.[10] (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside that I don't think it is good to quote indef-banned editors per WP:DFTT, your first claim "are generally dispreferred to scholarly sources, because...", while plausible, needs a citatiom. Are you familiar with any studie that have arrived at that conclusion after looking at non-anecdotal data? As for the comparison of IPN to Syracuse UP, this is apples and oranges. Google Scholar is not very good at indexing non-English language works. For example, a reliable Polish university publisher, from the most famous Polish university, Wydawnictwo UJ, generates only half the citations (or at least mentions, as this is what our search is showing) of Syracuse: [11], [12]. If we compare IPN to WUJ, we see that IPN mentions are 20% that of WUJ, but to conclude they are less impactful we need to check compare the volume of publications. I.e. what we would need is a statistic that shows that an average publication of IPN has a citation index of y, compared to an average publication of WUJ. And I'll repeat that using Google Scholar for non-English works is problematic, so when we compare English to Polish we are getting major errors due to systemic bias present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Critiques have pointed out that many think-tanks do not contribute research in any real sense, and frequently serve elite, government or business interests instead."[13]
• "My assessment of their research is critical. It is often polemical and of limited theoretical value. It pays too little attention to the politics of debt reduction and follows rather than leads partisan debate."[14]
• "The post-Communist think tanks do not focus on long-term academic research and their studies are neglected in academic circles. Few of them publish in respected journals and few publish academic books. Only 29 of the institutes devote more than 50 per cent of their time to policy research. " Ivan Krastev 10.1080/14683850108454635
• "Doberstein has shown, in experimental research, that even those policymakers who profess a belief in evidence-based policymaking may not hold think tank output in the highest regard as they consider it substantially less credible and more ideological than, for example, academic output (Doberstein, 2017).... Similarly, in an extensive study of the media representation of seven think tanks, Haas found that think tanks, regardless of whether they were advocacy-oriented or not, were presented by the media as credible sources in almost all cases. This occurred whether or not professional norms of academic research were followed (Haas, 2007).... Some claim, still with regard to climate change but in a U.S. context, that the ways in which media treat think tanks as credible sources of objective information means they have achieved the status of an “alternate academia” while falling short of academic standards of rigor, transparency, and impartiality (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013, p. 701)... However, as other research has shown, there could be a problem regarding think tanks’ credibility and also the (perception of the) quality—or, rather, the lack of it—of their output on the side of government policy analysts (e.g., Ceccarelli, 2011; Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008)." https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420
• "the politicization of think tanks that usually comes with a close affi nity with, and advocacy on behalf of, a particular administration or political party has been identifi ed as having a more subtle and detrimental impact on the scientifi c integrity and scholarly credibility of think tanks... organizational survival is a pre-eminent concern and one that takes resources away from ‘ thinking ’ or policy research towards marketing, advocacy and PR." 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x
• "Rather than promoting scholarly inquiry as a means to better serve the public interest--a goal embraced by think tanks in the Progressive era •6• advocacy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Policy Studies have come to resemble interest groups and political action committees by pressuring decisionmakers to implement policies compatible with their ideological beliefs" 10.3138/CRAS-025-01-05
• "Some academics have warned of the spotty rigor of some think tank or advocacy organization research (Ceccarelli 2011; Jacques et al. 2008)" 10.3138/cpp.2016-067

Whether IPN is reliable for a particular claim has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, your search is showing that Wydawnictwo UJ is cited more than IPN: its books are cited 199, 192, 152 times, which is higher than any of the results for IPN. I would tentatively conclude that WUJ is a more reliable publisher.

I don't agree with the evil things that Icewhiz has done to advance their agenda, nevertheless, they are not wrong about everything. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "criticism" relates to the fact the institute is often assumed to be (or presented as) objective, while in fact serving some purposes other than just research. François Robere (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. But we should present its actual purpose, according to RS. Whether that purpose is a good or bad one is not for Wikipedia to decide. (t · c) buidhe 08:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, though it doesn't preclude criticisms by RS of whatever aspect of the institute they perceive as problematic. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of criticisms

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: Between 03:09 and 07:38 you made 39 edits removing the following from the article:

1. [15] The statement is a reasonable reading of a longer quote given in the source (p. 58). Given the RS status of the author, the statement should've been amended rather than removed. This has been discussed in the past.
2. [16] Same. You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago.
3. [17] Few of the IPN's "hundreds of investigations" resulted in international incidents, hence WP:DUE. Also previously discussed.
4. [18] Concerns current, rather than historical affairs. While we can certainly up our quality of sources, this has been an acceptable standard in the TA thus far.
5. [19] Of course this is about recent affairs (the IPN has only existed for a couple of decades), and how are "personal disputes" relevant to removing a major RS who is hardly unique in his criticism? And BTW, you have your own "dispute" with Grabowski, so if that doesn't matter (as you previously opined [20]) I can hardly see how his disagreements with the IPN do.
6. [21] Yes, that is literally the title of Dariusz Stola's chapter in the second source.
7. [22] You can hardly say that it's "unsourced" if it links to a whole article full of sources on a subject no one denies exists. If you're bothered by the lack of an inline citation, use {{cn}}, don't remove the statement.
8. [23] This isn't "cherry picked" nor "misrepresentative" - it accurately represented an entire chapter dedicated to the IPN, including the use of the phrases "Ministry of Memory" and "Orwellian". You can argue on "speculative", but then you'd be doing OR.
9. [24] Again current affairs.
10. [25] Both NFP and ToI use the phrase "far right" and note his reception of the Bronze Cross of Merit.
11. [26] As you can see by clicking on "about us", NFP was founded by Stanley Bill, Director of the Polish Studies Programme at the University of Cambridge, and Daniel Tilles, an assistant professor at the Pedagogical University of Kraków;[27] is ran by a team of journalists with a long resume (Wilczek writes for The Times and Balkan Insight, Wądołowska was with multiple Polish newspapers including GW, Koschalka has a long list of publications in multiple roles), and advised by the likes of historians Norman Davies and Timothy Garton Ash, and Nobel Prize recipient Olga Tokarczuk.
12. [28] Explain?
13. [29] The text clearly stated that the disturbance was organized by GP activists. If you thought this needed further clarifying, you could use {{clarify}} rather than remove this notable and widely covered incident.
14. [30] Again, current affairs.
15. [31] p. 1023: "gross imbalance between the quality studies it publishes and the massive amount of writing of no real scientific interest it also publishes".
16. [32] Stola discusses politics from p. 55 onwards
17. [33] Tomasz Stryjek is a political scientist at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The entire paper is a discussion of the evolving "remembrance and identity policy" in Poland, including the IPN.
18. [34] Investigations have at least two subjects: the investigator and the investigated. As IPN was the investigator here (with the investigated being a major study and a watershed line in Polish historiography), how can you claim this is a "POV fork"? Also, your summary of Behr isn't exactly representative: he doesn't "commend" IPN for taking in young historians, just describes a situation. Most of his paper has a very factual tone, with few overt commendations or criticisms. That said, his statement that the IPN "mainly [takes] in historians from the fringes of the academic field. Due to their ideology and/or their failure to achieve a prominent academic career, they were disposed to look for alternative pathways towards legitimization as historians", most of which do not hold academic positions at the same time. He also notes that the IPN's mandate seems to attract historians who "might feel very comfortable with the totalitarian paradigm and the schematic opposition between state and society, as their political views are closer to the right-wing camp. The so-called ‘militant historians’... do not hide their sympathies for conservative or nationalist interpretations of the past." This seems more relevant to the "research" section than a commendation "for being an outlet which offers hiring opportunities"
19. [35] "Outdated recentism"? It's either/or, not both. Also: how is it either?
20. [36] That's hardly just his opinion, isn't it?
21. [37] "a 2018 Polish statute attempted to protect the “good name” of the Polish state and people against any charges of complicity in Nazi atrocities" (p. 157). The amendment itself uses the phrase "Whoever claims... the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes".
22. [38] Again not representative of the source. Behr does not "praise" the IPN for "creating hiring opportunities", he merely notes that the IPN has a huge budget and lots of openings. Again, his paper is for the most part very mellow and detailed.
23. [39] This tags a statement that two days ago had three sources representing perhaps five historians.[40][41] BTW, the "low quality source" is historian Gideon Greif, interviewed on a prime time news show on Kan 11.
24. [42] Explain?
25. [43] Explain?
26. [44] Explain?
27. [45] Indeed dated. As of 2019, the IPN's lustration office constitutes around 8.8% of the total IPN workforce, including 34 prosecutors (pp. 371-372 here).
28. [46] The issues here have to do with the institutional responses to far-right extremism, not with the length of the event or level at which it occurred. With respect to that, these cases do merit a mention, if not a section.

François Robere (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. I disagree that it's a "reasonable reading". It's just not.
2. This makes it sound like "objectivity" is a bad thing. Why exactly? More broadly, historians may differ in their opinion of what the appropriate methodology is but this isn't the place to hash out these arguments (and the source doesn't really portray it as a criticism either)
3. The IPN has conducted more than 9000 investigations. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. This wasn't an "international incident". Actually read the source please.
4. Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Actually even w/o sourcing requirements it doesn't qualify. BTW, in Stola's article the term "Ministry of Memory" isn't used in a necessarily negative sense, even though this article tried really hard to pretend it was. It just means "an institution that preserves memory". Just like Yad Vashem or other institutions in countries that have gone through some horrible experiences.
5. The Wikipedia text pretends this is some long running criticism or something. Rather it's just axe grinding and a personal dispute between some historians.
6. See above. There's nothing in the source (though I don't have it in front of me right now) which says "rather than objective historical research institute". Funnily enough, the other criticism that you want included is that the institute tries to be too "objective", which is, like, outdated, man.

For now. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Take your time. I'd rather reply to everything at once. François Robere (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a thing. You've taken every single one of my edits and listed it above. Surely not every single one was bad? I mean, just by probability and the stochastic nature of the universe you'd find one that you didn't object to? Hmmm, well, how about we try it this way: please list the top five that are most important to you and we'll start there. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, If you would be so kind as to tell me which numbers above refer to my edits I'll try to explain. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Edits nos. 18, 22, 23 and 28. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Feel free to rewrite/expand the sections, and then we can see how to arrive at an acceptable compromise. In either case, Behr was used very selectively as only criticism of IPN from his work was used, and somehow anything positive (or even neutral) he said about it was omitted. This is hardly a 'best practice'. We need to strive for balance, or rather, NPOV. IPN has been subject to various criticisms, true. But it has also been subject to praise, including, as Behr himself notes, for trying to address some of those criticisms (rather than ignoring them wholesale). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for NPOV, but wholesale removal of criticisms (two editors who barely touched the article in over a year suddenly make 38 revisions over 4.5 hours) isn't the way to do it, especially while IPN is being discussed in another article. The extent of the changes alone makes it difficult for any one editor to review, so I've posted at NPOVN RSN for more eyes. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty of criticism left. What was taken out was stuff that was either cherry picked, irrelevant, WP:COATRACK or not meeting sourcing requirements. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Would you like to reply on each? François Robere (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Like I said above , let's start with say 5 of them that you feel are most importan t. You seemed to just have listed every single one of my edits and it's just very unlikely that all of these objections are meant seriously. Volunteer Marek 15:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't catch where you said that, but that's fine. As for your edits - I didn't list all of them, but I did spend several hours go through all of them, and I did not do it for jest. I'll start a subsection below and copy relevant comments. François Robere (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, I have no idea how not touching the article for years is relevant. How about you comment on how an editor who never edited Witold Pilecki's article removed approximately half of the article content? Also you should link the relevant new discussion you started, not just mention it (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mass_removal_of_criticisms_from_the_Polish_Institute_of_National_Remembrance). Best practices, you know... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just really unusual timing, and the mass of the changes makes it difficult for others to review. As for the other discussion - you already know that I commented there like I comment anywhere else,[47][48] despite receiving a rather cold welcome.[49][50][51] François Robere (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

1. The summary was not perfect but was not totally off mark. Full quote is: "The historian must strive not only to reconstruct a given reality, but also to understand the background of events, the circumstances in which peo- ple acted. It is easy to condemn, but difficult to understand a complicated past. [... Meanwhile, in the IPN] thick volumes are being produced, into which are being thrown, with no real consideration, further evidence incriminating various persons now deceased (and therefore not able to defend themselves), and elderly people still alive – known and unknown. The impression is created that the entire PRL – not only in the early Stalinist years, but throughout the entire period – was a UB kingdom, which no one was able to resist."
2. Agree with François Robere. This is clearly what the source says.
3. Can't read Polish.
4. Editors should abide by WP:COI.
5. Agree with FR. WP:COI applies.
6. Agree with FR.
7. Agree with FR.
8. Agree with FR. "Ministry of Memory" is an important theme of Stola's paper.
9. This event looks WP:DUE.
10. Can't read Polish.
11. I am indifferent regarding this edit.
12. Again, editors should apply WP:COI.
13. I agree with Volunteer Marek that the summary was not a fair representation of the source material. However, I think a deletion is excessive.
14. Can't read Polish.
15. I am indifferent regarding this edit.
16. Agree with VM that Stola does not make this argument.
17. Agree with FR. The source says: "After the last change of management in mid-2016, the Institute of National Remembrance became again an institution of identity policy. An expression of this policy is not only the conduct of activities that the authorities perceive as a fight against the defamation of Poland in the international arena, but also the implementation of a broad plan of exhumation of “cursed soldiers” and other victims from the period 1944-1953 on the territory of Poland. [...] The Act of 29 April 2016 abolished the participation of the scientific community of historians in the appointment of the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, giving politicians an unrestrained control over this process. [...] Concentrating almost all the func- tions of the state’s remembrance policy in Poland, the National Remem- brance Institute, together with the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage (MKiDN), approached the ideal of the Orwellian “Ministry of Memory”."
18. Deletion: The reason given for the deletion are not clear. Addition: Not a fair summary of Behr's paper, which is more critical of the IPN than the edit suggests.
19. This information is WP:DUE.
20. Zuk's opinion is WP:DUE.
21. Agree with FR. The source says that.
22. Agree with FR. Again, Behr's paper is more critical than this summary suggests.
23. WP:WEASEL states that "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."
24. This information is WP:DUE.
25. I am indifferent regarding this edit.
26. Content should be restored.
27. If information is outdated, it should be updated.
28. I am not aware of such a policy. WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply.

--JBchrch (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have been here only a couple months yet seem to have pretty in depth knowledge of both Wikipedia policies and controversies in this area. I'm not sure why you're bringing up "COI" though the fact that you do suggests involvement in this topic that is uncharacteristic of a brand new editor. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to shatter your ego but Wikipedia policies and controversies in this area aren't that complex. Also I would expect a Master Editor III to be familiar with WP:AGF.--JBchrch (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what my ego has to do with it. You might want to change your tone if you expect others to AGF. I note also that you didn't bother addressing the actual issue I raised. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

On 4 and 12, it looks to me like the Haaretz article mentions you explicitly (I am not familiar with the story and I expect that you have a different version of the events). On 5 I am reading that you have a personal dispute with Grabowski (which I am not familiar with). I am not saying that these articles should be kept or removed, only that the policies have to be followed.--JBchrch (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Riiiigggghhhhhttt. You think I have "a dispute" with Grabowski, wetf that means (I don't) but you just found out about it from a brief (and erroneous) assertion by FR above but you claim you have no knowledge of this topic area. Look, buddy. If you actually did not have much knowledge of this topic area then you wouldn't immediately jump on that assertion and you wouldn't invoke "COI" (which most users don't even know about). Volunteer Marek 20:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I sense that you're trying to incite conflict, but I don't care enough about you or your personal life to go in that direction. I encourage you to engage constructively with the objections people have raised about your edits. I have tried to be fair and I even support some of your edits. And you know what? I would be very happy to learn that I was wrong and that there was no COI after all.--JBchrch (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• That looks like a whitewash to me, even if individually the edits were unimpeachable (they aren’t) taken as a whole the edits would still raise massive due weight etc issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If the edits are fine individually then taken as a whole they're fine too. All that's happened here is that the article got stuffed chuck full of cherry picked POV based on misrepresentation of sources. These has now been removed. There's still plenty criticism left in the article. NPOV and DUE weight has been restored. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I said the edits *aren’t* fine individually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Then actually make that argument. Otherwise this is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You made a simple reading comprehension error (it happens to all of us), theres no need to get so defensive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

ookay. If you say so. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A wise man once said "You might want to change your tone if you expect others to AGF.” now I’m not so sure that statement is actually supported by wikipedia policy but I seems relevant here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. Anyway... Volunteer Marek 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's take the second one as an example. The text in the wikipedia article that I removed was:

"Concerns have been raised with the institution's approach to historical research, which tends towards historical positivism and a claim of objectivity."

First, this makes it sound as if the problem with the Institute's historical research is that it's not objective. However, what the source is actually complaining about - or to be more precise, what the source says SOME people are complaining about - is that the institute strives to be objective and generally follows a positivist rather than historicist approach. Basically, some argue that there's no "objective truth" only competing "narratives". Whatever. Regardless, it's not our place to rehash this argument in the article on the institute and in addition to giving a false impression of the source, the info is just simply WP:UNDUE

(what really happened is that one editor went through and trawled the internet for anything that could be used to put the Institute in a negative light and dumped it all into this article in one massive violation of NPOV, DUE WEIGHT and RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That editor has been indefinetly banned and this is simply long overdue clean up) Volunteer Marek 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, But IDONTLIKEIT... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: Just noting I haven't abandoned this discussion, I'm just preoccupied. I'll probably be back to it at some point next week, then we can wrap up points #1-6 and move on. Thanks for the patience. François Robere (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

#1-6

Opened subsection and copied relevant comments from above. If there's anything relevant at RSN, please copy here. François Robere (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1. [52] The statement is a reasonable reading of a longer quote given in the source (p. 58). Given the RS status of the author, the statement should've been amended rather than removed. This has been discussed in the past.
2. [53] Same. You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago.
3. [54] Few of the IPN's "hundreds of investigations" resulted in international incidents, hence WP:DUE. Also previously discussed.
4. [55] Concerns current, rather than historical affairs. While we can certainly up our quality of sources, this has been an acceptable standard in the TA thus far.
5. [56] Of course this is about recent affairs (the IPN has only existed for a couple of decades), and how are "personal disputes" relevant to removing a major RS who is hardly unique in his criticism? And BTW, you have your own "dispute" with Grabowski, so if that doesn't matter (as you previously opined [57]) I can hardly see how his disagreements with the IPN do.
6. [58] Yes, that is literally the title of Dariusz Stola's chapter in the second source.

François Robere (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. I disagree that it's a "reasonable reading". It's just not.
2. This makes it sound like "objectivity" is a bad thing. Why exactly? More broadly, historians may differ in their opinion of what the appropriate methodology is but this isn't the place to hash out these arguments (and the source doesn't really portray it as a criticism either)
3. The IPN has conducted more than 9000 investigations. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. This wasn't an "international incident". Actually read the source please.
4. Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Actually even w/o sourcing requirements it doesn't qualify. BTW, in Stola's article the term "Ministry of Memory" isn't used in a necessarily negative sense, even though this article tried really hard to pretend it was. It just means "an institution that preserves memory". Just like Yad Vashem or other institutions in countries that have gone through some horrible experiences.
5. The Wikipedia text pretends this is some long running criticism or something. Rather it's just axe grinding and a personal dispute between some historians.
6. See above. There's nothing in the source (though I don't have it in front of me right now) which says "rather than objective historical research institute". Funnily enough, the other criticism that you want included is that the institute tries to be too "objective", which is, like, outdated, man.

For now. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. JBchrch gave the quote above. How would you summarise it?
2. You didn't remove this as "undue", but as a misrep (which it's not). Regardless, this isn't just a disagreement on methodology (eg. this or that sort of archive), but on the very role of the historian. The "historians aren't objective" gist is "Historiography 101" these days, and if the IPN sees itself differently then it goes against the mainstream of modern historiography (cf. criticisms against scholars in MJC's circle), which makes it DUE.
3. Apologies, I was mixing that with another international incident (though Sahryn did get some international attention regardless [59][60][61][62]). I would've happily read the source like I did with many of the other diffs (as you can see from the quotes), but it does get tiring when you have to go through 38 of them.
4. I assume we can defer here to our discussion at RSN.[63] The bottom line is that there's no wiki-policy that would support removing the opinions of two scholars published in a paper of record, on the grounds that the piece was motivated by the story of a blocked user.
5. How is the text pretending that? And how do you discern between valid criticism and a "personal dispute"? Because there seem to be an awful lot of these with the IPN.
6. Remember this statement is a condensed rephrasing of multiple sources with multiple messages, resulting simply from editors' unwillingness to have more criticism in the lead; it is bound to be inaccurate. All of the sources criticize the IPN's politicization and "memory politics" at the expense of research (especially under PiS), and I'm fine using that phrasing instead. François Robere (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Not the way it WAS summarized. The article text is the "IPN's historiographic approach is more broadly concerned with assigning blame than with understanding of historical processes". The relevant part of the paragraph, which IBchrch ommitted reads:

At the center of research trends in Poland today, there remains a solid, workshop-oriented, traditional, and positivist historiography (mainly event history), which defends itself by the integrity of its analysis and its diversified source base; the latter virtue allows the research instrumentarium to modernize and to avoid the trap of narrating only “how it was in fact.” The work of “IPN historians,” promoted so widely by the media, fits nicely into this traditional vein, broadly defined.

So:

Solid.

Workshop-oriented.

Traditional historiograpy

Integrity of its analysis

Diversified source base

Avoids the trap of narrating only "how it was in fact"

But somehow out of this you pull out "concerned with assigning blame than with understanding of historical processes"? Even in the truncated part offered by the Jbchrch account there's nothing in there about "understanding historical processes". Volunteer Marek 23:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're misreading Traba. Earlier in the article (p. 43) he writes the following: "Under the very name (and along with that name, the practices) of the IPN, tasks related to the “national politics of memory” were – unfortunately – merged with the mission of independent academic research. In the public mind, there could be only one message flowing from the institute’s name: memory and history as a science are one. The problem is that nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more misleading. What the IPN’s message presents, in fact, is the danger that Polish history will be grossly over-simplified." Then in p. 57 he writes that "in the opinion of many of its representatives, “access to the files” designates the only correct way to learn about the past. The mindless promotion of the “folder/teczka” fetish leads to a simplified claim that only “secret” sources, not accessible to ordinary mortals, mark off the paradigm of “objective truth.”" It is then that he introduces the quote from Śliwowska as "[highlighting] - against that background - the tendencies set forth (fortunately not always realized!) by the standards of the IPN". And then, in p. 67: "There is... a need for genuine debate that does not revolve around teczki in the IPN archives, “lustration,” or short-term and politically inspired discussions designed to establish the “only real” truth... We must look at “our own past” through the prism of transnational histories... I see another key in the promotion of debate about diversity in methodological strategies (in the spirit of an expanded perspective)... None of this means that I want to create out of interdisciplinarity a canon of modern historical research; I am an advocate of a polyphonic narrative about the past, whose overriding feature is not some hermetic method, but rather imagination..."

So is it solid? Yes. Does it have integrity? In some sense, yes. But it's also dated, esoteric, narrow, simplistic and uncritical, to the point of stymieing the historical discussion and endangering public discourse. François Robere (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The " dated, esoteric, narrow, simplistic and uncritical" is obviously your own WP:OR rather than anything that's actually in the source. The criticism above appear to be mostly about IPN's role in the lustration process which is a different thing (and a separate department). At any rate, this isn't what the Wikipedia article text was saying. Volunteer Marek 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not at all what he says? Lustration is only mentioned as part of the problem; almost everything else is about methodology, role of the historian etc. As for accuracy, see my comment to Piotrus below, and to MVBW on RSN.[64][65] In both cases the problem stems not from anyone's intentional misrep, but from others' unwillingness to allow any sort of detailed criticism in the article, leading to attempts to condense and shorten it enough that it'll be accepted (but then a couple of years pass and it's removed again, this time as "inaccurate" or "excessive"). François Robere (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Regarding one, while there may be something rescuable here, the sentence was a disaster, as it took a specific attributed (at least) criticism (that IPN is unduly stressing the power of UB) and made it sound like any and all research by IPN is biased. While we could try to rewrite it, nuking the sentence as grossly exaggerating the source is fine. Regarding other sources, I'll be happy to chip in if quotes from the source are provided. Also, I suggest we discuss each diff in its own subsection, for further clarity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus:: Thing is, we originally quoted it much more accurately,[66] and guess what? That too was nuked,[67] as were several other criticisms that were quoted accurately. The issue does not seem to be one of accuracy, but one of existence.

And regarding "nuking": if the source is very good and you "nuke" it, then you lose it. Why would you want to lose it? Bring it to Talk instead. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That text was inserted by (yet another) sock puppet [68]. So yeah, it was undone, as it should've been per WP:DENY and per the specific ArbCom restriction passed to deal with the persistent socking in this area. Oh but I should thank you bringing this diff to my attention since it looks like it reveals some info about some of the other sock puppets currently operating in this TA. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You undid it before the SPI was concluded; the ArbCom decision wasn't passed until four months later; WP:DENY isn't policy; the content was legit; and this is far from the only such incident, most of which have little to do with "socking", and much to do with removing criticisms. François Robere (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol, anyone with ounce of sense could see that was a sock. And yes it had everything to do with socking. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Indeed. WP:DENY. It is because of such editors, mostly indef banned but socking left and right, this area continues to have problems. 500/30 helped but only a little, as the most dedicated trolls have no trouble making accounts that are many months old, and rack few hundred edits easily doing some semi-automated maintenance tasks... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by " You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago."? Volunteer Marek 19:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. It may have been on MJC's page - we've had a similar discussion there. François Robere (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Who's MJC? Volunteer Marek 08:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz? François Robere (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

6 Should be easy. There's absolutely nothing in Stola's article which says "rather than objective historical institute". Someone made that last part up. Volunteer Marek 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Volunteer Marek -->[69] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit summary says "see talk". There's nothing on talk about either oko press or Notes from Poland. First one isn't even RS. Notes from Poland may be RS for some things but at the end of the day it's a blog. Neither of these sources meets APLRS and no, this isn't just about current events.

The account which introduced this material - and which Francois Robere restored - has once again been one that is barely past the 500/30 threshold, which hasn't showed much interest in the topic until recently, and which, after passing that 500 threshold recently has immediately began going after editors that Icewhiz has had conflicts with (MVBW, GCB etc) (and I'm sorry but there's no freaking way that someone brand new to this topic area would know about a source like oko press given it's obscurity). Can we please NOT repeat this pattern? Volunteer Marek 15:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that this event should be included in the article — however, WP:WEIGHT has to be given to the fact that the IPN fired the guy, as has been reported by several news outlets and announced by the IPN itself [70]. Regarding Mhorg, a quick overview of xtools shows more than 4'000 edits across wikimedia, including more than 2'000 on the Italian wikipedia, many of them on similar political issues, so I don't really see the problem. Editors come and go. JBchrch (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

VM, how many times do I need to tell you not to make misconduct allegations in content discussion venues? Once again, there are noticeboards for that (AE/AN/ANI) as well as WP:SPI. Seriously, it's becoming a problem, so please desist, or sanctions are likely to become imminent. El_C 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s pretty much impossible to separate out “conduct” and “content” in discussions such as these and given the history of sock puppetry in this TA. Look, if a brand new nationalist Polish account shows up and starts making provocative edits, my objections will be/are exactly the same. Volunteer Marek 20:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Negative, VM. It not only is possible, but you are expected to do so, still. Again, I'm not just gonna keep warning you about this indefinitely. El_C 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Warning #6 will probably do the trick. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is my lucky number (diff), so high hopes...? El_C 16:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what does this 500/30 threshold mean, and I don't know user Icewhiz. About the content removed for "Undue weight" the news that this Tomasz Greniuch, who writes books in which he rehabilitates Nazis and fascists (and also a founder of a regional branch of the National Radical Camp), headed the IPN office in the city of Opole three years earlier, then appointed to lead the IPN in Wroclaw, is of some relevance. Especially if we combine these data with the accusations of politicization of the institute, already present in the article. This news has reached the main Italian newspapers, such as La Repubblica, and can also be found in other RS such as Jspost, DW, Seattle Times, Times of Israel and also on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources such as Telegraph and Haaretz.--Mhorg (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg, when in doubt, WP it up: WP:500/30. El_C 16:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Note on current affairs

@Volunteer Marek:

1. As I mentioned above, from WP:APL until now "regular" RS was applied to current affairs, and other than your recent reversals (both all of those documented above, and these[71][72]) there was no objection to this interpretation. What's more, if we accept your interpretation of APLRS we should delete entire well-sourced sections like Dalej jest noc#Litigation against editors, which would achieve little in terms of improving source quality while depriving the reader of pertinent information.
2. OKO.press was discussed at RSN with a 7:2 vote for reliable[73] and you were there, so don't claim that "was discussed" doesn't mean anything.
3. The entire IPN is pretty recent (again, see above), so everything that has to do with it will be recent.
4. When a supposedly objective research institution repeatedly appoints right-wing extremists for key positions, this is DUE.

François Robere (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Put simply your #2 is false.

Your number three (and 1) is also skirting the issue. IPN might be "pretty recent" but what they deal with isn't and that's what APLRS applies to as you well know.

Re #4 they fired the guy when they found out.

Also WP:RECENTism and WP:NOTNEWS. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, 5:2. Two more votes were specific to GW.

But that's not about what the IPN deals with, it's about the IPN itself and the politics that surround it, and that we cannot cannot cover adequately and timely without news sources. In fact, by your interpretation we should trim much of Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017, Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, Historical policy of the Law and Justice party, Dalej jest noc, articles on several museums, and even this article. How do you propose we go about it?

No, they backed him, and only backed off a couple of weeks later when the criticism intensified. Also, it would be foolish to suggest they didn't know he was a far right activist when they hired him, when they have literally hundreds of historians and lawyers on their payroll, and he wrote a book where he calls nationalism "the guardian of Christian tradition and the sole defender of God's natural law".[74] François Robere (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. We down to 5:2. Progress. Maybe if you try the calculation one more time you can get the right numbers.

As for rest, yes we should to the extent possible base those articles on sources which comply with APLRS when anything to do with WW2 is concerned. There’s also the recentism issue. Volunteer Marek 20:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Produce those votes, then.

"To the extent possible" is not APLRS. APLRS says "only high quality sources may be used", so if we apply it to current affairs like you say we should, we need to start cutting articles. So what would it be?

WP:RECENTISM applies when the article is skewed towards current affairs at the expense of a "long-term, historical view". In this case there's a long record of politicization of the IPN and academics criticizing it, including the employment of right-wing extremists in senior positions, so mentioning this particular instance won't bias the article. François Robere (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the previous comment[75], the matter is quite serious, especially when combined with the criticism of the institute's politicization. Greniuch does not even seem to be only a sympathizer of that political area, he was rather an active and high-level member of the NRC. About the reliability of Gazeta Wyborcza, I can confirm that it is mentioned several times in the main Italian newspapers (of different political orientation) for various issues concerning Poland.--Mhorg (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, The Greniuch affair is really undue, he was a mid-level manager who resigned after some criticism within weeks of being appointed. Minor affair. Certainly doesn't need a section. Biased recentism. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Piotrus, but I am not aware that large organisations publish presse releases [76] about the firing of mid-level managers for minor misconduct. Surely, it's larger than that.--JBchrch (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, If there is some controversy and they want to distance themselves, they'll. Still, I think WP:NOTNEWS applies. If in few years this incident is mentioned by some academic paper or book, we can consider restoring a sentence summarizing it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

1. he was a mid-level manager who resigned after some criticism From the Israeli embassy and several politicians. That's pretty rare.
2. The head of their Wroclaw branch is a right-wing extremist (Greniuch); the head of their education office in Lublin thinks "Jews didn't have it so bad" (Panfil); the second in their press arm used to publish David Irving (Wingert), and their politically-appointed head is on a mission of revisionism (Szarek). Stop me when this becomes "due". François Robere (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

   François Robere, Are you seriously implying that politicians are not likely to make mountains out of a molehill to score a point in a talk show or a tv interview? And it becomes due when reliable, academic sources compile all of this into one narrative, otherwise this is a WP:SYNTH issue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

   1. Whether they do or don't is not our concern - we repeat what was reported, and that was widely reported. Also, are you seriously implying that the Israeli embassy or the Simon Wiesenthal Center are likely "to make mountains out of a molehill"?
   2. There's plenty of reliable, academic sources that have criticized the IPN's employee choices, including "tying it all together", and including (in specific instances) Panfil,[77] Wingert,[78] and Szarek. We're not inventing the story here.
   3. But even if there weren't, there are plenty of news sources that explicitly do so.TS
   4. In a related article[79] you advocated using two books written and published by non-academics, one of which WP:PRIMARY, for matters that are strictly within "Polish history during World War II"; why do you insist here on "reliable, academic sources" for matters that aren't? François Robere (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, See WP:NOTNEWS again... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

      And yet we cover things like the lawsuit against Grabowski and Engelking, or the coverage of the KLW conspiracy theory. Also, that's only arguable with regards to Greniuch; the other cases have some "enduring notability", as shown earlier. François Robere (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if those are also sourced to newspapers from a limited time period, this may suggest more content that is UNDUE and needs to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

      Yeah, but what's the difference? Why is AP a good source here, but not here? Also, are we settled on Panfil and Wingert? François Robere (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, I am not sure if AP is a good source there either. In the end, it was another Icewhiz attack piece on Poland, based on short-lived news coverage and balancing it can only go so far; most of this content should be cleaned up. Wikipedia is not a place for attack rants based on short-lived media coverage. Regarding Panfil and Wingert, the sources here are good (academic), but the issue is WP:UNDUE. Rzepa article seems open access, so let's discuss it for now. He mentions the Wingert incident in a single sentence. Do tell me how this incident is DUE here? If we had an entire article, or at least a few paragraphs about the significance of Wingert's appointment, that would be one thing. A single sentence? That's not WP:SIGCOV, and thus does not appear to me to be DUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

      Was it really? I think property restitution and the negative, and often antisemitic response it gets in Poland are worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Do you consider Unite the Right rally an "attack piece"? "Jews will not get a penny from us"[80] and "Jews will not replace us"[81] are pretty close.

      I already told you: a WWII research center picking a man who published a notorious Holocaust denialist as publishing exec seems pretty bizarre and notable for that center's article, even if one ignores the history of that center, or the fact that it's one of the largest publishers in Poland. The fact that he's still employed makes it all the more notable. And again, this was widely covered by news media (and news media is usable for this purpose), not least because it drew the rebuke of an institution known for fighting antisemitism. François Robere (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, All articles should adhere to good reference standards, and I don't think news pieces are good here. And you did not respond the UNDUE issue - a single sentence in an academic journal plus few newspaper articles are not good enough, IMHO. Lastly, I suggest you remember that's BLP applies to talk pages, I don't think it is ok to call someone a "notorious Holocaust denialist", unless this is a direct quote from a reliable source. Is it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

      @Piotrus: David Irving..? François Robere (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, Ah, Irving. That's probably fine, although I'd still suggest you exercise caution when dealing with BLP subjects. Best practices and all that. I thought you were referring to somebody working at IPN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

      And he was published by a man who for the past 2.5 years has been deputy director of the IPN's press. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, Not impressive for one's CV indeed. Was it published during his tenure at IPN? What's the most reliable source that discusses this incident? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

      He published the translations of four of Irving books a few years before he was hired by the IPN, but long after Irving was discredited. He also published Léon Degrelle. Other than that cursory mention in the academic, there are mentions in several news sources,[82][83][84][85] and in the respective centers' websites. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, So a minor news piece from mid-September, then few other minor outlets pick up the story and run it on 3 October. I stand by WP:NOTNEWS/WP:UNDUE. At best, maybe this could be added to Irwing's bio, or somewhere where we have a list of people/organizations publishing his works or generally, those related to Holocaust denial. In fact, I wouldn't object to a mention that he published those works in Holocaust denial article (or related subarticle). But here it is undue, as the connection between his actions and IPN are mostly irrelevant. IPN should not be blamed for what someone they hired did before they hired him, outside of maybe not doing the best background check. But this is a minor thing, and we should not falsly imply that IPN endorses Irwing or works related to holocaust denial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

      And several later references,[86][87][88][89] including one academic,[90] establishing a degree of "enduring notability".

      the connection between his actions and IPN are mostly irrelevant The connection is he's still employed there. Out of all minor publishers in Poland, Szarek - by the IPN's admission - personally picked the one who published Irving, Degrelle, and several Nazies, and 3.5 years later the guy is still in his employ. Maybe he's an excellent publisher, and maybe he's naive rather than ideological, but it's again the sort of insensitivity (in the best case) that one would not expect to repeatedly occur in a memory institution.

      As for adding it to another article - maybe, but his main "claim to fame" was in connection with his employ at the IPN. Addint this to Irving's article is probably not a good option, but there is an argument to be made for adding him and Panfil to Holocaust denial#Eastern Europe, though it could be problematic from a BLP standpoint. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, I think you make a good point re " it's again the sort of insensitivity (in the best case) that one would not expect to repeatedly occur in a memory institution". Which of the reliable sources you cite makes the same point? I.e. about IPN? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

      In this discussion? None. That's just common sense. What the sources say is that the IPN repeatedly hires right-wing extremists, but you already know that. François Robere (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

      François Robere, Which source states, quote, "that the IPN repeatedly hires right-wing extremists"? You are generalizing from a few exceptions. You might as well go the US government article and try to add content arguing that is known for hiring killers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, your comments come across as nothing more then name calling, now IPN "hires right-wing extremists". I suppose this is just the sign of the times, since in the media everyone with a different view is either labeled as "Communist" and "radical liberal" or "Nazi" and "right-wing extremist" And, if you're referring to some exception, than its also not fair to present a particular situation as if it was a common occurrence. In any case, discussion after discussion you keep throwing around extreme generalizations about Poland, a simple check of your edit history will show how many time you revert to the "extremist" this or that argument... sigh. --E-960 (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently, they are not François' allegations, they are allegations that are made from several reliable sources. The fact that the institute has been politicized under certain governments seems to be an established fact, looking at the controversy section. Really, it is not clear how mass removal of critical issues can be justified. Yet another abuse of the magic word "undue weight", I suppose.--Mhorg (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg, but really, stop throwing around words, "politicization" is not the same as "hiring right-wing extremists". As for politicization, well that's a loaded topic as well. I just found an article saying "...Biden ‘purge’ of Homeland Security Advisory Council" which accuses the Biden administration of playing politics (so the other side always accuses the one in power of "politicization", nothing new and to be taken with a grain of salt). It's the same old story... Poland, right-wing extremist, nazi collaborators, trying to destroy the EU, PiS-totalitarian government, etc. --E-960 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also, please consider WP:ONUS. --E-960 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus and E-960:

J. Grabowski, Rewriting the History of Polish-Jewish Relations from a Nationalist Perspective, 2008:

Some of the recent appointees to positions of influence at the institute were roundly criticized both for their lack of academic standards and for their militant nationalism (Grabowski gives the appointment of Piotr Gontarczyk as an example, quoting criticisms by Karol Modzelewski, Henryk Samsonowicz and Michał Głowinski. -FR)... [While] some historians, especially those specializing in minority issues, decided to part company with the new IPN (here he mentions Dariusz Libionka and Grzegorz Motyka. -FR)... The right-wing nationalist vision of Polish history promoted by Dr. Kurtyka’s new appointees made it increasingly difficult for historians with different viewpoints to continue working in the IPN.

V. Behr, Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland, 2016:

Besides, some might feel very comfortable with the totalitarian paradigm and the schematic opposition between state and society, as their political views are closer to the right-wing camp. The so-called ‘militant historians’ identified by Georges Mink (such as Janusz Kurtyka, Jan Żaryn, Sławomir Cenckiewicz, and Piotr Gontarczyk) do not hide their sympathies for conservative or nationalist interpretations of the past (Mink, 2013)... It appears that since its creation, the IPN has mainly taken in historians from the fringes of the academic field. Due to their ideology and/or their failure to achieve a prominent academic career, they were disposed to look for alternative pathways towards legitimization as historians – at the IPN but also in the media and political fields.

T. Stryjek, The Hypertrophy of Polish Remembrance Policy after 2015, 2018:

The Act of 29 April 2016 abolished the participation of the scientific community of historians in the appointment of the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, giving politicians an unrestrained control over this process.

I. Goddeeris, History Riding on the Waves of Government Coalitions, 2018:

In June 2016, the new conservative and nationalist government issued a new IPN law... [It] changed the rules of the IPN administration council, abolishing the influence of academia and the judiciary. A week later, the Polish parliament elected four PiS candidates for the new kolegium, and in July, it voted Jarosław Szarek as the new IPN director. Szarek was affiliated with PiS... One of his first measures was to discharge Krzysztof Persak, the coauthor of the authoritative and two volume 2002 IPN study of Jedwabne.

B. T. Jones & M. Gudonis, History in a Post-Truth World: Theory and Praxis, 2020:

The IPN, a once-respected research institution, has undergone a radical change in personnel, incorporating many nationalist historians with a governing body composed exclusively of PiS nominees.

P. Witkowski, Dr Bechta z IPN: gratulacje dla Walusia, nazistowskie zespoły i wybielanie żołnierzy „wyklętych”, 2020 (translated from Polish; I mentioned this as "popular media" earlier, but turns out the author is an academic):

The group of nationalist historians [at the IPN] grows from year to year. Today this trend includes, among others... Rafał Dobrowolski, Tomasz Greniuch, Ryszard Mozgol, Wojciech Muszyński, Norbert Wójtowicz... Tomasz Panfil, Rafał Sierchuła [and] Arkadiusz Wingert.

J. Michlic, History Wars and the Battle for Truth and National Memory, 2021:

Because of intellectual and ethical disagreements with the top-down implementation of the PiS’s historical policy, many other first-class historians have also left the IPN at different times since 2006. The process of purifying the guardians of national memory in the institution is well captured by historian Marta Kurkowska-Budzan, who argues that the IPN replaces historians who represent “a critical historiography” with “young missionaries who undertake their tasks with a passion and fully identify themselves with historical policy.

Michlic also states, Re: my discussion with Volunteer Marek above, that:

...since late 2015, we can talk about the IPN as being an institution that is on the path to becoming a “Ministry of Memory” in the original Orwellian sense.

François Robere (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• François Robere, those are rather one sided claims presented by one of the parties in the wider debate, and presented as if they were the only real "truth" (talk about Orwellian comparisons - just replace the Ministry of Truth with the Infallible Academia, as if scholars are just these unbiased beings, who do not have interests or prejudices which affect their views). Btw, Grabowski himself came under a lot of criticism for his sloppy "research", yet he levels claims that other historians lack credibility. Let's be real, scholars make money on the side form selling books. Especially now, 75 years after the war ended, you have historians like Grabowski and others, who claim they have found some new truth, and not by original research (talking to survivors, witnesses or pouring over original documents), but by extrapolating new insists form work of other historians who worked in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. This all ties back neatly to my original point that now historians, if they want to make money on selling books, they have to "discover" some new truth, make sensational allegations to get people's attention and get them to buy their book. So, these are just points of view from one side of the debate not undisputed truth. --E-960 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Btw, recently the Polish government reacted strongly and objected to The New Yorker piece on Holocaust in Poland by Masha Gessen, they were backed up by the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum which accused the magazine and the author of publishing lies and distortions of Poland's role during World War II. So much for, reliable sources and unbiased journalism. And yes, the Polish government had to take the first step to call out this non-sense, with he director of the Auschwitz museum saying that the article “contains so many lies and distortions that I find it a bit hard to believe that it is a coincidence.” --E-960 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In response to the different sources of historians who raise criticisms about the institute, the answer is that they want to make money? Do we seriously want to get to this level of discussion? I wonder why this whole part is still omitted in the article and why a dozen removals of controversial (well-sourced) content have been allowed.--Mhorg (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are they so outspoken? IPN criticized some of their new research like with Grabowski, where his claims (in his new book(s)) were disproven with EVIDENCE, so IPN is being attacked by the likes of Grabowski in order to mask his own faults and questionable claims (he does not argue against IPNs response, just attacks IPN itself). --E-960 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: If you have RS stating these criticisms are invalid, please bring them. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Some description of criticisms is due, and it is already present in the article, including the lead ("Some scholars have criticized the IPN for politicization, especially under Law and Justice governments"). It also seems that a common description of some (but not all) historians at IPN is 'nationalists'. That term can be added to the article, but in the end, quoting from our article on nationalism - so what? "In practice, nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual outlook." We need to expand our article on nationalist historiography, and preferably add a section in it on countries, because it would be interesting to see what this means in the Polish context. Anyway, I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that IPN represents the POV of "Polish nationalist historiography", but that's not the same as being extremist, and trying to connect it to Holocaust denial is way over the top. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: WP:DUE requires that we represent views "in proportion to the prominence of each... in the published, reliable sources". This means that unless you have other sources, we should have much more criticisms here. Also, I don't think any of the sources view the term "nationalist" in a positive sense. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Regardless of the existence or lack of other viewpoints, DUE is also related to how long a particular issue may be. There is also FRINGE etc. Some minor issues or incidents are simply not important enough to be mentioned, and doing so lends undue weight to fringe viewpoints. In common parlance, "making mountains out of molehills", etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but this isn't the case here. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This comment is actually funny! Do you really expect other editors to just take your word and discard dozens of scholarly sources, based on arguments like scholars make money on the side form selling books? Ironically enough, you summed up the issue perfectly: these are just points of view from one side of the debate. In other words, they should be presented with an equal amount of weight. --JBchrch (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Returning to the subject, I also found more about the nationalist group within the institute, maybe could be useful.
  Jacek Harłukowicz, Wyborcza[91]: "Tomasz Greniuch started working at the Institute of National Remembrance [...] The young historian's supervisor was dr Tomasz Panfil. In 2014, Panfil became famous for his expert opinion, which he prepared as an expert for the needs of the court in Chełm, which assessed the activities of Adam G., accused of administering a website promoting fascism. The professor then argued that the swastika should not always be perceived as a Nazi symbol. He also saw nothing wrong with linking the symbol of the eagle with the racist slogan "white power", and he described the intentions of the creator of such a collage as "patriotic". Another symbol - a clenched white fist and the accompanying motto "blood and honor", the slogan Hitler Youth - considered it then, thanks to combining it with another slogan: "against red democracy", as referring to "victims of the resistance movement against the communist authority". To this day, Panfil is an employee of the independent program section at the National Education Office of the Institute of National Remembrance.
  Entire part in Polish: "Pracę w IPN Tomasz Greniuch rozpoczął od opolskiej delegatury 1 listopada 2019 r. Przyszedł tam niedługo po obronie pracy doktorskiej pt. „Chrystus za nas, my za Chrystusa. Historia Zgrupowania Oddziałów Leśnych VII Śląskiego Okręgu Narodowych Sił Zbrojnych pod dowództwem kpt. Henryka Flamego »Bartka«”, złożonej na KUL. Promotorem młodego historyka był dr hab. Tomasz Panfil. W 2014 r. Panfil zasłynął ekspertyzą, którą jako biegły przygotował na potrzeby sądu w Chełmie, który oceniał działalność Adama G., oskarżonego o administrowanie stroną propagującą faszyzm. Profesor dowodził wówczas, że swastyka nie zawsze powinna być odbierana jako symbol nazistowski. Nie widział też nic zdrożnego w łączeniu symbolu orła z rasistowskim hasłem „white power” (z ang. biała siła), a intencje twórcy takiego kolażu określił jako „patriotyczne”. Kolejny symbol – zaciśniętą białą pięść i towarzyszące jej motto „krew i honor”, hasło Hitlerjugend – uznał wówczas, dzięki połączeniu go z innym hasłem: „przeciw czerwonej demokracji”, za odnoszący się do „ofiar ruchu oporu wobec władzy komunistycznej”. Do dziś Panfil jest pracownikiem samodzielnej sekcji programowej w Biurze Edukacji Narodowej IPN."--Mhorg (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:1RR now in effect

Well, as soon as the full protection lapses, that is. Please see Template:Editnotices/Page/Institute of National Remembrance for the documentation. El_C 15:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

recent changes

FR I don't see consensus for these additions and in fact I see multiple users against them (granted, they're slightly "dressed up" versions of text was was removed previously). In general I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to serve as a forum for the airing of idiosyncratic individual grievances or get into spats between scholars (If we put what Grabowski says about Gontarczyk then we should probably add the fact that Gontarczyk has published multiple papers which shred Grabowski's work - but that would of course be UNDUE. Just like this is). Volunteer Marek 17:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, some of these sources you tried to include violate ALPRS. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I see multiple users against them (granted, they're slightly "dressed up" versions of text was was removed previously) Not really. Three of the seven sources are new, and I've expanded the quotes from the other ones significantly. All of the content has been presented some two weeks ago in #Note on current affairs, giving enough time for discussion - in which you did not participate. The only source which we've already touched is Grabowski, but you ignored my questions about him twice (specifically on why you removed him on account of an alleged "personal dispute" [92][93]). The only editor who objected to this content is E-960's, but he's T-banned;[94] two other editors supported the additions.

I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to serve as a forum for the airing of idiosyncratic individual grievances Do you have a source justifying the claim that these are "idiosyncratic individual grievances" rather than the established view of mainstream historians?

If we put what Grabowski says about Gontarczyk You mean his quoting three other historians who say the same?

Gontarczyk has published multiple papers which shred Grabowski's work I can only find one article by Gontarczyk that mentions Grabowski on GS. Also, with all due respect to Gontarczyk, the sum total of his citations (disregarding his Fronda.pl articles) is probably in the ballpark of 1.5 books by Grabowski, and if you take away that one article on Lech Wałęsa then it's significantly less. That's why it's WP:UNDUE, not because some imaginary spite. François Robere (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The part added by François Robere was acceptable, written in a neutral, disinterested manner. It was clearly due. I think it's better to revert the latest changes as well, like the removal of the "Politicization" subsection.[95]--Mhorg (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg - Please build consensus on the talk page before reintroducing any WP:UNDUE material - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My last edit on the article is from 22 March 2021. About Tomasz Greniuch, I found an article from The Associated Press (so, this is the third Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources talking about the matter). Also Open Democracy talked about it, maybe it is not a perennial RS, but a source that has enough prominence.--Mhorg (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg - That's okay, just reminding you that the WP: CON must be established first before introducing any material that is considered WP:UNDUE. The Criticisms section can not be more extensive than information about the institution itself. This encyclopedia needs constructive edits. Not all negative information that google searches can possibly find needs to be included. Such actions will transform this into an attack page. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). The constant, determined hunt of an editorial goal is deemed disruptive and should be avoided - see WP:TE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Well... ok, but what François wrote was absolutely neutral. Speaking of the RS that can be found on google, the number of these that have given media coverage to a particular case, show the level of international interest. This case ended up on at least 3 perennial RS, certainly on main Italian and Israeli national newspapers. This already indicates that the issue is of public interest and has some high relevance (hence due). The Tomasz Greniuch case deserves at least two line of text, I think.--Mhorg (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: ? François Robere (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

FR, I think most of this has been explained already so I'm not sure what kind of new response you're expecting. You're trying to use sources which don't meet RS nevermind APLRS (oko press for example). You're putting in grievences of SOME historians againstg SOME OTHER historians. At the very least if we do that then we need to put the responses from those historians, per WP:BALANCE. But in that case the article would go way off topic. Additionally there's stuff here that is potentially a BLP violation, at least if the context is left out (and you seem to engage in this kind of BLP vio yourself refering to some of these historians as some fringe (some may be, but others aren't). Remember that this is precisely the thing that got Icewhiz t-banned. The stuff from Michilic, Grabowski and Bohr either already is adequately represented in the article or has been discussed and rejected. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You're raising objections that have already been answered in a discussion in which you did not take part.

You're trying to use sources which don't meet RS nevermind APLRS (oko press for example) All of them are academics, and all but one are scholarly publications. How does that not meet RS?

You're putting in grievences of SOME historians againstg SOME OTHER historians You haven't answered my question: Do you have a source justifying the claim that these are... "grievances" rather than the established view of mainstream historians?? Without sources backing your claim it's meaningless, and a potential BLP vio (casting aspersions on established scholars) which you have now repeated several times.

potentially a BLP violation, at least if the context is left out Feel free to add context if you have the sources to back it up. Other than that I don't see how it violated BLP in any way.

and you seem to engage in this kind of BLP vio yourself Have I said anything not backed by multiple RS? Please diff or strike.

The stuff from Michilic, Grabowski and Bohr either already is adequately represented in the article or has been discussed and rejected Not really. You removed all the "stuff" from Grabowski, narrowed Michlic from 84 to three words, and kept only those segments of Behr "pre-approved" by Piotrus (which as you know invited me to redo Behr's references in a previous thread). I'm not sure how these additions could've already been discussed, since I've included content from all three of these that wasn't added to the article earlier (at least AFAIK), as well as three brand new sources. Also, recall that in the previous thread there were several editors objecting to your and Piotrus's removals. François Robere (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of the contents on the politicization of the institute, I think it is also important to mention Jan Żaryn, the institute's director that "has defended ONR more than once in his statements by him", and he is also connected with Tomasz Greniuch's case, since "He also reviewed Tomasz Greniuch's doctoral thesis, which demonstrates just how close relations are between nationalist circles and state institutions in Poland, and how blurred the line separating them."[96]--Mhorg (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think OpenDemocracy is commonly referred to as trustworthy as a source, but there are other reliable sources that talk about this. For example "oko.press": "In 2010, Greniuch began doctoral studies at the Catholic University of Lublin. Its promoter was [...] PiS exenator and gray eminence of the Institute of National Remembrance, prof. Jan Żaryn, the main founder of the PiS historical policy." - "The nationalist Greniuch is to be promoted thanks to the protection of prof. Jan Żaryn."[97]--Mhorg (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Neither is a reliable source. Come on, you can just tell from the hyperbolic/hysterical language employed. Volunteer Marek 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As they have already pointed out, here it seems to have been discussed and found to be reliable, so I don't see the problem of using it as a source.[98]--Mhorg (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not true. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I see there are 5 votes that consider it a reliable source. And 3 votes are against. Could you show me if I did something wrong in the count?
Reliable
1. "Both of these cover national news, and rank among the most reliable journalism sources in Poland." Bob not snob
2. "Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal." Abcmaxx
3. "Both are reliable" buidhe
4. "They're both reliable" François Robere
5. "Reputable: these are among the best media in Poland." Mellow Boris
Unreliable
1. Volunteer Marek
2. "NOT reliable" GizzyCatBella
3. "Oko.press: Generally unreliable" MyMoloboaccount
--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you including the sock puppet that just got indef blocked and the other accounts which have just a few edits to their "name"? Volunteer Marek 20:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It would be helpful for the discussion if you gave more informative answers than Yeah, that's not true, for example your own vote count and the names of the editors whose votes you contest. François Robere (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that Bob not snob was banned for sockpuppetry (could you please show a link of the motivations?). However I forgot one vote... so, from what I see, there are 5 votes in favor. Since you are continuing to argue (on other topics too) that both Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press are unrealiable (Wyborcza has 7 votes in favor), I think it is better to close this controversy:
Reliable
1. "Reliable. OKO.press' awards for journalism are impressive." Astral Leap
2. "Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal." Abcmaxx
3. "Both are reliable" buidhe
4. "They're both reliable" François Robere
5. "Reputable: these are among the best media in Poland." Mellow Boris
Unreliable
1. Volunteer Marek
2. "NOT reliable" GizzyCatBella
3. "Oko.press: Generally unreliable" MyMoloboaccount
--Mhorg (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another piece on PiS's politics of memory and the politicization of the IPN

Scathing criticism by Tom Junes, an Assistant Professor of History at the Polish Academy of Sciences, which mentions a lot of the things editors argued endlessly against on this, and other talk pages:

• Junes, Tom (2021-09-06). "Whither Poland's 'Ministry of Historical Truth'". Balkan Insight. Retrieved 2021-12-31.

François Robere (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

on mazowiecki and others' ideology as the reason behind the neoliberal turn in the opposition after martial law

One thing that is for certain is that Mazowiecki, he was a supporter of a Christian democratic, German-style social market economy- see per say Kowalik's account ('Solidarity to Sellout'). Wałęsa didn't have a particular view or support. The political leadership overall didn't have an initial ideological push tot he most radical form of neolbieralism, ie what was enacted, even to the exten otf support for neoliberlaism. Balcerowicz was, as was the IMF and in general much of the world even among traditionally social-democratic or left-wing parties, in great part partly carrying on the previous government's policies

Many activists in Solidarity to the extent they were able to also made 'anti-communist' statements, the issue isn't the change to anticommunism, perhaps more openness and possibility- the issue is that the language became right-wing. In my opinion, in order to be more scathing, David Ost delegitimises the true left-wing credentials (implying Michnik's support for John Stuart Mill as their hero made them not truly, in a non-pre modern sense, which is insuling to insinusate, left-wing, when he had sympathy for redistrbution, socialism and worker self-management). There is no contradiction between openly anticommunist statements and positions, referring to communism as an actual existing ruling system and its correlates, which Karol Modzelewski in the sense at the time he did refer to 'communist society' and you can look up his view or statements. I dislike this implication. 2A02:A310:E23F:400:4C6A:BCFC:365A:EC0E (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)