Talk:Antony Polonsky

Tags
I created a short BLP on historian Antony Polonsky. An editor has tagged this article as “multiple issues” including COI and WP:Peacock. Re COI, my only connection with Polonsky is that I’ve read some of his work and heard him lecture. My sole aim is to produce a useful WP entry on Polonsky – preferably without tags. Guidance welcomed. Mick gold (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating an article on this notable scholar, please don't forget to T:TDYK it. I am not seeing the tagged issues (resume, peacock). The reviews cited in themes represent a positive POV, and I believe some more critical ones could be found (see for example "both Polonsky and Michlic are perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era Polonsky....edits the Jewish-funded annual publication, POLIN: A Journal of Polish-Jewish Studies. Since its inception in 1986, this journal has earned an unenviable reputation among some historians for publishing articles, reviews and other contributions that are invariably highly critical of one side only of the Polish-Jewish symbiosis. Polonsky, it might be thought, therefore, is a historian with a large axe to grind"), but this is just one side of the story, and it is unlikely such debates will be settled anytime soon. Certainly this would have to be expanded and balanced for a higher quality assessment class, but for a start article (as I just assessed it) it is fine. Similarly, the article could benefit from some more blue links, but again this is not an issue for start-class article. Also, html is used (br tags) instead of the wiki syntax. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, thanks for swift feedback. Thanks for linking to the Stachura reply on Jedwabne. I would be willing to use a quote from this letter in the Polonsky article, but I'd probably need to balance it with more material from a debate I'm not an expert in. Mick gold (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no criticism has been added (despite being endorsed by another editor below), I have to tag this article as non-neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to draft some material to deal with NPOV tag. I'm away for a few days & won't be able to suggest anything until Monday. Mick gold (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
I'm afraid that there's a reason why this was tagged as resembling a resume; as Madman's bot detected when it was created, it copies and closely follows content from his resume. :/

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

The article says:

While some words have been omitted, all the words in bold are copied verbatim from that document.

The resume says:

The article says:

Again, some words have been omitted, but this is otherwise almost identical to the source.

Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. While there is not a lot of creativity in this content, there is some, and the following is substantial. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'll look at ways to revise this material, but it will have to be later in the week. Mick gold (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I’ve tried to re-work Polonsky. Terms like "the Knight’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland", "Institute for the Human Sciences, Vienna", and "Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies" are still going to recur but I’ve tried to alter structure. Mick gold (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it's probably okay; I'd like to get a second opinion, though, as I don't think I'm entirely uninvolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion
I agree that the current content seems OK from a copyright point of view. I've made a few minor changes to bring it into compliance with Manual of style. In terms of improving the article from a stylistic and content point of view, I suggest the following:
 * The second quote from the JC review would be better paraphrased than directly quoted.
 * I agree with Piotrus (above), that a better balance in the critical reception of his works and themes is required, especially given that all reviews in this article seem largely postive, and perhaps supplement the review material in a more general interest publication like the JC with reviews of his work in scholarly journals.
 * The bio section is still quite "CV" in style and sourcing with very little real biographical information. For example, his family background, childhood and youth in South Africa, his time at Oxford etc. These are often hard to research, but you could start with these . Such an expansion would ensure that this source, on which the bio section is still based almost in its entirety would be used transformatively.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion... Polonsky taught at the London School of Economics for over 20 years, from 1970 to 1992, and was made a full professor there in 1989. That's a pretty big chunk of his life to be completely omitted from the article. It's also useful in biographies of scholars to mention what their doctoral thesis was on. In this case, he received his D.Phil. from Oxford in 1968 with his dissertation on "Piłsudski and parliament: The crisis of parliamentary government in Poland, 1922-1931". Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, thank for your comments. I've begun to add the material you suggested. Mick gold (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
In response to Npov tag, should material critical of Polonsky be added to Themes section? Imho Themes section outlines points Polonsky has made in his history books, so I suggest creating a new section with sub-head Criticism. Here’s a draft:

Criticism Polonsky’s discussion of relations between Poles and Jews, particularly during the Second World War and the Holocaust, has been criticised for displaying a lack of understanding of the predicament of the Poles at the hands of both Nazi and Soviet invaders. Professor Peter Stachura has written that the journal Polin, edited by Polonsky, has earned "an unenviable reputation among some historians for publishing articles, reviews and other contributions that are invariably highly critical of one side only of the Polish-Jewish symbiosis. Polonsky, it might be thought, therefore, is a historian with a large axe to grind.". Associate Professor Danny Ben-Moshe and others who are critical of the Double Genocide theory have complained that Polonsky allowed the Lithuanian government to dictate the agenda of a conference entitled Jewish Lithuanian Relations Between Coexistence and Violence in London in 2011. 

Comments from other editors welcome. Mick gold (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to add Professor or Associate. Sounds good to me otherwise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't think either of those is very appropriate, especially for a BLP, and certainly not in separate section titled "Criticism". The first is a letter hosted on the website of Glaukopis, a Polish historical journal (Peter Stachura is on the advisory board). Their mission (in google translation) is here. However, it was not actually published in the journal itself nor in the journal to which it is addressed, History. It's not a scholarly article at all (or even a scholarly letter). Comments like: "an unenviable reputation among some historians" are pure weasel. Stachura declines to name them. Not to mention another statement in the letter (not quoted above): "Polonsky, who was a lecturer at the London School of Economics from the early 1970s until allegedly implicated in a well-publicised financial scandal in his university department in the 1980s." I can find no other sources attesting to or even mentioning this "well-publicised" scandal, let alone Polonsky being "allegedly implicated" in it.


 * The second is a blog post. OK, so the author and sole editor of the blog, Dovid Katz, has written some newspaper articles here and there, but he's is not an academic and is primarily known as a short story writer. While I do think a more balanced section on Polansky's "Themes" would be desirable, it needs much better sources than this. It may require gaining access to full reviews of his publications published in peer-reviewed journals, which are unfortunately usually behind pay walls. But the WP:Reference desk may be able to help out. Note also that a few days ago, I changed the tag on this article to unbalanced and placed it in the relevant section. The NPOV tag overstated the situation in my view. Voceditenore (talk)


 * Thanks for comments, Voceditenore. I've asked for further reviews from Reference Desk per your suggestion . I've added comments from Timothy Snyder on Polonsky's 3 volume History of Jews in Poland and Russia which contain criticism, although Snyder's overall opinion of Polonsky's history is very favorable. Mick gold (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Stachura's letter is unreliable. I am not suggesting we write about some scandal, this seems irrelevant and indeed better sources would be needed, but his opinion seems valid as far as academic criticism is concerned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the content issues, which I think are serious, it's unreliable because that letter is basically an unpublished primary source. It's also giving undue weight to a letter by a disgruntled (albeit fairly prominent) academic, who doesn't even name the historians among whom Polin, has allegedly earned this "unenviable reputation". If what Stachura alleges is true re the journal's reputation then it ought to be fairly easy to find this kind of criticism in published reliable and preferaly peer-reviewed sources. It shouldn't be put in the article simply for the sake of achieving some kind of hypothetical balance. From what I've seen from snippets in journal reviews of his big 3 volume book on Polish history, the general view seems to be "magisterial". There may be some criticism of Polonsky's individual articles or other books, and if published in good journals, then they should definitely go in. But not the kind of stuff outlined above. Voceditenore (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the letter, Stachura also claims "both Polonsky and Michlic are perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era". Again, the "certain academic circles" are not named. Again, if what he alleges is true, then there ought to be some evidence of this in published sources. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Better sources
After nosing around via Google, I find that Stachura's diatribe is referring to a controversy over a series of very negative reviews of Marek Chodakiewicz's monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, July 10, 1941: Before, During, and After (East European Monographs, 2005). Example here by Piotr Wrobel in The Sarmatian Review. Note Chodakiewicz's reply to the review on the same page: "Lacking ideas of his own, Professor Wrobel ends with a deferential quote from another review [Polonsky's] grounded in emotions." Stachura, on the other hand, wrote a positive review of Chodakiewicz's monograph in the British journal History, whereupon Polonsky and Joanna Michlic wrote a letter to the editor of History (published in the journal in the following issue), excoriating the book and Stachura's review of it. History declined to publish Stachura's reply to Michlic and Polonsky's letter. (Michlic had also written a scathing review of the book in Polin.)

Then in 2010, John Radzilowski (assistant professor of history at the University of Alaska Southeast) wrote a blistering article, "The Shame of Polish Historical Studies in America: The Blacklisting of Prof. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Ph.D." which was published in Glaukopis (No. 19/20, 2010), in which Polonsky comes in for a lot of criticism for his role in the alleged "conspiracy" to blacklist Chodakiewicz. I would say that this would be a reasonably reliable source to use as well as Chodakiewicz's reply in The Sarmatian Review for referencing their opinions about him. Radzilowski characterizes the professors whom he named as part of the "conspiracy", e.g. Polonsky, István Deák, Piotr Wrobel, and Jan Gross, as "neo-Stalinists". Make of that what you will. There's more background to the controversy here on the blog of Danusha Veronica Goska (author of this book) who had previously written a rather negative review in The Sarmatian Review of another monograph by Chodakiewicz, After the Holocaust - Polish-Jewish Conflict in the Wake of World War II (East European Monographs, 2003).

Polonsky also comes in for some criticism in Mark Paul, Neighbours: On the Eve of the Holocaust Polish-Jewish Relations in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939–1941 (Toronto: PEFINA Press, 2008). The entire book is re-published on the Glaukopis site here. See the last paragraph of p. 6 + footnote 13. on the same page. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If these sources are used in the WP article, the controversy itself needs balanced coverage. Note that both Chodakiewicz and Stachura are on the advisory board of Glaukopis, while both Mark Paul and John Radzilowski are listed as affiliates of the journal . All four of them are contibutors to Hearts of Gold or Golden Harvest? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, co-edited by Chodakiewicz (Leopolis Press, 2012). One might say that these four could equally be characterised as historians "with a large axe to grind." Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The allegations of a "smear campaign" against Chodakiewicz, along with cherry-picked quotes in support of his work were also added to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz by an anonymous IP in December 2009 producing this version and subsequently reverted  by another editor as "Contentious material with a POV bias and insufficent citations". Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Chodakiewicz et al.'s Hearts of Gold or Golden Harvest? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, recently received a very negative review in Polin. So this may run and run. Voceditenore (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this very interesting analysis. Here's 2012 negative review of Chodakwiecz book by Michlic, confirming that their fight continues. Perhaps the correct, neutral way of writing about this situation is to note that Polonsky belongs to one of the two groups of scholars on Polish-Jewish history, each highly critical of another, and list the names and publications? PS. It's sad to see people get at each other's throat, back in 2004 Polonsky had no problem thanking Chodakiewicz in a note . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's the best way to approach it too. Here's Michlic having another go at the "Chodakwiecz camp" in an article in Shared History, Divided Memory:Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, 1939-1941. It is sad to see these bitter and personalised accusations and counter-accusations but it's such an emotive subject I guess it's not surprising. Incidentally, that thank you acknowledgement was actually from István Deák who had been Chodakwiecz's PhD. supervisor, if I'm not mistaken. (The Polonsky book is a collection of articles.) However, Radzilowski also accuses Deák of being one of the neo-Stalinist "conspirators" against Chodakwiecz. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking along same lines, Piotrus, I'll try to draft something when I've looked at a couple more journals. Mick gold (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The thank you note was from Istvan Deak; it appeared in his review of Gross’s Neighbors which Deak published in the NYRB in 2001, subsequently reprinted in The Neighbors Respond, ed. Polonsky and Michlic. Radzilowski refers to this in his Shame article when he writes, "There is a strong likelihood that Prof. Chodakiewicz’s problems began in early 2001…. Prof. Istvan Deak, an emeritus professor of history at Columbia and a well-respected scholar of central European and Holocaust history, had undertaken a review of three books on the Holocaust, including Gross' book Neighbors, for the New York Review of Books. Prof. Deak asked Chodakiewicz to provide him with material on the book in light of available evidence. This material allowed Prof. Deak write a review that was far more critical than many close to Prof. Gross wanted." (Goska’s blog includes Deak in a group of academics accused by Radzilowski of blaklisting Chodakiewicz. But I think Radzilowski’s article does not include Deak in the alleged conpiracy.) I believe Chodakiewicz’s Ph D supervisor was Prof. Wojciech Roszkowski. Mick gold (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
Here’s a draft of a section now entitled "Controversy and academic conflict" which could follow “Themes” sub-section. I’ve started with Gross’s book Neighbors because this work led to Chodakiewicz’s book critiquing Gross. I realize Goska’s blog is not WP:RS but she seems to be only one of those named in alleged conspiracy to comment.

Controversy and academic conflict As a historian of Polish-Jewish relations, Polonsky has been a leading figure in one of two main groups of scholars of Polish history in the English language. These two groups have been involved in a series of academic conflicts about the historiography of Poland in the 20th century, and, in particular, about the pogrom at Jedwabne in July 1941 and the pogrom at Kielce in July 1946.

After the publication of Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland by Jan Tomasz Gross in 2001, Marek Chodakiewicz wrote a monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, July 10, 1941: Before, During, and After, published in 2005, which was critical of Gross’s book. When Chodakiewicz’s work was favorably reviewed by Peter Stachura in the British journal History, Polonsky and Joanna Michlic wrote a letter, which History published, complaining that both Chodakiewicz’s book and Stachura’s review “uphold a view of the Polish past which seeks to return to an untenable vision of modern Poland as solely victim and hero… It is a matter of considerable regret to us that you have allowed your journal to be used to advance this neo-nationalist agenda.” [“Letter to the Editor”, Joanna B. Michlic and Antony Polonsky, History, Wiley–Blackwell, Volume 93, Issue 309, January 2008, pp. 154–158]

When Stachura sought to reply to the letter of Polonsky and Michlic, History declined to publish his response. Subsequently posted on the website of the Polish history journal Glaukopis, Stachura’s letter described Polin, the journal edited by Polonsky, as having earned “an unenviable reputation among some historians for publishing articles, reviews and other contributions that are invariably highly critical of one side only of the Polish-Jewish symbiosis. Polonsky, it might be thought, therefore, is a historian with a large axe to grind.”

In 2010, John Radzilowski, assistant professor of history at the University of Alaska Southeast, published an article, also in Glaukopis, protesting what he termed, "The Shame of Polish Historical Studies in America" [Glaukopis No. 19/20, 2010]. Radzilowski accused Polonsky of being part of a "conspiracy", along with Jan Tomasz Gross, Joanna Michlic, Piotr Wróbel, and Danusha Goska, to blacklist Prof. Chodakiewicz as part of “a systematic effort to destroy his career, deny him the ability to publish in his field, get him banned from conferences and speaking engagements at public institutions, and blacken his reputation." Radzilowski characterized the academics he named as "neo-Stalinists", and wrote: “In recent years, many fields of scholarly research in the social sciences and humanities have become ideological battlegrounds… The study of modern Polish history in English-speaking countries is no exception.”

Commenting on this alleged conspiracy, Danusha Goska wrote in her blog: "The above list is not plausible as a list of people who would conspire to damage Chodakiewicz, to damage Poland, or to protect politically correct ideologies. In fact, with the exception of my name, if you removed the scholarly contributions of this group of people to advancing understanding of Poland in the West, you’d be left with very anemic scholarship." 

Comments on this draft welcomed. Mick gold (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction 1: " Polonsky has been a leading figure in one of two main groups of scholars of Polish history" - should be "of Polish-Jewish history". Suggestion 1: If we go back as far as Gross' book, it may useful to mention it was controversial beyond just Chodakiewicz response. Suggestion 2: I am not sure if we should use Goska's blog here. It seems the least reliable of the sources here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * She is an academic, so her blog is reasonably OK, especially for documenting her personal reaction to the conspiracy charge. But I agree that it might be better to avoid it. Besides, the quote from it isn't particularly illuminating. Perhaps replace with something like:


 * Piotr Wróbel and Danusha Goska had written unfavourable reviews of two of Chodakiewicz's monographs for The Sarmatian Review in 2004 and 2006. [Footnotes to and ]. Radzilowski's characterisation of several prominent Polish-studies scholars, including Wrobel, Michlic, Padraic Kenney, Gunnar S. Paulsson and John Connelly, as "neo-Stalinists" was repeated in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? (a 2012 collection of essays co-edited by Chodakiewicz). The characterisation was strongly criticised by Goska in her review of the book for Polin. [Footnote to ]


 * Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What I find interesting here is that the lines are not clear; I for example appreciate Chodakiewicz works, but also those of Paulsson and Kenney. I really don't understand how Radzilowski's can call those two "neo-stalinists". I wonder if there are more than two factions at conflict here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's the summary of Radzilowski's chapter here. Scroll down to The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States. In it he sort of explains what he considers to be "neo-Stalinist", although not knowing anything about Paulsson and Kenney's works, I couldn't say if they "qualify" . Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems good, but I'm concerned that it appears to be based on primary sources. Have any secondary sources written about the dispute? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The various participants have written articles about the dispute in journals and books, especially Michlic and Radzilowski. Don't know if any "outside observers" have chronicled it. No doubt they'd end up being simultaneously dubbed "neo-Nationalist" and "neo-Stalinist" for their pains. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to add my draft to Polonsky article, incorporating Piotrus correction and suggestion, and substituting Voceditenore para for para mentioning Goska blog. I think we have WP:CON. Speak now or. Mick gold (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Propose the "unbalanced" tag be removed
I propose the "unbalanced" tag be removed. The article seems quite balanced now, although it will never please everyone. Both controversy and criticism are included with references and they've been product of lengthy discussions here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While it appears balanced to me, I'd like to hear from the editor who added the tag in the first place. I believe that was User:Piotrus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you everybody for improving this article, I believe it is npov now and have removed the tag. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antony Polonsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://london.polemb.net/index.php?document=478
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120064332/http://aseees.org/prizes/aaassorbisprize.html to http://aseees.org/prizes/aaassorbisprize.html
 * Added tag to http://glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/RichardTyndorfLetterToTheEditor.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425142848/http://glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/JedwabneReplyToAntonyPolonsky.pdf to http://glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/JedwabneReplyToAntonyPolonsky.pdf
 * Added tag to http://glaukopis.pl/pdf/aktualnosci/prof_John_Radzilowski_The_Shame_of_Polish_Historical_Studies_in_America.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110802120258/http://heartsofgoldpl.com/articles/ to http://heartsofgoldpl.com/articles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Alleged PDF by Stachura
Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I removed content sourced to a PDF allegedly attributed to Stachura. The PDF includes rather WP:REDFLAG language - e.g. "Jewish-Funded" or "former Marxist of Jewish extraction". The PDF file while bearing Stachura's name is hosted on a website with a poor reputation. Also already discussed at BLPn. The PDF file also states that it was rejected by the editor of History - "It is most regrettable that Editor Smith ignored my thrice-repeated request to have my reply published in History" .... ", with the right of reply denied.". The PDF alleges that yet another well respected scholar has a "crass notoriety", and contains a number of very serious charges towards BLPs. The PDF also states that "Poland’s enslavement under Soviet-imposed Communism resulted in her history, especially of the modern era, being systematically misrepresented, distorted and traduced in order to conform to the political and ideological imperatives of Moscow-dominated ‘People’s Poland’ - a position that was eagerly endorsed or reaffirmed to one degree or another by many leftwing historians in the West". In any case - we have a WP:PRIMARY source, full of red flags, that is not reliably published - therefore it is quite clear it should be removed. Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. By using the words "alleged pdf" are you trying to imply that Stachura isn't the one that wrote it or that it's not a PDF file? First time I've seen this on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Due to where this is hosted + the contents of the PDF itself, yes, the authenticity of the attribution of the PDF is far from certain.Icewhiz (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're claiming that Stachura was NOT the author of the linked source??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP vio
Why does this article even have a section called "Criticism of other academics"? That looks like a blatant BLP vio and COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please specify precisely how content published in History is a BLP vio.Icewhiz (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You created a whole section dedicated to attacking OTHER living people. Having such a section in a BLP is pretty unprecedented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assertion, I did not add nor create anything in this section (other than renaming the ORish section title). Now, please specify how something published by Polonsky in History is a BLP vio in Polonsky's page. It may be UNDUE here (after all - this is quite minor in regards to other works/activities by Polonsky) - but how is it a blp vio?Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A section titled "Criticism of other academics", which consist mostly of attacks on other living persons is an obvious BLP vio. If you can't see that, I can't help you. Maybe some admins can.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The disputed section should definitely be removed per UNDUE and COATRACK. The argument that it's a BLP violation is very, very thin. The section (in its latest state) summarized Polonsky's a criticism of two other academics' ideas and interpretations of history. Such back and forth clashes of ideas are perfectly valid in articles about academics, provided that the clash was sufficiently prominent to have generated considerable third-party comment and lasted over time. This is not the case here and why it is UNDUE. The only part of that section that could conceivably be construed as a direct attack on a person was Stachura's quote: "Polonsky, it might be thought, therefore, is a historian with a large axe to grind." And even that is debatable. However, the source used for that quote was entirely unacceptable—an unpublished letter containing unfounded allegations about Polonsky including him being "implicated in a well-publicised financial scandal in his university department in the 1980s".  Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore - I concur the section is UNDUE. Stachura's alleged letter is a WP:BLPSPS violation here (and if you look at content inside - it's worse). I don't understand how Polonsky published in History is a BLP vio (and I'm glad you agree with me) - but it seems pretty  UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's better to get rid of the whole section. It adds nothing of value to the article. However, as I said, academic disagreements confined to ideas and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal are not remotely BLP violations. The BLP argument should not be used as a justification for edit-warring in a content dispute. The only true BLP violation in that section was the addition of the wildly inappropriate primary source (Stachura's letter) which personally attacked the subject with serious allegations and inuendo. Quite disgraceful. It should never been added as a citation to the article in the name of "balance". Voceditenore (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Polonsky's criticism of Stachura was ALSO a letter in a journal. And the article text did not have anything about any financial scandals. And how exactly is "you have allowed your journal to be used to advance this neo-nationalist agenda" that different than "invariably highly critical of one side only of the Polish-Jewish symbiosis"? They are BOTH criticizing each other's "interpretations of history" and they are BOTH getting kinda nasty about it. Like I said, whole thing should go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Volunteer Marek, Stachura's statement was NOT a letter published in a journal, as is obvious from the pdf used as a citation. It's a written statement, allegedly with a University of Stirling letterhead. I say "allegedly" because the poorly cropped University of Stirling material looks as if it is pasted onto the top. The document was simply uploaded onto the website of Glaukopis (and is no longer there). This is what a page in the actual published journal looks like. Note also that his statement was obviously not a copy of the one he sent to History, because in it he writes "It is most regrettable that Editor Smith ignored my thrice-repeated request to have my reply published in History", etc. etc. Regardless of whether his accusations of Polonsky being involved in financial scandal were actually used in the WP article, that primary source should never have been used as a citation and linked to from a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. Although you twice re-added it to the article, it is to your credit that you eventually removed the whole section. Voceditenore (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)