Talk:Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe

Templates
I would ask Iryna Harpy to explain why she added following templates to this article:
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed - Why? What is not neutral exactly?
 * ...extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions - Which region? Any example of this bias?
 * wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner - Please specify which wording you question.
 *  sources too closely associated with the subject - Which sources and why they are too closely associated?
 * may not include all significant viewpoints - How do you know it and which are other viewpoints?
 * undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies - do you mean a section Political reactions? Why do you think it lends undue weight?
 * weasel words - Please quote weasel words. GlaubePL (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire article is a WP:COATRACK for promoting Rossoliński as being a notable as pertains to the Ukrainian nationalism. The content is taken from op-ed opinions by demonstrably WP:BIASED academics such as Per Anders Rudling from blogs, and criticisms taken from an op-ed piece reprinted in the WinnipegJewishReview.com. Even there, it is noted that "In February 2012, Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, a doctoral finalist at the University of Hamburg, was scheduled to give a series of lectures in Ukraine on the life and memory of the Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera, on which he has just completed a 600 pages dissertation, upon invitation by the German Academic Exchange Service, the German Embassy and the Boell Foundation." In fact, he has only just recently obtained his doctorate and cannot be considered, by any means, to be considered a notable academic in his field.


 * The entire article is a big fail per WP:BALASPS. It is a WP:BLP, yet fails to meet WP:BLPSOURCES (aside from gleaning most of the content from his university staff page), the sales page for one of his books (including brief 'recommendations' from a few other academics, John-Paul Himka being the only notable amongst them), and the WinnipegJewishReview only provide WP:V as to his existence. The external links are WP:BLPSPS, and include academia.edu (talk about anyone being able to upload their treatises!). In fact, the entire Political reactions sections is WP:UNDUE and unbalanced. I'd go as far as to suggest that the subject of the article is a WP:TROJAN in order to introduce the reactions section. Given that WP:ACADEMIC is only a guideline (which this academic doesn't qualify for), BLP is policy, and Rossoliński appears to WP:IINFO, hence WP:FAILN, I'd suggest that this article needs to be improved posthaste or be the subject of a deletion review. As it currently stands, it's bad WP:POV form and unencyclopaedic all round. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "including brief 'recommendations' from a few other academics, John-Paul Himka being the only notable amongst them" - Omer Bartov, Antony Polonsky, Mark von Hagen, Susanne Heim and Arnd Bauerkämper are not less distinguished than John-Paul Himka. Some of them have published more than Himka and are not less known than him. Besides this section was removed.
 * Re: "The content is taken from op-ed opinions by demonstrably WP:BIASED academics such as Per Anders Rudling". - Per Anders Rudling and Jared McBride are not biased historians. Per Anders Rudling is an Associate Professor at the Lund University, and Jared McBride is an Associate Professor at the Columbia University. Both published extensively in distinguished peer reviewed journals.
 * Re: "In fact, he has only just recently obtained his doctorate and cannot be considered, by any means, to be considered a notable academic in his field." - Rossoliński-Liebe published important articles in many peer reviewed journals and also the first scholarly biography of Stepan Bandera and his political cult. His publications had an impact on scholarship, especially the investigation of Ukrainian nationalism and the Holocaust in Ukraine.
 * Re: "the entire Political reactions sections is WP:UNDUE and unbalanced." - The cancelled lectures were important point in Rossoliński's biography (the open letter of 97 scholars proves it) and deserve to be mentioned. However, we can talk about shortening of this section.GlaubePL (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In re-reading and reviewing the article, ultimately I have no real objections to it beyond the emphasis currently being put on the lectures as being WP:COATRACK. I'm also still unconvinced as to his notability. I've encountered far too many biographies of academics in the Eastern European subject area (wherever the academic originated from, or what their research and political inclinations are) being developed in order to give credibility to a political position, while others were developed from in the inception with a view to discrediting a researcher. So long as this adheres to WP:BLP, not a political platform, and continues to not contravene WP:WORDS, I'm fine with it. A compromise mention of the reactions to his lectures does, indeed, need to be worked on.


 * Having said all of this, I'll continue to be vigilant regarding this article. Your evaluation of Rudling, et al, is not a genuinely neutral one. I'm well aware of the form of 'standing' and stance of these academics... and Rudling most certainly has been dogged by controversy, or brings the controversy to him. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bjMFGLMAAAAJ&hl=pl Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Google scholar link, . That being the case, it seems evident that Rossoliński meets the criteria for notability, and is evidently a peer-reviewed academic who is tackling national identity and narratives as his specialisation. Under such circumstances, I don't believe that his notability is in question, therefore I'm scrapping such concerns.


 * Nevertheless, I still see such a need to trim down the "Political reactions" section as being WP:UNDUE to pure WP:COATRACK. The sources used to 'describe' what occurred are WP:BIASED at best (see the "about" Algemeiner description page, as well as an op-ed by Christian Ganzer in what is, essentially, yet another independent non-RS with information on the credentials and calibre of this site being evidenced here). These are most definitely not encyclopaedic secondary sources, therefore the opinion pieces in them need to be tossed out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to take a look. My main point is to make sure it doesn't look like it's written by the subject. Controversies are generally OK, I think. Poeticbent talk  06:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'd appreciate your input on this issue. Quite right that the point of BLP's is that they're written about the subject, but that any evaluations of the subject's works are due, being based on third party RS (plus, where necessary, attributed intext).


 * While I'm now convinced that he's notable, anything outside of the facts of his area of expertise and background need to start from quality sources. Yes, controversies are standard fare for academics, and he's obviously going to be party controversies having 'premiered' with a book overviewing the cult of Bandera and the growth of extremist right politics/sectors in Ukraine. Personally, I'm seeing the section as not being as tightly written (or sourced) as it should be. It would be excellent if you could find more quality sources for the controversy section. I'd imagine that, as Western scholarship is still negligible in these fields of research, there would be more in the way of Polish RS examining the issue(?). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518082845/http://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/fmi/mitglieder/Wissenschaftliche_Mitarbeiterinnen_und_Mitarbeiter/rossolinski.html to http://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/fmi/mitglieder/Wissenschaftliche_Mitarbeiterinnen_und_Mitarbeiter/rossolinski.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518082845/http://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/fmi/mitglieder/Wissenschaftliche_Mitarbeiterinnen_und_Mitarbeiter/rossolinski.html to http://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/fmi/mitglieder/Wissenschaftliche_Mitarbeiterinnen_und_Mitarbeiter/rossolinski.html

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) 17:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Critics of his work presented as politic oriented view
Here are some critics of his work, which should be added to the article

http://www.aapjstudies.org/index.php?id=243 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:751:5900:FDFA:5701:C19F:6249 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236824400_My_Response_to_Grzegorz_Rossolinski-Liebe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:751:5900:FDFA:5701:C19F:6249 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

http://er.ucu.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/1/1070/zaitsev_rossolinski.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y