Talk:Helena Wolińska-Brus

The article is a copy violation
"More than one person points out a curious irony: Senator Bartoszewski, whom Mrs Brus arrested, is best known for having led the Home Army division which was responsible for rescuing Jews.

He is also an Auschwitz survivor, and now an honorary citizen of Israel.

"Senator Bartoszewski," scoffs Mrs Brus, "I never heard as much about him then as I do now." This may well be true. After all, most of the Home Army officers senior to Senator Bartoszewski were put to death round about the time Mrs Brus was walking the halls of the Ministry of Defence in her military prosecutor's uniform."

Sounds familiar?

Well, that part is straight from - and yes, that is David Irving's site. It is not the only passage from that web site that has been copy-pasted.

Funnily, the remark about Poland being the country of Auschwitz and Birkenau was in fact made by a British journalist, not by Mrs Brus.

I would really like to know who is responsible for this...

The above fails logic on all accounts, shows an odd NPOV violation, and that is to put it midly. One of the difficulties in fighting Holocaust denial is that people such as David Irving often use the legitmate works of others as a means of giving credence to their brand of denial. The cited link is indeed Irving's site, but the lead article is written by Adam Lebor - Hardly a Denier. Irving has co-opted the work of Rabbi Avi Wiess too, for example, does that make him a denier? Hardly.

Yes copyright violations should be taken seriously, but it was not Irving's original work to begin with. Was it? the fact that your posts names Irving, but then states "Funnily, the remark about Poland being the country of Auschwitz and Birkenau was in fact made by a British journalist, not by Mrs Brus." shows you knew the difference, but still had to get an anti-polish digg. RandyRP (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns
This article is much more negative in tone than the sources listed. I am reducing this to a stub per WP:BLP. Please use citation style when adding negative information.-- Birgitte SB  14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the copy violation, why not delete?--Pan Gerwazy 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually when I really looked at the text compared to the sources; I had to removed a lot of copyright violations as well as BLP concerns. It is not, however, a straight cut-and paste copyright violation.-- Birgitte  SB  15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just restored my own edits after an editor put some of the previous wording back. IIRC this wording often matches complete sentences from the external links given.  Also you cannot say that she knew the executed general was innocent without a source.  I have read all the sources given in this article and the closet they come is saying the prosecution in Poland alleges that she knew of his innocence.  When adding more information to this article, especially negative information, please use citations.-- Birgitte  SB  19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I second your restoration. Unless this can be substantiated (and I think the only place where something may be found is the 1956 case against her) your version should be treated as the consensus one. By the way, whois evidence seems to point out the anonymous editor restoring this stuff is from ... Amsterdam of all places!. It is an IP address from KPN, one of the main providers in the Netherlands. However, it could be a Polish editor having fun with an open proxy. There have been some concerns lately about User:Molobo doing stuff like that. Whether the anonumous editor is Polish or not, (s)he should take an account to dispell these fears.--Pan Gerwazy 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be divided
The lead contains the main part of the article. A new lead should be written and the current lead should be the first section.Xx234 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is mainly about unsuccesfull punishing of Wolińska. It should be rather about her deeds.Xx234 (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a biography which isn't written as a biography.Xx234 (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Helena Wolińska-Brus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071122073923/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/21/ndon121.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/21/ndon121.xml

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Helena Wolińska-Brus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151015191011/http://www.warsawvoice.pl/archiwum.phtml/922/ to http://www.warsawvoice.pl/archiwum.phtml/922/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helena Wolińska-Brus. 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/20120204072030/http://www.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol8num1-2/constitutionwatch/poland.html to http://www3.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol8num1-2/constitutionwatch/poland.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) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Helena Wolińska-Brus. 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/20150402095819/http://ipn.gov.pl/en/commission/selected-investigations/investigation-against-ms.-helena-wolinska-brus to http://ipn.gov.pl/en/commission/selected-investigations/investigation-against-ms.-helena-wolinska-brus
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040814/http://www.pis.org.pl/article.php?id=4832 to http://www.pis.org.pl/article.php?id=4832
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124004301/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QOGHVX0VL0303QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F11%2F25%2Fwpoles125.xml

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) 14:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Jew marking - MOS:ETHNICITY
Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the opening paragraph should contain the country of citizenship, not ethnicity. The ethnicity of the subject here is irrelevant to her career as a prosecutor in Poland in the 1950s. Nor is it relevant to her life in the UK. Should we present antisemitism in the lede (e.g. in the context of 1968 and in the context of the modern Polish extradition requests which were repeatedly denied by the UK) - then perhaps we could mention the subject being Jewish - not in the first sentence. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you are trying to use MOS:ETHNICITY as a false excuse to remove pertinent info about her participation in Stalinist show trials and executions ? If you were just removing her ethnicity that'd be one thing. But you're not just doing that. You're completely removing all the info from the lede that actually makes her notable. And then you're hiding behind MOS:ETHNICITY.
 * Textbook example of WP:GAME and WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided a separate rationale for each of my edits - despite you false assertion above, I asserted MOS:ETHNICITY only in this edit (which removed said ethnicity). As for other edits - yes - I trimmed content from the lede. We generally represent subjects as they are represented worldwide - and not as they are represented in Polish media or state narratives (be it a 1956 communist era Polish report, or post 1990 extradition requests that were repeatedly rejected). While the Polish state definitely has an opinion on our subject, and said opinion is somewhat notable, we do not take 1956 communist government reports, rejected extradition requests as factual. Nor do we rely on Polish media for a guide on POV.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "I asserted MOS:ETHNICITY only in this edit" <<--- That is clearly false. You asserted MOS:ETHNICITY in this edit in which you also removed other' pertinent info from the lede. I've already linked that diff so I don't know why you're even trying to pretend otherwise, since it's so easy to check.
 * It's also a false assertion that this relies on "Polish media". There's all kinds of sources in the article. But even if it did? So what? This assertion that we must present it as "represented worldwide" (even bolded!) ... is that a joke? What, are we suppose to find, I don't know, Fijian sources that discuss this issue that has to do with Poland? Don't be ridiculous. It's a Poland related subject so it will have Polish sources. Stop inventing transparently bullshit excuses for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I indeed cited that in a revert as well, when Jew-Marking was reintroduced to the lede. Our subject is a UK citizen, who "fled Poland to Oxford in 1968 to escape anti-semitic purges by the communist authorities" per BBC. The Polish claims and motivations are treated with more than a grain of salt here by sources outside of Poland. Not surprisingly, since these allegations surfaced when she was already living for 30 years in the UK, coverage in English is fairly widespread.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I indeed cited that in a revert as well" - so can you strike your false claim above which says "I asserted MOS:ETHNICITY only in this edit" which is obviously not true? You cited MOS:ETHNICITY and then removed OTHER material as well. And hell, I removed the ethnic designation myself, yet you came back and added a spurious POV tag anyway , which strongly suggests that this was never about the ethnicity being in the lede in the first place.
 * Rest of your statement is false as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly Icewhiz doesn't know history of Poland. Communists ruled till about 1990, so documents of Wolińska were slassified. Later big crimes were researched. The IPN started its work in 2000, so 1999 was really quick.Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Polish claims and motivations are treated with more than a grain of salt here by sources outside of Poland. - those nasty Poles with their dead bodies. Who would die for Danzig? Why should have those nasty Poles participate in London Victory Celebrations of 1946? They lost the war, didn't they? Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
I tagged the article for POV, as it is over reliant on Polish media reporting and repeatedly rejected Polish extradition requests, and does not reflect coverage of our subject in mainstream English language media in the UK (where she lived) and elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The article uses both Polish and English sources. And there's no policy which mentions "over reliance on Polish sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While Polish claims should be represented, they should be treated as claims and allegations. Furthermore, we fail to note that she was the target of antisemitic purges in Poland - as reported factually by the BBC. Our article presently uses language such as "she has been implicated" as opposed to clearly attributing the allegations to the Polish government. Worldwide coverage in English - e.g. Independent, Telegraph, JTA, Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune for instance describes her as "hunted", and weighs the Polish allegations vs. responses she was a "scapegoat". Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fieldorf was murdered, there is no allegation nor implicaton. Poles are scapegoats in this Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "claims and allegations" are well sourced to RS. Neither the "Polish sources" nor Western sources treat them as false - probably because they're very well documented. You have been asked REPEATEDLY to stop evaluating sources on the basis of racist ethnic criteria. You have paused doing this for awhile after being admonished, but now you have resumed this odious behavior. Stop it.
 * The fact that she left during the March 68 crisis (correction: she actually left in 1971) is already covered in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Tribune has a click-bait headline (the word "hunted" is used *only* in the headline) and does not say she was a "scapegoat" - stop trying to misrepresent a source. It just says that she claimed she was a scapegoat. It also reports the charges against her as factual: "her role in the 1953 judicial murder of one of the country's greatest anti-Nazi military heroes.". Stop trying to misrepresent a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will note that the Polish Wikipedia article on our subject is fairly well balanced, and treats the modern post-1989 allegations - as allegations, and properly weighs opposing viewpoints here. The article at present is over weighted towards the allegations made by the Polish post-1989 government while not properly weighting the rejection of said requests by the British government, and coverage thereof. Chicago Tribune attributs "judicial murder" to the Polish government, while also saying " it is clear from archival material and information gleaned from people who know her that she lived a life buffeted by all the traumas of Europe's turbulent 20th Century. The rise and fall of Hitler and Stalin, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, the Cold War and its aftermath all played significant roles in shaping her career.". In regards to "scapegoat" it says - "Others, including Wolinska-Brus, contend she is a scapegoat." - so no - not only herself. Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, it's not a forum. I'm not interested in your opinions about Communist terror in Poland. An anti-semite would summarize your opinion as - when Jews murder is O.K., when Jews are murdered isn't O.K. Are you sure you are so biased? The government of Poland lacked any legitimisation. Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. "Others". Which is technically true, since I guess you count as another here. And it's kind of irrelevant what Polish Wikipedia says, but the only difference is that it notes why Britain rejected the extradition request - when HWB left Poland, the Polish government provided her with a document which stated that she was not a Polish citizen. The fact that she was involved in judicial murders as well as the persecution of people like Bartoszewski is not actually in dispute.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually - some of the details of who she prosecuted are in contention (see Applebaum who is cited in the article). However - yes - sources agree she prosecuted quite a few individuals that the Polish government saw as its opposition. As for whether this constitutes "judicial murder" (a concept unique to post-1989 Poland) - this is generally attributed, by RSes, to the Polish lustration/prosecution agency involved. Sources generally note she was the target of antisemitic purges - e.g. BBC. I will also note that the article contains quite a bit of unsourced and highly-POV content, as well as content sourced to WP:PRIMARY Polish government sources - a PR release by the IPN prosecutor, and to a 1957 Polish government report. Neither primary Polish government source (communist nor post-communist) are appropriate here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which content is unsourced? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides poor use of PRIMARY Polish government sources (1957 and 2001) - quite a few paragraphs and bits of paragraphs lack any citation at all. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a couple sentences (not paragraphs) which are uncited. This can be easily remedied.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She approved the system, when it murdered anti-Communists (tens of thousands), gave her a Warsaw flat, social position, but purging her, impossible, anti-Semitism.
 * There exists Judicial murder not only in Poland. BTW -
 * Do you accept rather German legal system in which the German Federal High Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) granted the so-called "Judges' Privilege" to those that had been part of the Volksgerichthof.?
 * Rudolf Slánský and other victims of the purge trials were cleared under the penal code in April 1963 and fully rehabilitated and exonerated in May 1968, is such wording more acceptable than Judicial murder? Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)