Talk:Józef Lipski

Free City of Danzig: annexed or returned?
See User talk:CanadrianUK and User_talk:Piotrus for discussion, comments welcomed on which phrase would be more neutral.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Józef Lipski is buried in Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Washington, DC. Can anyone send and/or post the details of what it says on his gravestone as well as of any other of his close family buried with him in the same section of the cemetery. Thank you.73.129.214.54 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Józef Lipski. 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/20020918204723/http://www.binghamton.edu/history/resources/bjoh/PolesAndJews.htm to http://www.binghamton.edu/history/resources/bjoh/PolesAndJews.htm

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) 16:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Genocide Research
- please provide a clear rationale for removal of a factual description of Lipski's mission to Germany covered by the peer reviewed Journal of Genocide Research, which you removed in diff. NPOV seems unrelated to the issue, as this is a rather straightforward factual assertion. Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One problem is WP:UNDUE. Another problem is WP:CHERRY. And then another problem is that the source is by an architect, with WP:FRINGE views who's "work" has been very widely criticized by actual historians for example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking is clearly not relevant here - as the journal article devotes a significant portion of its treatment of Lipski to this discussion with Hitler. The author has published other works on the Holocaust, and one bad review of a subsequent work seems to be a rather radical basis for exclusion (or for stating "with WP:FRINGE views who's "work" has been very widely criticized" - which seems to be a borderline BLP attack absent sources). Furthermore, the source here is the peer reviewed Journal of Genocide Research - which accepted this. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored the content, with additional supporting citations from two academic presses and with a sourced explanation of the historical significance of Lipski's remarks. I trust this additional sourcing should allay your concerns. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Looks like someone is trying to promote their youtube channel. See introductory statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.112.11 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

TA sourcing expectations
Note that TA sourcing expectations apply here as well. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. François Robere (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides that, Lipski's offer to build Hitler a statue are known from history books. No need to use Putin or the Polish politicians or media. Zianon (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing sourced statements
François Robere and Zianon, stop removing content that you don't like from this article, several editors already restored the text you removed earlier, not just me, such as Safire Legend and Piotrus. This is a clear case of bias, using various arguments to justify removing texts which disputes claims that Lipski was an anti-semite. Btw, there are entire Wikipedia articles written on current events, so the argument that Russian-Polish relations are not relevant is a bogus one. --E-960 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not REMOVE. I MOVED the interview in Polish in response to Putin to the Putin section. Do you admire Wołos so much that he should appear TWICE, freaking TWICE, in the article? That's what you did: . PLEASE REMOVE THIS YOURSELF. Also, this Polish press agency material should not be in the article at all. There are plenty of history books covering Lipski. We don't need a Polish Press Agency in Polish. We don't need Putin. Zianon (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, similar approach is taken with US doplomat Hugh S. Gibson article, he was also accused of anti-semitism in the past, and statements disputing those claims are found in the 'Persistent allegations' section. --E-960 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Zianon, since user François Robere decided to remove the entire section, it did not appear anywhere. --E-960 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As you're well aware, this article (along with the rest of the topic area) is under sourcing restrictions that forbid using popular online magazines as sources on historical information. I'd rather if you removed that material on your own accord rather than I having to take it to WP:AE. François Robere (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * François Robere, indeed, that's why when user Zianon objected to the use of wPolityce.pl, I changed the citation to one form the Polish Press Agency and Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), both are undisputedly mainstream and established news organizations. Also, the text of the statement form Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland signed by Poland's chief rabbi Michael Schudrich is also legitimate. --E-960 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This should NOT be in at all. However, you fail to explain why you admire Mariusz Wołos so much that you placed him the article TWICE. Current article: same Mariusz Wołos TWICE. How about you remove the SECOND ONE YOU ADDED:  and leave Wołos' response to Putin ONCE in the Putin section? Zianon (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The PRA and RP aren't RS for this matter either. François Robere (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the duplicate statement. This reference is legitimate, it is common to write about current events like 2012 Benghazi attack, Hillary Clinton email controversy or the Public Profile section in the Donald Trump article. Perhaps Piotrus can weigh in, but the Article Sourcing Expectations states "and/or articles published by reputable institutions", and both these articles are published by reputable organizations. --E-960 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reputable news organizations, not reputable organizations for historical research (eg. Yad Vashem), which is what these restrictions aimed for. You are aware that editors have already been sanctioned on this? François Robere (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * François Robere, are you saying that Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland is not reputable? They are the institution that put out the statement, which was reported on. I would consider this is a legitimate organization. --E-960 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is where they posted the letter in full signed by Poland's chief rabbi Michael Schudrich. --E-960 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAICT they're not a reputable publishing house of peer-reviewed scholarship, so no. François Robere (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

But, the statement says "and/or articles published by reputable institutions" not just "publishing house". In this case, the two news outlets are very reputable and certainly the Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland is reputable. In any case, I would like to perhaps get user Piotrus to comment on this, to see how strictly to apply the definition. --E-960 (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd leave in the statement, but clearly it is not a "reputable source" on Lipski because such Jewish institutions in Poland make political, not scholarly statements. The main purpose of the statement might be to build good relations with nationalist Poles. 92.217.75.178 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, Rzeczpospolita was declared to be reliable at AE in the light of the recent ArbCom sourcing remedy, see. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And then it went to User talk:Sandstein, and then to AE again, and now it's at ARCA. I doubt it'll hold in future discussions, and insofar as I'm concerned I'd be reluctant to test it. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think this applies to recent events like those documented in the "Putin" section, which should be treated under the usual policies for current affairs. It would apply, however, if we cited an older source there, which wasn't a direct response to the events. François Robere (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Snyder quote
Why is the lengthy attempt at exculpation and minimization by Timothy Snyder needed? The context (Madagaskar settlement plans) and timing (1938) of the remarks is perfectly clear, we don't need Snyder to tell us that Lipski wasn't talking about mass murder. Nor, for that matter, were the Nazis in those days. Nobody, including the Hitler-cheering Germans at Nürnberg and the Hitler-trusting Chamberlain, knew in 1938 that this would end in gas chambers. Lipski was, however, talking about what today is called genocide, the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Poland. I do not see why this merits Snyder's softening, nor what information the Snyder quote adds to the article about Lipski, especially as there is more doubtful exculpation of Lipski in the following section, like: "Poland supported the emigration of its 10 percent Jewish minority, but it did so partly in cooperation with the Zionist movement" -- indeed, but Nazis did the exact same thing until 1939 (Havara agreement), and this was still considered antisemitic even in those days. 92.217.75.178 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * yeah it’s kinda strange trying to justify Lipski’s comment by saying “oh he just wanted all the jews removed from Poland, not killed. See it’s not that bad guys.” 2601:601:8580:7550:291F:9712:D023:35AF (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)