Talk:Night Without End (history book)/Archive 1

Missing chapter of the book
http://proszyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/nienapisany-rozdzia-powiat-bielski.html Dr. Proszyk worked on a chapter on Bielsko-Biała. He did not finish it and writes that it's impossible to obtain reliable numbers of victims or survivora for any region of Poland, that the subject is too complicated. He explains the research problems. He will publish his partial results. Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What is a county?
The subject of meaning of county is discussed by Domański and the authors. The subject is quite old, compare the Hunt... by Grabowski.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And it seems that western academia simply sees this as a "county". The methodology both in Hunt and in Dalej jest noc is to use the pre-war country - this is an acceptable choice (out of pre-war, during war, and post-war) - heck - they probably would've been criticized more if they used the German lines (as the Polish state, according to itself, continued to exist despite the temporary occupation). There is good cause to take the pre-war lines (as opposed to the German occupation period), as the study focused on Polish records, and the post-war lines were similar to pre-war lines. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please read the page? If you don't know if 8.5 or 9, it's not exactly academic.
 * Western academy lacck knowledge, so they praise any critics of Christian Poles. Facts aren't important, eg. what is a county - who cares.
 * Apparently a county is a place where fascist Poles kill the Jews, it's my definition, no better one yet.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the authors of the work - it is "nine selected counties of Poland". Per Grabowski -  - also "nine counties in Poland". Per Sławomir Sierakowski in Irish Times - "According to the book’s tally of nine German-occupied Polish counties, two-thirds of the 250,000 Jews who escaped during the Nazis’ liquidation of Jewish ghettos in 1942 had been killed by 1945, most of them by Poles or with Polish participation.". I'm not quite sure where 8.5 comes from, I think 9 is correct. Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How can a study of 8.5 or 9 prewar Polish counties (out of 63, is it?) tell us how many Jews had been killed by 1945?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ( My WP:OR, but this is right up my professional alley ). That seems unrelated to counties, however as a methodological note - extrapolation is often used, and in this case we are dealing with statistical sampling - which is a method generally used in social science studies. Opinion polls often have a much lower sample size (e.g. a few hundred or possibly thousands of interviewees for an estimate of the opinion of millions or hundreds of millions) - and if done correctly are fairly accurate. I'm not sure where 63 comes from - our Administrative division of the Second Polish Republic has 264 - but 9 sampled counties is still a high coverage rate for a sample (if the counties are a representational choice). I would presume they chose this high coverage rate not in order to generate the ballpark estimate, but rather in order to produce microhistory material (the ballpark estimate being a secondary aim possible from the study). There may be flaws in the study itself, but the sample size is hard to assault here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The counties are not representative, so you have closed the debate. The Radom district is ignored.
 * The book is about the German occupation of Poland, not about the Second Polish Republic, so the German administrative division, which defines the structure of terror, is important. Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The book does not support the 200,000 myth. According to Rzeczpospolita, the book allows an estimate of 40,000. Such estimate accepts the book. If the authors manipulated numbers, even 40,000 is inflated. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Polish Institute of National Remembrance published detailed critical reviews and analyses of Dalej jest noc
Not true. The IPN published only Domanski's review, answered by the authors https://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index.php?show=555. The referenced texts were published in Glaukopis and discuss only selected subjects. Gontarczyk is writing his review, probably book-length. Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Classical sources
The text isn't academic, but it compares classical sources (Browning, Goldhagen) and this book: http://pink-panther.szkolanawigatorow.pl/pani-boni-jan-grabowski-szewc-franaszek-i-101-batalion-niemieckiej-policji Anyone is able to verify.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Beth Holmgren an expert?
Beth Holmgren, a full professor of Polish Studies and Russian Studies, has published widely on Polish literature, theater, popular culture, and film; Russian literature, film, and women's studies; and Russian and Polish artists and performers in the North American diaspora. I don't see the word Holocaust nor even WWII. The war is something different that fiction.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She states her expertise is interwar Poland and has published on the Holocaust/WWII as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources please. (Copyright Icewhiz).Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per - her profile at her university - "Her recent scholarship focuses on Polish Jewish cultural history of the interwar period. Her most recent book, Warsaw is My Country (2018), is a cultural biography of Krystyna Bierzynska, an acculturated Jewish Varsovian who survived the Holocaust and served as a 16-year-old orderly in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising.". She has published - Holmgren, Beth. "Cabaret Identity: How Best to Play a Jew or Pass as a Gentile in Wartime Poland." Journal of Jewish Identities 7.2 (2014): 15-33. - which seems quite topically relevant to Dalej jest noc (which addresses Jews outside of ghettos/camps).
 * A title of her academic work Scholars and Stewards Working in PiS ruled Poland. What about he rintegrity in Trump ruled USA? Poland is a free country with a democratically elected governmnet. Holmgren is obviously biased.Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinions on Poland vary, and are changing in the post-2015 environment. In regards to the topic area (which has faced unique legislation in Poland curtailing freedom of speech) - such wording - e.g. "warning that the law seems connected to a broader autocratic turn in Polish governmental policies under the new PiS regime" - is used by other reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Icwhiz, you are extremely biased. I'm not sure if biased editors should decide about this Wikipedia content. Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PRI isn't academic and the writer doesn't have any idea about the subject.
 * Why do you accept Israeli censorship and you reject the Polish one, based on Israeli law? Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The 10 percent of Jews in the General Government
It's pure speculation, repeated endlessly. We don't know whether it was 5% or 15%. The research doesn't prove 10%. A Rzeczpospolita journalist writes that, in the light of the book, there were about 40,000 Jewish victims of Poles. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Proszyk
I cut out the long block quote from Proszyk. I'm unclear as to the significance of this portion of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If we include this, it needs to be paraphrased and summarized.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Proszyk is an expert, he participated in the research and says, that declared goals cannot be achieved by individual researchers.
 * The numbers quoted by authors of the book are very controversial. Jan Grabowski has had problesm with his numbers both in the Hunt for the Jews and 200 000 Jewish victims of the Poles. Generally these humanists misuse numbers, they use them as a tool to hit their opponents.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, please summarize. it needs to be - by whom and when? In 2099?Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * methodological difficulties or perhaps integrity?Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite think we need this blog posting. It might meet DUEness at present (given paucity of references) - it won't pass the 10Y test if no one else covers on this (outside of a blog). It definitely needs to be shorter and summarized. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, I'm a clairvoiyant, I know you POV before you write it. Any critics of your opinion is immoral, ignorant, un-neutral, un-academic. Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the we.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We, us, our, or other collective adjectives are required when addressing community consensus and content of articles - as per no WP:OWNERSHIP - we all toil together on article contents as in an (utopian form of) a Kolkhoz, Kibbutz, or Commune. Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus between you and me.
 * You transfer responsibility for the Holocaust from Germans, Austrians and other Nazi allies to Poland. It's a kind of Holocaust revisionism.
 * You reject Polish sources and you accept non-Polish lies.Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Jacek Proszyk was supposed to have worked up Bielsko County for Dalej jest noc, but "[found it impossible to obtain] data sufficiently reliable to... perform statistical analysis and [to determine] the exact number of persons who perished, the exact number... who survived, and how they survived." Proszyk concluded that he could only "describe... verified individual cases. The war", he writes, "was a great DESTRUCTION and LIE.  We do not have... complete archival records....  Even what we have is not always the truth.... [I]n Bielsko and Biała [which were only part of the county he was to have covered, in order to survive] Jews, Poles, and [anti-Nazi] Germans [all had to flee, lie, or pretend to be what they were not].  This falsehood left its [imprint] in the records and accounts, and that is why I [felt compelled] to verify... every account and every entry." Proszyk was unable to submit generalized findings for Bielsko County, but hopes eventually to prepare a study of particular individuals' experiences there. Proszyk's experience highlights the methodological difficulties in undertaking a reliable study of such subject matter.

I propose to place the above summary in lieu of the deleted "Methodological difficulties" section. Any questions or comments are welcome.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Per suggestion of Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz, I have added to the article the above abridgment of Jacek Proszyk's description of methodological difficulties with producing a study such as Dalej jest noc.
 * Thank you.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Systematic review of critiques

 * Tomasz Domański of the Institute of National Memory has published a general critique of Dalej jest noc—Korekta obrazu? Refleksje źródłoznawcze wokół książki „Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski”. His article in "Rzeczpospolita" summarizes his work.
 * Authors have rejected most of Domański's critique. https://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index.php?mod=news&show=377
 * Gontarczyk is writing a book. He has published a number of short critiques.
 * IFIS PAN is threatening Gontarczyk and demands academic critiques. https://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/ifis-pan-wezwal-dr-p-gontarczyka-do-zaprzestania-oszczerstw-wobec-autorow-dalej-jest Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Edward Malinowski
Edward Malinowski, sołtys of the Polish village of Malinowo, is accused in Dalej jest noc of having been responsible for the deaths of dozens of Jews who, during World War II, were in hiding from the Germans. His 94-year-old relative Filomena Leszczyńska is suing Professors Engelking and Grabowski, the book's editors, in Warsaw court for defaming Malinowski, who—on the contrary—had heroically assisted Jews, at the risk of his own life and the lives of his family. Polish-language report, 20 May 2019: https://www.tvp.info/42706332/pozew-przeciwko-engelking-i-grabowskiemu-zarzut-publikacja-zmyslonych-informacji. English-language report, 21 May 2019: http://rdi.org.pl/ Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the book about?
The page doesn't inform about the content of the book. http://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/4847727/dalej-jest-noc-losy-zydow-w-wybranych-powiatach-okupowanej-polski Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The study identifies small Polish towns as having been particularly dangerous "death traps" for Jews in hiding.
The sentence is cherry-picked. How to bash the Poles: select a sentence without explanation, without context. It's obvious that a forest was a better place to hide than a town. Similarly, a city was a better place. This is obvious for any country, not only Poland. A similar statement would be, "Jews were more visible in the daytime than at night." Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Jacek Proszyk is mentioned twice
I believe that one phrase should be removed. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Koprowska's review
http://www.ejournals.eu/Wieloglos/2118/2-36--2018/art/13559/ Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV problems
The article immediately launches into criticism, in a "Reception" section, before even saying what the book is about, and begins the Reception section with negative reviews. Also, the "eight-and-a-half counties" issue was here too; I noticed that in Grabowski's bio. The book describes nine counties, according to the sources. What is the issue with the number? SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And in his 2018 Gazeta Wyborcza interview Jan Grabowski speaks of Dalej jest noc covering 10 counties.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to organize the reviews better, they are right now in a rough alphabetical order. Maybe chronological order would be preferable. Citations also need cleanup, there are multiple refs for the same source. I'll try to fix it a bit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing Bielsko County chapter
This section was just removed. User:SlimVirgin raised a good point that a blog is generally not a WP:RS, but on the other hand, Jacek Proszyk is a reliable scholar and his blog post is relevant to the book. (Btw, the link is dead (but archived in IA and I think the link has simply changed to ). The blog post was discussed in a small Polish newspaper and the story was also picked by others (most notably a print companion of Polish government TV channel, Telewizja Polska. Anyway, while this is not said clearly, I think Proszyk did finish his chapter, it was just published later in - and this source also includes official English translation (I enjoyed reading his article, seems very insightful, not just on the topic in question, but his remarks on the different schools of history and their relations in the context of Polish-Jewish and Holocaust history are quite valuable IMHO). Anyway, I think the media reports should be enough to mention that Proszyk was asked to write a chapter but was not able to complete it in time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Tomasz Roguski review
In this edit I removed the review by Tomasz Roguski on the basis of WP:UNDUE as he seems to be very obscure and did not publish in a reliable source: the journal Glaukopis was described by Andrzej Żbikowski as "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Glaukopis is a peer reviewed journal. It is reliable and meets the sourcing requirements. The author, Roguski is a historian, PhD and everything. "very obscure" is not a criteria for reliability and Wikipedia editors don't get to judge whether someone is "very obscure" "kind of obscure" "not obscure" or whatever (since then they might be tempted to just label any scholar who doesn't fit their POV as "obscure").  Volunteer Marek   17:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, we make all kinds of determinations about what is DUE or UNDUE in articles. Just having a PhD does not guarantee inclusion, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline specifically states, "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs." Seems to be the case here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you did not dismiss my or other editor's comments by saying "nonsense". In other articles you've used popular magazines and you had no problem with that. Here you are removing a peer reviewed journal article by a PhD historian. "Seems to be the case here" is your own idiosyncratic interpretation. I'm sorry but you need consensus to remove this not just your own personal opinion that a reliable historian is "obscure".  Volunteer Marek   20:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and on another article you're attempting to use an unpublished dissertation as we speak. What could be more "obscure" than that? At least Rogowski already has a PhD. Please quit it with the double standards of "sourcing requirements for you but not for me".  Volunteer Marek   20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Glaukopis is pretty niche, and some of the people behind it (Chodakiewicz, Żaryn, the non-existent "Mark Paul") are known for their nationalistic scholarship or affiliation. I don't know if it's enough to drop it under the TASR, but we should certainly opt for more notable publications where available. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One more time. Please stop WP:STALKing my edits.  Volunteer Marek   21:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One more time, don't flatter yourself. François Robere (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just linking this, for the record. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Cut funding
Re: this removal, which claims that the source makes it clear that is is not necessarily a reaction to the book - that is a misreading of the source:

"...the Polish Centre for Holocaust Research has produced an impressive body of innovative studies dealing with the history of the Second World War in Poland... Public awareness of the research output produced by the New Polish School of the Holocaust History increased significantly in early 2018, when the results of the collaborative book Night without an End (Dalej jest noc) were presented... [here follows an explanation of the findings]

In any case, the leaders and supporters of PiS launched a campaign defaming scholars from the Polish Centre for Holocaust Research – especially Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski – before their book was published and accompanied the debate about it with a combination of discursive and disciplining practices. For instance, the Prime Minister did not prolong the tenure of Engelking as chairwoman of the International Council of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the Minister of Culture cut funding for the Centre's journal... [here follow reactions from historians, journalists, right-wing activists and the IPN] Although it is difficult to say whether these counter-measures were part of a coordinated action or an accidental accumulation of spontaneous activities, taken together, they show how ruthless the defenders of Poland’s innocence can be."

(Kończal, K. Mnemonic Populism: The Polish Holocaust Law and its Afterlife. 2020.)

In other words, the political "countermeasures" are tied to the book's publishing, but it is not clear whether they were coordinated with the reactions from historians, journalists, right-wing activists and the IPN. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error
There is a spelling error in the article: wrong: Ordnungstdienst right: Ordnungsdienst (no "t" in the middle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.71.8 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)