Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)/Archive 1

Copyright violation
This article was, until today, apparently a direct copy of Piotrowski's bio at the UNH-Manchester website. As such, it's an obvious copyright violation, being a word-for-word copy of that source. I've cleaned up some, and stubbed the rest. Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gale Biography
[ http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Piotrowski-Tadeusz-Contemporary-Authors/dp/B0007SHB8Y This] looks quite interesting. No, I agree that the customer review itself is not very reliable, but the publication itself is another matter. Can anybody access it via some (educational?) database? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Like resume" tag
I've tagged this article as being "like a resume", because it is basically a copy of self-written bios (the main one being Piotrowski's own webpage). "Like a resume" doesn't mean that Piotrowski wrote this article; he clearly didn't. It means that the article is filled with glowing puffery, like this: "Piotrowski is a public lecturer with over 50 talks on the subjects of American ethnic groups, Central European history, Polish minorities, and the Holocaust. He is also a book editor, reviewer, manuscript referee, and a translator. His professional engagements include lectures for public and professional organizations in the United States, Canada, England and Poland." Please do not remove the tag until this issue is fixed. Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP info
Per Third opinion → Active disagreements

I do not believe that this little article in any way exaggerates or misrepresents the person of Professor Piotrowski. The stub is based on information provided by McFarland Publishing House and the University of New Hampshire homesite; and, not on a personal webpage which he does not have. The bio is linked to over seventy Wikpedia articles on World War II in Europe; most notably, the History, and the Occupation of Poland. The books written by Piotrowski (listed) are all well featured as references throughout Wikipedia, thus confirming his professional stance. He’s not a newcomer, and the mention about his engagements cannot be called a puffery (per above) – which is a clear breach of the Biographies of living persons guideline. Please suggest whatever necessary to eliminate the POVed flag inserted into this article by User: Jayjg. Thank you. --Poeticbent talk  14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is puffery. However, the article does not sufficiently draw out, why this person is notable (which I'm sure he is). Cf. Colin_Talbot. Also the article needs some serious copy editing, at the moment it's rather appalling in style and tone, which does not help to make a good case. 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. The article is short enough to be worked on and improved upon in no time at all (rather than flagged). Please explain what you mean by "appalling" – a very strong word for the type of information provided by a university. --Poeticbent talk  15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My apology for the rather strong words, but: he "conducts courses..." Maybe he is the course coordinator, maybe he teaches... but it misses the point in the first place, because it is not a CV. And why anthropology courses, what is the value of mentioning this, if he is a sociologist? Surely many sociologists teach anthropology and vice versa, but it just looks out of context. Next, is he a professor or a lecturer? A "public lecturer" is this a title? Maybe he as a professor, who holds public lectures; maybe he is a charismatic public speaker... Plus there is no logic in the flow (ie cohesion): "public lecturer", then book editor and what not, then again professional engagements include lectures. I am afraid to say, it is rather a mess this section. Mootros (talk)

This was posted on WP:3O, but I'm not really sure why - there's not enough discussion for me to see a clear dispute here, so I'll take a stab in the dark and see if I can spur some discussion. From reading the article, it looks like the subject does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY as per WP:ACADEMIC, the key stipulation being it must be substantiated through reliable, independent sources. Most of the links to this page are from citations (not actual mentions) in other Wikipedia articles. Inslusion in other Wikipedia articles does not establish notability - other sources (such as news articles, academic papers, etc) are needed. MildlyMadContribs 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your comment is way over the board here, User MildlyMad, requesting academic papers and news articles (what news articles?) basically to confirm that Professor Piotrowski is alive and well, teaching students, writing books and giving public lectures. This little Wikipedia article does not go any further than that. The article provides the bare bones of his professional career, which is supported by reliable sources (a renown university and a reputable book publisher). I’m beginning to regret having asked for a third opinion with this sort of treatment. --Poeticbent talk  18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't give up, dear Poeticbent. User:Mildly Mad raises some important points, but it's worth noting that these are guidelines and not rules. Are there any reliable sources in Polish somewhere? Yours, Mootros (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the word of encouragement, Mootros. Much appreciated. And yes, there are other sources in the Polish language, such as the interview with Piotrowski by Andrzej Kumor made available by polonica.net, with his short bio including information already removed from our article about his place of birth. Here’s the Polish original. And, here’s the machine translation by Google. --Poeticbent talk  18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies if my comment seemed a little harsh. (I need to work on being more personable and helpful >.< ) I don't dispute that Prof. Piotrowski is "alive and well" (that information is well sourced!).  The point I'm trying to make is, the article needs to address why this person is notable outside of just stating the numbers of lectures and books.  A good way to establish WP:NOTABILITY is to discuss the impact the subject has had in their field - such as how (or why) they have been cited in academic papers, or if a secondary source (newspaper, etc.) has run a review or critique of a lecture or one of the books. MildlyMadContribs 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem? Lack of references for "Piotrowski was born in the Polish eastern province of Volhynia where he lived with his family until August 1943 under both Soviet and German occupations during World War II." ? I don't think that's defamatory (BLP), but it should be referenced - if possible. It had a reference, but badly formatted and now 404: ; if it can be properly verified we can keep the useful info. And for the record, the subject certainly is notable (multiple important publications). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the subject clearly wrote several books, but who says the books are important? There's no justification here (or anywhere else on WP) that establishes WP:N for either the Author or the books. (see WP:AUTHOR) MildlyMadContribs 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:ACADEMIC: "the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work":, . Hundreds of citations of just two books make him notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then that should be stated in the article, along with why he was cited. Did he put forth a particularly revolutionary idea? Is he one of the world's experts on the subject(s)? Then say so - but cite your claim! MildlyMadContribs 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If such a claim were made it should be citied, but it is not needed for the article. Notability has been proven, EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, my hunch is that user Mildly Mad thinks that Piotrowski's books are not important, because he/she thinks they are not important. That is quite interesting way of reasoning. A notable author is the one who writes books, has a university degree, his books are cited and discussed. Is there anything else we need? Or perhaps we are facing a typical case of IDONTLIKE PIOTROWSKI. Tymek (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it comes across that way. (In my defense, my actions really don't follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT - the article isn't even in AfD, and I have pointed at policy in all my posts) I've been challenging the people involved in the article to improve it to conform to Wikipedia guidelines (and it's working!).  It's perfectly OK to ask why someone is notable if the article doesn't say so - and up until this diff, it didn't. MildlyMadContribs 14:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it didn't come across that way at all. Your questions and concerns were perfectly reasonable, though the responses to them were not. Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your comments here are the perfect illustration of what Tymek wrote above. You don't like what the author is saying, hence this is enough to make him unreliable / unnotable. Please try to keep a more professional distance in such matters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, your comments are a perfect illustration of what my comments referred to. Please focus on article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious sources ??
I've removed the following sources to the Talk: page for discussion:

1. Stanislaw Zaborowski,
 * This appears to be an essay with arguably WP:BLP violating material in it from a person whose notability is not clear. Was this essay published in some respected journal?
 * Yet again, Jayjg, you've gone way over the board here. The repetitious nature of your WP:BLP breaches (calling a life of a scientist fluff) makes me seriously wonder about your hidden agendas dating back to WP: Eastern European Disputes and your old Jewish tag-team. Please, snap out of it, for your own peace of mind. You've removed a link to a scientific journal, because it presents a valid and well justified criticism of a highly controversial book by a Polish-Jewish-American writer (not a trained historian by any means) about whom you used to wheel war with Polish editors. You removed the link to Glaukopis Quarterly, one of the most respected journals out there run by a Programming Board which includes: prof. Wiesław Chrzanowski and prof. Wojciech Roszkowski from Warsaw, prof. Peter Stachura from University of Stirling, prof. Herbert Romerstein from Institute of World Politics (Washington DC), prof. Kazimierz Braun from State University of New York, prof. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz from Institute of World Politics (Washington DC), dr hab. Jan Żaryn from Institute of National Remembrance (Warsaw), dr Ryszard Tyndorf from Kanada, dr Zbigniew Stawrowski from Kraków, and more. And, who are you? --Poeticbent talk  03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent, focus on article content, not other editors. Now, where can I read about Glaukopis Quarterly, and please tell me more about Stanislaw Zaborowski. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is their current (I believe) editorial board .radek (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Charles Dundee and Beata Paszyc, The American Institute of Polish Culture, "International Polonaise Ball 2007", Miami
 * This source appears to be a caption of a picture of people dancing at a ball. Is such a picture caption a reliable or notable source?
 * For the text it is reffing, certainly. I don't see why a caption would be any less reliable than any other text in the source, provided it used to cite properly what it says.radek (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

3. James Conroyd Martin, Gold medals by The American Institute of Polish Culture, January 27th, 2007
 * This source appears to be the personal website of a high school teacher and sometime novelist. Is this a reliable or notable source?

Feedback appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with those sources, unless 1) is defamatory or 3) is contradicted by another source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP insists that sources must be impeccable, not just not defamatory or contradicted by another source. Now, please explain how these sources comply with WP:RS and WP:BLP. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word "impeccable" anywhere in WP:BLP, where is it? I do see that it says "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." - in other words, the policy applies to Wikipedia pages, not sources themselves. Hence this This appears to be an essay with arguably WP:BLP violating material in it is completely irrelevant (assuming that in fact it does contain "BLP violating material", and assuming that it even makes sense to say that outside, non-Wikipedia sources can be said to violate the Wikipedia policy of BLP). Your two other objections don't seem to be based on BLP, correct?radek (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Please review WP:BLP:
 * Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
 * Please explain how the 3 links listed above comply with WP:BLP and WP:RS. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about your statement that a particular source violates BLP. Sources can't violate BLP, they're sources, only text in Wikipedia articles (or pages) can violate BLP. And I'm talking about the fact that the policy doesn't say that BLP requires that a source is "impeccable", but rather that the material cited to a particular source adheres to NPOV, V, and NOR. Also, am I correct that for 1) and 2) you're questioning the reliability of the sources?radek (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a source is not high quality, then it can't be used on a BLP. That's how it violates WP:BLP. Now, please respond to my questions. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In particular, every piece of text that is cited using the three sources you listed has additional citations - hence the text is well cited, and adheres to NPOV, V and NOR. Since a source can't violate BLP, only article text can, and since the numerous additional citations establish ... impeccably ... that the text does not violate BLP, BLP is not grounds for removal of these references. If you have objections to these sources based on non-reliability, then you should bring it up at RSN and have it discussed there. But you can't claim that "sources violate BLP".radek (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If every piece of text has reliable citations, then there's no need for any unreliable ones to be added. WP:BLP does not allow unreliable sources to be used on BLPs; there is no "but some other source said it too" exception. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP does not allow "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" - can you point to such contentious material?radek (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, please review my previous quotations from the BLP policy, and please respond to the questions asked. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... what question are you referring to? The "What on earth are you talking about?"? Not sure that that's an unanswerable question but note that I tried, above. I also left two answers to your specific question further above. And I've already answered the "Please explain..." - sources can't comply or not comply with BLP. They're sources. I mean, are we supported to write the authors and say "hey, you're not complying with Wikipedia BLP policy, you better write a different source!". Sources can or can not be reliable - and in that cases the issue should be taken up at RSN. What can comply or not comply with BLP is material in the article, particularly if its contentious. So, now that I've answered your request for the second time, will you please point to what portion of the article is contentious? Thanks.radek (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is, please explain how the sources above comply with the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you have no answer, that's fine too. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just gave you your answer. Twice. If you'd like to answer my question in turn that'd be much appreciated.radek (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And basically, if you think these sources are not reliable then you should bring it up on RSN as that's the proper place (for what it's worth I actually agree that the 3rd one probably isn't really good - which would be a problem if it was reffing something... contentious ... but it's not.)radek (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources can be discussed at WP:RSN. BLP issues can be discussed at WP:BLPN. Not that I see any need to waste more time on those issues; claims are not defamatory, not controversial, and hence fine. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest split of Poland's Holocaust
It's a notable book and its reviews should be moved to its own subarticle. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Unlikley that Piotrowski is notable separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boqnoq (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The length of the article is such that a split is not needed at this point. I reshuffled the sections a bit to address the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that one review of the book was portrayed here as negative, but actual review was praising highly the book.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Opinions needed
Please see Talk:Kielce pogrom. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation to Judith Olsak-Glass, Sarmatian Review
I'm unable to find who this person is or what her credentials are. Google searches return the review used in the article (source) and then mostly Wikipedia mirrors of this article. Any help? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Worldcat likewise returns nothing: search result for Judith Olsak-Glass. If there are no objections, I plan to remove this citation as coming from an a person of unknown credentials who did not not appear to have published anything else. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The very review in question (in SR) mentions that she is (was) "a doctoral student in history at the University of Kansas". She is mentioned here as a former graduate student who was of much help to the author of this book (Wojciech Materski). Her work (this review) has been cited for example here. While she did not, it seems, pursue any significant career in academia, I see no policy-supported reason her publication should be removed from Wikipedia. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, by citing yet another PhD student; compare with another book on the topic, where an admiring quote from a PhD student was removed: & Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust.
 * The policy-based argument to remove this source is NPOV; by placing a PhD student on the equal footing with recognised scholars in the topic area, we give the article an appearance of false balance. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This can be easily resolved through WP:ATTRIBUTION, and saying in text that such and such is a professor of x and such and such is (was) a doctoral student. There is zero policy based rationale to remove reliable sources. WikiProject_Books clearly states that "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations.". There is zero recommendation here that we should be selective ane exclude "PhD reviewers". I would however agree that when it comes to lenght of quotations used or such, we should provide lenghtier arguments from more distinguished scholars. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement with K.E.coffman. Removed the review. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it’s a no policy based rationale. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)<
 * @TrangaBellam Why did you remove this  without  consensus to do so? GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The onus of inclusion is on those who propose to have the content included, by policy. Btw, "It's no policy based rationale" is incoherent. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with GizzyCatBella. This is unjustified by Wikipedia principles.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Since there are new participants in the discussion, let me review the above arguments in more details: Lastly, a similar issue was discussed at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust and a review by a PhD student was excluded. What makes this a different case? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This can be easily resolved through WP:ATTRIBUTION... -- the linked Attribution is an inactive proposal that did not see a consensus for adoption. Perhaps something else was meant here?
 * There is zero policy based rationale to remove reliable sources. -- Yes, WP:DUE is such a rationale, especially WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and viewpoints should be given due weight based on their prominence. Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, as is the case here. The article places an opinion of a reviewer whose other known contribution in the field appears to have consisted of "making helpful suggestions"; "catching grammar and spelling mistakes"; "standardizing references" etc for a book by her professor:, vs a review by an author of multiple books.
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books clearly states that "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. -- This comes into play once the 'dueness' of a review is established.


 * Re: attribution, see Citing_sources. Re: balance - if a source is reliable, it is due. If something creates a false impression, that's why we attribute stuff. Reviews by professors can clearly say that such and such review was written by a professor of U of X. In the case of Olsak-Glass, we can instead describe her as a doctoral student at U of K. This will give the readers all the information they need to weight the reviews accordingly, and avoid going against wP:NOTCENSORED. As for Madanay, the same should be done there - her review, published in reliable sources, should be restored, with proper qualificaiton stating she was only a doctoral student. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * is really the opposite of what WP:V and WP:DUE says. I agree, for the same reason as the other "bottom-of-the-barrel" reviews, that this one is not due for inclusion. We don't place PhD students on equal footing with established scholars in the field; that's DUE 101 ("articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.") Levivich (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Further, she has not published anything in any peer reviewed medium and even her thesis has not been cited a single time by any other scholar! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs to go to RSN. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a question of WP:RS, it's a question of WP:DUE, so I'm not sure WP:RSN is the right place, which I think is what editors at RSN have been saying about WP:RSN and WP:RSN. I don't really object to RSN of course but I think it will come out the same way about Olsak-Glass and Romanienko as it has for the others. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per my previous comments, I fail to see how this an academic review of a book is undue in an article about a book. But if you think we need more input regarding the DUE aspect that RSN is not prepared to answer, we can always ask at WP:POVN in addition to RSN. Anyway, before RSN, let me ask tbis: do you or anyone else think this review does not meet RS? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is an "academic review" in this context? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A review published in an academic journal? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; since Olsak-Glass is not an academic, it may be better to be more careful about terminology. Is Sarmatian Review a top-tier publication though? Granted, my questions come strictly from looking at some of the back issues, based on my query at the top of thread, and attempting to find information about it. It's published by a non-notable non-profit, the Polish Institute of Houston (the link redirects to the journal); etc. It would be good to know its impact factor and the like. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Top-tier, hardly. Why the straw man fallacy? It is a minor journal, nobody is claiming otherwise. But as long as it is reliable, I think it is due to be mentioned in the article about the book; and as I said, I also agree her review should not be given equal weight to review by more prominent scholars in more prominent journals. But completely removing such reliable sources does not seem to be the right approach, per WP:POVDELETION. Wikipedia articles achieve neutrality by being comprehensive, not censored. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not cite essays — which have not been vetted by the community — as a defense of your edits. That is a slippery slope. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But is the house organ of an obscure Polish nationalist group reliable? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Undue to only somewhat due. Olsak-Glass was not an expert in the relevant areas at the time of publication. It is wholly unclear if Sarmatian Review had its book reviews undergo peer-review. It was certainly a relevant scholarly journal, but not an exceptional or highly-regarded one, since it published very infrequently. It could certainly be part of a "The book received reviews praising its writing (or whatever)" overall vague claim, since the journal itself is somewhat reliable. But the review itself is not DUE for a large or individual inclusion. I would not support it being placed on the same level of reviews written by demonstrated topic expert academics in top-tier journals. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Gifford Malone
I will appreciate some information on the academic background of Malone and their (academic) expertise to capsule-review a monograph on aspects of the Soviet regime in Poland. I have never heard of the journal which (unsurprisingly) is not indexed in any database of repute. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Academic Search and International Bibliography of Periodical Literature are not reputable? As for Malone, he has published a number of academic works about Soviet Union/Russia: (more on GScholar) and has a background in US foreign service (deputy assistant director of the United States Information Agency, with epxertise in Poland and USSR). More on his background in, he majored in history in Princeton, then studied in  Columbia University in "what was then called the Russian Institute and is now called the Harriman Institute". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ebsco maintains a catalog service; they are not considered selective.
 * That said, okay, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Due. The author is clearly a topic relevant expert on history and politics of the Soviet Union and former soviet block countries especially Poland. Has affiliations with the Harriman Institute, and has published multiple scholarly articles on related subjects. The journal (History: Reviews of New Books) is indexed/abstracted in: America: History & Life, American Bibliography of Slavic and East European Studies, Book Review Index, Children's Book Review Index, De Gruyter Saur, EBSCOhost Online Research Databases, Gale, Historical Abstracts, International Bibliography of Periodical Literature, Periodica Islamica, and ProQuest. The review itself clearly merits a short inclusion on par with other reviews published in similar journals. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He has written numerous articles, mainly in Perspectives on Political Science but they overwhelmingly seem to be about international relations, diplomacy, the Cold War and post-Soviet Russia. What's his expertise on this specific topic? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think he has any but I think we can devote a single line to a regional diplomat's perspective? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a few peer-reviewed pubs about the history of those same countries: Yes I would be okay with a single line, that would be more than enough for Gifford. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first three of those are not peer-reviewed pubs; they are all book reviews in History: Reviews of New Books, an open access and not very scholarly regular collection of book reviews; they focus on post-Soviet Russia. The fourth link seems to be a book by somebody else, Michael Bernhard? Definitely leaning towards minimising space given to this guy. Might be due in a page about the book under review, but not in a BLP of the author. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I would agree about putting non-historians or non-notable historians reviews in the article about the book, and leaving only reviews from notable historians in the biography of the author. Or maybe even just summarizing/citing the opinions of the notable historians in the bio of the author, and only enumerating individual opinions in the article about the book. Levivich (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

A Polish review
Another review or maybe rather essay about the book in Polish (I think that's the first one?); Does anybody has access to it? Marcelus (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the credential of the author? TrangaBellam (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After a quick google: hispanist, he worked at the Rzeczpospolita from 1991 to 2000, and was the newspaper's envoy to Chile. He wrote a book about Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet. Marcelus (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rzeczpospolita is a newspaper of record but I am afraid that he does not appear to have any specific expertise. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like this. Overall, it's strange that I can't find any Polish review or even traces of a wider reception of Piotrowski's book in Polish. Marcelus (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did search in Polish media but came across zilch. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Marcelus: If we are talking about Poland's Holocaust -- it's an older book, published in English, so it seems natural that there wouldn't be a lot of reaction to it in the Polish media. The book does not appear to be have been notable or impactful in the first place; I only became aware of it because of its use on Wikipedia and in talk page discussions, sometimes in a problematic fashion. For example, it was claimed at one point that "In any case, the Judenrat became an instrument in the hands of the Gestapo for the extermination of the Jews" was Piotrowski's own assessment, rather than Piotrowski quoting someone's 1943 diary: Gbooks preview.
 * As an aside, that's why G&K's assessment of the book as quotations taken out of context rings true to me; much of it consists of quotes from primary materials, which can span several pages as in the linked example. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here, before reading G&K's article I had not heard of this book. It's strange, because Lukas' book is even older, and it had a limited but noticeable reception. Maybe it's because it was written by a sociologist? And I agree that Piotrowski's use of quotes seems excessive. Marcelus (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

G&K
So, according to this presumably academic source,
 * "Piotrowski’s work attempts to convince the reader that Jews collaborated massively with the communists both during and after the war, that Jewish traitors and collaborators were one of the major reasons for the Jewish catastrophe, and that despite all of this, Poles did everything humanly possible to save their Jewish co-citizens. The rare demonstrations of Polish antisemitism, argues Piotrowski, stemmed directly from the attitudes and behavior of the Jews."
 * Sorry, I did not check this before, but this is an absolutely damning assessment of work by this author. Arguably, that could be included. But there is a good question: is the article by G&K an RS for our BLP pages? I would say "no", this specific article is not a good RS for BLP pages, even though one of authors and the journal are probably OK. Should not this be discussed at WP:RSNB? My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you would say no? If the authors and the journal are OK what is the issue? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. The central thesis of the article by Grabovsky and Klein is "Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" in WP. However, they failed to prove their main idea due to several fatal methodological flaws:
 * 1. Authors constantly say: "this edit [diff] proves Polish nationalistic bias in WP". First of all, almost all sources (RS) in such subject areas do have biases (pro-Polish, pro-Israel, whatever), and such biases should be reflected in WP per WP:NPOV, i.e. with "minority views" given a lower weight. The question authors needed to ask is different: "Do this edit [diff] properly summarizes content of cited sources?". And the answer is frequently "no" because none of the versions of pages is perfect or stable. But it is OK: let's improve them. What can be problematic is intentional distortion of claims made in sources, and yes, some contributors did just that and therefore were blocked, banned or stopped editing. One can find such examples in many subject areas. G&K were simply looking for such examples on pages about Holocaust in Poland. Did authors succeed in proving their claim of intentional distortions in WP? Yes, certain old edits by some contributors do appear problematic, but I did not see any such examples with edits by VM and P (i.e. two named contributors who became the focus of the paper). Some comments by VM have civility issues, but not intentional misinformation, and these civility issues have been recently addressed at WP:AE. Based on their editing in many subject areas, these contributors are here to improve encyclopedia; they are highly dedicated and experienced; they are doing their best to follow all rules. By unreasonably blaming them (and some other contributors) the article by G&K is becoming a personal attack page, which has nothing to do with any scientific research.


 * 2. To prove their claims, authors discuss not the current versions of WP pages, but versions that existed long time ago. This is like criticizing old drafts of a scientific paper, rather than the final version submitted to a journal. For example, authors disagree with certain version of page History of the Jews in Poland. But it was fixed several years ago. Same with many other pages. A comparison with current versions of pages would produce a completely different result. This is improper manipulation with data by authors.


 * 3. Please see the rebuttal by VM . The rebuttal seems convincing to me and shows unsubstantiated claims and improper manipulation with data by G&K. If true, this article must be retracted from the journal.


 * Authors proved only a few trivial points: (a) WP is not an RS, (b) every page can be improved, (c) several people contributed a lot to pages related to Poland (rather than to Holocaust in Poland, this is just a narrow subject area G. and K. are interested in), (d) most contributors are amateur volunteers (it may take a long time to find, analyze and discuss sources, especially when the opinions differ; finding WP:Consensus in such areas is difficult), and (e) experts can easily criticize any WP pages in any subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But why is this t/p a proper venue for your original research on the "flaws of G&K"? Please take this meta-stuff elsewhere. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the reliable source which says that there are several fatal methodological flaws in the article? Also going to need the source for "This is improper manipulation with data by authors." and the other BLP statements. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which other sources support their claims? All their claims about WP are not supported by any other sources (RS) and therefore qualify as personal opinion or original research that is seriously flawed. Would this source pass WP:MEDRS? No, of course not. You asked me: "Why you said "no"?", and I honestly answered. Sure thing, while making an evaluation of sources (e.g. on RSNB), everyone exercises his own opinion, based on other sources, understanding of the subject, and of course, after reading the source under discussion carefully. That is exactly what I did. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "All their claims about WP are not supported by any other sources and therefore qualify as personal opinion." - Irrelevant because nobody among us has tried to (yet) write that, The wikipedis articles on X, Y, and Z show a Polish ethnonat. bias ...
 * "Would this source pass WP:MEDRS?" - WHAT. Why does this need to pass MEDRS? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats a peer reviewed academic journal. You are a wikipedia editor, you are bound by WP:BLP. I'm asking again, what WP:RS support the statements you've made? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that critical analysis of sources on article talk pages (as I did) is permitted to comply with BLP rules (this page is a BLP page). My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't do critical analysis of sources like that, we leave that up to actual WP:RS. Which you either have and we can go off of what they say or you don't and we move on. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever. It just has been published. There was no any independent academic reviews yet. But I still insist we must evaluate sources. Does this source makes exceptional claims? Yes, it does. Were these specific claims (about specific WP participants!?) supported by other academic sources? No, they did not. Authors described their work as an "essay". Is it a biased source? Yes, it is. Do authors have a potential COI here? They are professional historians working in this area. Therefore, yes, they have an interest to have their views be described in WP "their way", and certain participants be banned. This is COI. That's why their article is not a good reference for a BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not COI, either in the colloquial form or the wikipedia specific WP:COI. You however do have a COI (in the wikipedia sense) in regards to this article. Do you not see how its weird that you're insisting on following BLP to the letter when it benefits you and throwing it out the window completely when it doesn't? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My long comment above (and other similar comments on proper pages) are legitimate because it is important that people properly understand and discuss what exactly source X was saying. Speaking about their COI, I will not discuss it here, but let me disagree, and especially knowing that they submitted a complaint to WMF. And no, I do not have any benefits. My best real life benefit here would be to stop editing in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You would appear to benefit greatly from discrediting this source. You very clearly have a COI here, genuinely shocked to have to be having a side discussion about a WP:BLUESKY fact. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 181 may be relevant. Levivich (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering about this from the very beginning. On the one hand, the authors and the journal are RS, but on the other hand, here is an unusual situation where direct criticism of Wikipedia becomes a source for Wikipedia articles. It seems to me that when G&K point out factual errors we should reach out to other RS. Here, however, the situation is different, and it seems to me that G&K's criticism should be cited. Although, as I say, this is an unusual situation. Marcelus (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: this page is not for the meta analysis for the Grabowski & Klein piece. The insinuations of presumably academic, COI, etc. don't belong here. Besides, nobody is using it in the article to make statements about Wikipedia and especially not about specific WP participants!? (punc. marks in the original).
 * The proper question is: Is the G&K paper a reliable source for the historiography of the Holocaust? The answer is yes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely! TrangaBellam (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not a source about historiography of the Holocaust. It is about "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". Is it a reliable source for that? No, because authors are not experts about WP. That is what led to fatal flaws in their research. That's why they consulted with a number of WP participants who provided their expertise, even though authors failed to properly acknowledge their contributions (and particularly, the contribution by I.). My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mvbw, you know very well that multiple editors - me, coffman, and Horse Eye's Back - do nto see anything wrong with GK's criticism being cited. VM, who has supported you, appears to support keeping a part of the review. So, why did you choose to remove it in entirety, bypassing local consensus? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see Biographies_of_living_persons. This is new material you included two days ago. I do not see consensus to include after looking at talk. The reasons for removal are explained at length above in several different ways. I removed it per WP:BRD. You need WP:Consensus to include. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a reminder that WP:BLP is a thing. A very serious thing. For serious allegations to be included in the article you need to have solid, strong sources, preferably several. This isn't it.  Volunteer Marek  21:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of these is a "serious allegation"?
 * (a) Piotrowski's works are "highly polemical and controversial", similar to those by Richard C. Lukas and Marek Jan Chodakiewicz.
 * (b) Piotrowski's Book X is an "apolegetic tract".
 * (c) Piotrowski's Book Y is an ahistorical work, consisiting of quotations taken out of context.
 * (d) Piotrowski's Book Z shows no engagement with the historical and political context of the times.
 * (e) All of the above.
 * I am curious. Potentially, all negative reviews can be argued to be allegations. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, those are fine. Except for first part of (c) possibly.   Volunteer Marek   21:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the term "ahistorical"? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If so, how is the label of "ahistorical" worse than "apologetic" and "polemical"? What is the policy/guideline that guides us to take these decisions? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That would indeed be the first part of (c). But that wasn't what I was referring too. Horse Eye Back brought that one up. The discussion here is about this edit by MVBW citing BLP concerns, followed by your revert in which you demand that they get CONSENSUS and claim that MVBW was "crying BLP". Yet it appears that you are aware that "ONUS of inclusion is on" those wishing to include. And this is especially true for BLPs. And this is even more true considering that in the past the Arbitration Committee has ruled on behavior regarding BLPs in this very topic area.  Volunteer Marek   22:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am neither the lone editor nor in a minority of editors who wish to include the content! Anyway, I will appreciate your views in the section below :-) TrangaBellam (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus for inclusion here with at least four people objecting. Can you undo that revert while we discuss it? You know, per WP:ONUS. With BLPs always better safe than sorry.  Volunteer Marek   22:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, WP:CRYBLP is an essay and shouldn't be invoked as if it was a policy or a guideline (pretty much true for all essays). At the very end this essay says: Referencing this essay in a discussion may be taken as an easy method of dismissing another editor's concerns. Given the importance of the biographies of living persons policy, make an effort to understand the editor's view before responding with a link here..  Volunteer Marek   22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I really think we should try to avoid using this source as anything other than maybe a source in articles about the reliability of Wikipedia itself. Using it here is imo way too meta for comfort. Surely there are better sources for Grabowski's opinion on the book? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading My very best wishes rationale, I agree with him "blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews" is very serious accusations, and needs to be confirmed by multiple RS. Since neither Klaus-Peter Friedrich nor Bogdan Musiał and others have expressed similar reservations about Piotrowski's writing, we cannot post such allegations at this time.Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * We attribute the claim because the claim comes from an acclaimed historian in a peer-reviewed forum. We do not say anything in Wikivoice. There is nothing in here that violates BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPBALANCE? I don't think we should remove Grabowski's negative opinion about Piotrowski's book, but this one particular allegation is very strong and potentially very damaging, and it would be good if it was supported by other RS.
 * (I would also remove the quotation marks around collaborators, G&K do not use them) Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You can read Zlatke's review using TWL. What do you think he means (emphases mine), when he wrote these parts: TrangaBellam (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have access to this review, even through Wikipedia (maybe a geolocation issue). It doesn't appear from the passage you quoted that Zlatke thinks that Piotrowski "held Jewish 'collaborators' responsible for the Holocaust in a major part." Marcelus (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have blocks; that's why you cannot access TWL. Maybe, Sam can make an exception for you. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My view is that if two RS-es are pointing (roughly) to the same direction, it is not a BLP violation to include it with EXPLICIT attribution. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that was currently a single source. I did not bring this article to RSNB due to privacy and some other concerns. Besides, it may be useful for something if properly used. However, this specific claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and differs from claims by other sources currently used on the page or discussed on this talk page. This is "red flag". My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the assessments by other sources of Poland's Holocaust, this does not seem like an exceptional claim. Why not take it to RSN? What are the privacy concerns involved? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * G&K are saying: The rare demonstrations of Polish anti-semitism, argues Piotrowski, stemmed directly from the attitudes and behavior of the Jews. TrangaBellam summary was saying: [Piotrowski] blamed Polish antisemitism upon the Jews. Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems to me that these two bits do not convey the same thought.
 * The second point: Zlatke's review (I mean the part qouted above) does not support G&K's objections. It does not say that the demonstrations of Polish anti-Semitism were the result of Jewish behavior, or "that Jewish traitors and collaborators were one of the major reasons for the Jewish catastrophe." Marcelus (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)