Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mala


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Both sides make good points, and I share the concern of some delete voters over the use of nationalist sources and other sources of dubious reliability. That said, there is no consensus to delete at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of Brzostowica Mala

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is based entirely on an unreliable source, a non-scholarly website, "Electronic Museum." The author of the source, from which the entirety of this article is taken, is Mark Paul, a fringe right wing writer whose work consists largely denialist apolegetics for anti-semitism in Poland. This poorly sourced article reads like racialistic sensationalism (e.g., "It has been established that the leader of the murderers was a local Jewish man.") It is not clear there are any reliable sources for this alleged incident extant. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a bad faith nomination (see ongoing arbcom). This is a reliable source (Institute of National Remembrance). PS. Can anybody find the proper modern Belorusian name of the village? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How exactly is this a "bad faith nomination?" Piotrus never edited this article, and to dismiss a legitimate AfD with such a vacuous claim and a violation of WP:AGF is ridiculous. As for the IPN reference, it does not establish the claims made in the article (other than the statement about the investigation being discontinued), and hence is irrelevant. The IPN is a government agency that has been accused of bias, and is a poor source for facts in any case. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IPN is a reliable source (as agreed by most scholars). That a few criticize it, is normal in academy (just think about Gross, who has attracted much more criticism...). IPN does confirm that the massacre occurred.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not a reliable source by Institute of National Remembrance. Attributed source of this information is Nasz Dziennik, nationalist newspaper, a part of Rydzyk's anti-semitic Radio Maryja broadcasting group. M0RD00R (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, IPN notes that Nasz Dziennik was the first to report on the events, and this has led to IPN invetigation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope indeed. IPN notes nothing, it does not say what its position is, IPN is not a creator of this information, it is just abstract of Nasz Dziennik article, published on IPN press overview website. And IPN did not find evidence prsented by Nasz Dziennik convincing enough to continue investigation. If IPN has no information to investigate, it is not a job of Wikipedians to make investigations of obscure WWII events. WP:NOR is still a policy. M0RD00R (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the referenced text? IPN cites ND citing an IPN official. It seems pretty reliable to me - if ND would be lying, one would expect IPN to note that... And we are not investigating anything, just reporting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IPN cites nothing. It just presenting an abstract of the articles where activities of IPN is mentioned. Nasz Dziennik is credited with information at least three times in this thread. I hope you understand what pisze "Nasz Dziennik" means (Nasz Dziennik writes, that is). By itself scheme you are trying to present as reliable, when Y cites X who cites Y, is an opposite of what reliable means. Citation of citation of citation is ridiculous. And when nationalist newspaper is involved in this chain, it's just ludicrous. M0RD00R (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia articles should be based on facts, not assumptions and suppositions. According to the article, there is insufficient documentation and witnesses for the Institute of National Remembrance to conduct an investigation. That strongly suggests there are insufficient sources to write an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 13:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Highly charged articles of this nature need to be based on rock-solid sources, not on speculations. The last sentence in the article indicates the the absence of such sources, yet all the claims before that sentence are represented as unambiguous facts. Nsk92 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm aware of the difficulties in finding sources for documenting some events that occurred during communism, e.g. the Katyn massacre, but we should be cautious in advancing unfinished research. This massacre at Brzostowica Mala may well have occurred, but it's too poorly sourced to be included in Wikipedia at this time. VG &#x260E; 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have copy-edited the article; a reliable source ( - IPN) confirmed that a massacre has occurred, and that it was carried by pro-communist minority members on the non-communist Poles. Due to lack (death...) of all primary witnesses, IPN however was unable to verify details to the extent it would like, and has declared that there is simply no way to proceed further with the investigation. We can discuss how reliable is this website giving more details - I'd guess it's based on the newspaper account, and that should be clarified, so the readers know what details come from IPN and what from the newspapers - but there is no doubt that the massacre of ~50 people occurred then and there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources backing up highly contentious claims. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply above re reliable sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Piotrus. Please, don't delete articles based on reliable official sources. Cite reliable counter sources instead. greg park avenue (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's a ludicrous argument. Firstly, what's a "reliable counter source"? Secondly, the burden of proof is on those seeking to retain an article, statement, or content to cite sources that back it up. Thirdly, Wikipedia requires reliable sources as part of its verifiability policy. I would ask the closing admin to not consider this comment. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since Piotrus keeps insisting that this is reliable source, I must repeat that it isn't. It is titled  PRZEGLĄD MEDIÓW (Press overview). Only thread concerning Brzostowica massacre is a brief abstract of Nasz Dziennik article. And Nasz Dziennik is credited with it at the end of the thread. Nasz Dziennik is nowhere near to be a realiable source. It is a nationalist newspaper closely associated with anti-Semitic Radio Maryja. Only reliable fact that we know from this thread is that IPN did not find evidence convincing and stopped investigation, everything else is interpretation by a nationalist newspaper, which can not be trusted. M0RD00R (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The webpage of the Institute of National Rememberance is a valid source and those involved know it perfectly well. Tymek (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Per all arguments above. If information by nationalist newspaper, gets published as an abstract on press overview website by IPN, this does not make information any more reliable, because the source of this information still is nationalist newspaper, and not IPN itself. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:RS. M0RD00R (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not easy. The google translation of the IPN source - which seems to be an RS - is not clear enough to understand whether (or how much) the IPN or prosecutor Dariusz Olszewski agrees it definitely happened. No matter the source of the initial allegation or article, that is the crux of the matter. It also refers to a letter to the editor by  Olszewski.  If someone can find this, this could give additional understanding.John Z (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. Found official IPN report from 2003, confirming most of the facts (Poles were massacred by pro-communist militia) at (big Polish lang pdf file download). I've also removed most of the speculatory information from the disputed website.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? That link points to a picture of two people sitting at a table... VG &#x260E; 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the number of confirmed dead and the amount of coverage this war crime received (half a page in a 350 page report), I still don't think a separate Wikipedia article is warranted. With the risk of sounding callous, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than many other killings perpetrated by communists and their sympathizers when they took power. I'm sure it can be mentioned elsewhere, e.g. in Communist crime. VG &#x260E; 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) is a highly politicized Polish government organization whose objectivity has been questioned on a number of occasions (see here, for example). It is a far less reliable source than an academic source would be (the IPN is perhaps on par with, a U.S. Justice Department report), and given it's controversiality, probably not a reliable source at all for a murky, controversial historic episode. Do we base historical articles on prosecutors reports coming out of a politically charged environment? Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Be serious, how's an article in something called "haaretz.com" a reliable criticism of an academic institution? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "something called "haaretz.com" is a leading newspaper, as opposed to the anti semitic one cited in the article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See, Jan Grabowski. “Rewriting the History of Polish-Jewish Relations from a Nationalist Perspective: The Recent Publications of the Institute of National Remembrance”, Yad Vashem Studies, v. 36 (1), June 2008. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haaretz is a leftist Israeli daily. Hardly a reliable source except for the local news and their own op-ed. Al-Jazeera would be an antidote to keep the balance in the region, but I wouldn't rely on it either. Actually, the media in Israel cover all spectrum - from ultra right to ultra left with all between. My opinion is, if The New York Times which follows it closely didn't bother to take notice of this, it's no news at all. greg park avenue (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please leave your opinion of the Institute to yourself. It is a government-sponsored institution, which consists of professional historians, doctors and professors. And a note to user Mordoor - do not delete it, or you will be reported.Tymek (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I've already left you a WP:CIVIL warning for your truly uncivil and onnoxious demand that I not express my opinions on a page where...editors give opinions! And my "opinions" were sourced to Haaretz and Professor Jan Grabowski. And I suggest you retract your uncivil threat to Mordoor, before I report you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh you can report me. Surely you can express your opinion about the Institute, but not here. We are not talking about criticism of the Institute, but about this real and heinous massacre. Or perhaps there is a direct link between criticism of the Institute and the massacre itself. Then it is clear. Tymek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One person's terrorist is another person freedom fighter, indeed. IPN makes mistakes, of course, but it also investigates many issues which some hoped would be forever buried under communist censorship and ruffles many feathers. This makes it, for some, a very annoying entity indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the IPN is a controversial source. And I'm sure you are not inimating that critics such as Dariusz Libionka and Jan Grabowski were hoping certain issues "would be forever buried under communist censorship." Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as you agree that Gross is a controversial source, and has been criticized by reliable scholars.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And Gross has exactly what to do with this article or this nom? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable for being a massacre; verifiable for being documented in reliable sources. Biruitorul Talk 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Request. Could editors post translations of the IPN discussion on the article's talk page? Novickas (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion? What do you mean by that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per earlier comments regarding the sources for this article. I will also request that Piotrus please stop commenting after everyone who disagrees with him. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion is recommended by various policies of ours. I don't understand your comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion is one thing, but the constant contradicting of those who have questions about the article's value is becoming a little uncomfortable. And making an accusation of a "bad faith nomination" and telling someone to "be serious" is not pleasant. Since IPN is a Polish government source, I also have to question whether it passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering questions and pointing out errors (the ENTIRE nominator rationale upon which most of the objects were cast is not outdated - the external site is not used, academic sources are now cited, controversial claims about Jews are gone) is rather constructive. Bad faith can be judged by anybody who follows the arbcom link. Non-English sources are allowed, per WP:NONENG and WP:CSB.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the arbcom link - it only confirms that bad faith (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder (I prefer beauty, but that's another story). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep IPN is reliable source, even though sometimes results of the investigations are used by politicians, or investigations are started for political goals - but investigations and goals are reliable itself. As for haaretz.com, it's hardly reliable source, as reliable as "nasz dziennik" (e.g. do you remember controversies about comic strip in 2007, where Jewish small girls are saved from hands of drunken Poles by German officers? or this: . Reliable newspaper? I don't think so. Szopen (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "This was not a pogrom, but it was close". Wow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is only in its infancy, barely nine months old.  Many articles, now accepted in the Wikipedia community, at that age were also objects of attempts at infanticide.  It is surely unseemly to be in such haste to kill an infant in its crib.  Nihil novi (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could someone please post the original sentences and EN translations supporting the inline citations - as quotes following the citations - and whatever confirms the use of the word massacre by the IPN. Novickas (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't believe that this AfD has become a discussion about the reliability of Haaretz, Israel's most influential newspaper. It's like debating the reliability of The New York Times or The Washington Post. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you Malik Shabazz. This is not the place to talk about reliability of either Haaretz or IPN. Tymek (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But in two of the three citations, the IPN isn't really the source. As M0RD00R noted, they're merely IPN summaries of what had been reported in various newspapers. The first newspaper, cited three times, is Nasz Dziennik, which is described by Wikipedia as "far right,[2] radical nationalist,[3] anti-semitic,[4] and ethno-nationalist.[5]" I don't know anything about the second newspaper, Kurier Poranny. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Haaretz was quoted to prove IPN was not reliable. I showed that Haaretz article can't be used as "final proof" that IPN is bunch of unreliable nationalists. Mordoor is not right, at least not totally right. The quoted article indeed contains summary of Nasz Dziennik article. But it's not summary of ND, but also contains phrases:

Wobec wyczerpania w chwili obecnej możliwości dowodowych postępowanie w niniejszej sprawie należało umorzyć - poinformował gazetę prokurator Dariusz Olszewski z IPN w Białymstoku. Okoliczności uprawdopodobniały, że zbrodnia została popełniona w celu zniszczenia grupy osób narodowości polskiej, należącej do kręgu przedstawicieli inteligencji i władzy państwowej. Tym samym czyn te zakwalifikowano jako akt ludobójstwa, popełniony przez osoby działające w interesie państwa komunistycznego i z inspiracji jego władz - twierdzi prokurator Dariusz Olszewski." "The circumstances made it probable, that crime was committed with goal of destruction of Polish nationals, belonging to intelligentsia and representants of Polish government"
 * This is what IPN historian says. He also says, that there is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions and that's way investigation was suspended. Simply put, the people who committed the crime were impossible to identify. They decided that massacre MOST PROBABLY happened, but they couldn't reliably identify perpetrators Szopen (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sz, for the info and translation. But being greedy here, please post the entire IPN finding on the article's talk page. If it's in an online PDF that is not, I think, asking too much. A government will probably not sue WP for a copyright violation on several paragraphs. Novickas (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And in any case, we have a better source - IPN publication itself reporting on the ongoing investigation (IPN activities report of 2002-2003). Although I still cannot find official IPN status report post-2003, but than, even through IPN is above average in Poland in making its research available online, Poland (like most other non-English countries) is pretty bad with moving research online.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question Piotrus says above "academic sources are now cited." What academic sources are cited? I'm not seeing them. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Surely you are aware of the difference between an academic source and a government prosecutorial body]. Calling the IPN an "academic source" is like calling the Dept of Homeland Security an academic source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. IPN is primarily an academic research institute. That it is charted by the government - well, so are public universities in US, but we don't consider their professors and scholars government employes, now, do we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, oh please. How many "public universities" have as their mission statement a declaration that they were "created to address issues which are considered essential to the legislative power in (country X)" and have as their task "to fulfill the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes." Maybe public universities in Oceania. I'm not even going to argue this with you, it's too silly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Boodlesthecat, you are mixing apples and oranges. IPN is funded by the government, like BBC, but it is a historical institute, consisting of a number of professional historians. It is engaged in several projects, it publishes books and organizes conferences, it cooperates, among others, with Yad Vashem . It takes a lot of bad faith to compare it to State Department. BTW those interested are welcome to check IPN's webpage in English . Tymek (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Governments are not necessarily reliable sources, but their statements are notable enough to be cited. Please post whatever statements have been made by the IPN and translate them. Novickas (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and verifiability is the big problem here. Furthermore "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages". Despite quite a few requests above, complete translations of the sources have still not been provided. Also, if I understand the few available translations correctly, the sources assume the event occurred but have no evidence or documentation. It's all very, very vague. Too vague.   SIS   22:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lack of English sources is not a reason for deletion (see also WP:CSB). I've read the academic IPN source, it states that the massacre occurred. Interested users can confirm this via machine translation, as John Z did. I am sorry, but I don't see the need to translate large batches of text (the existence of the academic source and that it confirms basic details is not doubted, is it?), particularly since Szopen has already translated some of it. But because some people have asked, here's the key part of (from p. 52): --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Jak ustalono, po agresji ZSRR na Polskę we wrześniu 1939 r. zwolennicy ustroju komunistycznego utworzyli na terenie gminy brzostowickiej uzbrojoną bojówkę komunistyczną. (...) Następnie sprawcy zamordowali wszystkich zatrzymanych." "As has been determined, after the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, communist sympathizers formed an armed communist paramilitary in the Brzostowice district. [There follows a list of detainees, including nobility and officials.] Next the perpatrators murdered all the detainees."


 * I'm not saying non-English sources are a reason for deletion, I'm saying they don't help verifying the article. And lack of reliable, third party sources is a reason for deletion. "Verifiability, not truth." As I said above, it's all too vague. I think M0RD00R has summed it up well. (And for your information, I don't fit WP:CSB at all.)   SIS   22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In what sense do non-English-language sources "not help verify the article"? And what, in this context, is a "third-party source"?  Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Strikeout Sister (signed as SIS above). Verifiability is not negotiable. Also, the title inherently violates WP:NPOV as I cannot see any reference to a "massacre" in the sources. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per SIS. Sources don't seem sufficiently reliable for such an article.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.