Talk:Jan Grabowski

Musiał

"Information about Musial's answer to Grabowski has been removed. The answer has been published in an academic journal. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)" Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Another critics: http://www.kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/Grabowski-Hunt-Critique-6.doc Polish-Jewish Relations in Dąbrowa Tarnowska County A Much Needed Corrective to Jan Grabowski’s Hunt for the Jews by Mark Paul Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul of the Canadian Polish Congress... That would be UNDUE and require quite a bit of context.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We could certainly mention that Musial states he is a native the county and his criticism that his uncle's book, Adam Musial, was not used by Grabowski - points picked upby thoe who responded to Musial.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Academic review in English [1]. Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Were the Blue Police Polish?

Polish is the Nazi name. We don't accept Nazi language here, do we?

The police was controlled by local SS and police commanders, not by Poles.

The Polish underground had several police organizations, which were really Polish.

Both the London government and PKWN considered the Blue Police a criminal organization. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [2] and Grabowski[3] are calling this "Polish" (in various permutations - "Polish Police", "Polish ‘Blue’ Police", "“Blue” Polish Police") - we follow what the sources say (and it seems other sources call it "Polish" as well).Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing - anti-Polish sources and the Nazis name the police Polish. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is "anti-Polish"?Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's say "biased". [4]Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

“Came from a family of Polish nobility”

Nothing but one Haaretz article does reinforce nobility. I was looking for other sources unsuccessfully. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus, against "according to", was already clear in Jan Grabowski#Ethnic marking of sources and implied doubt and Jan Grabowski#Nobility as well as multiple editors reverting various permutations of attributions. Haaretz is a well-regarding WP:RS and doesn't need attribution - particularly not for trivial details such as family background.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, if he comes from a Noble family, there should be a better source that Haaretz newspaper article. What is his family coat of arms? Please provide a reference. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz is a well regarded RS. This is a trivial piece of biographical detail, as for a coat of arms - if you have a source for that I suppose it might merit inclusion, I don't see how sourcing what coat of arms is associated with his mother's family is relevant here.Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why it states "according to Haaretz." There is no other source confirming his nobility and Haaretz journalist Ofer Aderet who wrote the article [5] does not say where he got that info and what documents Grabowski's Nobility. Please contribute at least one separate independent source reinforcing Nobility to remove ---> "according to Haaretz."GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the mention of the family's "szlachta" status could be omitted pending documentation, including appellation of the coat of arms? (In any case, reference to a currently living person's szlachta status seems a bit archaic in the 21st century.) Nihil novi (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having "according to Haaretz.". I couldn't find other sources confirming his Nobility. He doesn't claim it either but if Haaretz declares that, then keep it what they claim. If you remove Nobility claim altogether, it is fine with me also.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And why is the "nobility" bit (not of himself - of his mother's family) require additional sourcing beyond His father was a Jewish Holocaust survivor from Kraków and who took part in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising; his mother, a Christian - which we're sourcing to Haaretz too? Haaretz is considered a WP:RS (per several discussions in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - going back many years) - This repeated challenge is becoming tedious - I'm taking this to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is only necessary to attribute for contentious opinions or statements which might have further legal implications. Something as non-contentious as one person's parents does not require attributing, and doing so makes the prose harder to read. Thus, and given the Haaretz is definitively a WP:RS, I do not see how attributing the statement does anything but put a non-existent (i.e. false) cloud of doubt over it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support removal of this. This is marginal, and newspapers are not best sources for this kind of information. Considering his family history stated here, well, half of Polish people - if not all - can claim to be related to nobility. Szlachta, after all, composed something like a 10th of Polish population few centuries ago. Honestly, I think it would be a challenge to find a single person in Poland, now, who doesn't have a drop of noble blood. It's one thing to talk about nobility for the few people whose families are indeed notable (Category:Polish noble families). pl:Grabowscy is now, however, a major noble family, as the disambig page on pl wiki shows. Unless better sources are found, I would not support such a claim for any Poland-related bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I also support removal of the whole ancestry/nobility thing on those grounds (i.e. not relevant or notable information), but nevertheless, if they had been kept, it should not have been necessary for them to be attributed as they are non-contentious. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't the references be balanced? Let say 30% against, 70% pro?Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The references should reflect the coverage in BLP grade reputable RS - which has almost all been positive or neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

For what, against what? Nihil novi (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Popular press articles are O.K.,an academic opinion isn't. Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That is directly against WP:SOURCETYPES. Also, criticism of the book should first be decided in the article about the book itself, and then summarized here, with whichever appropriate references there are supporting the facts/opinions we mention. 70%/30% is an absurd and arbitrary criteria. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

70%/30% is sarcastic, I don't expect neutral summary of opinions, so I demand limited bias.Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Prof. Grabowski's father

The date of death of Prof. Grabowski's father, as stated in the obituary now cited in the article, appears to be just 3 days off (28 January 2017) from that of Zbigniew Ryszard Grabowski (chemist), in the Polish Wikipedia. Are they one and the same person, and is that person Grabowski's father? Nihil novi (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same person (Zbigniew Ryszard Grabowski - aka Ryszard Abrahamer)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a BLP

Pleasze don't add other subjects.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The 200 000 story

• Grabowski has claimed that Poles killed directly or indierectly 200 000 hiding Jews. His opinion has been distributed by popular media, number of their readers is obviously much higher than the number of readers of the book.
• The number is obviously false. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Does the Controversy subsection belong to the Hunt... section or is it general?Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Controversy section is about Grabowski generally (e.g. the e Polish League Against Defamation attacking him, or libel against him by Fronda.pl) - and not the book - though it seems to have been instigated by the book and subsequent interviews. As for the 200,000 number - it is widely quoted in the international press - gNews 200,000 grabowski - and with the exception of some Polish right-wing outlets there is very little criticism of it. Used by the BBC, CBC, Politifact, AP, Tablet, Guardian, etc. (as well as academic citations) clearly show this is a mainstream estimate and not a "story".Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Rzeczpospolita"[6] - certainly not "far right" - says 40 000 on the basis of the recent book by Grabowksi and Company. Please don't discuss the subject, becasue you commit an ethical suicide.Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The BBC has a name Joel Gunter and he quotes Grabowski. One hundred quotes of Grabowkss doesn't produce a second source. There was a time whe journalists verified their sources, now they quote without elementary undrerstanding. Who needs any knowledge if we have experts?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

CBC it's Derek Stoffel, who quotes Grabowski. Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

POLIFACT is Manuela Tobias.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

AP quotes The Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw.Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, - Polish Center for Holocaust Research - of which Grabowski is a founding member - and which had endorsed this estimate (which I think originally was from a work of someone other than Grabowski in the center) - I should've mentioned that - but this just indicates that this estimate has wider acceptance among researchers (as do multiple citations in scholarly works).Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Who exactly from the Center repeats the lies?Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for such labels for serious research. I think this was actually first stated in the 2011 Zarys krajobrazu - but I don't have that text. In any event - AP is attributing to the center (multiple times, also - here), and also TOI [7]) - so it seems they made this estimate official.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are just prime example of bad journalism: "Holocaust scholars estimate that Poles might have either killed or helped Germans kill as many as 180,000 to 200,000 Jews". No, not "Holocaust scholars", only Grabowski. This is why we have to make sure that Wikipedia, a source many of those journalists use instead of bothering with scholarly source, doesn't repeat this mistake. This number is Grabowski's estimate, nobody else's, and it is not universally accepted by 'Holocaust scholars'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Grabowski said over 200,000 (though he had said in 2017 this was very conservative, not including victims of the Polish "Blue" Police). It would seems that the recent release, based on microhistories from a number of other counties, has revised this number upwards to well over half a million Jewish Holocaust victims who died as a result of the actions of non-Jewish Poles - this with the backing of most/all Holocaust center (they were all co authors).Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, sometimes it's better to keep silent. You go into my trap further and further.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Trap? What trap?Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You are in the trap. Please remeber your stories will survive forever. over half a million Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Serioius research? Unfortuantely Grabowski prefers politics and media rather than serious research.Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

TABLET quotes the book, p. 172. But the book says that 200 000 died, not that the Poles killed them. Try to survive a cold Winter in a forest. Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski, as discussed previously, has been using the "directly and indirectly" or "responsible for" - the 200,000 estimate was never for the, rather irrelevant, measure of who pulled the trigger.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 2-volume study, edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, Warsaw, Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą, 1640 pp. (in 2 volumes), ISBN 978-83-63444-60-0, comprises 9 sections, each by a different author and each covering a single county. It is hardly a comprehensive study of the entire country. Nihil novi (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It would definitely allow a more accurate estimate using these, with appropriate weighting, as a reprrsentativr sample.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"esimate was never for the, rather irrelevant, measure of who pulled the trigger"

Common sense does indicate that in every legal system and research, it is actually very important who does the actual killing.It would be very perplexing to claim otherwise. In any case the book has been criticized heavily and the estimate questioned.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

POV tag?

Sorry, I've not followed this page in detail; are there NPOV issues still? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've c/e-ed the article and I don't see anything here that merits a POV tag. Some of his views are controversial, findings disputed, but we do say that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE view of Berendt, Musial, and Samsonowska is given a bit of WP:UNDUE weight - and we don't properly qualify who thery are (particularly Musial). Polish media pieces - e.g. [8] feel the need to qualify Musial Bogdan Musiał nie znosi "niemieckiej propagandy historycznej triumfującej w Polsce", a Marek Chodakiewicz twierdzi, że to Polacy byli po wojnie ofiarami Żydów, a nie na odwrót. ("Bogdan Musiał hates the "German historical propaganda triumphant in Poland", and Marek Chodakiewicz claims that Poles were victims of Jews after the war, not the other way around.") (that's the summary up top - there is then a quite extensive box on him in the bottom). But I agree - the POV tag could be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I would describe Musial as "fringe", on par with IHR, for example. I'd say "controversial" is a better descriptor. IIRC, his book Counter-revolutionary Elements are to be Shot received mixed to unfavourable reviews, i.e. [9]. I'm not familiar with the others; if anyone has info to share, I would appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Historians supporting political factions that we disagree with (I don't particularly appreciate the crowd Chodawkiewicz seems to 'hang out' with) is not relevant to their reliability. Musial, Chodakiewicz are as 'controversial' as Gross, it is just that they are less or more so depends on who is talking (writing), and which side (left/right, Fooian of Booian, etc.) they tend to symphatize with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Musial's dewiki article is quite telling regarding the degree to which he is controversial [10]. As for Gross - in most of the world, with the exception of Poland, he is seen as a groundbreaking, award winning historian - criticism of him is mainly by Polish ethno-nationalists - a phenomena that has been studied by RS in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The "controversial" descriptor does not seem to apply to Jan T. Gross in the commonly understood sense of the word. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Gross is very controversial in Poland. The article is about the Polish history. Therefore it is apparent that Polish (and Jewish) historians are the most engaged. Jewish historians do not represent “the rest of the World.” It just happens that most of them operate in English.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)