Talk:Jan Żaryn

Not in the source!

I removed this[1] from the article because the source[2] does not support the text. The source could still be used for other things.- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, deleting his senatorial career from the lead (where they explicitly say it was the IX term, which, as you can read, is 2015-2019), and his political participation in some organisations (including the committee for the March of Independence) is exactly the reason why I wrote at ANI - find another source, really, that says the same thing - don't just nuke the text. Particularly that being a senator is one of the reasons of notability for him. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Szmalcownik

@Lembit Staan: You corrected here [3] but is there any reason to include that line at all? Just take a look at the Szmalcownik article itself - quote:

Szmalcowniks came from diverse backgrounds. About three-quarters were Poles, but members of the German, Ukrainian and Lithuanian minorities – and in some cases even Jews – were also engaged in blackmailing.

This is referenced to scholarly sources other than Żaryn. It is a historical fact, but here it is drawn as if Żaryn was declaring something out of the ordinary. Do you believe that the entire line should be discarded the same as I do? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To those who don't like logical reasoning, BUG OFF; I am talking to GizzyCatBella, not to you

Yes and no. In order to write a decent article about Zaryn, one has to know the whole context of what's going on not only with Zaryn, but with Polish politicum as a whole. Taken out of context, this sentence does look "out of the blue". But it did not catch my eye as strange, because I know where it was coming from and what it was insinuating. I started to write an explanation in section "Zaryn's position in the eyes of critics", but I was slapped with "NOTAFORUM" label in best traditions of a certain category of disputants who don't bother to address the essence of arguments. So I discontinued it, because WP:DGAF. I don't know what's your degree of knowledge here, but here is a "satellite view" on Zaryn: he is caught right in the middle of the "clash of conspiracies". Zaryn tries to combat one of them (Conspiracy A: "Poles are anti-Semites by the very nature of their Polishness"), but due to his sloppiness he gives an ample chance for his opponents to accuse him of propagating the alleged "Polish blamelessness plus victimhood theory" conspiracy theory (Conspiracy B), up to thinly veiled accusations of anti-Semitism. Supposing this supposition, several disputed statements suggested for inclusion will start making sense:

• "miał swoje umocowanie w racjonalnym myśleniu" ("<antisemitism> was supported/reinforced by rational thinking"; discussed elsewhere above)

Here Zaryn tries to contest Conspiracy A: Poles are anti-Semites because they are Catholics in their faith and racists in their nature. His effort is understandable, if one remembers where Zaryn is hailing from.

• ""mostly due to economic reasons""

Same as above. It is suggested to add "Historian Dariusz Libionka disagrees with the latter statement", but after reading more of Libionka, -- hell, no (talk about this later).

• <...>
• "szmalcownicy"

Yes, as you say, it is a well-known fact, but Zaryn is being accused of cherry-picking factoids to allegedly favor Conspiracy B, and this szmalcownicy "argument" is parroted by many critics (as may see yourself by the amount of refbombing).

Zaryn basically says "zsmalcownicy were a cross-section of (not the best part of) the whole Polish society". (That this is not his finding is irrelevant.) And his opponents say "what now, are you saying Poles are not guilty here????" I have no idea what exactly was written in Zaryn's book Polacy ratyjacy Zydow, but hell I am sure that he did not write as one of his "critics" ""summarized"": "<...>Szmalcowniks were recruited from Germans, Volksdeutsche, Ukrainians, and the Jews themselves. Well, of course there were some Poles among them <...>". If someone shows me that Zaryn did write something like this, I will eat my beard. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

To those who don't like logical reasoning, BUG OFF; I am talking to GizzyCatBella, not to you IMHO a rather lousy way to ask people to stay off the discussion and stop analysing whatever you write (which BTW is insulting towards whoever does not agree with you). Don't ever do that in any discussion - it only makes the situation worse.

he is caught right in the middle of the "clash of conspiracies". The text you write actually does not present is as a clash but employing one conspiracy by his critics and assigning (supposedly unfairly) another one coming from the arguments he makes by his same critics, which is less of a clash and more of a full-scaled offensive. The only problem is, don't you find the text eh... too conspiratorial?

I have no idea what exactly was written in Zaryn's book Polacy ratyjacy Zydow, but hell I am sure that he did not write... 1. That critic was Libionka; 2. First make sure that he indeed didn't write it, and then say that his arguments are being manipulated. Speculation about what he wrote gives us nothing if you can't say what exactly he wrote. And even after that, the text can be reasonably interpreted by different ways. So no, excluding opinions of scholars for being harsh is not a good reason to exclude them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

<plonk> On numerous occasions you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of WP:BLP, so I am not responding to you anymore: waste of time. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Jan Żaryn

This is a five-part RfC, the culmination of a month's work by several editors. The question being asked for each of the sections is:

Should the following be added to the text?

• Yes
• Yes, but...
• No

You may vote in some or all of the sections, as you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Robere (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Section 1

Żaryn is commonly seen as a conservative historian promoting nationalist and anti-communist narratives, and one of the main advocates of the historical policy of the Law and Justice party. He sees Polish historical policy as a "battle under the banners of sovereignty, justice [and] freedom", with the state exercising it "so that Poles don't mistake where there is good and where there is evil", and wishes to "strengthen the educational role of history" so it becomes a "widely accepted... positive myth". Żaryn describes Poles as “loving freedom, Catholicism, patriotism and especially being proud of their history”.

References

Notes Background Frédéric Zalewski is a senior lecturer in political science at the CNRS Institut des sciences sociales du politique at Paris Nanterre[4] Georges Mink is a sociologist and political scientist, Director of Research at the CNRS Institut des sciences sociales du politique at Paris Nanterre, and President of the International Council for Central and East European Studies (ICCEES)[5] Valentin Behr is a researcher in political science at the University of Strasbourg who specialzies in Polish historiography[6] Wojciech Czuchnowski is a Polish journalist, winner of the Grand Press award and author of two books Jacek Leociak, head of the Holocaust Literature Research Group of the Polish Academy of Sciences,[7] in an interview with Estera Flieger, a Polish journalist who has published in the Guardian, Newsweek Historia and Notes from Poland (Added interviewee's details 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)) Rafał Stobiecki is a professor of history at the University of Łódź specializing in Polish historiography[8] Marta Duch-Dyngosz is a sociologist specializing in Polish-Jewish relations[9] Jan Grabowski is a professor of history at the University of Ottawa and co-founder of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research Kornelia Kończal is an historian at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich[10] Ewa Solska is an adjunct professor for historical methodology at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University[11] Klaus-Peter Friedrich is a German historian, member of the Geschichtswerkstatt Marburg Rafał Pankowski is a sociologist and political scientist at Collegium Civitas[12] and chair of the "Never Again" Association Antoni Radczenko is a Polish-Lithuanian journalist, former editor-in-chief of Znad Wilii Rafał Kalukin is a Polish journalist writing for Polityka. He has previously written for Newsweek Polska Claudia Ciobanu is the Poland correspondent for Balkan Insight.[13] She's also written for Politico, Guardian and Al Jazeera

Vote (RfC: Section 1)

• yes (but remove part related to "positive myth") Lembit Staan (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• The stuff on the "positive myth" is *supposedly* cited to two sources. The first one is a user generated translation of a primary source so WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The second one doesn't actually say it. So no on that part. This has already been said a million times so I don't know what it's still doing in the proposal. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You are right, I am so tired with this discussion, with poles shifting back and forth, that failed to notice this piece of WP:SYNTH of citations, placed together in a way to produce something Zaryn didn't say. While the terminology about "positive mythology" is indeed a trademark of Zaryn, this part about "positive myth" must be removed.
  • I guess you are right, Marek. Time to initiate topic ban procedure. This beciomes to wasteful of time. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lembit Staan: Three weeks ago you said "I see no glaring issues with the current state of Section 1"[14] and "I have no objections with the usage of the sources cited".[15] This is almost exactly the same text... François Robere (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, I was mistaken to trust the authors to correctly transcribe the source. You didnt learn from this long discussion after all. If you genuinely do not see the difference between what was in the source and what is in wikipedia, you should recluse yourself from the subject. Lembit Staan (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • You used the same terms, and even explained what they mean...[16] François Robere (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I wrote what I wrote, both there and here. You misquoted Zaryn making it to appear that he said a stupid thing which he didnt. Period. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Concur with Volunteer Marek.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to the first part; ambivalent about the last part; the rest falls under WP:TRANSCRIPTION, WP:RSUE and WP:TRLA. All of the translations include the Polish original in footnote, so you can check their accuracy yourself. François Robere (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to the whole part, even the "myth". As I have already said, it is important to frame how this person is politically defined. About the "myth" the source[17] attributes this to Zaryn:"Który sam o sobie mówi, że jego zadaniem jest kreowanie „pozytywnych mitów” na temat polskości.". Seems enough to me.--Mhorg (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• No - per 3 month discussions above and below this RfC. (Please see the entire debate, not only this RfC) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• There's no wonder no one wants to close this discussion because it's such a mess. The thing is, even after a month of forgetting about the article's existence and all that, my general assessment does not change. Exclusion of information simply because this "describes stupid blunders" which are not at all blunders from a conservative standpoint (conservative as understood by a faction of a currently ruling party); deletion of sources (including academic) because of perceived hatred of the people behind these sources against the party (and while it might be rather obvious in case of Polityka 'cause it's left-leaning, but for Korycki, who hasn't said anything of her political views?); exclusion of duly sourced statements, electoral tables and even removal of his status as Senator from the lead (sic) are all absolutely unacceptable, and no policy encourages deletion of such information. This seems to be not even an issue of deletionism v. inclusionism but of deletionism gone amok.

Yes, ultimately the editors opposing inclusion got what they wanted - any material that could be seen potentially offending (including, but not limited to, Żaryn's support of Marsz Niepodległości, which is quite often associated with the far-right and the hooligans, even though we didn't say he supported the latter and neither do I) is no longer there for various reasons, which in this particular case is "not electoral history". Because no one wanted to hear about WP:PRESERVE at the time the info was deleted (with any even slightly problematic edit deleted/reverted instead of simply fixed), now any attempt to restore it will require passing an WP:ONUS challenge, which is in fact misuse of the tool, because ONUS requires that people hear each other instead of hurling accusations every other edit.

It's not because I haven't done mistakes here - I have, but again those that I was aware of have been solved. Some misunderstandings while I was translating the article (it wasn't the best translation, I must admit) have been corrected, but repeated calls to propose additional sourcing on Żaryn I wasn't able to find and sourcing for subjects that describe him too and in which I'm not too proficient (his work on the Catholic Church, for example) seem to have fallen on deaf ears. I believe I've done my duty rather well as regards looking for sources and introducing them to the article (at least no one proved otherwise as regards sourcing), but it takes two to tango, and it seems that not only they didn't want to tango, but also they tried to stomp on the feet of those inviting to do so. Instead, in the course of the conversation, you can learn that Ukraine is terrorised by Azov in 2021 (alt news in action).

It's a yes on all five sections. Even after more than a month after the dispute is dead, when I look at the evidence, I can see all the lameness of the dispute and no good reason for it to have been initiated in the first place. I will initiate an RSN discussion on some deleted sources, as the dispute is still there but the method to change the outcome was dubious. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes but maybe not the part about the 'myth' per concerns raised above. Otherwise the summary seems relatively neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — any issue about the "myth" wording is not an excuse to not include everything else, for which there seems to be agreement, and can be worked around through rewording or better sources by now. In general, I have to agree with what Szmenderowiecki wrote here, and I have decided to !comment precisely because apparently no one else has done so since September 2021. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Section 1)

• A small syntactic point that applies to all the sections: each of these quotes should be phrased in past tense e.g. Żaryn describes Poles as "..." becomes Żaryn described Poles as "...". — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not a native speaker, but IMHO, when speaking about something written, the present tense is usually OK, as on "the author describes". This is especially valid here, since we are writing about Zaryn's views. If we were to write it in past tense, that would be perceived that these are his past views and we imply he changed them since then. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Section 2

Żaryn believes that anti-Semitism in Interwar Poland was reinforced by "rational thinking", and argues that Polish-Jewish "tensions" intensified mostly due to economic reasons. Dariusz Libionka disagrees; criticizing Żaryn's article Holocaust, Libionka points out many errors and sloppy statements, and states that Żaryn "does not know basic facts" about World War II. He notes that, while Żaryn's works on other subjects are often "valuable historical literature", those on Polish-Jewish relations are tainted by his "ideological sympathies and inspirations". Ewa Koźmińska-Frejlak writes in her review of Żaryn's introduction to the educational booklet Polacy ratujący Żydów w latach II wojny światowej (Polish rescuers of Jews during World War II), that Żaryn is advancing his own views rather than simply presenting facts, leaving the impression that he is trying to "blame the victim" (the Jews) in order to diminish the responsibility assigned to Poles.

References
Background Rafał Kalukin is a Polish journalist writing for Polityka. He has previously written for Newsweek Polska Dariusz Libionka is an historian at the Institute of National Remembrance Ewa Koźmińska-Frejak is a sociologist at the Institute of Jewish History of the Polish Academy of Sciences [18]

Vote (RfC: Section 2)

• yes, but "Libonka disagrees" and nitpicking about Zarnn's knowledge about WWII must be removed as irrelevaant to section about Zaryn's views. Other judgements are OK Lembit Staan (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• No I see heavy use of scare quotes in way too many sentences to imply wrong facts like Polish-Jewish "tensions". There's a slippery slope into controversy sections on BLP, not all opinions about a subject belong on a person's biography per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Are these people's takes on the subject's views notable? According to whom? One should be careful even more so when dealing with accusations that are borderline defamatory per WP:BLP like implying anti-semitism. Also the wording "promoting anti-communist narratives" makes it seem like the subject is pushing a fringe dangerous ideology. What is an anti-communist narrative? Is he an anti-communist? The ending sentence (in section 1) is sourced to Politico which quotes him saying Żaryn argued that the museum should have concentrated more on depicting “features characteristic of Poles'” such as “loving freedom, Catholicism, patriotism and especially being proud of their history.”. The RfC wording suggestion is misusing this source as it makes it seem like the subject thinks these are the only characteristics of Poles, when he was just using examples (key wording "such as" missing) and in a very specific topic (the Museum portrayal of Poles) --Loganmac (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• A cleaned up version would be okay. I concur with Loganmac that a bunch of "scare-quoting" is being unencyclopedically used here; these are not actual quotations of Żaryn. The overall gist of this section seems correct, modulo Lembit Staan's narrow objections above; it just needs to not be written like a high-school paper. We do need to summarize what Żaryn's views are [reported to be], without trying to characterize/spin them with buzzword phrases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per SMcCandlish. @Loganmac and SMcCandlish: We went through several revisions of this paragraph; this is actually Lembit Staan's phrasing[19][20][21] (cf. Libionka's quote). Most of the sources are notable academics, as you can see in the reference section. As for Politico - this is the first time the issue is raised, but you're right that it's out of context. François Robere (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, just maybe replace the quotes with a summary. Koźmińska-Frejlak and Libionka are experts on this type of denialism. Żaryn is known for his anti-Jewish controversies, his political roles were full of them.130.180.196.39 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)<--- — 130.180.196.39 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic. Possible WP:BLP violation as well

- Here we go again; an IP arrives making gross WP:BLP violations. We are dealing with such behaviour since the beginning [22]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

- I seriously believe administrators should take a look at the entire dispute with their hammers ready to strike... - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Bon appétit. (I mean, no, really, you've got SPI and ANI - there's no use making these arguments here). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ok with the cleaned up version as suggested by SMcCandlish.--Mhorg (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• No - per 3 month discussions above and below this RfC. (Please see the entire debate, not only this RfC) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Definitely No as long as the user generated translation/original research about “rational thinking” is included. This has been explained in much detail so why are you still putting it in there? 1) we really can’t use user generated translations of WP:PRIMARY sources (especially when the users doing the translation’ aren’t even fluent and are working off an audio source) as that’s a clear case of original research. That’s how we got the whole fiasco above where a passage was falsely translated to say opposite of what it actually said. You’d think FR would learn his lesson from that embarrassing episode, but apparently not, since here we are. 2) unsurprisingly, this is also a mistranslation, as has also been extensively explained. Sheesh. Is there a Guinness Book World Record for WP:TENDENTIOUS? Cuz this is up there. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Marek, the current translation is reasonable close to Zaryn's intention, if you read the source. After this sloppy blurb he gives an example what he had in mind: (here is my retelling) Jews in the areas with secessionist attitudes were in favor of joining Germany, hence it is rational for Poles to dislike them. (I am not sure whether Zaryn thought this up by himself, or just "invoked" :-) the German Stab-in-the-back myth.) It was an interview and it is possible Zaryn didnt express himself in a clear way (or may be his thinking it not clear per se). There was a disagreement about proper translation. I myself cannot find a good equivalent. And I agree that transslation of an ambiguous piece amounts to original research. And here is another argument coming to my mind in favor of removing this piece : we could have figured out how to spell it properly, if Zaryn uttered this idea several times in several ways. But we have only a single reference. Therefore we cannot put it into wikipedia as a prominent part of his ideology. May be it was a random thought and he already forgot about it. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, "faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research". This was formulated in collaboration with Lembit Staan using a written source, and the section as a whole was reviewed by other native speakers including Piotrus. All of the translations include the original in footnote, in accordance with WP:RSUE. François Robere (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No. This is 1) referring to translation of SECONDARY sources, not translating PRIMARY sources, which is quintessential original research (especially when done by people who aren't even fluent in the language). And 2) there is that "faithfully" in there. This isn't "faithfully". All this too has already been explained. Volunteer Marek 16:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Only the first sentence or two. His views are relevant, views by others less so. Can add those views to articles about them. If any of JŻ's works are notable, and the criticism concerns them, it can be added there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes — it can, and should be, improved through better paraphrasing and avoiding too much use of scare quotes, especially "tensions", as suggested by SMcCandlish and others. I do not see how presenting only his views is in line with NPOV, especially when they are controversial or revisionist, while scholarly criticism seems to be mainstream; if the views of others are sourced to reliable sources, are properly attributed, and are scholarly relevant, as it is the case for Libionka and Koźmińska-Frejak, there should be no issues. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Section 3

Co-editor of a two-volume monograph on the Kielce pogrom, Żaryn has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for "censorship and propaganda, slander... and deceitfully remaining silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom. This narrative is criticized by Rafał Pankowski and and Kate Korycki as evoking the stereotype of Żydokomuna. Korycki writes that this narrative "unwittingly recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes", adding that Żaryn "[uses] a description of the post-war pogrom in Kielce, perpetrated on Jews by Poles, [as] an opportunity to blame the Jews".

References
Background Kate Korycki is a political sociologist at the University of Western Ontario specializing in identity and memory politics[23] Rafał Pankowski is a sociologist and political scientist at Collegium Civitas[24] and chair of the "Never Again" Association

Vote (RfC: Section 3)

• No. The second part is basically false accusation of antiSemitism, hence cannot be here per WP:BLP. Also, as I explained in the discussion the accusation is based on twisting and spinning of what Zaryn wrote by person of dubious credentials, hence unreliable source. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, if the sources are good enough. I have to disagree with Lembit Staan; criticism of victim-blaming and "unwittingly" playing into anti-Semitic tropes is not an accusation of anti-Semitism, but simply is exactly what it is: well-reasoned criticism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: --yes, "unwittingy playing into " is "unwittingly supporting", i.e., useful idiot thingy, i.e., an accusation. You probably didn't read the discussion above on the issue (nobody can have such a stamina). The source cited is unreliable because it uses a straw man argument in a blatant way: it cites Zaryn and right in this place spins his words. Basically, the difference is between (A) "Jews were prominent in the communist security police hence they got what they deserved" and (B) "Jews were prominent in the communist security police hence in the eyes of polish anti-Semites they got what they deserved". I.e. Zatryn was explaining Polish antisemitism using Zydokomuna conspiracy as an example. Zaryn's critics invoked the equivocation "invoked" and didn say with what purpose it was "invoked", thus creating an impression that Zaryn "unwittingly" said (A), i.e., that he somehow either justified or denied Polish antisemitism (the trope repeated in various forms whenever critics comment on anything Zaryn said about the Jews vs. Poles). Lembit Staan (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I see what you're saying, but I don't buy it. The point of the source in question is taht while Zaryn may have been trying to simply point out a trope/stereotype he did it in a way that lent strength to it whether he intended to do so or not. That still isn't an accusation of antisemitism, and an accusation of being, as you put it, a useful idiot isn't an accusation of antisemitism, either. You're engaging in blatant false equivalence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
      • The point of the source in question is taht while Zaryn may have been trying to simply point out a trope/stereotype he did it in a way that... - It seems that the source doesnt say anything about "he did it i an way". If it were so, I would not object it added to wikipedia, phrased in a way you phrase it. This would not be an accusation of antisemitism, but rather of sloppiness (I have noticed such things in his writings myself). @SMcCandlish: By the way, please clarify what "false equivalence" is and where you see it in my talk ( maybe you are right, but I dont know what you meant). Lembit Staan (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Let me clarify by comparison: in olden times Wikipedia was accused of promoting and advertising pornography, and by serious critics, too. Do we have this in "Wikipedia"? No, because these accusations were without solid merit (despite arguments). Same here: per WP:BLP, and accusation of a person must have a solid merit, not just "the way I/he/they see it" . Lembit Staan (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Good sourcing, accurate quotes, and not too long. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, if the sources are not subject to criticism, it seems to me that the text is well written.--Mhorg (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• No - obviously, per 3 month discussions above and below this RfC. (Please relate to the entire debate, not only this RfC) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Same as avove. Yes for the summary of his view, no for the criticism, but if the volume discussed is notable, it would be best to split everything there - and the the criticism of his volume would be DUE in such a subarticle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per SMcCandlish — dismissing well-reasoned scholarly criticism in academic journals as false accuses seem absurd. They are also properly attributed. BLP violations also apply to avoid any criticism that is sourced to reliable and scholarly sources, and which is properly attributed. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Section 4

Żaryn has stated that the accepted narrative of the Jedwabne pogrom is a "founding myth" of the "allegedly proven" organized massacres of Jews by Poles, supposedly rooted in inherent Polish anti-Semitism and xenophobia, which he believes is are "false stereotypes" that could be clarified with further research. According to Żaryn, the Jedwabne events were directed by the Germans with the participation of Volksdeutsche and "outsiders" who came from other villages. He adds that "even if some of the Polish locals participated in this 'spectacle' under duress... the majority looked in disgust at what the Germans have done...". Żaryn states that "the deceitful narrative [of Jedwabne] burdens the Poles and Poland with co-responsibility for the Holocaust". Consequently, he has supported the efforts led by Ewa Kurek to exhume the bodies of Jedwabne's victims.

References

Vote (RfC: Section 4)

• yes, but Ewa Kurek is irrelevant. He supports exhumation. Period. Regardless who will carry it out. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan - Even one line, " He supports exhumation. Period." is UNDUE for biographies. Here is a correctly written biography of Jacek Leociak. It's one of the Żaryn's critics who is against the exhumations. Do we see anything in his biography that he is against the exhumation? No. Because this information is UNDUE for BLP. Do we see every single critique from newspapers of that person googled from the internet? Again NO. Because it is UNDUE, and who cares what Źaryn[25] or some journalist says about Jacek Leociak and vice versa. But what we are seeing here on this WP:BLP article is a persistent attempt to add things like "Leociak says that Żaryn.." etc. and every other little dirt one can google on the internet. Why? Well, you can examine that yourself ... - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree here. Exhumation is fully in line with his theory that we do not have complete information on what was going on in Jedwabne, and this section says of this IMO in a coherent and a neutral way. I cann undertandd that some may see this as kind of "grave desecration". But many places were exhumed many times. Out of my head I can name Katyn and Sandarmokh. The last case is very similar to Jedwabne: first it was exhumed by the initiative of Memorial society. Later Russain authorities decided to revise this to put some blame on Finns. Same here. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, the Kurek stuff needs to go. This has also been said million times. One editor already got topic banned (then indef banned) for BLP violations regarding that person. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but remove all this "scare-quoting". Do not use quotation marks for anything but actual quotations, and source each quotation in situ. It is not encyclopedic writing to imply things and "steer" the reader's interpretation with buzzwordy phrasing and manipulative language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. @SMcCandlish: the quotation marks are just there to mitigate any claims of copy-vio.[26] No problem removing them if that's not an issue. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• No - per 3 month discussions above and below this RfC. (Please see the entire debate, not only this RfC)-GizzyCatBella🍁 11:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, also the Ewa Kurek part, I don't even see the controversy talking about her... indeed, it adds interesting information to the context.--Mhorg (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes but not the Ewa Kurek part, with the note that if those views come from a notable book or such, splitting the discussion there would be pest per DUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — like for No. 2, avoid scare quotes unless they are an actual quote. As for Ewa Kurek, it seems fine for context. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Section 5

In 2018 Żaryn had proposed a Senate resolution for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March 1968 political crisis. An excerpt of the resolution stated that "in arranging anti-Semitic demonstrations and forcing Poles to take part, as well as by introducing pathological anti-Jewish sentiments into the public discourse, the communist government did not represent the will of the People, but only that of Moscow and its intra-communist and international interests". This has been criticized by historians as an attempt at whitewashing Polish history, and proved controversial even in Żaryn's own party. Two weeks after the proposal was abandoned, Żaryn proposed that Israeli ambassador Anna Azari, who commented on the anti-Semitic events of March 1968, be deported.

References

Background Piotr Osęka, researcher at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences,[27] in an interviewed with Piotr Pacewicz, co-founder of OKO.press and former assistant professor of psychology at the Polish Academy of Sciences (Added interviewee's details 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)) Jacek Leociak, head of the Holocaust Literature Research Group of the Polish Academy of Sciences,[28] in an interview with Justyna Dobrosz-Oracz, political correspondent for Gazeta Wyborcza (Added interviewee's details 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)) Rafał Kalukin is a Polish journalist writing for Polityka. He has previously written for Newsweek Polska Jan Hartman is a political philosopher, chair of the department of philosophy and bioethics at Jagiellonian University,[29] and winner of the Grand Press award for his journalistic work

Vote (RfC: Section 5)

• No. WP:SYNTH. Produces wrong narrative. The resolution was rejected because it was overwhelmingly bad, not because of this particular passage. The part about ambassador taken out of context and missummarized is inadmissible per WP:BLP. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• I don't care if this RfC passes or not, there's no fucking way we're putting such a blatant BLP violation in the article (global policy trumps local consensus). In fact, this very proposal is a BLP violation. He most certainly DID NOT say that Azari should be "deported". How the hell did you put that in there??? You originally had the proposal as "expelled" [30] which is still false but, I guess, a bit less of a BLP violating smear? (He didn't say she should be expelled) You then and went and MADE IT EVEN WORSE, even more of a BLP bio by changing it to "deported", something which is not even remotely close to reality. This is BLP-VIO par excellence and should be removed from the talk page. And this is putting aside that the entire thing is WP:UNDUE on account of WP:NOTNEWS. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• On the "criticized by historians as an attempt at whitewashing Polish history" part.This too is a blatant and shameless abuse and misrepresentation of sources. Oko-press, as pointed out a million times is not reliable for BLP info. They specialize in smears on politicians they don't like. Still, the interview says nothing like this!!! Newsweek-Poland says nothing like this!!! Gazeta-Wyborcza says nothing like this!!! God, this is another over-the-top BLP violating smear that just illustrates the fundemental problems with these proposals. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• No, per all of the above. There's a germ of truth in here, and something can be written anew to get at it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, in some variation. The cited sources - Piotr Osęka from the Polish Academy of Sciences (interviewed by OKO.Press), Jacek Leociak from the Polish Center for Holocaust Research (interview by GW), and Jan Hartman from the Jagiellonian University - are more than enough (note I've added a clarification to the references on the first two). I'm okay with redoing the paragraph, but it would've been helpful if some of these objections were raised earlier: "whitewash" was added when the article was translated from Polish on June 7th;[31] "expelled" was changed for stylistic reasons on July 5th;[32] and the quote was restored at Piotrus's suggestion on July 8th;[33][34] but neither was flagged as a problem until now. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

One. More. Time. These sources do not say what you claim they say. How many times does this have to be said? Volunteer Marek 01:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, also the part of Israeli ambassador, as shown above, the Israeli newspapers have reported it, so I think it deserves a line of text. I don't know if the English term "Proposed" is correct, I let my mother tongue colleagues decide.--Mhorg (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

One. More. Time. The sources simply do not state what the proposed text claims. It’s. Just. False. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This is from an article[35] from Haaretz (Perennial sources):"A Polish senator for the ruling party said Friday he would not shake hands with Israel’s ambassador and that he favors her expulsion from Poland for saying anti-Semitism was on the rise there."--Mhorg (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

False interpretation of Zaryn's words, both by Ha'aretz and by proposed text. Here is what Zaryn actually said, citing Ha'aretz itself:

“If anyone today thinks to equate in any way the rule of the Law and Justice party to the persecution of Jews led by the communist party apparatus in 1968, or by the marshals, then I certainly will not shake hands with such a person. If this is done by the ambassador of a foreign state, then maybe we have to ask this lady to leave this country,” he is quoted as saying."

Which yet again demonstrates that you guys have limited comprehension skills. And Ha'aretz has limited knowledge of both Polish language and history. Zaryn actually said "że rządy Prawa i Sprawiedliwości w jakimkolwiek stopniu nawiązują do hucpy żydowskiej, prowadzonej przez aparat partyjny ‘68 roku, czyli przez moczarowców", i.e., Zaryn protested what he saw an attempt to link PiS and Communist past. Azari actually said "", well, hers is irrelevant. What is relevant is that twisting person's words is low decency no matter who does that and most certainly a BLP violation. (P.S. Not to say that one cannot comprehend the significance of this episode without looking at a broader context I will not say which. (But upon request I may give a brief overview in the talk page of a curious user)) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Whereas the same interpretation of this sentence was given by The Time Of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, i24 News. It would appear that what Zaryn has suggested is an invitation to ask for the expulsion of the ambassador. If so, it seems important enough to me to report inside the article.--Mhorg (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It would appear that what Zaryn has suggested is an invitation to ask for the expulsion of the ambassador. What on earth is this supposed to mean now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the best English I can speak.--Mhorg (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your English is fine; I'm not talking about that. What source says that: It appears that what Zaryn has suggested is an invitation to ask for the expulsion of the ambassador? How many times do we have to go through that!? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• No - per 3 monthly discussions above and below this RfC. (Please see the entire debate, not only this RfC) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• No. The incident seems trivial (UNDUE). Politicians often make controversial remarks, NOTNEWS, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — per sources, whether we like it or not; nowhere it is said that it was rejected because of this particular passage, just that it was rejected, while some of his proposed wording was criticized by some historians and was controversial. As for Anna Azari, she seems to be relevant for context. We may disagree about the perfect wording, and how to word it, but it seems to be due. Our own interpretation is also irrelevant if not backed by equally reliable sources; what matters is what reliable sources have said about it, and they can certainly be wrong, but unless equally reliable sources (Haaretz, The Time of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, i24 News, and other English-language sources that back the proposed wording or something similar to it) are shown that such reliable sources were wrong about this, I see no valid reason to exclude this. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)