Talk:Jedwabne pogrom/Archive 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Is this really what the Polish President said?

Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former Polish President Lech Walesa commented about the apology: "The Jedwabne crime was a revenge for the cooperation of the Jewish community with the Soviet occupant. The Poles have already apologized many times to the Jews; we are waiting for the apology from the other side because many Jews were scoundrels."[116]

I cannot believe it. Is this really what the Polish President said? But then he justifies the murders? 178.155.64.66 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes - at the time, he was former president. Despite his rebel credentials, when president and later, Lech Walesa said many things that were opposed by many people, which is why he didn't get re-elected. See fourth par of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa#Presidency and further reading about using the anti-Semtic trope of Zydokomuna on his election campaign against the ex-Communist President Kwasniewski, who was not Jewish. "Walesa is running against him, but few reckon he can make a comeback. On radio he made some anti-Semitic remarks about his opponent which shocked even hard-bitten Walesa-watchers."[1] Kwasniewski won re-election on a socialist platform and went to Jedwabne the next year, where he said: "For this crime we should beg the souls of the dead and their families for forgiveness. This is why today, the President of the Republic of Poland, I beg pardon. I beg pardon in my own name and in the name of those Poles whose conscience is shattered by that crime."[2] -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)



I can't treat him the same way.

178.155.64.66 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Walesa is known for his, well, numerous faux pas. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM. Please focus on talking about this article, not generics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Title change

"Jedwabne Massacre" is a more accurate title for this article. The phrase is used in academia and the general public domain; for example "massacre" appears six times and quotes Kwasniewksi's "not a pogrom" here: [1] There's a distinction between the many pogroms of history characterized more by looting, vandalism, beatings and relatively few murders - and this mass murder running into the hundreds at least.FWIW Google hits "Jedwabne Massacre" more times than "Jedwabne Pogrom" even with results skewed by this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be technically right, but WP:COMMONNAME may apply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Piotrus thanks. Actually isn't the higher number of Google hits for "Jedwabne Massacre" evidence that WP:COMMONNAME rationale would apply to this as the correct title? -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Did Google Book remove the hit count? I can't seem to locate it. For Scholar, "Jedwabne pogrom": 200 hits, massacre, 684 hits. Also "massacre in Jedwabne " 124 hits, "pogrom in Jedwabne " 112. I guess you may be right, I think I was thinking through the lens of the Polish title. But I'd suggest a proper RM to make sure nobody else has any valid objections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

USer:Piotrus, sorry for the tardy reply, pandemic excuse: I was busy with my partner playing 'dodge the person' in my local park, and doing all the things at home that I never get round to doing, like tidying my desk. To clarify, I was only referring to the contrasting results in standard Google searches. (Btw what's Google Book hit count?) I get 12,400 results for searching "Jedwabne Massacre" and 9,990 results for "Jedwabne Pogrom". So this data actually seems to indicate WP:COMMONNAME would support the move, in addition to (i) verifiable WP:RS sources such as Tablet linked above and (ii) our understanding at Wikipedia of the difference between a pogrom and a massacre - although there's clearly conceptual overlap here. Nobody else is chiming in, but the last thing I want to cause is article instability. So instead of a WP:BOLD move am wondering about a poll to encourage people to speak up. (Though NB WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). How about that? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think WP:RM would be the best, nobody will complain if the proper vote is held. Not democracy, right, one of the funny jokes around here :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/13/poland
  2. ^ http://www.radzilow.com/jedwabne-ceremony.htm

Unreliable sources review

info-poland.icm.edu.pl

Let's review some problematic sources. Right of the bat, in the lead, there is[2] / [3] (a bit more here). How reliable is [4]? In either case, this site's page is probably outdated, and we should try to replace it with something better. I'd recommend removing this source as at the very least obsolete, if not unreliable. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Piotrus I agree, go ahead and remove those. I have removed israelunwired.com per the same rationale based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines.-Chumchum7 (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Given no other objects, I've moved this to external links. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

israelunwired.com

Since it was restored, we can discuss it here. It appears to be a small portal dedicated to movies and such, might be ok for info on movies, but I wouldn't cite it for any serious discussion in historical topics, particularly related to controversial issues. Ping Usr:N1of2 who restored it and User:Chumchum7 who removed it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The website says about itself: "Today’s conflict is on two fronts – the military front and the public opinion front. The main driving force for public opinion today is Social Media and online activity. Israel Unwired serves as a voice for Israel and the Jewish people that mainstream media rarely feature. At this point, hundreds of thousands of people are being reached everyday across social media channels. That places Israel Unwired at the forefront of impacting individuals worldwide about Israel and the Jewish people."[1] That's WP:NOTRELIABLE, etc. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
It's the only source I could find which discusses that movie to a significant extent. If anyone can find other more reliable sources for a discussion of that documentary I don't mind forgoing it but in the meantime there isn't much out there... N1of2 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
If this is the only good source about the movie, maybe it's just not important to be mentioned at all? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
This documentary is definitely relevant as it deals precisely with the topic of this article. The movie's summary shows up in iMDb as well as the other quoted sources while this particular source provides some insight in addition to the summary by expanding on its content in English. Upon further search I found several mentions of the movie in Hebrew (some in presumed reliable sources such as TV network portals / newspapers) but those are more difficult to work with because of language /translation issues. Generally speaking, there aren't usually many articles or reviews that are written about documentaries... -N1of2 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, right now my view is: we can mention the documentary and use the israelunwired as a source for its existence, but the review should not be used to reference anything that might be controversial or red flag or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort we are putting in to discuss this, at the same time Piotrus' impulse to scrutinize problematic sources was correct in the first place. Please let's remove the .pl website per WP:BOLD but notice they contain useful links to newspaper clippings that can be kept and used. Because the bottom line is that if (like info-poland.icm.edu.pl and israelunwired.com) sources don't pass the test of WP:RS, Wikipedia asks us to remove them. Lack of reliable sources isn't a justification for using unreliable sources. On the documentary, the link to the video on Vimeo itself proves its existence, additionally IMDB.com does the same; we don't need a third source to prove its existence. Piotrus has made the additional point that if there are no reliable secondary sources commenting on the documentary, that kicks in WP:DUE issues and the prospect of removing it altogether. I'd disagree, and say that like the newspaper clippings it is very interesting and educational material to be kept per WP:PRESERVE; and treated much like a WP:PRIMARY source such as Kwasniewski's speech at http://www.radzilow.com/jedwabne-ceremony.htm, etc. Although we would, of course, prefer a better source for that speech.

All this said, we need to test this rationale against the cutting down by me and eventual full removal by Icewhiz, supported by me on the Talk page, of the Polish-Canadian documentary (plus website commentary removed because it was WP:NOTRS):[5] This had found a woman who said she saw Germans, not Poles, committing the murders when she was a child. I cut down and then supported full removal per WP:FRINGE, and the reason why Two Barns would stay even without WP:SECONDARY comment is that it mostly reflects consensus. There may be an argument there for putting it in See Also, but I have no preference either way. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Piotrus, it's been 48 hours so I was wondering whether you are going to go ahead and remove this as well, with the same rationale as for removing the others. Or do you think it would be helpful for us to take it up at WP:RS/N? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that may be advisable, right now I am a bit on the fence here. Sorry for not replying earlier, I am somewhat consumed by discussions on the talk page of another article related to Polish-Jewish history, through much less impactful. Actually, there is a RS discussion there as well, and more input form uninvolved parties would be needed, so if you or anyone else following this page would like to stop by (Talk:Paradisus_Judaeorum#Stanislaw_Kot and other threads there), it would likely be quite helpful, I feel some discussions there have been going round and round... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, sure I'll take a peek at Talk:Paradisus_Judaeorum#Stanislaw_Kot for you. I'll also flag the source at WP:RS/N. In the meantime, could you let me know whether your 'proof of existence' of the video wouldn't be satisfied by the IMDB citation, making this source redundant anyway? We also appear to be in agreement that the review should not be used to reference anything that might be controversial or red flag or such. Could you therefore remove that line of content as I have once already? Separately, I am going to discuss the subject with User:N1of2 below to ensure we're all on the same page. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the usage of this here again in a sec. Re IMDb, hmmm, Wikipedia:IMDBREF. Not sure which is worse... PS. I think this ref is used only once now, as part of three refs for a sentence? I am too tired to check right now which facts can be verified with the other two, I slept like 1 hour last night... zzz... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
No it's there supporting the problematic content "According to the film, the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule..." which is not supported by any scholarship at all. Actually it would be better try to get WP:CONS with User:N1of2 first. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
That line about "Jedwabne being not an exception but rather the rule" is supported by all quoted sources as being one of the main movie conclusions and is part of the description of the movie according to all sources. What this particular source does in addition the the other two is that it details a little more about the movie. In fact it describes one of the lead interviewees (Prof. Shevah Weiss) and is the source for the sentence above in the paragraph, which is not found in the other two sources i.e. "Weiss is a Holocaust survivor who was rescued from death by Polish villagers and went on to become speaker of the Israeli Parliament and Israel's ambassador to Poland." N1of2 (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

N1of2, none of the texts in the sources you cite - IMDB, israelunwired.com and Vimeo.com - are scholarly works. They contradict the scholarship on Jedwabne (Gross, Bikont, Rossino, and others plus the IPN forensic murder investigation cited) which emphasize the specific time (June-July 1941) and place (Podlasie region, which was unique in that it was the only majority ethnic Polish region in former Soviet-occupied Poland recently invaded by Germany in Operation Barbarossa). The scholars show this time and place was distinctly specific, not "the rule" for the country. Jedwabne, Podlasie was not an isolated incident, because there were 23 more massacres or pogroms contained in Podlasie in June-July 1941. Jedwabne, Podlasie was not the rule, because Jews were murdered by Poles in many other ways other than pogroms, throughout occupied Poland. These include the szmalcowniks and certain Blue Police involved with Judenjagd.

In any case, I reverted the addition of israelunwired.com per our content guideline WP:RS, and then additionally explained on the Talk page why I believe it is WP:NOTRELIABLE, see above. You replied that you couldn't find a better source, but I've explained that not being able to find a good source doesn't justify using a poor one. Having read these guidance links I provided you, it seems you still don't think they fail the test of reliability. So I'll take this up at WP:RS/N where our whole community can weigh in.

As User:Piotrus has pointed out, your IMDB ref is WP:IMDBREF/WP:USERGENERATED, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable."

Similarly, the Vimeo texts which is marketing the video content is not acceptable to Wikipedia as a reliable source. However, Note that in response to User:Piotrus questioning whether it's even noteworthy enough to be included because there are no WP:RS sources referring to it, I am actually calling for the video link to be preserved as it's a largely excellent documentary.

The part where the film contradicts the scholars is shortly after time code 00:48. Jan Gross says, "in some two dozen villages in the vicinity there were mass murders of Jews at the hands of their neighbors" so he is not saying Jedwabne was the rule. Shortly afterwards Jan Grabowski says, "This hunt is not in one county, it's going all around, wherever Jews are on the run." He is referring to Jews on the run, his scholarly specialism of the 'Judenjagd', not pogroms of Jewish villagers; so he is not saying Jedwabne was the rule. That's the editor of the film synthesizing two different topics in a highly creative way, which happens a lot and is partly why Wikipedia doesn't rate videos as highly as scholarly works. Havi Dreifuss then says Jews were also killed at Treblinka and Belzec, so she is not saying Jedwabne was the rule either. A few moments later the narrator of the documentary says, "the story of Jedwabne was not an exception to the rule, it was the rule." The narrator stops there. That is then rendered by israelunwired as "“Two Barns” proves irrevocably that the Jedwabne incident was not an exception, but rather the rule. Even before the Nazis declared their ‘Final Solution’, tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by their Polish neighbors. This happened in villages and township all over Poland, Russia and Ukraine." Moreover, the narrator's quote is not the conclusion of the documentary, which carries on for about 12 more minutes, but it is the line being paraphrased in what appears to be advocacy material in the three sources being cited. 

Piotrus appears to also concur with me that the content you added cannot be supported by israelunwired.com for sourcing reasons.

This is WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

By the way, it appears that you have made about 25 edits in the past year, so I'd just like to make sure we're all on the same page here and have the same understanding of the way Wikipedia works. Although your first edit was around 10 years ago, you've averaged 32 edits per year so rest assured you are very welcome to get more involved and you won't be WP:BITE.

I reverted your addition of these sources citing WP:RS, you then reverted my change and in the edit summary asked me not to use "original research". As I reverted your change rather than add content, I did not add anything to the article - let alone original research. Perhaps you're not aware that WP:NOR is a core content policy about what we write in articles - it is not guidance for what we say in edit summaries and Talk pages. No biggie.

Also, I'm wondering whether your understanding of Jedwabne is at all connected to another pogrom, Kristallnacht. I ask because you made this change [6] adding content that it was a pogrom against Jews throughout Nazi Germany "(including Austria and parts of present-day Poland and Czech Republic)". May I ask whether by adding this content you meant to convey that Austrians, Poles and Czechs participated in the Kristallnacht pogroms, and that the article hadn't adequately shown that?

Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Before going off with walls of text please understand the issue at hand first. The three sources I used above were solely used to quote what the documentary says. I clearly stated that by starting the sentence with "According to the film..." So, one of the conclusions of that documentary is that "the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule in which tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by neighbors in villages across Poland, Russia and Ukraine". This is what Roy Mandel, the film producer says about the movie, and this is reflected in the other two sources as well. Moreover, the filmmaker Haim Hecht also repeats that claim and goes into additional detail about the film when interviewed before the first broadcast in 2014 on Channel Two, the main Israeli Commercial Channel (Hebrew https://www.mako.co.il/tv-new-day/selected_scenes/Article-80631ea337d8541006.htm), see also below.
These sources ARE NOT USED to support or disprove the SUBSTANCE or validity of that claim, they just describe what the movie says. I am not sure how to explain this more simply than this, I already repeated it multiple times before. Frankly I don't understand what all the hubbub is about, you may disagree with the movie's conclusion but you cannot claim that it says something else without bringing sources to support your claim.
BTW, the fact that you watch the movie and analyse it yourself is exactly what original research means. You CANNOT do that, you need to find sources in support of your claims, not to tell us what YOU think the movie says... Any statement regarding the movie's content /claims you need to base off a source, not on your own observation.
I found that the documentary was broadcast on mainstream Israeli TV channels including on Channel Two for which it was originally produced. That TV channel was the largest commercial TV channel in Israel and is part of Keshet/Mako, one of the largest Israeli media corporations. https://www.mako.co.il/tv-new-day/selected_scenes/Article-80631ea337d8541006.htm
The filmmaker himself [| Haim Hecht (Wiki Heb.)] is a known TV personality who puts out plenty of TV work (https://www.mako.co.il/Tagit/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%98)
Since there's some suggestion of dismissing the documentary altogether, there are several additional reliable sources mentioning it, including newspapers and news/ TV portals (Heb.):
(there's also a movie review which gives additional detail, but you can ignore it as well if you wish: https://elicohenator.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/shnei-asamim/#more-299.) N1of2 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
As notified, this has now been taken up at WP:RS/N: [7] Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


N1of2:

  • You've had 48 hours to take action, and have not done so. Based on the feedback by Newslinger, FDW777, Rosguill and Piotrus at RS/N [8] and elswhere, I'm removing your IMDb and Israel Unwired citations and making related content changes.
  • There are other issues here. To make you feel more welcome I chose not to revert more than once so that you have a newcomer's chance to learn. That's because although your account has been active around for ~10 years it's averaging only about 32 edits per year. That's an unusual profile, and I am taking the position that you are relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia - unless you have worked through other accounts, in which case you are welcome to tell me so.
  • You might like to familiarize yourself with the WP:BRD cycle, which recommends that after adding new content as you did, we discuss a revert such as the one I made, rather than revert it again.
  • You might also like to compare the difference between WP:OR and WP:CHALLENGE. It is OR to add one's own material to an article, it is not OR to challenge the addition of material - and that challenge can be informed by a variety of rationales based on other polices and guidelines.
  • As you've been shown by users mentioned above, there are article sourcing expectations for Polish history during World War II (1933-45) set in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland § Article sourcing expectations. The text is reproduced below:

The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action.

These are especially stringent requirements for this article, which still has some way to go to adhere to them. You're most welcome to help us get there.
  • Lastly, remember I asked about your edit to Kristallnacht, which I'd still be very interested to hear about.

All the best, -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't have the time to dedicate to this (relatively small) edit as I'd need to translate from the other sources and more importantly, it seems that controversies drain too much time (walls of text) so I prefer to channel my limited time into other more productive things outside of Wikipedia. In any event I'll try to return sometime later.
Regarding the other edit, it's irrelevant to the current topic, however since you're curious, it was made based solely on geography grounds since at the time of Kristallnacht Germany included Austria as well as parts of present day Poland and Czech Republic (the Sudetenland). Synagogues were destroyed within all these territories which are today outside of Germany and which therefore may come as a surprise to some as it was for me. Compare the Kristallnacht map to Germany's 1945 territory losses. I now see that there is also a small previously German territory which is part of Russia today (Kaliningrad Oblast), but it's unclear from those maps whether synagogues were destroyed there as well. Laters, N1of2 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

www.polish-jewish-heritage.org

[9]: A news report (?) from a minor NGO. I don't think it is a WP:RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree, remove. But it refers to a useful WP:PRIMARY commentary by Godlewski. Where is that? -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I see a bunch of news articles mentioning him. I guess it depends which fact we want to verify with more reliable refs? If this is for "Arnold's work featured the mayor of Jedwabne Krzysztof Godlewski, who pioneered efforts to investigate and memorialize the murders". Maybe [10] but I am not finding a ref that mentions he is in the documentary. I don't think it's an important factoid, as he doesn't even has his own wiki article (I am not sure if he is notable, maybe...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes Tablet (magazine) is a better source for content on Godlewski in this article. IMHO he is WP:DUE here as a character in the whole 1999-2001 era. I red-linked him in this article years ago because also IMHO, he is notable after winning at least one humanitarian award afair. He features heavily in Bikont's book. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Grabowski's press review of this article

Recently Jan Z. Grabowski published an article on Gazeta Wyborcza, in which he mentions this article. Below is the Google Translation of his critique of this article. PS. I did contact him and receive a permission to post that excerpt, translated, here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


I've added the italics and paragraph breaks to the quote above. The archived article is worth reading.
What can be done about this? Pinging Ealdgyth and K.e.coffman. I'm at a loss, because it's not only this article that's the problem. Grabowski states that the English Wikipedia is hosting falsified history about Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust. He writes that the same issues are handled more neutrally on the Polish Wikipedia, where editors can spot the problems. On the English Wikipedia, with its larger reach but fewer editors familiar with the sources and able to read Polish, we are not able to crowdsource corrections. SarahSV (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, we need to rely only on sources that the majority of editors can verify... and we all need to verify everything. I saw the original post but between the stupid virus and hubby breaking left wrist and right elbow, I've been swamped. He's now into the "time will heal things" period so hopefully I can at least start on this. But it'll probably be next week. I'm utterly frazzled from trying to secure grain and hay for the herd to tide us just in case. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your husband; that sounds painful and horrible. There is no rush for any of this because it involves a lot of articles. We need something systemic, such as consensus that only English-language sources are used; only scholarly sources; and/or that we should abandon citation bundling on these articles and insist that each point be clearly sourced to one RS. SarahSV (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a note that I don't see why we should exclude non-English sources. For example, AFAIK every single one of Gross's books such as the milestone Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland was first published in Polish, and got an English translation 1-4 years later. A new book on relevant topics by, among others, Grabowski himself, Dalej jest noc, is still not translated, and the forthcoming English edition is described as 'abridged'. We don't need to exclude foreign language sources, we just need to follow WP:RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Following RS misses the key point: the English Wikipedia cannot—cannot—crowdsource the checking of Polish-language sources. Because of that, plus advocacy, with every passing year these articles become more divorced from the scholarship. One idea would be to host translations of the Polish Wikipedia versions, because they have the ability to check the work. Another idea is to insist on English-language sources. Perhaps we ought to start a discussion with the Polish Wikipedia about what can be done. SarahSV (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The facebook discussion which I am aware of that is related to this issue (at pl.wikipedia fb group, all in Polish) was mostly puzzlement since Polish Wikipedia editors don't think their articles in this topic area are much better. For example after recent fixes our English article on KL Warschau seems to be in a better shape then the Polish one, which I think is now behind. Anyway, I don't see the problem, errors are common and get fixed over time, with Polish or other sources. English are preferable, but WP:NOENG overall applies. If you think some Polish source is problematic, ask, I am reasonably active here, and a post at WT:POLAND or such with a ping to me will be answered within reasonable amount of time. (And for the record, I agree that some sources used in articles here are unreliable...). PS. The problem on how to host a discussion with pl wiki is hard. I'd love to have more people in this topic area, more eyeballs etc. Maybe we can start something at WT:POLAND and post an invitation to pl. wiki Village Pump equivalent. Problem is I don't think many people are interested in coming over, periodically I try to invite people or such, and it almost never ever works. Language barrier, etc. Pretty much all active editors on en wiki are expats who don't edit pl wiki much and vice versa. Actually, this gives me an idea for a research paper, thanks :) PS. I also double checked and I think 3 out 4 sources Grabowski's complains are in English, not Polish... :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment:

Grabowski's published opinion is as important as every other specialist historian's; as I'm not entirely clear what precisely he objects to in the lede I would very much welcome his input here or through the user who is corresponding with him. (He's entirely welcome at Wikipedia as well as commenting about Wikipedia through the press.)

First, as far as I was aware it was generally agreed among historians that there was a German police presence, so is he disputing that per se, or something more granular?

As far as I recall Jan Gross speaks of discussions between the German police and the pogromists. Our article also quotes Gross: "At the time, the undisputed bosses over life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organized activity could take place there without their consent. They were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews. It was within their power also to stop the murderous pogrom at any time. And they did not choose to intervene. ... But it is also clear that had Jedwabne not been occupied by the Germans, the Jews of Jedwabne would not have been murdered by their neighbors."[43]

And Peter Longerich says "closer analysis of the crime" now shows that the pogrom was "engineered by a unit of the German Security Police", probably a unit from the Zichenau Gestapo office that had been assigned to Einsatzgruppe B, and which "had recruited local Poles as auxiliary 'pogrom police'".[44]

If Grabowski's issue is with Longerich, perhaps we can find a citation for that for it to be incorporated in the article as per WP:NPOV. I don't think we're actually too far off in the lede when it comes to reflecting article content, and it may be that content needs to be improved with citations to Grabowski.

Is he aware that the German language version of this article reads: "Es fand während der Besatzung Jedwabnes durch die Wehrmacht statt und gilt als gemeinsames Verbrechen einer Gruppe von polnischen Einwohnern und deutscher Besatzungsmacht. / It took place during the Wehrmacht's occupation of Jedwabne and is considered a common crime by a group of Polish residents and German occupying powers." ? As far as I can see the editors there are German veterans working in a wide topic area.

On a final note, Grabowski's opinion: "Well, but Wikipedia "editors" don't have to be professional historians and bother with facts. It is enough if they think they know each other, and the rest will be dealt with by their patriotism, specifically understood "Polish raison d'etat" and a link to any sources. In the case of the Jedwabne slogan, of course, it was about creating in the foreign reader the conviction that the perpetrators of the murder were Germans and (few) Poles - at most blind tools in their hands"

This mischaracterizes the Wikipedia project and I honestly wonder whether if levelled at any other institution Grabowski's allegations might be cut by the publication's lawyers. What does Jimmy Wales think? Has his right of reply been respected? If stated by any editor in the ARBEE sanction environment Grabowski's comments would be deemed inappropriate and confrontational. This article has been worked on by our community, which includes Jewish Israelis as well as Germans. Vandalism from presumably deluded Polish nationalists is routinely reverted. Furthermore he doesn't seem to know that Wikipedia relies on verifiability of reliable sources (including his own work), not what someone perceives as a fact. It was actually the tireless work of the late (and presumably-non-Polish) editor named Icewhiz which exposed the fake story about Warsaw Concentration Camp, and he's the very same editor who put a banner on this article to get it improved to the better state that it is in now than it was before. So to repeat, if Grabowski wants to attend to this the Wikipedia way, he is welcome here with open arms. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The article does suffer from WP:WEIGHT issues. For example, the lead contains two paragraphs, one of which focuses on how other groups were potentially responsible:

At least 40 ethnic Poles were implicated, and German Order Police were present.[3][4] The additional involvement of the German Gestapo[5] and SS paramilitary forces, especially the SS Einsatzgruppe B death squad, is a matter of academic discussion.[6][7][8][9]
The USHMM source says [12]:
On July 10, 1941, Polish residents of Jedwabne, a small town located in Bialystok District of first Soviet-occupied and then German-occupied Poland, participated in the murder of hundreds of their Jewish neighbors. Although responsibility for instigating this “pogrom” has not been fully established, scholars have documented at least a German police presence in the town at the time of the killings.

This is not sufficient weight to put the statement in the lead, and, in general, the structure of the lead creates an impression of false balance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I plan to move the quoted para from lead to body in the next couple of days. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • K.e.coffman, thank you for the heads up. Your perspective is important. Please let's establish consensus for such an important change first, in the name of future article stability at least. The record shows serious warring in the past at this article. In its current state has been stable for a relatively long time - in fact all the way back to when Icewhiz first prompted an overhaul with a banner and then WP:CONS appeared to have been established. The lede may have changed since then, and I would like us to check.
  • With apologies, I'm a bit confused by the cut-and-paste of your Talk page input from above my comment to below it, with earlier date stamp now appearing below than my later date stamp above [13] which afaiu WP:TALK it seems we're asked not to do. Maybe you could say what it means: perhaps you felt the the whole section is covering multiple issues, and you wanted consolidate what you had to say? Do you have a reply to my contribution to the discussion above?
  • I agree the lede can be improved. WP:LEDE asks us to summarize the article, which has quotes from specialists Jan Gross and Peter Longerich. They go further than the comment from the USHMM, so perhaps per WP:NPOV that comment could be added alongside theirs in the body of the article before we work on a line in the lede that can accommodate them all. There are other recent generalist quotes out there, for example the BBC said in November 2019, "In 1941, Polish villagers in Jedwabne, perhaps at the instigation of the Nazis, rounded up more than 300 of their Jewish neighbours and burned them alive in a barn."[2] We also have a WP:PRIMARY citation to Kwasniewski's 2001 apology speech, reflecting a consensus of historians and investigators, which has been opposed by Polish nationalists and praised by Anna Bikont, Jan Gross and Rabbi Michael Schudrich, and is often referred to in WP:SECONDARY sources, which says: "The criminals had a sense of being unpunished since German occupants incited them to such acts. / We know with all the certainty that Poles were among the oppressors and assassins."[3] That word "among" is an understatement made prior to the conclusions of the murder investigation, which grounded the generally accepted view that very likely all if not most of the murderers were Polish; at the same time, the quote reflects the generally accepted or mainstream academic view that the murderers acted in collusion with armed German authority.
  • Therefore, removing the second paragraph from the lede while leaving the first unchanged would leave it incomplete; firstly because it wouldn't name the murderers as fellow Polish citizens of the Polish Jews who were the victims.
  • On that note, "Jedwabne Massacre" might be a more accurate title for this article. The phrase is used in academia and the general public domain[14] and reflects the distinction from the many pogroms of history characterized more by looting, vandalism, beatings and relatively few murders - rather than mass murder running into the hundreds at least. But that's a separate discussion.
  • Additionally, the Jedwabne massacre is generally accepted to be an act of Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, and perhaps greater emphasis of that is required in our article, including in the lede. Defining it as collaboration requires mention of the German presence; no Germans, no collaboration. As the USHMM puts it: "There were incidents, particularly in the small towns of eastern Poland, where local Polish residents—acutely aware of the Germans’ presence and their antisemitic policies—carried out or participated in pogroms and murdered their Jewish neighbors. The pogrom in the town of Jedwabne in 1941 is one of the best-documented cases."[4]
  • Note that a line has been cut from the lede about the 1999-2001 era. It stated that Polish public opinion was shocked by the findings of the murder investigation because it had been so accustomed to narratives about the Polish resistance and Zegota, etc. As it happens, the same USHMM source above places content about Polish resistance and Zegota in the next paragraph.[5] This is all in the context of a whole article on "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust". I don't agree that a hard removal was the right thing to do, perhaps it could be better phrased by discussing on this Talk page first. We have an opportunity for that now.
  1. ^ https://israelunwired.com/israel-unwired-about/
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50380906
  3. ^ http://www.radzilow.com/jedwabne-ceremony.htm
  4. ^ https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/collaboration-and-complicity-during-the-holocaust
  5. ^ https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/collaboration-and-complicity-during-the-holocaust

Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for moving my comment; I was not sure if you were responding to me or commenting on Grabowski's statement. In re: the lead, what is the rationale for keeping the paragraph I identified in the lead specifically? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman thank you for the reply. To emphasize, I don't support keeping that paragraph in the lede. My first issue is that removing it triggers a different problem, which is that it will remove any sense of the Who the murderers were. Plus, history articles tend to require at least some causality in the lede - the What, When, Where & Why.

The function of the paragraph you want to move is to say that the murderers were ethnic Poles colluding with the Nazis, and that meaning must not be lost. Therefore moving it would require adjustment to the line above it which currently reads At least 340 Polish Jews, including women and children, were murdered, some 300 of whom were locked inside a barn that was set on fire.

Then changing that itself will be volatile in terms of article stability. So let's discuss possible variations of that line based on general scholarly agreement from Jan Gross to the IPN murder investigation findings (both quoted in the article body) and most historians. We can avoid discussing in the lede whether those Germans were Ordnungspolizei (per Polin museum citation) or Feldgendarmerie and Gestapo (per Jan Gross citations) or Waffen-SS, whether Einsatzgruppe or not (per others); and whether the Poles had been previously recruited as auxiliaries, pogrom police, (per Peter Longerich) or whether they were a roaming group moving from one massacre to the next then joined by additional local Poles, some of whom were career collaborators, having previously worked for the Soviets - discussed in all scholarship. Whether the Germans (i) gave the order (as Jan Gross says) in the generally agreed visit by the Gestapo, Sicherheitspolizei or Sicherheitsdienst that morning or the day before, and/or (ii) directly participated in the murders and/or (iii) incited them per the well-documented Reichssicherheitshauptamt directive on "folk pogroms" issued on 29 June 1941 by Reinhard Heydrich can all be reduced to what all historians appear to agree was German authority. This represents scholarly consensus as a union (set theory) of what historians agree on, excluding WP:FRINGE outliers who say no Poles were involved.

The solution would be something like: At least 340 Polish Jews were murdered by at least 40 Polish collaborators under the authority of at least 8 German personnel or At least 340 Polish Jews were murdered by at least 40 Polish collaborators accompanied by at least 8 German soldiers. Many variations possible. To discuss.

After that, there is further room for improvement in the lede. I have no idea what the function of citation [1] Prof. Tomasz Strzembosz is, regardless of the fact that it is in Polish. I'd like it removed.

We then have space for more content on a little context and further causality, plus the 1999-2003 historiography. Would you like me to propose some content?

Cheers,

-Chumchum7 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

My first thought is that the lead needs expansion, not shortening. If we are to shorten this, yes, removing that part is probably fine. But I think that in the long run this should be longer, not shorter. Btw, Polish Wikipedia (which Grabowski praised) does not have anything in the lead about German involvement. The German one does seem to mention German authorities, but I have to reply on machine translation and it is unclear. See also: Paul R. Bartrop; Michael Dickerman (15 September 2017). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. pp. 327–. ISBN 978-1-4408-4084-5. (no involvement of others mentioned in the first para); Leslie Alan Horvitz; Christopher Catherwood (14 May 2014). Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide. Infobase Publishing. pp. 251–. ISBN 978-1-4381-1029-5. (ditto but mentions that this occurred after German occupation). PWN Encyklopedia [15] does mention that the pogrom was done "by local Poles inspired by the Germans". Which is kind of ironic considered it is the expert-driven traditional encyclopedia. Anyway, my quick source review suggests the short version of the lead should not mentions the debate about whether others were involved and to what degree, but again, I think that best solution in the long run is to make this lead much more informative, not to gut it to a single sentence. I'd suggest using the two books cited as a guide on how to expand it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please let's remember that Grabowski has no higher authority over Wikipedia, nor does anyone. Honestly I'm not charmed by his failure to engage on this Talk page while sniping through the media; I'm also baffled by him giving consent for an excerpt to be published here which is not his property - surely it's the newspaper's property, so if anyone needs to give permission it is them per WP:COPYVIO? But anyway, it's a cited excerpt, so probably moot.

Moreover while Grabowski casts aspersions about Wikipedia not using "facts", our policy on WP:VERIFIABILITY-not-fact is far more evidence-based than his own notorious extrapolation (of what happened in a small geographical area, to an entire country). I happen to find his guesstimate entirely plausible, but methodologically it's as if a researcher worked out how many cowboy hats Americans wear by multiplying data gathered in Texas. So really, he could learn quite a lot about verification by joining us. Please, can we leave his media publicity out of this discussion and cite his works instead?

Because honestly I'm way more interested in the opinion of the Wikipedia community, namely your backing for lengthening the lede, and I'm equally hoping K.e.coffman and others will chime in here too.

I agree the lead should not mentions the debate about whether others were involved and to what degree; every link you've presented here simply states the factor of the Germans in its own voice. Based on our article's citations to Gross, Bikont, Rossino, the IPN report and others that factor is to be included under WP:LEDE summarizing the article anyway. And the factor is not something to emphasize, as there is plenty more content which is just as important, and here's a go at a five-paragraph lede:

The Jedwabne pogrom (Polish: Pogrom w Jedwabnem, pronounced [jɛdˈvabnɛ]) was a World War II massacre committed on 10 July 1941 in the town of Jedwabne, in German-occupied Poland. At least 340 Polish Jews were murdered by at least 40 Polish collaborators under the authority of at least 8 Nazi German personnel.

The massacre took place among many others in the Podlasie region shortly after the arrival of German troops amid their invasion of the Soviet Union on 21 June 1941, which had until then occupied Jedwabne in an 18-month reign of terror since the Nazi-Soviet Pact divided Poland in 1939.

When the Germans replaced the Soviets as the occupying power, they implemented a policy of inciting "folk pogroms" alleging all Jews had been pro-Soviet traitors. The killers at Jedwabne used the accusation of Jewish Bolshevism against their victims, who included children. Prior to the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland, Jedwabne had been located in an area which favored National Democracy, an anti-Semitic party opposed to the government in Warsaw.

Knowledge of the massacre only became widespread in 1999 due to the work of Polish film-makers, journalists and academics, who prompted an official murder investigation in 2000-2003. The country was shocked by its findings, which contrasted with the record of the rescue of Jews by Poles in the Holocaust and Poland's fight against Nazi Germany. 

The President of Poland apologized on behalf of the country in a ceremony at Jedwabne in 2001. The generally accepted account of the massacre remains contested by some far-right groups and nationalist historians.

Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for Grabowski re copyright, but when I send my polemic reply to GW which got published shortly afterward, there was no copyright document or disclaimer, so as far as I know I am the copyright owner of my piece (When I publish in academic journal, there is always either a copyright document or disclaimer). So if his experience was the same as mine, he is still the copyright owner of his piece, since the copyright was not transferred.
As for the entire 'sniping from the media', yeah, that's the big part of my polemic with him (WP:SOFIXIT...). I invited him to contribute to Wikipedia in general, and to this page in particular. But sadly, most experts don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia. Publishing in a newspaper gives one name recognition, and occasionally tangible financial benefits. Spending time to contribute here? Neither. But maybe he will change his mind and help us directly. We can only hope.
As for the revised lead, it seems fine to me (due weight at all), except I expect some may request it uses inline citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, it's been a while and because I am attempting to establish WP:CONS I'd rather not proceed with the change without hearing back from you first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus backs it, and to be sure - do you also support this version of the lede? Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Note this discussion has moved to "Lead sources" section below. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Section lengths

Section lengths as of 23:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC):

  • Background: 1,151 words
  • Pogrom
    • 10 July 1941: 468
    • Roles: 443
    • Survivors: 259
    • Subtotal: 1,170
  • 1949–1950 trials: 276
  • German investigation, 1960–1965: 450
  • IPN investigation, 2000–2003
    • Reason: 195
    • Proceedings: 391
    • IPN's findings, 2002–2003: 881
    • Subtotal: 1,467
  • Documentaries: 97
  • Monographs:
    • Neighbors by Jan T. Gross (2000–2001): 443
    • Around Jedwabne (Wokół Jedwabnego) (2002): 167
    • The Neighbors Respond (2003): 142
    • The Massacre in Jedwabne, July 10, 1941 (2005): 345
    • Subtotal: 1097
  • 2001 anniversary speeches and Polish public opinion: 636
  • Events, 2006–present: 684

Total: 7,028 words

The figures are approximate, but they give us some idea of the focus. I would say the background section could be reduced. We need more about the pogrom: what actually happened. Neighbors needs to be moved before the IPN investigation, given that the latter was triggered by the book. And we need less about anniversary speeches and later events. SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

To explain briefly what I'm doing: I started writing up a list of the sources and how they're used, but it was very time-comsuming and, given that some of the text should arguably be removed, it began to feel like make work. So now I've started moving the quotations and other comments out of the citations to footnotes, to make it easier to see what the citations are. I will also fix citations that look like appropriate RS. SarahSV (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've added the in-use tag because I'm converting citations, and it's fiddly work. If anyone wants to edit, please ping me and I'll stop. The article contains many different citation styles, and none, so I'm formatting the citations, and moving long refs to Works cited. I've also removed a few non-RS, though several remain. SarahSV (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Louts"

This sentence:

Bikont writes that Meir Grajewski (later Ronen), a native of Jedwabne, identified five Jewish "louts" who "lorded over" the town, denouncing Poles and, sometimes, fellow Jews.[1][page needed]

  1. ^ Bikont 2015.

Bikont, Anna (2015) [2004]. The Crime and the Silence: Confronting the Massacre of Jews in Wartime Jedwabne. Translated by Alissa Valles. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-17879-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

On p. 255, Bikont quotes a primary source, a Jew, who mentions five Jewish "louts" that the source said helped the Soviets. The only "lorded over" reference I can find in Bikont is p. 212, quoting a different primary source: "Jews multiplied like rabbits ... The Jew lorded it over us."

The effect the sentence has (not necessarily with intent) is to direct blame toward the Jewish community because of five people, based on one primary source. Atrix20 tried to remove the sentence a couple of times but was reverted. Does anyone know whether Grajewski is a primary source that Holocaust historians cite when they write about Jedwabne, and do they include this testimony? Is there something else about this in Bikont that I'm missing? SarahSV (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, I'm back at this talk page after a few days.
(1) It appears User:Piotrus asked you a question four days ago [16] and I can't see where you answered it, which is why am raising it here. If you have, please point out where. If you haven't, this would be more concerning than before. It goes back to the issue of the consensus-building process for the lede that was started February 29 [17], which you have been invited to engage in before. I already had concerns about other matters raised here, and still don't feel they've been addressed. You're doing good deeds and am certain they'd shine in a brighter light if you could make the way you're doing them more collegial. Please note that I have experience on this page to restore NPOV cooperating with my friend User:Icewhiz, since indeffed, which they mentioned here [18]; as I said to them two years ago: "You might be on a noble mission, and it might be the right time to have a think about whether the way in which that mission is being pursued could eventually get you into trouble." I wish they'd listened so that they could be here with us now.
(2) You've copied over the DS notice from WP:APL related to Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland with this change [19]. Afaics you did this without conferring, for my education can you please confirm that this is standard procedure for involved administrators? NB it appears you made the change about an hour after I was in discussion about it with the uninvolved administrator User:EdJohnston: [20]. On that Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland page it says *Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit. *Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. I would like us to copy that over as well, and I have also said this to Ed [21].
(3) On the specific point about Bikont, am assuming you're aware that the content line was previously discussed by me with Atrix on this talk page. They were rightly taking issue with line. First of all it was a primary source (Grajewski/Ronen, a person who changed their name) that had been filleted out of the secondary source (Bikont) to use as if (Grajewski/Ronen) was itself a secondary one. My solution was for the content to show Bikont was quoting Grajewski/Ronen. Afair I added the "Bikont writes" to the line, after which Atrix didn't discuss it further. Standard BRD or consensus-building process, not simple reverts.
(4) I have checked, there is indeed something else about this in Bikont, the line needs to be corrected as it appears 'louts' may have been a mistranslation of 'ruffians' by an editor using the Polish edition of the book. p.171: "Meir Ronen of Jedwabne, who was deported to Kazakhstan and left for Palestine after the war, told me, 'There were five Jews, ruffians, lording it around Jedwabne. They ran the town in the first weeks before the Soviet authorities got set up. And a Pole, Krystowczyk, a Communist."
(5) Once plenty of the Jedwabne scholarship has been read, the effect of the sentence is not to direct blame toward the Jewish community because of five people; what it shows is that the ~40 Polish murderers at Jedwabne wrongly blamed the Jews in their community because of the actions of five Jewish people, which is a major factor in the reliable sources. Have you read Bikont in full? It's Chapter 4 which is about the different experiences of Jews and Poles in Jedwabne under Soviet occupation prior to the massacre, specifically p. 169 from "The Jews and the Poles of Jedwabne and its environs did not share the same fate and do not share the same memory." As you know Bikont is herself is Polish-Jewish, she speaks to Polish-Jewish sources. She says that many Polish Jews were far more relieved that Jedwabne fell into the Stalinist rather than Nazi occupation of Poland in 1939 than most Poles were, for entirely understandable reasons of official Nazi racial policy versus official Soviet multi-racial policy. She writes that some Polish Jews, by her account and others, became prominent participants of the Stalinist regime, confirming the prejudices of - and providing a race hate opportunity for - the already anti-Jewish Polish murderers who wrongly held Jews among their community as collectively responsible. If you feel this needs to be more clearly explained to show the dynamic of entirely unjustifiable collective responsibility as a mass murder motive that the Jedwabne scholarship generally writes about, then I can support more context around that line, which I support being corrected and restored.
(6) On that note, I can't concur that the 'Background' section needs to be cut down: precisely because it is vital to understanding such complex issues as covered by the large body of secondary sources, and perhaps on the basis of this discussion you might see why. An important part of that background is what Bikont shows, that prewar political extremism in the area was already violent against Jews without them having had anything to do with communism, and exposes the Jedwabne murderers' pretext of 'Jewish Communism' for what it was - a false justification for collective retribution. Many events that take place within a matter of hours - including crazed mass murders - have more written about their background and aftermath on Wikipedia.
(7) While there isn't consensus here on cutting down the Background section for space, I'd entirely support an expansion of the section on the massacre itself. WP:PRESERVE is helpful here.
(8) I don't understand why you removed sourced content cited to Wrobel [22] without discussion. It provided background to the Birkner investigation in Germany. Please establish consensus for such changes by discussing them. Same for Rossino, I support removal of copyvio websites but the original publication could be obtained through collegiality; if there's a weight issue, that can be discussed too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about "louts". I removed the para beginning "Upon the outbreak of war between Germany and the USSR ..." because it opened a section about the German investigation in the 1960s but was not about that. Re: advice about prior dispute resolution, I'm here as an editor, so it's best to ask someone else about that. Re: the talk-page tag, it quotes the antisemitism ArbCom case, which introduced a provision requiring high-quality sources for "Polish history during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland". SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Since you mentioned said provision, what's your take on the question I ask at #Should all newspapers be removed from here?? I'd appreciate it if both of you could comment on this. Best to do so in the above section to keep this discussion on topic. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Should all newspapers be removed from here?

In the context of Wikipedia:APL#Article_sourcing_expectations. Ping User:François Robere who recently removed newspapers from several articles citing this argument (see for example [23]). There are a number of references to newspapers here. Should they all go? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Which? François Robere (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought you would like to go through them one by one, since you are the main proponent of the view that they are not reliable in such contexts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You asked me below to comment on this. I probably wouldn't remove them all. Where an issue was reported by the media, then I might retain those news sources (e.g. reporting that an investigation had opened or closed). But I wouldn't use them for any of the substantive issues (e.g. what happened in Jedwabne). SarahSV (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Map

Map of Jedwabne crime scene, compiled from Polish court documents. The Jews' route to Bronisław Śleszyński's barn is marked in red.

This map has been in the article since October 2009 with this caption. It states "The Jews' route to Bronisław Śleszyński's barn is marked in red", and shows the route from an NKVD/German police office to the barn. Is it confirmed by the eyewitnesses and secondary sources that the march to the barn began from a police office? I've taken a quick look but haven't found it. SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I recall seeing something somewhere, but years ago. Right now I am not sure, Gross has a map here but it is different except the street layout. Maybe change the caption by adding likely or such? Incidentally, years ago I tried to raise the community's awareness that a lot of maps and such don't cite sources and are possible OR but next to nobody cares :( In some cases the problem is copyright, I think some map makers are afraid that if they show sources their maps will be accused of being to similar to originals. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the arrow pointing to what the map says is an NKVD/German police office, then the red lines starting from that office, marking the route to the barn. Has anything like that been established? In the meantime, I've added a version without the arrow and text about the office. SarahSV (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, what is disputed? The route? Or the existence of the gendarmerie office in that particular location? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole thing needs a source. I haven't found a map from that period yet. The most contentious part was that the procession to the barn began at a German police office in the market square.
You asked in an edit summary about page numbers. Yes, we need page numbers for journals. I would say that for any article, but here in particular, where everything is potentially contentious, it all needs to be pinned down and easy to find. SarahSV (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree page numbers are helpful, but can you direct me to the policy that states they are required for journals? Without it, why of course I wouldn't remove them if added, I don't know if we can justify page needed tags. For the record, I'd be happy to support amendment of a policy if it does not require page numbers for journals.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
can we not be wikilawyerish here? We shouldn’t need to be forced by policy to do what’s the best sourcing practices. Being a pain and wanting to see a policy when you admit it would be good practice is just ... off piputting. It makes the editing area much less collaborative...it makes othe editors feel like you’re trying to,slide by with the least possible work or using the barest minimum of reliable sources. This whole are IS under Arbcom restrictions to use the best possible sourcing, it would be a show of good faith to supply journal page numbers. I assumed we were here for the readers, to make it easy for them to verify that we were representing the sources accurately...and giving small page ranges from a journal helps the reader do that. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are upset about. Page numbers are good, I am just saying I don't think we should be adding copyediting templates to the article requesting fixes that go beyond what the MoS requests. if the MoS requires page numbers for journals, please show me that, and I'll be happy to learn that. But if MoS does not request that, than while we can all agree here it would be nice to have such information, we should not indicate it in the text with templates. Trying to adhere to MoS is not wikilawyering. Anyway, the best fix is to read the article and add the page numbers to the text, so how about we try to do it, rather than argue here about the rules? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The ArbCom has said that only high-quality sources may be used in these articles. It goes without saying that they must be cited in a way that allows (a) the source to be identified, and (b) the supporting text to be found. I've spent the last few days finding that neither (a) nor (b) were the case with many citations. Citations lacking author and title, bare URLs, citations I could barely read at all, etc. So, please, if you're reading a source that has a page number, add it. It doesn't matter what category of source it is if it makes things easier for everyone. SarahSV (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Citations

Poitrus, I'm putting a lot of work into rewriting the citations properly, so it's discouraging to see this recent addition:

{{cite book|author1=Antony Polonsky|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AfeGB5yz0ooC&pg=RA1-PA374|title=The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland|author2=Joanna B. Michlic|date=11 April 2009|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=1-4008-2581-4|pages=374-375}}

Polonsky and Michlic are the editors, not the authors. Pages 374–375 are part of an article by someone else. Also not 11 April 2009, and a location would be appreciated. But the main thing is to identity the author and article title. SarahSV (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's what the automated wiki ref generator gets us. The metadata errors need fixing, but I am not sure if the citation style you use which removes Google Book links and so makes 1-click verification more difficult is indeed better. Personally I'd prefer to have a reference with some wrong metadata that allows verification of the original content with 1-click than the other way around. Still, if you want to standardize the citations to the other system, go for it, since nobody else, including myself, seems to be motivated to do it otherwise. Thanks for helping out here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what a particular script generates. You, the editor, are responsible for writing the citation properly. It isn't just some wrong metadata; it isn't about a particular citation style; and if you want to add a Google link, you're welcome to do that. The problem is that your citations are missing key elements. See WP:CITE. SarahSV (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for following WP:SOFIXIT and fixing the errors. Please note that I might have fixed some of the wrong metadata myself, but this takes time. If you can fix it before I get around to it, kudos for you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, you said earlier you weren't sure how to add a Google page link to a short cite. Here's how you write it: {{sfn|Tec|1993|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ow0fX5FviF4C&pg=PA17 17]}} That produces Tec 1993, p. 17, with "Tec 1993" linked to the long citation. The problem with Google page links is they go dead fairly regularly, so I'm always in two minds about whether to add them. SarahSV (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
That is very useful, thank you. hat functionality does make me like the "sfn" system much more than before as I thought it sacrifices said links. They do rot, but not recently, I think a lot of the rinks got broken ~10 years ago. Through it seems that occasionally there are also issues based on which country one access them from, plus the number of pages viewed before in a book (usual copyright annoyances, I guess). But since they can work for many years, I still think they are more useful than not the reader (and us, since verification is quite important). And I don't think we can get community consensus to link to LibGen or such, so... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The other way to do it is include a Google Books link in the long cite instead. For example, in the text write:

{{sfn|Tec|1993|p=17}}

And in "Works cited":

* {{cite book| last=Tec |first=Nechama |author-link=Nechama Tec |title=Defiance: The Bielski Partisans | year=1993| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=New York |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ow0fX5FviF4C |isbn=978-0-19-509390-2 |ref=harv}}

That Google Books link takes you to the book page, where it will say "preview this book" if that's available. If you want to link directly to the preview, use url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ow0fX5FviF4C&printsec=frontcover Or if you've used that source for one page only, you could link to that page: url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ow0fX5FviF4C&pg=PA17 SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hermann Schaper

I've added some citations to the previously totally unreferenced paragraph mentioning him, but this needs further verification, particularly as he was used by some to argue that "it was Germans not Poles". Gross in 2002 stated [24] "I also want to clarify that I never mentioned the name of SS commander Hermann Schaper or anyone who had seen him (this name was not part of the Jedwabne discourse until March 2001, almost a year after the book was published). As Roszkowski certainly knows, there is not a shred of evidence that Schaper has ever been in Jedwabne." I am trying to find what is the 'most up to date' view on his involvement, but I think it remains 'inconclusive' (see [25], 2003, p.62 "Thus, the exact German role in the Jedwabne, Radzilow and Wasosz massacres is unlikely to be established."). FYI Schaper "commanded a gestapo detachment in the Lomza region, but denied personal involvement in the massacres of the Jews, though he said he was present once when Jews were shot. He said the murders were committed by natives of the region and by some detachments on which he did not elaborate. He was excused from further questioning on grounds of ill health. " See also the discussion of his narrative in [26]. This paragraph needs to be further rewritten to reflect what the sources say, and then Shaper's article needs to be updated (currently it just has citation needed requests for his role in this). Bottom line, I think, is that there is no conclusive evidence that Shaper was in Jedwabne, there is only evidence that he and his units where in the wider region, and were involved in some pogroms. And I think nobody found conclusive evidence whether he was or wasn't in Jedawbne. Again, please help reword this para to make this clear, particularly in light of the fringe conspiracy theories popular in the early 2000s that "it wasn't Poles, it was Germans led by Schaper". We should debunk them clearly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and it wasn't just by the early 2000s conspiracy theorists that the Nazis were wholly blamed, it was molded onto the Polish communist-era plaque that blamed 1600 Jewish deaths on the Nazis, which is what Arnold and Gross set out to disprove in the first place, by exposing evidence of collabotors' culpability.
I also don't see why the controversial, allegedly nationalist historian Chodakiewicz gets his own section. He's the main proponent of the theory that 'trucks of SS' arrived to organize the massacre, and that's not the general scholarly view. We show how he is contested, but I'm not sure that every historian commenting on Jedwabne deserves so much coverage. They ought to get accommodated NPOV phrasing, with outliers such as Chodakiewicz confined to WP:FRINGE.
This all comes under the wider subject of the scholarly NPOV on the Nazi factor in the article, which is not adequately accommodated by the current lede. I'm stating for the record that the current lede therefore does not hold WP:CONS. This version wasn't discussed on the talk page. You supported a different draft lede discussed on this talk page, which as far as I can see - in the absence of engagement with the significant consensus-building effort on the talk page - you are within your rights to add to the article in the pursuit of WP:CONS. If in doubt, I would be glad for Arbcom to provide us with guidance.
I'm not sure about the use of sources in the current lede in any case. The IPN has been considered WP:PRIMARY in the past. The USHMM website article doesn't have an immediately identifiable author or date, and isn't a scholarly work more than e.g. Rossino is. I'm note sure whether using extensive note boxes [a],[b] etc quoting individual sources is considered better practice than NPOV content phrasing in summary ledes. Besides that, the USHMM reference actually says "Although responsibility for instigating this 'pogrom' has not been fully established, scholars have documented at least a German police presence in the town at the time of the killings." The current content phrasing gives a different impression.
To accommodate scholarly NPOV it's important to have precise phrasing about the Nazi factor, both to avert the Polish fringe conspiracy theories blaming the crime wholly on the Nazis and to avert Wikipedia representing Nazis as wholly innocent bystanders.  
To that end it's best to look as closely at the reliable sources as possible in order to build NPOV. There was some discussion in the early 2000s sources (Bogdan Musial, etc) about whether Hermann Schaper was there. Gross shows Nazis in authority visiting Jedwabe on the morning of the massacre; but there's been no conclusive evidence that one was Schaper and he became so much less relevant in the scholarship that Persak (2011) doesn't even mention him. Given Schaper's only relevance is the factor of Nazi influence on the murderers, which is covered elsewhere in the article, probably the whole section on Schaper needs reducing. The part of it that is widely included in the sources is that the massacre took place amid a spate of massacres in the area; the Jewish witnesses told the 1960s West German investigation were organized by Schaper in places near to Jedwabne such as Radzilow and Tykocin. That does not place Schaper in Jedwabne, that places Jedwabne as a non-isolated event among a wider spate of massacres in the specific area.
The factor of Nazi involvement was already covered by the content outside the section:
In the small town of Wizna near Jedwabne, several dozen Jewish men were shot by the invading Germans under Hauptsturmführer Hermann Schaper, much as occurred in other neighboring towns
Jan Gross writes that a leading role in the pogrom was carried out by four men, including Jerzy Laudański and Karol Bardoń, who had earlier collaborated with the Soviet NKVD and were now trying to recast themselves as zealous collaborators with the Germans.[42] He also says: "At the time, the undisputed bosses over life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organized activity could take place there without their consent. They were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews. It was within their power also to stop the murderous pogrom at any time. And they did not choose to intervene. ... But it is also clear that had Jedwabne not been occupied by the Germans, the Jews of Jedwabne would not have been murdered by their neighbors."
and  
According to Peter Longerich, "closer analysis of the crime" shows that the pogrom was "engineered by a unit of the German Security Police", probably a unit from the Zichenau Gestapo office that had been assigned to Einsatzgruppe B, and which "had recruited local Poles as auxiliary 'pogrom police'."
and
Krzysztof Persak says the massacre and some thirty others happened at a special time and place: around Łomża and western Białystok was one of the few Polish majority areas that had just undergone the cruelty of Soviet occupation since 1939, it therefore saw Germans as liberators when they arrived in 1941; paired with historical antisemitism, the conditions were right for German incitement according to the Reich Main Security Office directive on "folk pogroms" of 29 June.[56]
As far as I can see, some of that RS sourced content appears to have been removed without discussion.
One of the references used in the article, the human rights lawyer Matthew Omolesky writing in The American Spectator in 2018, also says: 

Of the roughly 350 Jews who were detained, around 40, including the local rabbi, were ordered by the German Ordnungspolizei to demolish the statue of Lenin that had been erected by the recently-ousted Soviet authorities. Having done so, the members of the smaller group were sent a short way down the road leading towards Wizna, hauling pieces of the fractured bust on wooden boards while being made to sing a slanderous refrain: “This war is because of us, this war is for us.” When they reached the barn of a certain Bronisław Śleszyński, just across the road from the Jewish cemetery, they were shot, knifed, and clubbed to death by Germans and Poles alike. The remaining Jews back in the square soon followed their co-religionists’ route along the grim path leading from the plaza through the barn doors, but this time, for the sake of efficiency, the structure was simply barred shut, doused with naphtha, and set ablaze. One peasant from the hastily assembled burial detail later remarked that the victims were “so intertwined with one another that bodies could not be disentangled.” And neither could the slain of the notorious Pogrom w Jedwabnem subsequently be disentangled from the Polish national story.Analogous events took place around the same time in Radziłow and Wąsosz. 

Schaper has been placed in Radziłow, what's more relevant than Schaper is the event at Radziłow.
Elsewhere we have  the German journalist and historian Thomas Urban in Polen: Portrait eines Nachbarn (2008) p.124: "Jedwabne war also ein deutsch-polnisches Verbrechen." (Jedwabne was a German-Polish crime.) He says the massacre was carried out by a "kleine[n] Gruppe Einheimischer" (a small group of locals), and that investigators had found that "ein SS-Einsatzkommando die örtliche polnische Bevölkerung anstiftete" (an SS task force incited the Polish population).
Schaper was in the SS task force, what's more relevant than Schaper is the proximity of the SS task force.
Just a passing, one-line description of Jedwabne by the BBC in November 2019 described it as "perhaps at the instigation of the Nazis". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50380906
Accuracy is accuracy, and that doesn't contradict the scholarly consensus that the Polish murderers were Polish murderers.
Cheers, --Chumchum7 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, the matter of Schaper is connected to the The country was shocked by... line, which has been in the lede for long periods of time across years. This reflects the now 20 years of Jedwabne scholarship, in which less has been written about the day of the massacre itself than the revelations' impact on the country's self-narrative. That narrative in extreme form is as narcissistic as any nation's, the scholarship shows that in Poland's case it was especially being a nation of heroes and victims. Most people who haven't read much about Polish history don't understand the shock of the Jedwabne revelations because they aren't aware that there were more Polish troops closing in on Hitler's bunker at the Battle of Berlin (including a Polish Jew in the platoon which raised the Polish flag over the Berlin Victory Column) than American troops who landed at D-Day, and that there were more ethnic Poles murdered by the Nazis in the Warsaw Uprising than were killed at Hiroshima. The list goes on, and it's a heady hero-victim narrative for a country to perceive itself by. It's what Rossino is referring to when he says, perhaps with some hyperbole, that Gross challenged the long-cherished notion in Poland that all Poles - Christians and Jews - had suffered equally under the Nazis. Thanks to the Jedwabne revelations, the country was faced with the reality that these were not the only stories; that Poland was a nation of perpetrators too and in that sense normal. Most sources cover this subject of the shock; Gross' groundbreaking Neighbors emphasizes that this is what Jedwabne is going to be about. He comes from the discipline of sociology rather than history and he in Neighbours he talks about the impact he wants the revelations to make in terms of narcissism and psychotherapeutic breakthrough. Indeed his confrontational method of achieving this is something Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich and others have cautioned about. And so, back to Schaper: for a moment, he provided the perfect opportunity for those who wanted to be wrapped in a Polish national myth. But the scholarship has moved on from then. The shock, the reason for it and the consequences of it remain a major part of the scholarship, and more of that could be included in the article. I wouldn't mind working on an adjusted phrasing of the line for clarity if it's preferred. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Rather than summarizing the studies, Longerich seemed to be making detailed suggestions, so it's better to use the sources he cites. See his footnote: Longerich, Holocaust, p. 196, n. 28. Note 28 is on p. 503.
The current lead is just a skeleton. The lead should summarize the article, which is in flux. Once it's ready, we can write a new lead. SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Jedwabne_pogrom/Archive_6"