Talk:Adam Lazarowicz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
A fact from Adam Lazarowicz appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 30, 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Sources question

Article lists 5 sources in the end. All are just some web-sites in non-English language. Nonenglishness certainly does not disqualify the source per se but it would be helpful to have at least one English source if possible. However, most importantly, it is necessary to determine the credentials of the web pages. Who wrote the material there, who hosts this material. What are the credential of authors (if not anonymous) or web-sites, if known. --Irpen 22:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish there were some English sources for this article. Anyway, feel free to ask questions about these web pages. Tymek 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did above. Feel free to answer them. --Irpen 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to ask, what is the specific source you dislike? Tymek 02:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To form an opinion about the validity of the source I would like to know the answers to the questions above. Are they anonymously written or authored? Who is the author? What are his credentials if known. What organization hosts these pages. Is it academic, personal web-site, blog, newspaper, chapter of a history book posted online, a historic article written by a noted historian, etc? There is no way to establish reliability if all the references give is unannotated URL. --Irpen 02:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My dear Soviet friend, there you go.

  • Source one - article about Lazarowicz's family, from webpage of the Wroclaw Archdiocese, written by Wojciech Trebacz, a historian from Wroclaw's office of the National Remembrance Institute (IPN),
  • Source two - article from Nasz Dziennik daily, writen by Elżbieta Jakimek-Zapart, a historian from IPN Krakow. This article mentions the "Katyn Style" exections of Lazarowicz, Cieplinski and others,
  • Source three - article from a webpage on the Warsaw Uprising, based on several sources such as "Karta" historic magazine and the book "Zolnierze wykleci" by Jerzy Slaski, participant of the anti-Communist resistance,
  • Source four - article from the "Nasz Dzienik" daily about murders in the Mokotow Prison , written by Zbigniew Lazarowicz, son of the murdered Adam Lazarowicz,
  • Source five - a web page of the Debica Commune, mentioning most famous personalities of the area. Adam Lazarowicz, as you may have kindly noticed, is mentioned as the first one,
  • Source five - article about cursed soldiers, retrieved from the book "Żołnierze Wyklęci – Antykomunistyczne Podziemie Zbrojne po 1944 roku”, published by Oficyna Wydawnicza Volumen, Warszawa 2002

Hope you are happy now, dear Irpen, it is a pleasure to talk to such a gentleman. Greetings Tymek 02:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend. Please do not try to start your entries with an intended offense. Better yet, try to keep all epithets low. Questions now, if I may.
"Source three - a webpage on the Warsaw Uprising". What exactly do you mean? I thought the last W. U. took place a while ago and there was no internet back then. How come it still has a web page? Perhaps you mean some organization's page devoted to the W. U.? So, whose page is that?
Source four. How exactly is the article from the modern general newspaper written by a non-historian can be used as a source for an encyclopedia? --Irpen 05:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, I am very glad that you are so interested in this topic, it makes me glad that such an expert on Polish matters takes his time. What I mean by a webpage on Warsaw Uprising is the fact that this webpage is about Warsaw Uprising. Simple as that. World War Two took place a while ago, yet there are books on it, I had just taken for granted that I do not have to explain it to such a scholar, I was wrong, my fault. If an article written by the son of the murdered man does not satisfy you, well, I am very sad, but this is your problem, not mine. In this sense it does not matter if he is a historian or not. He saw a lot with his own eyes. With utmost respect, thank you. Tymek 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • BTW, if the adjective Soviet offended you, then I am very sorry. I thought that a person like you would be delighted. I am Polish and if somebody calls me Polish, I am happy and proud. Is there something you are ashamed of, as far as Soviets are concerned? Sorry again Tymek 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the source three to external links, since it is a website about WiN - not the subject of this article (it mentions Lazarowicz in passing only). As for the source four, it is used as a ref by an academician, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - this is a good argument for its reliability. He is also an author of other historial pieces, several of them published in "Zeszyty historyczne WiNu". As such, I believe the article is well referenced (sure, it could use inline citations, but for a new article it's pretty good).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic civility discussion

Tymek, your sarcastic tone is not helping you. Cut it please. Soviet is not a nationality, it is an ideology, to which I, btw, don't subscribe. "My dear Soviet friend" should be compared not to "My dear Polish friend" but with, say, "My dear Catholic friend", a wording that I would never use.
My nationality is totally irrelevant to your obligation to respond to my good faithed questions civilly and staying on topic. I would like to know more about this page about the Warsaw Uprising. Who owns this page? Is it an academic site, a personal site, a blog? What is it? You see, you once used the anonymously authored essay on history posted to the web-site of the institute of Biotechnology (as if such organization has any authority in history matters) as a sourse for the Wikipedia article. So, I want to make sure whose web-site you are using this time. Please just answer the question and keep your sarcasm to yourself.
Oh, and I am not particularly interested in Polish matters. I mean I am but I try to stay out of anything taken over by Piotrus for the reasons elaborated elsewhere. I am more concerned about the Wikipedia's integrity in general. So, when the articles are to be exposed widely, be it through an FA process or the DYK section, yes, I want to make sure they reasonably comply with Wikipedia requirements. --Irpen 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You can call me a Catholic, I am proud to be one. Please stop pretenting that you care about Wikipedia's integrity (comparing serious article about the Baltic States to a poop was a masterpiece). All you care about is to keep the face of the Soviet regime, using all means possible. Great part of your work on Wiki is strongly pro-Soviet and pro-Russian, with a total disregard of the facts and misery of nations that had the misfortune to have fallen into Soviet rule. As for the web page on Warsaw Uprising - feel free to get in touch with its creators and ask them all the questions. Also - help expand and improve the article, since you seem to be so fascinated by Adam Lazarowicz and his plight. With utmost respect Tymek 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about your offenses and wild accusations. Your tone is clearly unacceptable and I will not dignify this bullshit with a response. As for the page on Warsaw Uprising, if you are using it as a source, it is your duty to show that it is a reliable source. Who set it up? Who is the author of the particular text? What are the credentials of the writer and the hosting organization?

I have no doubt about the subject's notability, decency and valor. Whoever risked his life in fighting the Nazis gets my bows no matter under which banner and ideology, the Soviet one, the Polish nationalist one, the Ukrainian or Russian nationalist one, opposition to Genocide, desire to liberate his homeland or just being ordered to against one's will. However, you have to learn to address the civil and legitimate questions about your articles properly and respectfully without attempting to offend and deride other contributors. --Irpen 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • My heart goes out to you, dear Irpen and all I get in response is obscene languages. I am doing my best, I promised to stop calling you a Soviet and all I get is "bullshit". Unfortunately, once again I have noticed that talking to you is very difficult. Let me just state once again - if there is something you dislike about the web page on the Uprising, get in touch with its creators. Together we can make Wikipedia a wonderful place, without any ideologies and national bias. I know you try hard to be impartial, but sometimes it does not work out, anyway the great future is within reach Tymek 15:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Tymek, your sticking to the offensive style is not helping. Until you show the page's credentials, it cannot be used. Why just not put it here whose page is it? --Irpen 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the big deal with the mock offense? Tymek's has shown nothing but utmost civility with you above -- he even apologised for a particular choice of words --, and you keep complaining about "offensive style"!? I mean, whoever with an intent to actually have a civil discussion responds to an apology with "Cut it"? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's not discuss editors. The references are reliable and/or cite reliable sources. I think we should concentrate on articles with poorer references, this is well above average (which, I agree, doesn't say much about wiki-wide standards of referencing).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, please no general talk. Just answer my question that Tymek for some reason does not want to answer. --Irpen 04:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

So, no response to the refences question so far. We've got anothe problem on top of that. The aftermath section is getting trolled, I see. "Soviet installed" belongs to articles about the Polish state. But you just don't add your favorite grievances randomly to any articles you can find. When Special:Contributions/4_bity_muzyki was adding the perfectly references "Homophobia in Poland" section to the Poland article it was rightfully reverted as too loosely related by Piotrus. But not here when the installer is Molobo. And Soviet historiography is being piped to Polish books? Nice. Perhaps some regret Poland's not being part of the Soviet Union. Strange twist. --Irpen 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Poland was occupied by the Soviets they enforced on it their views on history. Nothing more really to add, it's obvious.

--Molobo 08:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Gov of Poland was Communist, Soviet installed and lots of other things. How about "Government of Poland that conducted the [[Wisla Action|forced resettlement of the non-Polish minorities]]"? You don't flood your grievances in all articles left and right. No Russian Enlightenment or "4_bity_muzyki" syndrome please. And what was "common practice in Eastern Block historiographies" belongs to the historiography articles. If this saturation of content with unrelated grievances continues the section will be tagged. --Irpen 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

After Polish October Soviet-installed is indeed not the best choice of words, so I removed it. I don't see why you want to remove the fact that his story was censored in PRL; and I don't see why we cannot mention that it was similar to standard practices in Soviet historiography (since, indeed, we are missing an article on People's Republic of Poland historiography).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Historiography stuff belongs to the historiography articles, not in every article you find it possible to paste your pet issue. I marked the section as containing irrelevancies since you persist in edit warring for keeping it. --Irpen 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This echoes [1]. Do you think there's enough material for Denial of Adam Lazarowicz? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Historiography of subject belongs to its article, unless we create a separate one indeed. Which I do think would be an overkill in this case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:COAT. The article was doing well without this nonsense pipe until the intrusion of your protege Molobo. --Irpen 17:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please stop this ad hominem attacks.--Molobo 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, as far as Soviet/Polish historiograpy goes, it was you who replaced Soviet historiography with red link Polish historiography ([2]) - an incorrect link anyway since People's Republic of Poland historiography is as different from Polish as Soviet from Russian historiography. And please mind civility - there is no need to offend Molobo, is it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not offend Molobo by calling him your protege. Checking his (un)block log says it all. People's Repoublic of Poland was not a Soviet republic. I can't believe you regret it. --Irpen 18:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You did (knowing or not knowing it) offend me, as I differ on many subjects with Piotrus. Please don't do it again.--Molobo 18:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You did offend Molobo by accusing him of disrupting this article (making "nonsense pipe", or "intruding that brought about flooding with false piped links"). Please assume good faith; Molobo is trying to improve this article - and as you can see, we do disagree (hence I removed his "Soviet installed") addition.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please stop invoking AGF. When users have a long history of disruption, the AGF does not apply. It has a specific clause about the "evidence to the contrary". Until the Aftermath section is cleaned up from WP:COAT issues, the article is unsuitable for the front page.

For a short time, I assumed that this is going to be a shoe-in for DYK. An article about honorable person who suffered from two oppressive regimes. I helped developing it, streamlined the lead, asked reasonable questions to establish the sources' reliability. What have I got in response? Tymek's offensive responses to the source's questions and coatracking intrusion by Molobo in previously mutually acceptable section.

No surprise you supported both. For Tymek issue you dared to say that we both were insulting each other. For Molobo's issue, you chose to join the revert war. I am truly sorry (no sarcasm) that the article about such a noncontroversial figure, a true hero, still gets disrupted by blatant POV-pushing with your tacit support. --Irpen 18:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, this is sad that due to commonly known practice of disrupting and discouraging editors, the article on such a hero ended up in a messy war. I am just wondering who started it, but I am not going to point my finger at anyone, as Irpen is such a great man that he would never have started it. BTW Adam Lazarowicz lived in my hometown of Debica, come and see the street named after him if you doubt his existence. Also, if you kindly ask me, dear Irpen, I will try to get you in touch with his son, as you seem not to be satisfied with his story (or perhaps you deny the existence of his son, too). Cheers Tymek 18:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Soviet installed" part that you objected to. It is a fact that his story was supressed in Poland. It is a fact that it was a common procedure in Eastern Block. This issue is discussed in detail at Soviet historiography. What's wrong with linking this article here in relevant discussion? I certainly don't see how such a link can make the article 'unacceptable for the front page'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Tymek, why are you trying to offend me all the time? Piotrus, Polish books are not a part of Soviet historiography. It is as simple as that. You repeatedly push irrelevancies into articles (Russian Enlightenment syndrome) and/or help disruptive users with that. No common sense supports coatracking this weird out of place inclusion of parenthesided "(a common practice in historiographies of countries from the Eastern Bloc, influenced by the Soviet historiography)" in an article about the Polish hero. --Irpen
The proper way to deal with such a triviality is - if we cannot reach a consensus here - do a RfC for a wider range of comments. Certainly you don't think that such a triviality should make this article not good enough for a proper DYK, do you?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should not deal with objections by edit warring (yourself), encouraging users with a long disruptive history to do the same and smearing my name at the talk pages of DYK admins by assigning some evil motives to me, justifying Tymek's rudeness and even comparing myself to him. I think the contentious issue should be removed before the article can be featured on the main page. Main page is a big deal. If my removal of Molobo's inappropriate edit was reverted by a uninvolved user I would have accepted it. But instead it was removed first by you, the tacit supported of Molobo's activity, and then by Digwuren a user who does not really need to be characterized on yet another page. --Irpen 03:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As the fact was added by the article creator and is supported by two users (me and Molobo), and disputed only by you, wouldn't it be more fair if we would say that it shouldn't be removed unless a neutral editor recommends us to do so? I proposed above an RfC, I will see if I can find a neutral party to comment on this quicker. I don't think that inclusion or not of a single ilink is any relevant issue for the main page featuring, particularly as I don't think that the target article is controversial (no tags or discussion recently).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a "link". It is the usage of the "aftermath" section as a coatrack to push stuff totally irrelevant to the article's subject. And it was added by Molobo[3] who has yet to create an article that I would see, not by the article's creator. If A.L. was crossed out by Polish historiography, just say so. But characterize this historiography in the respective article, not through pushing all your pains about the evil Soviet empire into every article about the contemporary Polish person. --Irpen 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The original version which stated that it was Soviet historiography was misleading and has been changed. But as PRL's historiography was very similar to Soviet one, and the article on PRL one doesn't exist, why not tell the user of this similarity and direct him to the existing article on similar procedure? Perhaps you'd feel better if we were to move this to a footnote as to minimize the exposure of this additional remark? PS. And Irpen, your edit here ([4]) was before Molobo restored the link to Soviet historiography.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the current version is ok, I think Tymek agrees also, so I think overall editors are in agreement over this version.--Molobo 03:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, absence of the off-topic article is not an excuse to insert the off-topic material to an existing article. The article on Ransacking of the Peremyshl Cathedral by Poles during the times of Polish Renaissance is not written as well. Still, I am not inserting this into the latter article, History of Poland and Poland article using the absence of a separate article as an excuse. --Irpen 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us that Irpen :).--Molobo 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how this analogy is of any relevance.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's because you don't see me doing it, Piotrus. --Irpen 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Who does it ? --Molobo 03:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Irpen just notifies us about his thoughts. I think he is trying to be nice :)--Molobo 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Molobo, these are not my intentions. You may check the edits of 4_bity_muzyki as an example of the contrary. -Irpen 03:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"No, Molobo, these are not my intentions."thought you were trying to be nice ? No ? Shame, it's good to be nice. Anyway hoping to hear about your reflections and thoughts soon Irpen. Good day to you :) PS: I will see the edits you pointed at to see what you want to achieve.--Molobo 03:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the article over regarding its suitability for DYK and, on a very quick read, the Soviet historiography link did perhaps feel a little unnecessary. Is there any way that a stub on the subject specifically relating to Poland (and perhaps other former Eastern bloc states) could be started, which could then legitimately be cross-referenced to similarities with Soviet historiography? I'm unfamiliar with the subject area, unfortunately, so this might not be a useful suggestion. Espresso Addict 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we remove the irrelevancy? Why can't we just remove the (parenthesisized) irrelevancy and have the article features for god's sake? I think AL deserves a mainpage entry! Why do we need to flood the article about the hero with irrelevancies and compromise it? How would giving justice to him suffer from removing the irrelevant intrusion? --Irpen 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if a neutral editor decides to remove the link, I will not restore it. But until than, I think that the consensus is that it does more good than harm.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
He is a good example of a victim of a Soviet propaganda and Orwellian tactics to eliminate people from history. Also I wouldn't call information about Soviet opression and manipulation of history "irrelevant intrusion" --Molobo 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, did you read the Espresso Addict's entry above? Molobo, it was not "Soviet" by "Polish Communist propaganda". Soviet was a little to the east. Or if you really need a pipe, pipe it to a redlink [[Historiography of Communist Poland|Polish books]] and have it done with. DYK articles permit redlinks. It is not an FA yet. --Irpen 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will think about it. Is the current version of the article satisfactory to you?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally, at last! Isn't it better than edit warring my edits and sniping my talk page comments. --Irpen 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
it was not "Soviet" by "Polish Communist propaganda". Soviet was a little to the east." Excuse me ? Communists in Poland were installed by force through Soviet military and NKVD, Poland was completely controled by Soviet Union after the war, Soviets certainly weren't to the east, but stationed right in Poland, where many of their units fought against Polish indepedence fighters like Lazarowicz. If you want to suggest Communist Poland was an indiginous creation by Polish people, rather then enforced regime by Soviet Union I am afraid it contradicts historical knowledge.--Molobo 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article

I came to read the article from DYK. A nice article. It was nice to know in the "Aftermath" that Lazarowicz was resurrected, after all. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)