Talk:Aleksander Krzyżanowski

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]

Contents

[edit] DYK

Did You Know An entry from Aleksander Krzyżanowski appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 June 2006.
Wikipedia

++Lar: t/c 02:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instead of rv war, let's talk here

Irpen, could you explain what important references are deleted? Since the entire para is moved out of order it is hard to see specific changes. Please list them here and we can discuss them, I am sure we can reach a NPOV version here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother actually to read the version to which you are reverting? Also, please explain what's wrong withh the version you dislike. If you disagree with Katyn's phrasing, rephrase it, I offered a couple of different versions. You disagree with all? Offer something else. Why you deleted the info? What overgeneralizing? Why the entire ref to Piotrowski is removed? Strange. --Irpen 06:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
While you have indeed improved the Katyn version, I don't see any postivie changes in your version, you are basically adding out of context excerpts from Piotrowski which create an impression that AK collaboration with Nazis was something normal, instead of rare exceptions; even Piotrowski states so noting even those exceptions for the most part were Poles trying to doublecross the Germans (get intel, etc.) - yet your edits persist on mentioning only those exceptions (without saying there were exceptions). I find your attemps to smear the name of AK rather not fitting for such a good editor like you. Plus your earlier attempts to remove info on such things like Katyn or MRPact remind me of - no offence - Soviet censorship (I am sure censorship was not your intention, but even so removal of such info fits a certain pattern).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And of course Ghirla, The Revert Warrior, sees no reason to talk. Can you rein him in, Irpen?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, first of all, I asked that you actually looked at the version you were reverting to. Piotrowski ref was not there. Just look at it. Now, you present my introduction of relevant and well-referenced info as an attempt to smear the AK. How is that so? Is there more relevant article for the details on the negotiantions between the subject of this very article and the Germans and the results of those negotiations. If so, mention it. A less detailed summmary is missing from AK's article but I will add it there. Or does that mean that you are insisting on a separate article titled as, say, Polish-Nazi cooperation in the Vilnius-Navahradak area? Also, his units were engaged in some controversial actions against Lithuanians. This info is slowly now making its way into an AK article. Should be added here as well. We are talkng here about an article on specific AK commander. Why are we censoring the info of what was done under his command? Finally, you reverted Ghirla without even an edit summary. And his revert was just the mirror of yours. Please don't follow on Halibutt's footsteps to revert non-vandalism with generic summaries (like "rollback" or "using popups"). That Halibutt ingores this request is no reason that others should. I will make some changes to this article right now. --Irpen 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Nazi cooperation in the Vilnius-Navahradak area By all means do it Irpen. Why wait ? I suggest you create a wiki-project called Polish-Nazi cooperation in WW2. As to sources I am certain you will find much evidence in documents from AK trials in Moscow and Pilecki trial, that you will be able to quote, I am not certain about Soviet Encyclopedia but it is possible that information there could be also present. Finally I believe you could seek advise from Ghirandajo, he is in possesion of info regarding the fact that in September 1939 Polish army was preparing to invade Soviet Union in cooperation with Nazis. I am sure looking at your dedication to correcting the falsified history of Poland, which often hides Polish misdeeds and agression against their friendly Russian neighbour(especially in XIX and XX century), that this will be a worthy project to look for. I don't know if you will take my advise, but in case you do I wish you good luck. --Molobo 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I accept fully your expansion. I will go over it at due time but I have no intention to delete anything substantial. I am also open to what belongs where? As for Molobo's entry above, I don't see how it needs an answer. --Irpen 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty to remove the total dispute tag. As evidenced above, the problems Irpen has are not related to this article's factual accuracy, but to his general views on book reviews. As such, the matter could be better solved at book review, academic journal, or some better talk page. But even if the community followed Irpen's suggestion to dump all academic journals from wiki, this would not affect the factual accuracy or neutrality of this particular article. //Halibutt 12:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I do not dispute the usablity of the reviews in general. I dispute the use of the review while the book is online at google books. As I said, the book does not say what the biased author of the particular review claims it says. To prove me wrong, simply find those claims in the book and cite their page numbers. Using the indirect citations of the book through a third party review is unacceptable if the book is available to check. This is not some obscure hard to find book, but the one available online. I am looking forward towards you supporting the claims by the book as appropriate. --Irpen 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Please do not refer the dubious information to the third party's claim about what a particular book says since the book itslef is available online. I've seen the book and I didn't see those claims there. If anyone claims they are there, please cite the book directly and provide quotes and page numbers. There is no need to be lazy and rely on the poorly relayed info through a partisan publication if the original source is available and accessible.

Second, I've said repeatedly that the quote about AK's being as a whole untarnished in collaboration with Nazi is specifically pertaining to lack of collaboration in the Holocaust events, that is killing Jews by the Nazis was carried usually without AK's assistance and sometimes with AK's active opposition. It has nothing to do with the military collaboration with Nazis against the Soviets where it occured. Such collaboration was real, accounts exists and trying to present this as insignificant by an unrelated quote about the lack of collaboration on an unrelated matter seems like censorship.

Finally, it is totally irrelevant for the subject of this article what Bryansk was some hundreds of years before he was born. Partitions was a long-time history by then. Articles about the city and partitions exist, Bryansk is one click away from the reader and there is absolutely no reason to overload the article with irrelevant stuff just to voice some grivances on unrelated to article matters. --Irpen 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am upset and surprised at the same time by Piotrus' refusal to cite from the book despite the book is available and even a simple common sense and good faith call for providing the requested citations. Cherry picking the info from the biased review, refusal to provide direct citation (despite they source is online), refusal to address and even respond to the issues raised at talk warrant both the neutrality and accuracy dispute. Tagged as such. --Irpen 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
First, please read WP:RS. Citing of the review is perfectly permitted and it is more reliable then your view of the book. Sarmatian Review is a well accepted academic journal and certainly not dubious. Second, as I have replied on Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland, the quote is quite relevant here. Piotrowski stresses that the examples you selectively and out of context cite from his books are exceptions to the rule, and your attempts to use his book to back up some anti-AK claims that Piotrowski's specifically criticizes is not an example of good Wiki-editing. Third, as for Bryansk and partitions it is important to understand why a Polish officer was born in a now-Russian city.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, do you seriously claim that the third-party quotation is acceptable while the original book is available online? History of Bryansk is one click away, but with this approach I think you find it acceptable to spam any person's article with retelling the histories of their cities just to grind an axe you have in just another place. The collaboration with Nazis is not selective picking. This is the major thing for the spicific area. It has nothing to do with what happened in other places. I am amazed by your POV-pushing here but since you refuse to answer the points, I will try to get more people to take a look at this article. --Irpen 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. For the same reason our article on, let's say, Bible, does not consist of the Bible text :) Reviews of a book are as a good a source for a citation as the original book, and please don't be offended but I think an academic review in a US academic journal is more NPOVed then your interpretation of the same book. Feel free to provide specific quotations to back up your statements, because I fail to find them in Piotrowski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What my interpretation, Piotrus? If this is in the book, cite the book. If this was an article about the book, reviews would have been acceptable and needed as a primary source for the article. Similarly to the irrelevant example of Bible you gave. Bible article is a book article and not Christianity article.
This here is the article about the events and the person and there is a book on these events. Cite it. It is as simple as that. If you refuse to cite the book, the citation doesn't belong there. And you refuse to answer the rest. I am dissapointed but I will find the citations myself and will replace the third party interpretaions of the book by the book itself. Until than, the reader has to be warned about the article's problems. --Irpen 03:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Book reviews are a perfectly acceptable reference for articles other then about the books in question, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with common sense. If the book is available online, refusal to use it and the usage of the reviews instead to support the info allegedly in the book makes an impression that the reference to the books is a stretch. Book reviews are mentioned at WP:RS as an evaluation tool for the books not as a good source of the info on the events. I agree that when the book is unavailable for now, a review is OK to use temporarily. But with the book available there is no reason to use a third party citation to this very book. Anyway, I regret that the good and well referenced info is now complemented with dubious additions for the POV-pushing reasons. However, I am surprized that you are willing to accept such deterioration of the article's quality. Polish topics are yours, rather than mine primary consern. I only started to edit the article because I saw it at DYK. Good luck with bringing it back to normalcy. --Irpen 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what are you getting at. Academic review reference is as good as an academic book. Sometimes they summarize various arguments of the book in a concize form, and as you surely know not all pages of the book are visible in the Google Print. If you find the page that can be used instead of the review, fine, but I see no reason not to use the review until then.--05:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider the statement "Academic review reference is as good as an academic book" as an example of direct deviation from commons sense as well as from the WP:RS guideline which emphasizes the usage of books and says nothing about the usage of the reviews as an alternative to using the books themselves or as a source in general. I said above that I accept the usage of reviews if the source is difficult to access. This is not the case. As such, I consider a claim unsupported and we have an accuracy dispute as explained at talk. I hope you are interested in clearing this up. If so, good luck with that. --Irpen 05:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no accuracy dispute because you don't understand WP:RS/WP:V (or don't want to). Adacemic journals are as acceptable as academic books. Reviews of a book are as good a source as a book; they are just as reliable and if both are online, they are just as vrifiable. That's all there is to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the basic differences between an academic publication and just any publication is that the earlier is... reviewed. I find it strange logic to say that a review is non-academic whereas the book itself might be. On the other hand such a twist of logic is quite understandable given the POV Irpen tries to prove here. //Halibutt 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Halibutt, as I pointed to Piotrus, that this stuff is just not in the book. I've seen the book. I can't prove its absence by citation. You have to prove its presence there by simply citing it, rather than the third party. Besider, the SR is a very partisan and Polonophile source. It's being "academic" makes it still acceptable to refer to facts, but not their interpretations, like we have here. Similarly, I frequently use the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, an academic publication of the University of Alberta affiliated Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, an isntitution mostly ran by Ukrainian diaspora and known for a strong Ukrainophile traditions. I consider it reliable to refer to plain facts but I never refer to their interpretations of events, which by all chances may be partisan. In this case, you are in even simpler situation. Find the info in the source and cite it there. You and Piotrus refuse to do it for the reason that doesn't fit the AGF tradition. --Irpen 00:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad nauseum, Irpen, your (or mine) interpretation of what is or what is not said in the book carries less weight then academic review. If academic review sais x, we can say x in the article. Unless you have any information that would make this review look not reliable?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad nauseum, Piotrus, distinguish between facts and opinions, particularly in partisan publication, even an academic one. Please read carefully what others but yourself write at talk (like what I wrote above as well as in other cases). Sometimes, I have a feeling you just skim through what others write, particularly those who disagree with you. You insist on the third party citation, while the book is available perhaps because you are not sure that there is anything like that in the book. Or you are "too busy" to look for it. I am not too busy. I looked and say it isn't there. --Irpen 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read carefully what others but yourself write at talk - yes, I see Halibutt and Molobo agreeing with me and you being the sole voice of dissention. Your point here? I looked and say it isn't there. Can you be more specific which specific pieces of information could you not find in the book? I'll see if I can find that at some point, but honestly, an academic review is good enough for me and I don't think that looking for specific citations in the book to verify a credible academic review is the best way to spend my time, especially when so many other pieces of information on Wikipedia are not referenced at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotschild's quote

Rotschild's quote given by Piotrowski specifically speaks of AK being largely untainted by collaboration in Holocaust events but is not related to the cooperation with Nazis, its extent or lack of it, against the Soviets. What is the reason to repeatedly return it here when the controversy is specifically about military collaboration rather than collaboration in killing Jews? --Irpen 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As Irpen used the main article's page to post his comments, I took the liberty to move them here:
  1. the book is online, please cite where it makes such claim
  2. since we have a book online, find this claim in a book. Don't substitute it by the claim alleged in the Polonophilic press. Quotation, relevance, page number pls
//Halibutt

I don't see what's wrong in having hidden comments, but fine, you listed them here correctly. I repeat my statement. I have little objection to referring a certain fact to an academic review as to a source of something. Somewhat objectionable, but still allowed as a temporary measure, is to use the review A to make a statement in the article that the Book B states something until we, at some point, replace this by the reference to the book when we can get a hold of it. What I object is the statement like "According to the Review A, the Book B states that..." while the book is easily available (it is online) and as such, if this claim is indeed in the book, the book should be cited directly. --Irpen

Sofixit if you have time to find the claim. I see no reason to doubt the review, and I have more useful things to do then look for verification in the book - like creating new content. Review fullfills WP:V and WP:RS, which makes it a source much better then many others used on Wiki, not to mention many facts that need a citation but have none and many facts which are not yet on Wiki at all :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I can only fix it by removing the dubious info because the book does not say so. If you disagree, care to cite the book, it's that easy.
Oops, I just realized when I was adding that ref (I assume we are talking about Glass review of Piotrowski's book) I forgot Review of Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust the link. I hope it helps. Also, please note that academic reviews (and reviews in general) are not limited to just summarizing the books, reviewers are allowed to add their own thoughts, too. Nonetheles Glass states clearly that: "Piotrowski argues that from the very beginning, it was Stalin's aim to ensure that an independent Poland would never reemerge in the postwar period". Now, I agree with you that it would be an error to use Piotrowski's book to reference that statement unless we can find a fragment which has the same undisputable meaning, but I see nothing wrong with using a review as a source. After all, the footnote makes it obvious it's Glass' interpretation of Piotrowski's, and the review is published in a respectable academic journal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, I find mention a fact from the remote history of Bryansk in the article about the person who was wimply born there inapropriate. Just think about clutter of addition of "formerly of Kievan Rus" to the articles about ethnically Ruthenian kings of Poland who happened to be born in Lwow or its vicinity. There are several such kings. I don't think it is necessary at all. --Irpen

Well, don't you think it is useful to explain why an apparently patriotic Pole was born in a Russian city? We often write things like 'born in -ian immigtant family' or 'of -ian descent'. This is the same thing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not the same thing. This is placing an unrelated emphasis on the fact that part of Russia was conquered by Poland at certain point, or, if you like it this way, that Russia conquered Polish lands at times totally underlated to what this article is about. The Bryansk article is wikilinked and is just one click away. Anyone interested to find out who Bryansk belonged to 200 years ago will click in their own. Here, this is just clutter and innecessary regrets over the history course. I offered you an example of a similar clutter in the articles for the Polish kings of Ruthenian origin. I don't think you would be happy about it. --Irpen 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think its that important. If you are so strongly opposed to it, let it be your way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As fot the Rotschild's quote about lack of cooperation of AK with Nazis in the Holocaust, its out of topic addition seems like an attempt to somehow justify the cooperation in the totally unrelated matter. It cooperated against Soviets and, mostly, did not assist in killing jews. What's the connection. This is like adding the sourced sentence about the giant Soviet sacrifice in the WW2 that brought down the Nazi monster to every article where the Soviet crimes against Poles are mentioned. --Irpen 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please read the relevant para. Piotrowski's writes not about Holocaust, but about instances of German-Polish cooperation against Soviets. He concludes: the foregoing instances of "tactical coperation" must not be generalized to the AK as a whole. Then he quotes Rothschild. Therefore it is clear that Piotrowski's uses this quote not in relation to Holocaust, but cooperation of AK with Germans against the Soviets. Case closed, unless you want to go to the Rothschild book itself and see if Piotrowski's took his quote out of context?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I checked Rotschild and I agree with you on this. I replace the third party quote of Rotschild by the direct quote. In the meanwhile, pls quote the Piotrowski's book directly too, not through the third party. --Irpen 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Great. Could you link to a direct page with the quote? It seems the current ref go just to Google Print generic book entry.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to provide the ref to the book itself?

Piotrus, do I take this edit as a sign that you choose to simply refuse to provide the direct reference to the book and insist that it is OK to cite one source through another source while the original source is available despite all I said above? --Irpen 02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's perfectly ok to do so, as long as the reader is given the exact path. //Halibutt 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have explained myself above, Irpen. Please read my posts and reply to them, instead of starting new threads. As Halibutt wrote, it's a prefectly ok academic reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Honestly Piotrus, I don't understand at all what this fuss is about. If there is a direct reference, which additionally can be consulted online (contrary to the other ref), why bother with an indirect ref, therefore increasing the risk of interpretations? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the review is enough according to WP:RS and WP:V and I don't have time to browse through the book to look for specific citation to replace it. If Irpen's can't find it, well, it's his view vs the academic review, and I don't need to repeat what is WP:V/WP:RS stance on that, do I?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wabted to here an explicit yes or no to my question about you refusing to provide reference to the book. The answer above is somewhat evasive but implies the "yes". I will wait for what others think about this approach. --Irpen 06:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, all there is too see is your attempt to dispute information which you do not like, even if backed with academic references. For the last time, academic review is perfectly acceptable source as per WP:RS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, all there is to it is my attempt to demand that you back your claim that book says something to a book directly, while the book is available, rather than to a biased review, which would have been acceptable should the book not been readily available. These dubious claims are not in the book and all you have to do to prove me wrong is to find the passage in the book that says otherwise. Your refusal is telling. I will ask for more opinions on that. --Irpen 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, your refusal to address our points is telling even more. This is not an article about Piotrowski's book, this an article about something else and the review is a valid reference. Whether the author of the review read more in the book that there is too it or not is not of our concern, WP:V clearly states we are not to search for some ultimate truth, but concentrate on referencing article information with verifibable and reliable soruces, and the review fits that definition. If you disagree with that, find me a source that shows this review is not correct. EOT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprising, huh? But not EOT, however much you want that. I will ask more people to take a look. --Irpen 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it will be nice to see an argument other then 'I cannot find the fact in the book so an academic review of the book which mentions the fact I cannot verify in the book (which has some pages restricted on Google Print) cannot be used.'--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for others, but you have my full support in your research, Irpen. We certainly wouldn't want to suppress your search if it's what you need. //Halibutt 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just in case it isn't clear, I also support Ipren's search. But his lack of results does not invalidate the findings published in academic review.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)