Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 May 2008.
Wikipedia
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] First talk entries

I will be back to completer this page. Elan26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elan26 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 May 2008

I strongly recommend against a chapter by chapter synopsis. Have a look at some other book articles for a more appropriate structure. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thank you. Elan26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elan26 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish edition

The Polish edition has been changed, I don't know how much.Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] is a nation cursed by absence

What is the reason to quote any POV by anyone?Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reason for POV

I am too old to be provoked to take part in edit war, so I prefer to state my reasons rather over here - regarding disruptive activity of an user User:Boodlesthecat who didn't contributed to this article nothing new or of essence but non-essentials regarding for example heritage of a newspaper editor while removing consistently scholar sources. See this - his last edition. Prof. Thane Rosenbaum represents here nothing else but newspaper policy, in this case Los Angeles Times, or maybe his views as novelist or observations as private citizen, not any academic institution. According to WP guidelines in respect to notability, the scholar sources outweigh newspaper editorials, so why remove Princeton University official site in the form of above mentioned Princeton University Press report, which contains much more info than present reference, and replace it by some local paper editorial written by the person with an obvious grudge against Poland. The idea of the application of collective guilt has long time ago been abandoned since Sonderweg even in retrospect to Germany, now someone wants to sell it again in retrospect to Poland for some reason or other. Fear is already cheap propaganda shot - so far acknowledged only by media policy and Gross' employer. So why someone tries to hide it, afraid of truth? Wikipedia is not a place to peddle anti-semitism in places where currently there is none. greg park avenue (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the bulk of your rambling post, not do I appreciate your accusations of "disruption." In any case, the source of the quote was the LA Times, and that is what is sourced. There is no need to put a needless link to Pricneton University. I have no idea what is "disruptive" or "POV" about that. Please refrain from such accusations. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
So, after stripping the content in question from another evidence leaving only rant of Thane Rosenbaum (son of holocaust survivors), even if there is nothing about it in his article, you play the fool pretending that you don't understand. Now nobody understands, see one section up. Most males in certain age and of European descent including myself are sons of holocaust survivors, still only few carry it as a trademark. A miserable way to win credibility and make a living. You also should be ashamed for littering Wikipedia with this trash. greg park avenue (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Note that the above is a refactored version of greg park avenue's original antisemitic rant.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that accusing other editors of "antisemitism rant" is a violation of WP:NPA. Please stop attacking Greg and reply to his post in a constructive manner.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Posting antisemitic rants violates far more Wikipedia guidelines. And the heading greg park avenue chose for this section is a violation of WP:NPA. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User Boodlesthecat has already been warned about calling anti-Semites those contributors he disagrees with. Seems like it is the easiest way for him to cut short a discussion. Tymek (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Replacing scholarly sources by newspaper trash is disruption. Calling me names for pointing this out is another violation. Removing POV template without solving the POV question is also against Wikipedia policy. Three misdemeanors so far in less than 24 hrs. greg park avenue (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Using the publisher's website as a source for a book review published in a major newspaper when the newspaper source is available makes no sense. Read WP:RS. Calling an article "POV" because you don't like what a reliable source (a book review by a notable writer published in a major newspaper) is a gross misuse of a POV tag. POV tags are not to be used simply because you don't like what a reliable source says. So please spend less time ranting and making bogus accusations of "disruptive activity" and more time reading Wikipedia guidelines. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fear wasn't published by Princeton University Press but by Random House. Besides this source you have removed twice stays in direct reference to the text edited above about New York Times, Los Angeles Times and few more, Baltimore Sun I guess, which are sourceless. Maybe read the article first before you start editing. greg park avenue (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

<---Incorrect. Published 2006, Princeton University Press. ISBN:0691128782. If you want to quote from other reviews cited on the publishers website, feel free. Just source them to the respective newspapers, not the publishers website. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Hardcover: 320 pages
  2. Publisher: Random House (June 27, 2006)
  3. Language: English
  4. ISBN-10: 0375509240
  5. ISBN-13: 978-0375509247
Fear - Amazon.com greg park avenue (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good USA and bad Poles, the world is simple. I'm a racist and Boodlesthecat is an expert to teach me how good people should help Jews (eg. sending SS St. Louis back to Europe like the powerful US government did). What is the expertise of Thane Rosenbaum in contemporary Polish matters? Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Ghetto benches seem to be more important than Numerus clausus in the USA. Why? Because Poles are worse than WASPs?Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, another rant. Your point is what? Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Your point is what? Teaching the Polish nation about its soul? Thank you for your efforts, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to preach. I find some of your comments uncivil, so please regard me as a human being, not as a racially lower Pollack. Xx236 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned your, or anyones' nationality where???? Making false accusations is uncivil. Please moderate your tone and stick to the article's content issues. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You got that right. Still no one has pointed out in that article that Ghetto benches were illegal in Poland until 1937, and after that they were allowed but not recommended by Polish government, which under pressure gave free hand to universities in troubled areas with significant population of German sympathizers. So what, Poland back then was a multinational community the way US is today, and democracy existed yet. Another anti-Polish rubbish to be tagged with POV. greg park avenue (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead of ranting, state the particular section that you feel violates Wikipedia guidelines. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you're being rude. When it comes to that I'll do that on proper page. Over here we just discuss the issues. greg park avenue (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You are making a "POV" claim (that's what you titled this section) and you made a uncivil claim of "Disruption" (the other part of your section title). Either state evidence for the "disruption" and the "POV", or they will be refactored from the section head, just like your antisemtic rant had to be refactored. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you justify that anti-semitic comment [1] with a list of "Jews who are tired of Thane Rosenbaum?" Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If the term "Jews" you found offensive, then guess who more anti-semitic is, you or me? But I settle for more politically correct term like Jewish-Americans (even if there is no telling if they are really Americans) or Jewish people (even if it sounds a little pompous though). And there is no list, just few reviews by Jewish readers of Thane Rosenbaum's books you can find in enclosed reference which happened to be a Jewish community site. greg park avenue (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so once again you supply a Jew-baiting rant instead of providing a source for your Jew baiting statement. As for the supposed reviews by "Jewish readers," the link you supplied was for a "Luke Ford" whose bio describes him as "The son of a Christian evangelist, Luke grew up in Australia until moving to California in 1977."
Try again. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Rant my ass. Even Jesus Christ was Jewish. What's a matter with you? Jewish, Christian or Moslem? Abraham sons or not? And the opinions expressed on that page I found sophisticated enough to include it as reference. Vet for all-Jewish origin of it. Who else would know Hebrew names of rare holidays, Jewish customs or Jewish slang words as "shiksas"? Do you? I don't think you can handle this. You don't even sound like Jewish. Thanks. greg park avenue (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, no longer going to feed your Jew bashing trolling. Next time I take a sample of your abusive rants to the appropriate board for admins to have a look at. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even Jewish readers themselves find Thane Rosenbaum [] confusing: see "I'm tired of the Holocaust as a literary device". Further digging shows who really Mr Rosenbaum is: a Wall Street lawyer turned writer, who is actively engaged in a legal campaign of handling of settlements for Holocaust survivors (New York Times). Since such campaign is currently uder way in Poland, his opinion as a source is [controversial–PB] as per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. It's like being plaintiff and judge simultaneously. Yet some editors insist on keeping this source as a major source of reference while removing others as if Mr Rosenbaum was an unquestionable and only one authority on Polish affairs. Why not keep it simple and bring back the source I have supplied: Princeton University Press which covers four major newspapers (NYT, LAT, Publishers Weekly and Jewish Chronicle) instead of only one and evidently biased one and leave out this controversial issue? greg park avenue (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and thus I have restored reliable Princeton University ref. A University is much more reliable than a newspaper.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, can you show me where in WP:RS a university press's commercial webpage is a better source than a major newspaper? And why does the Rosenbaum review need two separate sources? Your interventions here, including threatening to block editors who remove nasty personal rants that violate BLP is becoming pretty suspect. I suggest that you and Greg tone it down. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because its a university, and each university sells books used for teaching, while newspapers sell bullshit which no university can afford to peddle. As you can see there is nothing about collective guilt in the text supplied by university, only in reviews delivered by newspapers. greg park avenue (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources take precedence over your personal biases and rants. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved editor. Saw this at BLP/N. My suggestions: There doesn't seem to be much of content dispute. There are sensible reasons for also using the Princeton ref as a convenience link; it's not unreliable, the other one is pdf; html is preferred. Why remove it? Second, people should remember this talk page is about the book. There is much that is out of place. Thane Rosenbaum has his own page. Criticism of him within the bounds of BLP belongs there. Everyone should calm down. Gross's book is something that can easily inflame passions - so editing here can easily impel people to say things they might regret, and has done so. Everyone should try looking at it from the other side's viewpoint and then forgiving "the other side" , removing and forgetting negative, irrelevant possible BLP material and accusations from all sides that have nothing to do with improving the article.John Z (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize there was a controversy over a simple link. The original source is the article, and that is what should be in the reference. The Princeton link merely quotes the article and is a commericial link which should be avoided if possible. Even if we didn't have a link to the article, the Princeton link shouldn't be used.

We can criticize sources, but we should be careful not to cross the line into attacks. I've removed some comments here which I consider to be a BLP violation. Let's stick to the content of this article, please, and avoid such comments in the future. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

      • I also saw this at WP:BLP.
  1. if one actually reads the Princeton ad, it clears up the publication question: the book was published in the US by Random House, and outside the US by Princeton UP.
  2. the positive reviews should be not just mentioned, but cited. The inclusion of references to only negative reviews is not NPOV.
  3. I don't agree with Gamliel that the princeton link couldn't be used--we do use links to published book reviews from whatever responsible source is convenient. But if the LA Times link is free, no other link is needed.
  4. More important, the article contains some material dealing with the overall topic of Polish anti-semitism, mentioning the book only in passing. this is irrelevant. The article is about the book. I haven't bothered to see whether that material supports or opposes the thesis of continuing Polish anti-semitism, since that wouldn't matter, but I have removed it.
  5. I'm considering archiving or deleting some of the earlier content of this page, beyond what Gamaliel did. DGG (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


User:Gamaliel, that's right, "we should be careful not to cross the line into attacks". So, why do you ignore countless personal attacks on me and other editors made by User:Boodlesthecat - as per WP:NPA? Why did you removed my comments based on notable source Luke Ford, at least by Wikipedia standards - as per WP:N? Why do you ignore vandalism, disruption and edit warring practiced by the above mentioned user? He didn't contribute nothing to this article. I supplied this Thane Rosenbaum and Eva Hoffman reference in the first place, not him - a text which he rewrote several times to fit his point of view and agenda until it became incomprehensible. It's even out of context and hard to understand, just see the comment one section above. And the issue of Mr Rosenbaum's martyrdom wasn't brought by me, but was introduced in the main space by this rogue editor in question. There is nothing about it in Wikipedia article about Thane Rosenbaum, so I do object to insert it into this article until proper references are supplied, as per WP:RS. There is also a question of WP:NPOV and WP:COI regarding Mr Rosenbaum's activity for the cause of helping the Holocaust survivors to get their settlements, since such campaign is currently under way in Poland. For any possible WP:BLP violation, I apologize, didn't mean that. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"Rogue editor"?? LOL!!!
Here's an example of some fine WP:NPOV writing that greg park avenue is complaining a "rogue editor" made "incomprehensible":

Reviews reprinted by Princeton University Press (Gross' place of employment) would suggest that the author appeals to the sense of collective guilt in Poland. Thane Rosenbaum alleges that "Gross' Fear should inspire a national reflection on why there are scarcely any Jews left in Poland. It's never too late to mourn. The soul of the country depends on it."[12] Yet, scholars like Eva Hoffman refute the idea of Polish collective guilt. "This is no doubt directly connected to the experience of her parents" wrote Rochelle G. Ruthchild. They "owed their survival to Christians who risked their lives to harbor them (in German-occupied Poland, where hiding Jews was punishable by death). Hoffman's belief in the courage and decency of ordinary people in the face of the venality, brutality, and racism too often displayed by Christians during the Holocaust, serves as a counterpoint to Jan Gross' account."[13]

Unfortunately, greg park avenue, beside the fact that Princeton University Press is NOT Rosenbaum's "place of employment", the refutation of Gross by Hoffman seems a bit odd, since Gross' book was published in 2006 and Hoffman's commentary was being quoted in an article from 2004! Ooopsie!!! Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While it may suprise you, Gross is not the first scholar to address the issue (although he certainly did ignore a lot of research that did not fit into his theory). Hoffman is just such an example, and since he writes about the same issues - but draws a different conclusion (albeit one shared by many scholars of the subject) he is certainly relevant in this context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We should, however, heed DGG's comments and avoid wandering too far off into the greater issue and keep the article as directly related to the book as possible. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not interested in righting past wrongs. I want to get things back on track now, regardless of who said what about whom in the past. To that end I hope all editors will be civil from now on. Please refrain from comments about other editors, such as your "rogue editor" remark, and if you are the recipient of such a remark, please do not respond in kind. If any editor feels that action is necessary as the result of the improper remarks or actions of another editor, please bring it to my attention and I will respond in an appropriate manner.
It is my impression that you have an issue with Thane Rosenbaum. You are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to object to using material from Rosenbaum, but you are not entitled to use this space to cast aspersions on his character, as you have in the past and come close to doing so in your latest comment. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest would only apply if Rosenbaum or an editor acting on his behalf were using this article to promote Rosenbaum or his publications. Quoting a book review of Fear does not qualify as such a conflict of interest. The review is not from a book or blog of Rosenbaum, but a book review from a major publication, and thus would be a perfectly acceptable source for this article regardless of the author. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Rosenbaum's review, we should also quote the review of the review ([2]) and use it to qualify it, instead of our own opinions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just redid that paragraph a bit, keeping the review of the review in, but eliminating hoffman. It is OR in this context. The article is about a 2006 book, not about the controversy the book contributes to. The Hoffman review could be included in an article on Gross's earlier book, not this one. I strongly endorse what Gamaliel and DGG say above. Everybody should refrain from commenting on other editors. I will hypocritically violate my own last sentence now.  :-) I've looked at the history and everyone in this controversy, boodles, greg, piotr etc has made positive contributions to the article - as judged by silence = consent of these other editors. Everybody should just chill out on the talk page.John Z (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False diary by Józef Kuraś

The Polish version quotes alleged diary written by Communist writer Władysław Machejek. I don't know if the original book contains the quote.Xx236 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it does; one of many errors in the books (actually from what I understand its not even a diary but a work of fiction Gross misread as a real diary...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It used to be full fiction, later published by the author as a real diary, quoted by Jewish vets, quoted by Gross. Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book quote

This article is about the book Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz‎. To keep deleting a quote from the book, which is reliably sourced, is pure censorship. Please stop it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the recent deletions of a quote from the book, which would seem directly relevant and appropriate for the article. Could the editors involved please discuss the matter here? Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter how well sourced certain things are, Wikipedia is no place for highly controversial and non-neutral quotes, not unless they are central to the article - and I don't see how this quote is. We have clearly and in encyclopedic, neutral fashion, outlined in the article already what the book is about, no need for more quotes repeating this in an emotional tone. Personally I don't think any of the reviews (or reviews of the reviews) need to be discussed in detail, and I'd support removing some unencyclopedic, copyvio-bordering excessive quoting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How can a quote from a book, in an article about the book, in which the author describes the thesis of the book, possibly be "non-neutral"? While at the same time, we have excessive quotes from a self published "analysis" by a "think tank" slamming the book taking up as much space as the book's description. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps because the book itself is not neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless there are any reasons for omitting the quote per Wikipedia guidelines (rather than personal objections by editors to the author's statements), I will be restoring the quote, which is relevant and germane to this article and reliably sourced. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have listed the objections and relevant policies above. Several users have removed it, which only goes to prove you are going way against the consensus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please cite which Wikipedia article guideline/policies the quote violates. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Gamaliel and Boodles on this one. The reader of this article will want to know what Gross says. Our only concern is that we quote him accurately and representatively. A historical example. Look at Mein Kampf. We want to know just what Hitler said, no matter how depraved it was. The first English translations were abridged, leaving out the nastier parts, and this distorted some people's perceptions. FDR was more prescient than many in opposing Hitler partly because he was fluent in German and read the original. If Gross's thesis is insupportably or abhorrently anti-Polish, we should leave it to our readers to judge. The commentaries at the piast institute can provide useful supplements to this quote. I'd also suggest expanding on the positive reviews, not just Rosenbaum's. We should see which the institute finds the most fair, in the interest of providing acceptably neutral information. Part of the problem is that the reviewers seem to have gone beyond Gross, which is unusual and the opposite of what we would usually do in our dusty old electronic encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what this quote adds to the article. If the readers want to know exactly what Gross say, they can get the book. We already have a fair and neutral, encyclopedic and unemotional description of the book and its key points. Mein Kampf which you mention cites Hitler only in one place, allegedly with several famous quotes (they need sourcing, up to and including whether they are truly famous, btw). If one can show that this quote from Fear is already considered famous, sure, we can include it. Otherwise, I don't see anything that this quote does, other than adding unnecessary emotional content to an article that should be such, and begging a more quote warring (i.e. if it is kept, soon somebody will cherrypick another quote from Fear to contradict it and so on).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I wasn't clear. I did not mean to refer to the wiki article on Mein Kampf, and linked as a reflex. The quote was picked from a review. That is one reason it is notable, and it is the author's explanation of his own thesis. My point with MK was that editting out parts that one side may see as the nasty ones is counterproductive to that very side. The stronger, the more emotional, the more objectionable even the thesis, the likelier that it is noteworthy and encyclopedic and will be seen as such by reviewers - in fact what Gross says in the quote is explicitly addressed in the material at the institute's symposium and it would be entirely proper to counterpose it to the quote. The book is highly controversial and non-neutral, why would one expect quotes from it not to be so? - and it almost goes without saying that typical quotes have a place in a book article. That's standard practice everywhere. Cf DGG below and my reply to Greg below also. Cheers,John Z (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Gamaliel - we don't discuss here the content of the book, do we? Which is a fiction to most Poles. Gross based it on a communist regime propaganda writer, Majcherek or something, who allegedly produced a so called Kuraś diary - a diary by a guerilla turned communist, turned criminal, turned ... To tell the long story short he became a stray soldier or mercenary just like those you've seen in "Apocalypse now" or "Rambo" series. There was a warrant for him and for his group back in 1945, the kind of "wanted dead or alive". They presumably killed for money, not because they hated Jews, probably just because they thought Jews carry money or so, and there were 26 Jews in that bus, not 40. 8 were left dead, 10 wounded, 8 escaped. Just a criminal act, which are plenty of after each war, nothing else. And now Gross tries to blame this random crime on all nation which is only second in numbers of victims during the WWII (don't count aggressors' victims). When WWII started, we Poles were the only ones who fought against them, while all the rest of the world including English speaking countries UK and US sat back and watched. Now they write essays, novels, reviews in which they tell their side of the story as seen from a high rise elevator somewhere on Wall Street and jump and scream bloody murder hearing the stories about the cattle cars and try to inspire Poles into collective guilt who obviously didn't fight against Nazis and Communists too well. Smile. greg park avenue (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A short summary of a book can perfectly well includes a short quotation, and that is not copyvio, but accepted use everywhere in the world. It's often the clearest way to explain what the argument is, and the purpose of the article is to give information about the book. This book may or may not be biased, and we make no conclusions about that. We present its argument, we link to positive and negative criticism. What we do not do is attempt to argue the question--that belongs in the articles on the subject concerned. The reviewers say what they say, but if we quote from them we limit ourselves to the parts about the book itself. Reviewers often make original contributions in their review to the subject discussed, and many reviews in various places are written for exactly that purpose. That's their purpose, but it certainly is not ours. The immediately above comment is an OR review of the book and has no place here whatsoever, even as an argument on a talk page. The book was written, the reviews show it is notable. It says what it says. We say what the content of the book is, but we do not discuss the underlying topic -- I fully endorse the approach taken by Gamaliel, which is the proper NPOV approach to controversial books. DGG (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it's an OR review of mine, just to show what such reviews are worth, or books like that. One may prove anything by quoting a verse just as from the Bible. But Gross' essay is not a Bible, isn't it? No quotes from controversial book or suspected biased books should be placed without additional reference stating that these are true or false. Otherwise we may introduce an erroneous information into Wikipedia, and someone will take it for granted. So, we say what the book says, but no quotes, which include for example number of casualties, without confirmation from independent sources. Is that OK with you? greg park avenue (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Greg, we should use representative quotes that explain what the book is about. We should not make the article a quotefarm from the book, but that is the opposite state from where the article is now. The author's opinion and summary of his own work is always relevant. Quoting makes it clearer that we are not trying to present facts, but opinion. From a pro-Polish POV, it simply doesn't make sense to edit out an author's (alleged) anti-Polish views and quotes. Our readers are not small children who must be protected. "Someone will take it for granted" is exactly what will not happen if we quote correctly. To simplify and exaggerate ( to think is to exaggerate) Suppose someone famous writes a book called Poles are Totally Evil, and its first sentence is "Contrary to common belief, the Germans did not kill any Jews, in fact they saved them from the evil Poles and this massively documented book shows how Germany and the Soviet Union protected themselves from Polish aggression." Should we leave such a sentence out of an article on the book? Ridiculous, doubly ridiculous if a reviewer points it out, whether approvingly or I hope, disapproving, and then we quote or cite the review. The more controversial, the more the suspected bias, the less the likelihood someone will take it for granted. Of course I and any policy-conscious editor agrees with you that Gross's book should not be taken as a plain, unattributed source of facts (if that is what you are saying), like the highly disputed and almost certainly wrong figure of 1,600 in his earlier book. The selected quote is selected from a review that considers it notable and enlightening, so there is not the slightest hint of OR in using it. It goes without saying that I endorse everything DGG and Gamaliel say above. The only thing I'd add is that - we do not discuss the underlying topic except by saying book review X says Y about the book's statement Z. To say anything else is OR.John Z (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So now, after removing all references from educational sites, you're going to change this article into a quote farm with selected quotes the way the sorry article Allegations of Israeli apartheid is, assuming only adults read Wikipedia. There is only one comment to that - that's how we make Wikipedia suck. Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Greg, I argued to keep the link to princeton. One quote is not a quotefarm. The article should be an NPOV, NOR book review. Book reviews usually - almost always - have quotes from the book. I don't really understand most of the objections. The way things usually work is the more against a book one is, the more one wants quotes from it. Quotes are the author, not us anonymous and omniscient wikipedians talking, and make it much less likely to be "taken for granted" as factual. Just repeating myself.John Z (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about a book, not about a particular review. Is this quote extraodrinary? Is it quoted by several reviews? If not, I don't see what will we gain from including it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it makes clear that Gross thinks there was a "novel, virulent quality of postwar anti-Semitism in Poland" spurred by the mere presence of Jews and guilty consciences. Not clear from the rest of the article. To quote is not to agree with this There seems to be a very strange idea that it is, or that it will somehow convince the reader's of its truth better than our summary, (which I find less informative and longer). What do you think about my made up example of Poles Are Totally Evil ? If it duplicates material elsewhere in the article, a better question is "what does this other material adds to the article?" Quoting improves neutrality in contentious material. It decreases OR-ishness. It increases credibility that what we say about the book is accurate. An anonymous editor's summary is always disputable and harder to check. Quoting is mechanically checkable, cut and dried, and less open to spinning. Is argument necessary that the author's own summation of his thesis is relevant to an article about a book?!? How could this NOT be "central to the article"?! It's the usual thing. If you can, find a better self-summarizing quote. What is there about this particular book that makes it a bad thing to quote it at all? We pick the best, most representative and informative quote that we can find. There are 4 editors arguing for quoting (Me, Boodles, DGG, and Gamaliel) Gamaliel's word "puzzling" goes for me to in regard to the opposition to it. How many reviews do you ask for? I saw some stuff at the piast instiute, didn't memorize where, that seemed to be arguing directly against this representative and informative quote. Here is DGG again "A short summary of a book can perfectly well includes a short quotation, and that is not copyvio, but accepted use everywhere in the world. It's often the clearest way to explain what the argument is "
Here's the quote, for convenience sake:

We must seek the reasons for the novel, virulent quality of postwar anti-Semitism in Poland not in collective hallucinations nor in prewar attitudes, but in actual experiences acquired during the war years...Living Jews embodied the massive failure of character and reason on the part of their Polish neighbors and constituted by mere presence both a reminder and a threat that they might need to account for themselves

Cordially,John Z (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we sure that this is the only quote from Gross we want to add, and that this quote best represents his book? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. I don't have the book. (I do/did have his earlier one, and I am not an admirer of it.) But I think we can put some quote in - this one for now, and find some reviewers criticism (or praise) of the quote or its thesis, and try to get a neutral, mainstream take on it. John Z (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
John, don't give me that good cop/bad cop crap. You have removed one vital source, Gamaliel removed another. The sources which summarized Gross' intentions and the very topic of the book. What's important, they came from educational sites. Now you guys litter this article with a mountain of newspaper trash to the point the article became uncomprehensible and on the top of this you want to litter it even more with Gross' inarticulate and pathological anti-Polish rant in the form of quotes. Why not keep it simple: bring back both those scholarly sources and add one quote (if you can find it) supporting the Gross' main thesis as a reply to his question why there are no more Jewish people in Poland?, then we take it from here. Besides, what do you think John, why? I think for the same reason why there are no Germans in Poland any more. But does it mean all Poles are anti-German? Or why there are no French movies in American media any more? Did you really believed if someone told you - that's why because all Americans are anti-French? greg park avenue (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What "vital source" did I remove? What "scholarly sources" were removed my John and myself? The only think I removed was a link to an advertising page with short quotes from "newspaper trash"? That isn't a scholarly source by any stretch of the imagination. Gamaliel (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There's at least 3 theaters in my town that show French movies regularly.Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I removed anything at all from the article. I supported and redid DGG's removal of the Eva Hoffman review, because unless she has a time machine or crystal ball it couldn't be an acceptable source. She wrote in 2004, while the book came out in 2006. I'll put it in myself if it isn't there already in the article on Gross's 2001 book, which she must have been talking about. FWIW, my own POV is much closer to hers than Gross's.John Z (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It wasnt even a review of Gross by Hoffman--it was a review of Hoffman by someone else altogether, which was being used as a counterpoint to Gross. In other words, complete original research. Hoffman did not review Gross. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It did mention Hoffman's view of Gross or counterpose Hoffman to Gross at the end, so that part is legit for the other book.John Z (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
All scholarly sources are educational sites with a suffix in its address .edu - and these both were like that. All commercial sites have suffix .com or other - all official sites are .gov - non profit organizations are .org greg park avenue (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's original research, or not related to the article, or if it's not a reliable suorce, it doesnt matter what the suffix is. A review of a book by Eva Hoffman (from 3 years before Gross book was published) has nothing to do with this artcile. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What original research? New York Times is .com meaning commercial, Princeton University Press and Wellesley College are .edu meaning educational. greg park avenue (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the URL, an advertisement for a book is not a scholarly source. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So what are the other thirteen references to this article as not the advertisements from commercial sites? They sell whatever policy they want to sell. American TV doesn't want us to see French movies, they don't sell it, and you don't have to buy it what they sell. Educational institutions cannot afford to sell bullshit, otherwise they would commit professional suicide. And even NYT can't buy the .edu domain. There were only two references from educational sites I have supplied, and both were removed, one even many times. It stays in clear violation with Wikipedia policy guidelines WP:RS which says that scholarly sources outweigh newspaper and other commercial sources, period. greg park avenue (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever your philosophical opinions about the newspaper business, established, mainstream news sources like the New York Times are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, period. A book from a scholarly publisher is an excellent source for Wikipedia, but an advertisement for that book is not a scholarly source, or a source of any kind. Gamaliel (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<---greg park avenue, can explain why you are so adamant about putting the Princeton Univ Press link into the article? I don't get it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Princeton source is the only one scholarly source [3] I know of, which supplied positive reference to Gross' book, however keeping it at the modest level without introducing this collective guilt slogan cooked up by Gross and marketed by NYT and LAT. Originally I placed it just after the statement "Fear has serious methodological errors and omissions, includes emotive use of political epithets, and therefore does not stand a chance of being accepted (even conditionally) in the historical community", just to keep track on the article thread. Princeton is also Gross' employer which speaks for itself, and beside that no one from scientific community came up with more hails, smelling rat I guess. Only newspapers which support political campaign for the cause of Holocaust survivors reparations. And that's what this book is about, to support political campaign, not an honest research. No educational institution will take seriously a book based on communist propaganda series called by Radio Free Europe during cold war "Supermen in blue uniforms" and written by regime writers Wladyslaw Machejek et al. greg park avenue (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The Princeton link was a book advertisement which contained little more than a list of quotes from newspapers, the very sources you denigrate in your rant. This is not a "scholarly source" and how the newspaper quotes are transformed from politically motivated trash into scholarly sources by the magic .edu domain is beyond me. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the ONLY scholarly source you got, but if you don't like it, suit yourself. greg park avenue (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not about "liking" the source, it's not even a source, it's a book advertisement! Gamaliel (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Gamaliel. I understand the scholarly sources don't exist, only commercial. All we need now is a quote farm and a syndicate columnist opinion repeating Mr Rosenbaum's thesis, so we can cite every small town America newspaper as a source. Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No. A book or journal from a scholarly publisher like Princeton are scholarly sources, advertisements for those products are not. Do you really not understand the difference? Can someone else try taking a crack at explaining this? Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't use the same book as a source to establish credibility of the book. One needs independent sources. And newspaper articles are good for establishing notability as per WP:N which is unquestionable in this case, but they are never good enough for establishing credibility of the book meaning reliability as per WP:RS. This way, there is an overkill in citing so many newspaper articles, too many of them are now already since they all say literally the same thing. But maybe I should quote Mark Twain my favorite quote supplier at this junction - a lie repeated many times may not be considered a lie any more, depends how good a liar is outspoken. greg park avenue (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but it seems what you are saying is that this advertisement from the book's publisher serves to "establish credibility of the book". Is this correct? Then how does it do so? Isn't that a conflict of interest? And why can't we simply rely on the fact that it is a well-reviewed book from an established scholarly publisher? Why do we need an advertisement to certify all of that? Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To establish credibility of the book which pretends to be a scientific non-fiction book, we need scholarly sources, and this Princeton junction is as close as we can get. And I wouldn't say it's a commercial ad. Any university around the world sells and prints books used for research and teaching (Princeton, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford), even if these are bad, and they usually attach a note what the book in question is about. That's how I see this source. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Newspapers are reliable sources. A book publisher's commercial website is not. I have no idea why we are debating this. If someone disagrees with that bedrock policy, it should be discussed on the appropriate policy pages, not here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not in scientific subjects which newsies and political activists support because they just like the language and its content fitting their agenda. These subjects must be confirmed first. And this is not commercial site, it's educational site. greg park avenue (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break after outdent for quote

Since there are no indications in the above discussion that restoring the quote violates any wikipedia policies or guidelines, I assume it is fine to restore it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there are no indications in the above discussion that you pay any attention to several editors who object to restoration of the quote and have presented arguments why it shouldn't be, I assume it will be quickly removed again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<----Can you cite a particular Wikipedia guideline or policy that restoring the quotes would violate? That would be the only reaosn to remove it, as opposed to the personal opposition (as distinct from Wikipedia policy guidelines) that some editors have expressed above. Personal dislike of material is not a valid grounds for removal; in fact, it is the veryu definition of a POV violation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, as the quote is not neutral. What policy would support inclusion of the quote? Personal like is not a valid grounds for restoration; in fact, it is the very definition of a POV violation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not following you at all, Piotrus. How is putting a representative quote from the book, reliably sourced, a violation of WP:NPOV? In an article about George Washington, wuold it be a violation of WP:NPOV to put a picture of Whashington because someone might think he's ugly? And how could it possibly be the case that the self-published opinions of a little-known think tank and a slew of Polish commentators are WP:NPOV, and the actual statement of the author they are criticising is not WP:NPOV? Can you please clarify, with reference to specifically what part of WP:NPOV is being violated by putting a quote from the book that is the subject of this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV does not apply here in the manner you describe. It is an article about a book, and it must present the contents, thesis, and arguments of that book in a neutral manner. Quoting the book does so. If the quote presents facts or arguments you feel are invalid, you can rebut them with factual sources or counterarguments from reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed,the quote should go in until someone suggests a more representative one. Ideally, using a quote also quoted in a relatively neutral review as being representative, or at least an indication that it represents the author's summary of the argument. But I do disagree with Gamaliel, that the place to discuss the arguments in the quote would not be here. Piotrus, you are almost always right about RSs on these subjects, but not this time. I agree it's an inflammatory quote, whether right or wrong; it is an inflammatory book, & the quote make its message clear. We give the context for that by showing the different reviews. DGG (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should rebut and/or support such quotes and the book's theses they illustrate by the many book reviews and RS discussions of the book available which do this; that doesn't seem to be out of place or OR in this book article to me, and that it what I think Gamaliel meant.John Z (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In an article about the book, the book is a primary source. We should be very careful about quoting primary sources. I particularly would wish to avoid quoting the most controversial or extreme statement in the book, as that is unfair to both the author and the underlying problem. I completely understand Piotrus' concern. If this book has been reviewed elsewhere, it should be trivial to demonstrate that the "novel, virulent" antisemitism that is brought up in the quote is a distinguishing feature of the book's argument. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's Willing Executioners

The Hitler's Willing Executioners article is completely different than this one. Why? Either the other article should be rewritten or this one. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Maybe both should be rewritten? Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you be specific about how you think they are different and what you think we should do about it? Gamaliel (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are we overdoing it?

I am not going to wade into the disputes here but one thing I do notice is that the Reception section is now longer than the information about the book itself. While there might be occasions when this is justified, it might also be an indication that we are overdoing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. Short or non-existent reception section may indicate non-notability (or at least relative obscurity). This book is rather notable, having generated much controversy in press and quite a few reviews, plus interests from academia, thus the reception section is above average.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, though we could possibly use a little more specific info about the book's contents. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And agreement to not automatically delete that content every time it is added. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In books such as this, the reception is frequently very important, and the amount space given is usually justified. That was the case with Hitler's Willing Executioners, where the "Critical reception of work" section far outweighs the rest of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An example of "POV pushing"

Notice the unexplained doctoring of the views of Feliks Tych in this edit. This is just one example of the sort of POV pushing taking place here, done without discussion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • NB: It is difficult to produce a good article when there are editors accusing each other of bad faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Certainly. WP:AGF is a policy for good reason. I do think, however, that almost all editors here edit and discuss in good faith, so I am sure we will work out a good compromise soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Use of representative quotes from the book and favorable reviews

A user has requested comment on History and Geography.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFChist list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Is it appropriate to use a represntative quote by the book's author stated it's main thesis, as well as quotes from favorable book reviews, even if some editors find the POV of the book objectionable.Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it is entirely appropriate. Care must be taken to avoide quote-farming, but the wholesale excision of these quotes is troubling. IronDuke 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, we are not talking about a wholesale excision of quotes, but about how many from each POV. As I wrote above, the fewer quotes, the better, and they should be balanced against each other, since both POVs here are about equal (POV weight issue).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, thats clearly not true--the critical reviews far outweigh the positive ones--and you have been attempting to cut the positive ones even further. The presentation of the books thesis is not part of the "positive side"--it's the basis for the article! It's a little disingenuous to call the description of the book's thesis part of one side of a POV. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Boodles. As I review the article, even with Boodles' additions, it is in violation of WP:UNDUE in its criticism of the book. There's a lot of good stuff in the crit section, but it must be pared down considerably. IronDuke 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Than the solution is to present more positive review, not expand the quotes with one or two existing ones (or the book). Not to mention that the "positive" reviews are all from popular press, and bulk of "negative" is from academic sources. Per WP:RS, academic sources are more reliable and should be given more weight (per WP:WEIGHT). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In the first place, it looks ot me like the bulk of the negativity comes from Poles. While that in now way deligitmizes the criticism, it does skew it -- it is natural that Polish people would evince hostility towards a book that critcized them. I'll also notes, en passant, that some of the criticism section has been skewed in a most unfortunate manner. For example, Paweł Machcewicz clearly indicates that the book is substantially correct. "It is true: Polish anti-Semitism existed. There were pogroms. Many Jews were killed. There is no reason to deny it or hide it. . . . But the language he used is counterproductive." [4] And yet he is simply listed as a critic. I also think, with respect, you are misinterpreting UNDUE. Even if no praise for the book existed at all, it would be wrong to pile negative citation after negative citation on it -- a footnote with a list of the Polish critics would suffice. As it stands now, this article looks very much like a hatchet job on the book. Needs a lot of pruning. IronDuke 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Also the positions of favorable and critical views are reversed from what they would usually be, and criticisms are placed first. I would reverse that, but can not with editing locked. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There was indeed some unfortunate tailoring of quotes. I've noticed it but since I was up to my full number of reverts I couldn't restore them. I trust over the next few day we will decide on what quotes to include, and whether they are fully representative. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The book is complete fable as evident even by historian from Jewish Historical Institute. As it was presented as history book rather then story made by person to instill emotions the section on criticism should be expanded, made into detailed list with notable examples of how this book was created. For example listing a man who died in traffic accident as "victim of antisemitism", or presenting false diary as authentic one.--Molobo (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not a "complete fable". Gross cites many true facts - as well as few proven incorrect - the main problem is that he draws a controversial thesis that has not gained either popular or academic support (although there are, I am sure, exceptions). And certainly his thesis has generated much media buzz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is consensus for this or any other edit, I can make the edit without waiting until the other disputes are resolved. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, let's wait. In addition, the 'favourable views' all almost all non-scholary, while the critical ones come from historians.--Molobo (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone tried looking for favorable scholarly reviews? I quickly found a few using a simple database search. I also found a favorable Publisher's Weekly review penned by Deborah Lipstadt - the publication may not be scholarly but the author certainly is. There were also unfavorable reviews from presumably non-Polish authors. And that was all in the space of a minute or two. Some legwork might be required to whip this article into shape - don't just rely on google. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Come, Gamaliel. This source was included in Princeton package I have supplied which you so eagerly helped to discard. And now you telling everyone to do a legwork. greg park avenue (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the link in question if any editor wishes to use it to help find actual scholarly sources. Can we close this silly matter now? Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Finally you got it, Gamaliel. That's where we should start looking at in the first place - at educational websites. I bet the author of the fourth enclosed newspaper review placed in Jewish Chronicle is also a notable scholar. Still, it's his/her private opinion, not endorsed by any educational institution. But it's ALL we got it until now. greg park avenue (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Jewish Chronicle Cesarani review.[5]John Z (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we can use this David Cesarani link as a positive news for a change. A little melodramatic - Gross shows, Gross says, Gross knows everything better than God etc. - at least not much of the newest research on his account as this collective guilt issue, just applauding Gross in place where others say no, he says yes. Cheers! Wait a minute! How we can use it when the article is blocked from editing? greg park avenue (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my earlier comment in this section when I said that I would make consensus edits to the article even if it is still locked due to other ongoing disputes. 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
We should certainly add more reviews from non-Polish authors to the international/US section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION This pretty clearly falls into WP:UNDUE. The percentage of pro vs. con quotes should reflect the overall reaction by critics. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Jeremy is saying about this particular article. I basically agree with Piotr as I understand him (I think Boodles and IronDuke misunderstood). 50-50 positive and negative, hopefully even some in between would be a good mix. At this stageI think it is better to add content (reviews positive and negative) than delete it. A scholarly review which seems to be positive is Engel's in East European Politics & Societies in the Further reading. I think Boodles has this review. I was going to suggest that he use it more extensively before the recent events, hope he can when he comes back. There's plenty of reviews (mainly newspapers) and reviews of reviews at the piast institute site. One interesting thing I saw looking for cites for the recent Lipstadt Gross event at YIVO in NYC referred to in the Neighbors or Gross article. It said many people in the audience got so hot and bothered they wanted both of them to be more anti-Pole, and they had to restrain the audience and refused to be as critical as they wanted. So these books stir up emotions so much that even the author is surprised! So I think everyone should try to keep cool and have some understanding when others are not. Cheers,John Z (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a mistake trying to calculate how the positive and negative reviews of the book are distributed, and probably insignificant too. It is quite enough to give a description of the content of the book, and a description of some of the main positives, and main objections in the reviews. In Poland the book created a fire storm of controversy, and that should be mentioned. There are far too many editors here trying to prove the "truth" as they see it, when they know very well that is not the job of Wikipedia editors. In any case trying to find truth in a political issue, which is what it is in Poland, is a completely subjective project -- and the findings of such subjectivity should not be forced into an article. The article should be balanced, but remain locked to avoid later tampering. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
With the exception of that last bit about permanently locking the article (we try to avoid such things at all possible on WP), this is pretty much exactly how everybody should go about editing the article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A very critical review by historian August Grabski from Jewish Historical Institute

[6]

I am adding it here, since it is interesting as it is critical from a point of view certainly not being right wing. August Grabski works for Jewish Historical Institute and certainly doesn't have right-wing views. I recomend for study and addition of some criticism to the storybook by Gross presented as history book.--Molobo (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What?! Are you saying that you think there are no right wing Jews? If that is what you think, you are very mistaken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What ?! Are you saying August Grabski is a Jew ? As far as I know he is a Polish historian from left mainstream. Are you saying he is Jewish ? I don't know any sources saying that ? I also don't think only Jewish people work in Jewish Historical Institute.--Molobo (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is how I understood what you said. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what Molobo was saying is that Grabski is a Polish non-conservative historian - to counter the claim (in the article, or one of its versions) that the book was only criticize by Polish conservative (right wing) historians. Also, being from the Jewish Historical Institute (I'll try to stub it soon from pl wiki), he is quite neutral (if not pro-Jewish). In any case, I plan on reading his article (published in a Polish academic journal, KWARTALNIK HISTORII ŻYDÓW (Jewish History Quarterly) nr 1/2006 (217)) soon.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is really quite enough

Okay, enough is enough. Today's edit warring got two people blocked. Everyone is attacking everyone else for being the instigator, infuriated over past wrongs and creating new ones. No one here seems to have the slightest idea what civility or NPOV actually means.

So we are going to discuss edits on the talk page before they are made, instead of reverts with no edit summary or worse, an attack filled one, claiming imaginary consensus, and incorrect applications of policy.

It's staying locked until everybody plays nice. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need this page protected. The only revert warrior just got blocked, and nobody but him was being reverted, thus there is no ground to suspect that any more problematic reverts will occur for the next 96h. I am unblocking this page, but giving full blessings to protect it again if I am proven wrong and any more revert warring occurs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no. You have been an active, long-term participant in editing this article and you have displayed active animosity towards another editor in the dispute. It would be an improper use of administrative privileges for you to either unlock or lock this article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So have you, and so you should not lock it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You are well aware that this is untrue and this is the second time you have accused me of something in reaction to my pointing out you acting improperly as an administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Piotrus Gamaliel, it is clear that you have you opinions about this. I find it improper to have the article locked with abusive edits.--Molobo (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am acting quite properly, thank you. I have not used admin tools on this article before you had, and I was warning - not encouraging - the editor who is now blocked for 10RR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked other admins for review of this protection. I believe it is unnecessary (who will edit war now?) and improper (Gameliel is as involved in this article as I am and should not use his admin powers to lock it down).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I support the lock on the article. Its necessary to cool things off. Moreover, there are editors who seem to see nothing wrong with edit warring and incivility. Those editors, if they are not willing to change their behavior should be permanently blocked from editing this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The only editor who saw nothing wrong with edit warring, who was the only person everybody else was reverting, is now blocked. I don't see why any revert warring should continue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It takes more than one person to edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I second the comment of Malcolm Schosha above, and support the lock, which should have been done earlier. Also, I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested to put at least three of the involved editors on the edit restriction list at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator.". While Boodlesthecat is a newcomer (to me) who overdid it by far, both Poeticbent and Piotrus are very experienced editors and no strangers to controversial Eastern European matters. They should have known better, and should join the two dozen editors already under edit restriction. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock protection. POV loaded articles shouldn't be protected as per simple logic and WP:NPOV. Restore {{POV}} template instead. greg park avenue (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logical fallacy

Loaded question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" This is a yes/no question, and there are only the following two direct answers: "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails that "I was beating my wife" or "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife." – But, what if the subject is unmarried, or has never beaten his wife?

The above example of a classic logical fallacy is meant to help illustrate the following predicament. The quote from Gross's book, introduced and defended by User:Boodlesthecat reads. "We must seek the reasons for the novel, virulent quality of postwar anti-Semitism in Poland" (a country with the majority of the Righteous Among the Nations). Gross's presupposition implies that "the novel, virulent quality of postwar anti-Semitism in Poland" was a fact (see above for the argument pattern) for which only "the reasons" must be found. However, no evidence is given in the article for any of these claims made by him. Meanwhile, Gross's expression "virulent quality" employs a qualifier suggesting a bitter, malicious, exceedingly notorious nature of this phenomenon, thus encouraging blind condemnation. This is a propaganda language based in loaded messages meant to produce an emotional rather than rational response. No wonder Polish readership was stirred by this sort of syntheses catering to an old anti-Polish stereotype disseminated by Jewish-Polish personalities abroad. The book sells in Poland very well indeed, but it's easy to understand why. The question is whether we have the moral right to promote such market driven controversy in the same manner here in Wikipedia? No, we don't.

I'm so impressed with the coolheaded and intelligent comment made above by User:Malcolm Schosha who was not involved in the creation of this article. He said: "It is quite enough to give a description of the content of the book, and a description of some of the main positives, and main objections in the reviews. In Poland the book created a fire storm of controversy, and that should be mentioned. There are far too many editors here trying to prove the 'truth' as they see it, when they know very well that is not the job of Wikipedia editors."[7] Couldn't say it better myself.

I would like to encourage those editors who agree with me about the confrontational nature of this ill-fated quote to please "walk your talk" and help remove it at the first available opportunity. --Poeticbent talk 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent, with all due respect, I am not inclined to agree with your analysis. The book is not asking you (nor any other person) if you have stopped beating anyone. If the book poses unfair questions, that could go into the article if there is a good source to support it. As for the presence of the quote, I have not been previously involved in articles that is about a specific book, and have been too busy to look at other articles (aside from just one), and I do not know if the inclusion of a quote is common. If the use of such quotes in articles about books is uncommon, perhaps it should be removed. But, if the quote contains a central thesis of the author (and I suspect it does), then a paraphrase of it could -- and probably should -- be put in the article as part of the book's description. The goal of the article should be a neutral presentation of the book's argument, and the reactions to it. The goal of the article is not to decide how much (if any) truth the book contains, nor to eliminate from the book's description those elements that editors think are not pretty. This is just an article about a book, and there is no reason to think that an entire nation's honor is being decided by what goes into this Wikipedia article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to add that I understand that, for editors on both sides of the issue, that this is a really tough article to work on. But leaving aside the issues raised by this book, everyone also knows of people such as Irena Sendler (and all the others who risked their lives by helping her save Jewish children), and so there is the light of the one to balance the darkness of the other. But there is no getting around that this is a tough article to edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The "logical fallacy" you detect seems doubtful to me. But if you are right about that, or if you are wrong, it is certainly original research....unless you have a source to support it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The question is whether we have the moral right to promote such market driven controversy in Wikipedia" We don't promote, and we don't un-promote (otherwise known as suppress). We describe. DGG (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Malcolm Schosha, "original research" is something we, the editors, strive against in Wikipedia Main Space. However, in discussion we just write to each other; that's how we share our understanding of the issues at hand while trying to avoid WP:BLP problems. This is not WP:OR. If you want to read more about what Polish reviewers say about Fear, just follow the links at the bottom of our article. Now, I'd like to bring my explanation "closer to home" for you with a theoretical comparison. Tell me please, how would you react to a solitary quote from a controversial book that said.

We must seek the reasons for the novel, virulent quality of postwar anti-Polonism in America not in collective hallucinations nor in prewar attitudes, but in actual experiences acquired during the war years...Living Poles embodied the massive failure of character and reason on the part of their American neighbors and constituted by mere presence both a reminder and a threat that they might need to account for themselves.

This is of course a question of semantics. Otherwise, such comparison with Gross would have been preposterous. The above paragraph triggers a number of nagging questions demanding an immediate answer. First: what "postwar anti-Polonism in America" do I mean? Second: what "collective hallucinations"? (Sounds like an insult.) Third: what "massive failure of character", what "threat"? Without explaining that, there's no going further. My imaginary quote (which, by the way, is not a book, but a quote only) is not asking, "if you have stopped beating anyone". Instead, it is asking "when did you stop".

Similarly, the quote from Gross’s book, now stripped of its context, makes a number of loaded assumptions about Polish people versus their Jewish neighbours. Each and every one of those assumptions is a sweeping generalization (if not an insult). And yet, that's not what seems to be the problem here. The problem is "the reasons for the novel, virulent quality" of those foibles, treated as a given. That is of course a logical fallacy. Because in order to "seek the reasons", first we have to define what "we" means, what "novel" means, and what "virulent" means in this context. None of this is explained in the article. Rather, the quote from Gross as it stands becomes an anti-Polish propaganda message. --Poeticbent talk 05:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent, I would like to end my participation in this exchange because I think I have already answered your argument as far as it relates to writing the article. You are, yourself, arguing based on a series of logical fallacies (including Proof by assertion), and you are clearly prepared to repeat your argument in an attempt to wear down any opposition to your views. I sympathize with you and I believe your intentions in this discussion are good; but it is also clear that the only way for me (or anyone who disagrees with your views) to reach agreement with you is to give in and agree with you. But, since it is not possible that I will agree with the position you have taken, it is better to just cut this short, and agree that we disagree. Moreover, since neither your views nor my views belong in the article, and since the purpose of article talk page to to help develop a better article, it would be better to focus on doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly discussion

I don't have access to the journals right now, but here are a few pieces that either review the book or, even better, extensively discuss this book in precisely the context with which we have a problem, i.e. its position in challenging historical memory:

  • Nice try User Relata Refero, but we already got these references English Historical Review and Journal of Cold War Studies, while International Journal of Sociology is a Polish source from Warsaw University. All these sources are negative in reference to this book. The only one which is positive we also got already, that's were this quote came from, but its a commercial website, not educational, just see here. But we can use the second source you have supplied, the one by Jan Kubik from Rutgers College. It has been stated in it that Gross have some fine points at the end of summary. Sorry but it's the only positive news for a change I could find. And you're right, most articles are unaccessible. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sage is a leading publisher of scholarly journals, and East European Politics and Societies is clearly such a scholarly journal, as it appears are all the journals listed by Relata Refero. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when you rely on publishers, Gamaliel? And if East European Politics and Societes is such a scholarly journal why it has not even a Wikipedia entry? I think, it's just another think tank as Piast Institute is. Or The New Yorker - mostly edited by students from Upper East Side, which also had good opinion of Gross' book. You guys just missed it. greg park avenue (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Reputable publishers - scholarly and otherwise - have long been a method of gauging the credibility and reliability of sources, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The lack of a Wikipedia article is not any sort of reliable indication of credibility, and you could find plenty of leading journals that lack Wikipedia articles. East European Politics and Societies is indexed in over half a dozen leading databases of scholarly journals, including MLA, and that seems to indicate that it is generally considered a reliable source in the scholarly world. And the New Yorker is hardly "edited by students", it has been a leading cultural publication in the United States for decades. I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which will give you an idea of the kind of methods Wikipedia uses to evaluate sources. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
EEPS has an impact factor of 0.348, which is very respectable as a scholarly source. What does that review say about the disputed quote? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
See Misuse of impact factor greg park avenue (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, nothing there challenges the fact that this is peer-reviewed, academic, and highly reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


MLA directory is an organization and is hardly a source of credible scholarly references since any publisher may be included in it, see inclusion policy: It's even against their own policy to include book reviews: The following kinds of writing are generally excluded from the bibliography: fiction, poetry, book reviews, unpublished dissertations, and entries in reference books. And regarding WP:RS the Wikipedia policy is: quote Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject, end of quote. greg park avenue (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say its a losing battle to discredit this journal in particular; I see nothing unusual about it. In fact, its published by the ALCS, and according to the Encyclopedia of Education, The ACLS Committee on East European Studies has expanded and consolidated scholarship on that region; it publishes East European Politics and Societies, the only significant peer-reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to that field. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious why Greg is so adamant about discrediting this journal. Greg, have you even read the article from that journal? Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ask Piotrus, he's from Pittsburg University, I am Cooper Union guy, that's how I now The New Yorker is currently edited by Upper East Side students, not my kind of crowd. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to the song by Shakira - Don't bother. greg park avenue (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of quoting WP:RS on the subject of fringe viewpoints? That is hardly relevant, unless you are contending that this quote pertains to the journal in question, or the MLA biblography, or the widely-reviewed Fear. If so, you are wildly misapplying that policy.
The MLA bibliography (not directory) is one of the most widely-used scholarly databases, and it is most definitely a source of credible scholarly references. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have gotten difficult to find free access even to academic book reviews on the web. I have noticed that EBSCO has a number of reviews of the book (I have no time to read them now), and many libraries give free access to that source, and with a library card can be accessed from home. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
ALCS or ACLS? The first is major baseball association, the other is private sector association, which one, lol? All right, you've got a point, Relata Refero, but this reference is already included. It's amazing me though you have found so little else on the positive side, but thanks for trying anyway, good job! greg park avenue (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

EEPS seems reliable to me. Do we know anything about the author, David Engel? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Prof at NYU.[8]John Z (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. He is certainly a knowledgeable and reliable expert, albeit we should note that he is a historian of Jewish, not Polish history - which will give him a certain bias. Further, I don't think his research on related issues (ex. his 1987 In the Shadow of Auschwitz: The Polish Government-in-Exile and the Jews, 1939-1942) is that neutral; his research on that issue was negatively reviewed by Anna M. Cienciala in The American Historical Review here - she pointed out several important errors and omissions (ex. ignorance of Żegota's existence or the fact that Poland was the only country where helping Jews incurred a death penalty) leading to a bias. If he has never reviewed his earlier conceptions, it is not that suprising that he would be more supportive to Gross thesis.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More reviews:

  • Kenney, P. (2007). "Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, an Essay in Historical Interpretation". Slavic Review 66 (1
): 108-110. 

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The notion that Engel somehow has a "certain bias" by virtue of him being a "historian of Jewish, not Polish history" shows basically the bias and ethnic baiting view of the editor, not of Gross, or academia in general. Can we please stop this medieval petty nationalistic silliness and edit an encyclopedia based what reliable sources say? One can just as easily accuse Cienciala of bias as a Polish Cross of Merit recipient, and we can play out this ethnic sniping ad nauseum. Or we can edit an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia guidelines. Engel is an eminently reliable source (who btw elsewhere in The American Historical Review has received praise); the quote from "Fear" that some editors are trying to remove is described by Engel as "Gross’s summation of his basic thesis" (p536). It is well within Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS and verifiability, which obviously takes preference over the personal disagreement of some editors with Gross' thesis. That disagreement is no grounds for excising basic, reliably sourced information from this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is not possible for you to stop ad hominem arguments ("the notion...shows basically the bias and ethnic baiting view of the editor"), I am afraid we don't have much to talk about. Engel is biased, just as Cienciala is, or Gross is, or any other scholar. Nobody, even in academia, is truly neutral. We, the editors, are biased and non-neutral - that means me, and that certainly means you. Nobody - no scholar and no editor - has a POV that equals truth. Unless you can comprehend this, no consensus can be reached.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is reached by following guidelines for WP:RS, WP:V, etc. That is how adults edit an article even though they may have personal biases. The quote from Gross' book which is what this article is about, is, according to a reliable source, Engel, "Gross’s summation of his basic thesis." It should not be removed because of anyone's biases, just like critical reciews of the book should not be removed (and, by the way, havent been) because of anyone's bias. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. For the first time you mentioned that this quote is what important according to a certain, reliable source. I would not object to a sentence that read: "According to David Engel, Gross' main thesis can be summed as follows: "Quote". [Ref].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems a promising solution to one of the pressing issues with the article, and so I'd like to hear what other editors think about this. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine. The quote is already cited to Engel in the footnote. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Gamaliel, could you unprotect the article so we can see if we can edit it peacefully now?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would feel more comfortable about unlocking it if more of the editors involved in the edit war over this matter commented here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong direction

I think this discussion has taken a wrong direction by focusing on scholarly sources. Although the author is a scholar, my understanding is that this book is written to a larger audience, and is intended to challenge readers with difficult questions that are painful but important. The fact that both the NYTimes and Washington Post chose non-scholarly reviewers suggests they saw this book in that way. Therefore not allowing those reviews as sources is a mistaken and this needs to be reconsidered, because the intention of the entire book is being distorted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. We can certainly expand a little more on reviews, scholarly or not. It is however important to note that non-scholarly reviews were generally positive while scholarly less so, as well as to note the less positive general reception in Poland. If not for the protection, we could be doing this right now - than it would be easier to see what one means. While I'd agree that Gross' intention was to generate media buzz - which of course boosted his sales considerably - such a statement would need a reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There's something near to it in the article already, the statement by Andrzej Paczkowski, who (more completely)

said Gross had succeeded in stirring up emotions but questioned whether the public debate would do much good. "This book is as much for psychologists as historians," he said. "I think in this case he's not a very good teacher. If you want to persuade someone of your own opinion, in my view, you should avoid scandals and media circuses and instead slowly demonstrate the course of events by relying on facts."[9]

Either from my own ineptness or as collateral damage from the edit wars, note 16 shouldn't be together with 15, but should be where the citation needed tag immediately after is now. Engel's paper says something not entirely dissimilar but in a positive perspective.John Z (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I am assuming that, at this point, we are talking about what can go into the article because it appears that changes are possible even with the article still locked. Do to the nature of the book itself, and do to the emotional nature of the reaction in Poland, there has been a lot of controversy. But trying to justify, or explain, the controversy by using scholarly sources pointing out this or that deficiency in the book, will only serve to distort of the emotional nature of the situation. Even if the author made some mistakes, that can not be used to explain the emotional reactions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
To certain extent, there is certainly a relation (consider that extreme opponents would say that lies provoke emotional response, and extreme supporters, that truth hurts). To what extent, well, it depends on what we can find in the sources. Details of praise and criticism from academic sources, as well as from non-academic ones - and differences between them - are certainly notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the academic sources are notable. But attempting to explain the firestorm of outrage caused by the book by some technical problems pointed out in the academic articles will result in an article that is completely distorted...not to say meaningless. The outrage is not caused by those (perceived) technical problems; but because the author either put his finger down on a spot that is very sore, or because he poked his finger in someone's eye. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I chose some "reviews" that specifically discussed the subsequent firestorm and the conflicts of memory that caused it, so those sources are reliable for that aspect of the article as well. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it is not academic reviews which were the cause of the controversy. That started first in media, and was later simply reflected by the academic reviews, some of which have been quite critical (just as some media were). Later, of course, media and further reviews built upon the earlier ones. Is there something in the article's text that is confusing? I wish it was not protected, so you could edit it and we could see what you mean; perhaps you could paste here the fragment that you'd like to rewrite and show us how? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical problems? Quoting Machejek is close to quoting Der Stürmer. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Perhaps as I suggested above, you could create an article on Władysław Machejek - it already exists on pl wiki - to help us understand this problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned Der Stuermer because of dehumanization of dead enemies. But The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is exactly the same case as the faked diary.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I think it is important to understand that technical problems that may, or may not, have led to deficiencies in the book itself, can not be sufficient to explain, or justify, the firestorm of controversy that has resulted. I suspect that some editors are trying to contain the problem poised by writing this article by narrowing the controversy to deficiencies in the book. Because of the extent of the reaction in Poland, that seems to be trying to explain too much with too little. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what is your expertise in Polish matters? Do you read Polish texts or rather quote opinions of other people? A Polish media star Stańczyk believed that every Pole is a medical expert. Is any American an expert in Polish antisemitism by default?

History of Jews in Poland edited by Jerzy Tomaszewski (Tomaszewski J., (praca zbiorowa), 1993, Najnowsze dzieje Żydów w Polsce w zarysie (do 1950), PWN, Warszawa) printed in Poland in 1993 describes crimes toward Jews committed after the war. The Kielce pogrom has been described in many books, some of them better than the one by Gross. The difference between The Fear and existing books is mostly in emotional language and unreliable sources.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GPA on Engel

I suspect those some editors maybe me(?). Wrong. Just to clarify one subject: I understand we're not discussing deficiencies of the content of the book here but deficiencies of its (scholar) reviews. Who says the quote cited in the article summarizes the topic of the book? One David Engel, a notable teacher at New York University says. But has the NYU endorsed that? No, someone else - the EEPS journal published not by NYU Press or any other of 95 university contributors to ACLS, see here, but by a for-profit publisher SAGE Publications - has. We don't even have access to this article to verify that. It's allegedly his own (Engel's) opinion we don't have to take for granted. If you want to keep that quote, please add: According to David Engel, Gross' main thesis can be summed as follows: "Quote". [Ref]. greg park avenue (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are you accusing me of attacking you? What is your justification for that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Suspecting is not attacking. Please refrain from speculations like that: I suspect that some editors are trying... etc or Users with strong feelings ... you have placed before on on Noticeboard. Then everything will be OK, I guess. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact I suspect that editors on the other side of the controversy are making the same mistake. But the particular reason I have written this is because there are editors who seem to be trying to position themselves as representing the bigger victim. Of course there really were victims on both sides. But this positioning is not a model for writing a good article. Nevertheless, perhaps, it just can not be avoided. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
greg, I thought you had agreed to not go off on tangents about policies you seem to be unfamiliar with. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Many leading scholarly publications are published by for profit companies. A large number of the world's leading journals in many fields are published by for-profit entities like Sage, Elsevier, and Gale. These journals are still considered reputable and the equivalent of journals published by university presses and the like. In any case, the Engel article is clearly qualifies under WP:RS, so this is tangential and unrelated to the matter at hand.
I'm sure an editor who has a copy of the Engel article will be glad to email it to you upon request. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I will do just that. John Z? Maybe even this Engel is a good guy, just the phrase is off hook? But how we would ever know until we try? Cheers! greg park avenue (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, Gamaliel. Sent a request (E-mail) an hour ago to User:John Z who appears to have an access to that source for a copy of it. Nothing in yet. Give it few days or so. greg park avenue (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Greg,check your @, I am sending you the paper.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, User Piotrus for suppluing and User John Z. for trying. John Z, you were right that this paper appears scholarly with a touch of critisism but a bit positive on Jewish side of the wall. I don't know if I can cite phrases from Pdf, I think one have to have permission to do that, so my first impression in short is here like that in my own words: Engel criticized the book for its author bracketing off Nazi era from the longer course in Polish history, but while doing this he (Gross) has altered the terms for reflecting on transgenerational Polish responsibility for past deeds. Engel's words: "This bracket emerges from Gross' summation of his basic thesis" ... [quote in question on page 261]... . I found it as a rather negative opinion by Engel of Gross' thesis, even if Engel evidently symphatizes with Gross, and it should be treated as such - Engel's own summary of Gross' book topic should not be removed out of this context, because this quote is offensive to the Polish nation. In my opinion Engel treats this quote as a writing on a wall and nothing else. Just like Prof. Edward Said from Columbia University replied once to question asked by journalists: "What this offensive to the Jewish nation writing does on the cover of your book?" - a book which seems similar in controversy to the Gross' book - he said: "It's just a writing on a wall and nothing else, and I didn't choose it, the publisher did". greg park avenue (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Chesterton Review

The Chesterton Review, Special Polish Issue [10] contains two articles about The Fear, availble in Polish [11].Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

This phrase, which I think was added yesterday, needs to be edited to remove weasel words:

Gross concludes with the claim that the cause of postwar anti-Semitism in Poland was the presumed wartime participation of selected Poles...

Clearly, "controversial", "presumed", and "selected", are added as an editorial effort to avoid saying what the author actually said. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been added yesterday, as the article is protected from editing and may remain so for a week or more :( I again ask for the article to be unprotected so we can fix things like the above now, before we forget.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two new books

Two selections of articles about The Fear and other books by Gross have been recently published in Poland:

  • Cena Strachu Gross w oczach historyków, Jankowski Robert (editor), Fronda [12]
  • Wokół strachu, Znak [13]

Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give us some indication of their contents , their orientation, and their reception. DGG (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The first is anti-Gross.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection removed

Since things seem to have calmed down a bit, I have decided to try unprotecting the article. I know some editors are anxious to make a number of non-controversial edits. However, if you wish to make controversial edits, use this page to discuss them first. If I see editors using this as an excuse to reignite edit wars, especially those editors who have ignored the discussion page, I will consider reestablishing protection or other methods to discourage edit warriors. Gamaliel (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel expressed his disappointment (here) about the last edit I made on May 29, 2008. You certainly deserve an explanation my friend. But first, let's give credit to Piotrus who formally contested your decision to lock the article with arguable POV in it. Piotrus waited for you to unlock it yourself. I have already expressed my concerns regarding the inflammatory nature of the quote in question (here and here) so I didn't consider it essential to do it again just because the page became accessible. Please let me go over my moral objections here again. – Accusing any nation en masse of racial hatred is not rational. Similarly, appealing to raw emotions is "a stuff of books", but there’s no place for it here. There is no place for partisanship in any encyclopedia whatsoever. Politically charged publications are written all the time, driven by market forces and usually aimed at a selective audience. Nevertheless, our task as Wikipedia editors is different, because our neutrality (going in all directions) serves as our core policy. That's the jest of it and I hope you’d be willing to approve of my rationale this time. --Poeticbent talk 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a book called Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, and also the reactions to that book in book reviews, scholarly journals, and in the mass media. It is not your job as a Wikipedia editor to select what you personally consider "rational" for inclusion in the article, and and to select what you consider irrational for removal. If you do not revert your last edit, and submit it to further discussion, I will revert it myself (and I very much hope that is not necessary). Your edit is too large in the circumstances of this controversy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Glossary of Technical Terms for Comparative Reading,[14] quotation is "an actual passage from a text used to support a point made in a critical essay". Intentionally or not, the quotation from Gross is used to support a point about Poland, a point about "collective hallucinations" of Polish people and "the massive failure of character and reason" on their part. Such strong language is the reason why the revert war continues. However, there's no place in Wikipedia for inflammatory statements of political nature of any kind. The revert war must stop. Please, since the article is controversial enough as it is, try to refrain from baiting and lecturing others about what is and is not our job. We have our policy guidelines for that. Instead focus on improving the article by following WP:NPOV principles. --Poeticbent talk 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Poeticbent, there has been no consensus for removing that quote. Personally, I would have preferred a different quote from the book because that one is (in my view) rather badly written and so difficult to understand that it takes several readings to get the the point of it. But, because it does summarize the author's view, its presence in the book is justified. If you have good sources that support your position, that the author is guilty of bad scholarship because of making that statement, that should be in the article too.
In general, my objections are more to what you want to remove from the article, and less with what you want to add. In any case, I think it would be better to go step by step and get agreement for each change. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop baiting me with your assumptions of no consensus to remove the quotation in question. Your assumption is not supported by the article’s history. Read the history page instead. You will find for example that three different editors attempted to remove that ill-fated quotation from the moment it was introduced by User:Boodlesthecat. The ensuing edit war was conducted by the originator in defiance of our basic Wikipedia policy guidelines. Please try not to misrepresent the facts. Here they are.

  1. Boodlesthecat added the quote on 20:40, 19 May 2008
  2. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 21:04, 19 May 2008
  3. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 21:09, 19 May 2008
  4. Alden Jones removed the quote as of 21:14, 19 May 2008
  5. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 21:22, 19 May 2008
  6. Alden Jones removed the quote as of 21:36, 19 May 2008
  7. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 00:20, 21 May 2008
  8. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 07:23, 21 May 2008
  9. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 12:12, 21 May 2008
  10. Piotrus removed the quote as of 12:56, 21 May 2008
  11. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 14:23, 21 May 2008 3RR
  12. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 15:14, 21 May 2008
  13. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 15:58, 21 May 2008 4RR
  14. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 16:10, 21 May 2008
  15. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 16:13, 21 May 2008 5RR

I don't have time to go on like this. --Poeticbent talk 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you "don't have the time" why not step back? If you do (in fact) have time, I could do without your accusation: "Please stop baiting me...", because I have not bated you. I have disagreed with you, and that is something you will have to live with. But, if there have been any occasions when I have been uncivil toward you, or any others editing this article, I will apologize if you point them out to me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Alden Jones was a drive-by edit warrior who never participated in talk page discussion, and Piotrus' comments above indicate that (correct me if I have interpreted them incorrectly) he will currently accept the quote if it is presented in a particular context. Other editors, not just Malcolm, have posted their opinions on the talk page and shouldn't be ignored because they did not edit war. Instead of dragging up past conflicts, let's focus on the current discussion. 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 June 2008
Gamaliel, you just made a totally unnecessary personal comment about a third party editor. Let's step back together and take a deep breath, all three of us, OK? --Poeticbent talk 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent, I want you to consider this a warning. If you persist in edits that impose your POV on the article -- and without discussion, much less consensus -- I will try to get you blocked from editing the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Few general observations, nothing personal: If there is a consensus to acknowledge the scholarly basis to cite this quote, and it looks like it is, it may stay as long as the references to the scholar in question reviewing this book - if he gave his reasons to cite this quote which he did - are provided. In my opinion he found it as a weak point of the book trying to play the devil's advocate. This obviously biased quote should never be introduced out of context into Wikipedia or any other document to make an impresion that the overall opinion is just like that, or . If a newspaper does something like that, we cite which newspaper does, and name possibly an author of such an editoral too. If we introduce the slogans such as: "Juden raus" (cited in The Holocaust) into Wikipedia, we give the proper references and its context too, just to show we don't mean it - someone else did. There is even an article titled Nur für Deutsche. Does it state Wikipedians prefer Germans more than, say, Jewish? No, we just put it on record that such slogan existed in Nazi era Germany and must provide proper backup. Just a word for Sunday if you know what I mean - sorry, running late - Monday greg park avenue (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the quote misrepresents the book? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't say, didn't read the book, but it may be, relying on Mr Engel's and Mr Rosenberg's reviews, even if they came to the opposite conclusions; if so then it's devastating for the book. Just wonder who Mr Gross wanted to impress by it? But it's rather a rethoric question, as if you were asking Czesław Miłosz why he invented a corousel in his controversial poem [Campo Di Fiori]? Even authentic Warsaw Ghetto survivors from Israel acknowledged years later that such an event as portrayed in the poem never took place. Just an imagination of its author. A poetic metaphor, but it was blown out of proportion by many sources including newspapers. Curious thing is only Milosz testified to this story, no one else did, no one else saw it, very odd, taking in account Warsaw counted about one million souls back in 1943. greg park avenue (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Content" section

Why is the "Content" section being used to poison the well by including reviews of the book?

That section should be a neutral description of the content of the book, not a refutation of it. Yet the book is described as containing "rhetorical argument[s]" and "sweeping generalizations", it is described as "often inflamatory" and a slander "against the entire people". In addition, the quote from the book is (a) interrupted by a "lopsided" tag and (b) followed by a rebuttal.

I think this is an inappropriate "double-dipping" of criticism. The book is criticized while it is described, and then it is whacked again when its critics are quoted in the "Reception" section.

Also, why is the "lopsided" tag in the middle of a direct quotation? Does the editor who put it there understand what it means? Gross says that postwar antisemitism wasn't the result of "collective hallucinations", and you think that's a lopsided opinion? Do you think the article needs to quote somebody who thinks antisemitic Poles did suffer from collective hallucinations? In any event, it is wholly inappropriate to put tags in the middle of a direct quotation.

As others have argued above, quoting Gross does not imply that he is correct or that Wikipedia endorses his views. It simply means "here's what his book says". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's Willing Executioners contains one statement by author and a long paragrpah Critical reception of work. Why so much interest in the Fear and so little in Critical reception of work and thousands of other books about the WWII and Holocaust? Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article about Hitler's Willing Executioners is a disgraceful example of POV editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to explain my interests to you, Xx236. But I give you credit for trying to change the subject instead of addressing the problems I identified in this article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about User Xx236. He positively contributed to this article a lot. I think this article is now in pretty good shape, until someone starts tinkering with it again, of course. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP again? Criticism of Chodakiewicz

I believe that this para - a criticism of Chodakiewicz (as a person) by Gross - is mostly irrelevant and violates BLP. Such criticism - in essence, a personal attack - reflects poorly not on the target, but on the issuer. This should not be included, to protect not only Chodakiewicz but Gross himself. We discuss Gross works, not what various people - including historians - in a moment of weakness - called Gross; we should not dwell on what Gross called his opponents - personal attacks in academia are irrelevant here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK, but including in the article critics calling Gross "a vampire of Polish history" are cool with you. Nice sense of balance. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between adding an offensive quote and a link to a reliable publication supporting important yet neutrally worded statements in the article. One can say that historians are critical of Gross (or Chodakiewicz, if we would be writing about his book or review...) without emotional and unencyclopedic epithets.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is not a fish market where housewives repeat gossip heard on talk shows. This one quote already in mainspace is quite enough. Anyway, it remains me of another one by Lenin: Anyone who speaks of non-class politics and non-class socialism, ought simply to be put in a cage and exhibited alongside the Australian kangaroo or something like that - [15]. greg park avenue (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

User Malcolm, go to see the article Holocaust first until you decide that this term is a sole monopoly of Jewish nation to claim to be the victims of WWII Holocaust. What about Roma, ethnic Poles, Soviets, and others? Your revert [16] violates WP:NOR and the only reason you gave for it disqualifies it as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. greg park avenue (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Post scriptum: If Gross really claimed in his book that the only victims of Holocaust in Poland were Jewish, then you guys must provide proper reference to support it, because it would reduce the credibility of this book to less than zero. Even I wouldn't believe it. Do you really want to do that? (refactor BLP violation) greg park avenue (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain better? I do not understand your objection to the edit. I would also appreciate it if you do not again accuse me of bad faith editing, nor declare me "disqualified" from editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't use that wording: "disqualifies you from editing". Just the reasons you gave for reverting the edit: "last edit (by User Boodlesthe cat) is better". Now, you explain, why that last edit is better? greg park avenue (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg the only change made was from "the horrors suffered by Poland during World War II, including the physical destruction of Poland's Jews;" to "the devasation suffered by Poland during World War II and the physical destruction of Poland's Jews;"; this is because "horrors" is not an encyclopedic or academic term. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's right, and you missed the word including which is encyclopedic but its omission turned the context upside down. And, please, do not revert my talk edits. You're not an admin to do that - it's an obvious vandalism. An outsider User Malik has already rewritten crucial POV points in this article and an overall consensus has been reached until you came back. So why to start another war? greg park avenue (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg, as you noted previously that you haven't read this book, could you please spend less time belligerently arguing about the book's credibility and about edits made to improve this article and attacking editors, and perhaps use the time constructively by reading the book? Also, please read WP:BLP. Anyone can refactor BLP violations, such as the ones you continually make on this page. And please note that accusing editors of "vandalism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
To refactor BLP violations one must show first the violation took place. Simple "I don't like it" is not enough. Anything else is vandalism. And I am not reading this book until at least ONE scholar source deems it as positive and worth reading. Until then I better rely on sources I got and rather IGNORE an obviously poorly written book. Actually, I have better things to do than read such stuff. That's why I didn't read works by Lenin too, it would be a pure waste of time as it shows by now. greg park avenue (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, end of discussion then, since the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to this article about a book, and not your opinions of a book you haven't even read. See ya. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What discussion? User Malcolm Schosha didn't even get to it yet, to at least try to explain his revert (don't count the personal remarks). Waiting for him almost all day to enter discussion, and what, nothing, 100% personal remarks, zero percent discussion. And that's what this section of the talk page was created for - to enter discussion about this particular revert just to avoid another edit war. Thanks anyway for finally stopping to act as a broker. Hope he doesn't need an advocate, does he? greg park avenue (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
post scriptum - coded message from Destiny's Child squad to User Malcolm: I don't think you do, so, you and me are thru! Thanks anyway.
I support Boody's and Malcom's edit regarding this fragment. The language was indeed unencyclopedic and "emotional". Greg's point about human side of Polish occupation would be best served by linking the occupation of Poland article (expanded from the treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Emotional" is the right word, each review says that. And we can't link content of the book to occupation of Poland knowing this part has been omitted in it. And why add a useless link, just because someone singled out Jews as the only Holocaust victims? So what we got now? Good written article (GA class) about bad written book? Couple more changes like that and the book will look even worse than it appears already, but since it's not my agenda I think it's time to stop doing it right now. greg park avenue (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have any suggestions for improving the article, please feel free to suggest some. There is nothing in the article that "singled out Jews as the only Holocaust victims" so please stop criticizing non-existent issues. Otherwise, I fully support your stated decision. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
So just revert the word "and" back to "including" meaning half of your original edit, then everything is back on track. I don't give a shoot about the first part and wouldn't bother to interfere with some minor unencyclopedic expressions concerning language. Thanks. greg park avenue (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does it make a difference? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It suggests Gross doesn't understand there were other Holocaust victims than Jewish. I think it would be unfair to him until proper ref is provided - not necessarily a quote - a ref with page number would suffice. Do you think you can handle this assuming you read the book? This section deals with content of the book, shouldn't be edited lightly. greg park avenue (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg, how can you possibly read the sentence "the devastation of Poland during World War II and the physical destruction of Poland's Jews; the initial partition of the country between Stalin and Hitler; the subsequent Nazi crimes; the Katyn massacre of Polish army officers by the Soviets; the Warsaw uprising of 1944; the Soviet decision to postpone their advance until the German army had defeated the Polish Armia Krajowa, which resulted in the destruction of Warsaw" and conclude that it only refers to Jewish vitims?? And please note, the paragraph does not mention the Holocaust, that's your addition. And please note that with a capital H, the term is understood to refer to the destruction of European Jewry, so it would be incorrect to refer to other Holocaust victims. But the paragraph doesnt say "Holocaust," so it doesnt matter. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, if you don't want to change "and" → "including", change Holocaust in Poland → holocaust. Both versions will do. Your cited above text without links - the devastation of Poland during World War II and the physical destruction of Poland's Jews, will with links sound like that: Occupation of Poland during World War II and the physical Holocaust in Poland, and it doesn't make any sense. Either change text, or change links,; otherwise it's confusing and logically inconsistent. And it's not Gross' fault, it's yours. Why to tinker with already good text and make good article look bad? greg park avenue (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are having a problem with. The links are accurate. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to "including", which seems to make more sense. After all, if you get rid of the things on that list, it wouldn't have been much of a devastation. "And" tends to imply the things on a list are separate, which I think was Greg's point.John Z (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine. I wasnt following the whole "Holocaust" argument. The section was worded awkwardly due to many edits; I believe it initially neglected to mention the destruction of Polish Jewry at all. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's about it, John Z. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion: transcriptions from Radio or TV talk shows shouldn't be included as reference, doesn't matter if these are pro or con. Any scholarly sources are welcome, even after it became evident the scholarly community didn't come down on Gross in flocks. greg park avenue (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception in the US

This section is grossly unbalanced. It devotes a little bit of space to describe the reviews by leading US mainstream newspapers and than devoted 3 times more space to the rebuttals of these reviews by much more obscure authors. The favorable reviews are simply mentioned and not quoted while "rebuttals" are quoted extensively. The main subject of this section should have been the reception of the book, which means its reviews, sales, reprints, etc. Due to a multiple undue injections of text, the section is made to be devoted to the "receptions of the reviews" rather than the book. I suggest expanding on the reviews and shortening on the "reviews of the reviews". --Irpen 05:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I started balancing the section by quoting from just one review for now. I am out of time for now. So, will continue later. --Irpen 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That quote sounds not too good. We should avoid such expressions as you read it breathlessly, page turner, non-stop thriller. We don't sell books or place adds, do we? You can find better quotes by David Margolick, Thane Rosenbaum, Simon Griver and even by bestselling author David Baldacci here. That one by Mr Rosenbaum was already included by me, but was later rewritten and finally dismissed. Good luck! greg park avenue (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The feedback I heard at one seminar attended by mostly Jews and Poles was in line with Gross sensationalizing the topic and being a step backward, not forward, in Polish-Jewish relations. That someone reads the latest book breathlessly says much about writing style, but little about factual objectivity. The book is not supposed to be a novel. I don't see that the article is currently unbalanced. —PētersV (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The only well documented section of the book is Kielce pogrom, but those killings were carried out by official communist regime funtionaries, mostly militia, not by citizens who didn't carry neither firearms nor machetes. Wrong part of the world, Kielce is not in Texas or in Rwanda. The rest of the book is based on story books and fake diaries created by communist regime writers. But to keep the fast pacing action of his story, Gross had to fill in the holes in it and base it upon something. I think he would be better off ih he wrote this story as a novel based on a true fact (Kielce pogrom), just like Leon Uris in his bestseller Exodus did. It would be cricized of course the way Uris' book was, but Gross would save some face at least. greg park avenue (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said you didn't read the book, Greg. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
But I have managed to read all these fake stories on which this book is mostly based while still in People's Republic of Poland, Boodles. All except the one about the Kielce Pogrom - that one was never published, but it's still the same old history of communst pogroms, just as Poznań 1956 protests is, with its final chapter staged by communists coming always to the same happy ending and inescapable conclusion: blame it on workers. Now Gross tries to sell us new idea: blame it on Poles. greg park avenue (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Greg, please read the Wikipedia talk page guidelines. The talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not a forum for you to incessantly air your opinions--views which, by your own account, are not even informed by even having read the book under discussion. Please stop. It is tedious and disruptive, and frankly, I think few editors care about your opinions in the absence of you making any constructive efforts on behalf of this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
So what the constructive effort to improve this article according to you would be? To include a line Don't even start to read this book tonight, if you're going to work tomorrow? I am just responding to this quote inserted by User Irpen, which reads as a cover note to Murder she wrote or stories by Jonathan Kellerman or James Patterson about fictional serial killers, or other thrillers about witches and werewolves around "hunted" London castles and Thames by British authors. You didn't object to this quote, just tried to remove an already established review from Polish leading daily instead. This book supposed to be non-fiction book, and I'm doing my best to supply scholarly references which are hard to find - almost none. A non-fiction book like that supposed to be written as Helter Skelter about Charles Manson family's crimes and their trial by Vincent Bugliosi was - based on court transcriptions mostly, some insight of it's author who happened to be the D.A. in that trial was welcome, some headlines by newspapers too. Some ratings from New York Times bestselling list concerning this book may also be included - not the selected list of reviews and blurbs in form of a quote farm. It's not the Wikipedia way, as I said before - we don't sell books or advertise them. If you want to promote this book, create your own webpage, and if the book is as good as they say, the scientific community will come back to you in flocks. greg park avenue (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Greg, please read the Wikipedia talk page guidelines and stop your incessant rantings. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick to the issue at hand. The section of the article due to its title is devoted to the reception of the book in the US. Most of the section was devoted to the reception of the reception instead, that is extensive quoting of numerous rebuttals to the raving mainstream reviews published by the most respected American review publishers. Rebuttals themselves, however, come from little known (to the general public that "receives" the book) Polonophile institutions. It is totally OK to disagree on the book but the rebuttal of the reviews should be secondary to the reviews themselves.

I must add that indeed numerous opinions about the book posted here by Wikipedians (especially since they did not bother to read it) as well as sharing with us what one could hear at some seminar.

This talk page should be devoted to discussing the article about the book, not the book itself. --Irpen 04:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying missing Thane Rosenbaum's quote. You just did the same thing I did before, see here. There are only two reviews of review. One concerning Mr Rosenbaum's, which was added after I supplied it, the other concerning Elie Wiesel's review which was added even later. This one is also missing, so I suggest to replace Publishers Weekly's quote by Washington Post's, if you can find it, of course. We don't need that many quotes unless you want to create a quote farm. Besides, there is only one quote from the book either, but if you read the book, you have right to introduce another one just to keep balance, in such case please supply the page number. The first quote by David Margolick is just a blurb and disgrace to Wikipedia, vote to speedy delete it. greg park avenue (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: the "seminar"--My point was to convey what Poles and Jews both in Poland and the diaspora (who have read the book) were saying about Gross. Not about my own POV, read or unread. It's not just Poles that take issue with Gross's work. My expectation is that skepticism regarding Gross's scholarship be clearly represented and not as just "Poles protest." —PētersV (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

U.S. and Poland for reactions is a bit restrictive. Also, the sections mix "pro" and "con" willy-nilly. Might I suggest...

  1. Reactions outside Poland
    1. Praise
      1. Press
      2. Scholarly
    2. Skepticism/Criticism
      1. Press
      2. Scholarly
  2. Reactions in Poland
    1. Praise
      1. Press
      2. Scholarly
    2. Skepticism/Criticism
      1. Press
      2. Scholarly

Just a thought. And "NPOV" does not necessarily mean an equal # of quotes in each section. —PētersV (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. It was once done within a similar messy article just like this one: Allegations of Israeli apartheid. An exceptionally modest User came up with the idea of restructuring that article without changing its context - User:HG - and even made an effort to do that in his sandbox (I think a Barnstar would be appropriate), then I came into the picture as a slightly involved contributor, and just made a switch. And guess what, no one complained, the structure of that article stays until this very day, even if the content has been changed many times according to lack of consensus by users with varying POV, who are plenty of, considering the controversial issue. greg park avenue (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)