Talk:Jedwabne pogrom/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

OR

The following diff has been challenged by multiple editors. The refs (not properly formatted) are to primary accounts (which seeem cherrypicked), with most of the text beyond the accounts being OR, e.g. Michael Maik's diary quite obviously does refer to the IPN - and likewise the entire prefix to these selective (and quite possibly other problems) quotations is OR, not sourced to the references provided. On anfuther note, we should avoid, per WP:FRINGE, giving unbalanced weight to a narrative that appeared primarily in the far-right press which place sole responsibility to the Germans.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I just correctly formatted the references. Can you please elaborate how this:

• ->The Diary of Michael Maik: A True Story (Kedumim, Israel: Keterpress Enterprises, 2004)
• Hone Holcman, “My Sisters Tell,” in Yitzchak Ivri, ed., Book of Kehilat Ostrolenka: Yizkor Book of the Jewish Community of Ostrolenka (Tel Aviv: Irgun Yotzei Ostrolenka in Israel, 2009)
• Harold Zissman, The Warriors: My Life As a Jewish Soviet Partisan (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005)<- is "far-right press" and what "possibly other problems" are in the above sources?GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Working towards consensus, I can see elements of merit on both sides of the discussion here, so perhaps a quick solution is possible. First of all, Icewhiz is correct that there's a narrative, PPOV tone to the content, in breach of WP:NPOV. For example, in lines such as IPN was not aware of these important testimonies at the time of the investigation. That opinion needs to be attributed to someone, and cannot be in Wikipedia's voice. The tendency runs through the whole piece of content, and extends to breaches of WP:CHERRY. Per WP:RSUW, Wikipedia policy clearly states that just because a reference is verifiable, that doesn't mean it should be used to support minority accounts or theories; and especially not if these are at odds with the generally accepted understanding or academic consensus. This said, we have to drop the pejorative allegation that the source can be thrown out because it is 'far-right', which for Wikipedia purposes is irrelevant (and anyway a matter of opinion, which will prompt a meandering debate). To my mind GizzyCatBella is within her rights to include at least a mention on the content and the source in the article, in fact in keeping with WP:NPOV. Per WP:PRESERVE, some of the content can be kept, and with better phrasing and better focus on the WP:SECONDARY elements of the source. Icewhiz, can you please propose some improved content, as an alternative to entirely removing it? -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be removed wholesale - unless there is an actual secondary source - and a reputable one - who makes reference to these accounts (which if they are significant - will surely have been referenced by one of the sides to the debate - much has been written about Jedwabne in the past two decades - if you can't find a source discussing these account - then it is a red flag). I will further note that I suspect some of these will fail verification (though I did not remove this on those grounds) - GizzyCatBella - do you have access to the original books? I suggest a proper secondary source be presented - and then we can discuss what to include.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] & [2] from this book [3] and this [4] available on line. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella - the refs above do verify hearsay accounts by survivors (not that they were there and saw this - but that they remember that during the war they heard from other Jews this account about Jedwabne) - and all this from a WP:PRIMARY source (the account itself). Is there any WP:SECONDARY source covering the Jedwabne pogrom as a subject that mentions these hearsay accounts?Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I can see both sides here. GizzyCatBella is providing verification per WP:V, and Icewhiz is requesting WP:SECONDARY verification. Both are within their rights. Wikipedia doesn't rule out the use of primary sources, but it does require us to use them with care, especially when it comes to interpretation of them. Let's have a closer look at WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Has this been breached, or not? -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Used with care. And we also have UNDUE which separately would preclude something no else cites. As forr the text inserted - it misrepresents these PRIMARY hearsay accounts - treating them as " The earliest reports by Jewish eyewitnesses, provided very shortly after events, emphasized the key role played by the Germans in the massacre" - as these are not reports, but someone saying he heard something from someone else, and due to there being no such emphasis in the hearsay account. Jews often conflated Nazis and their assistants (Polish or otherwise) in war time accounts.Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that the actually earliest Jewish testimonies - e.g. Szmul Wasersztein from April 1945 (and more is available in the yizkor book - are different from the primary accounts (and OR on them) introduced to the article - which are hearsay accounts repeated long after the war (A survivor saying, some time after the war, that during the war he heard something about Jedwabne. If we should introduce accounts - it is perhaps of Wasersztein who is discussed in various sources. Wasersztein was not present at the barn , hence surviving, but was I saw with my own eyes how they killed Chajca Wasersztein, 53 years old; Jakub Kac; and Eliasz Krawiecki. Kac was stoned with bricks, Krawiecki was knifed – they ripped out his eyes and cut his tongue – and he suffered inhuman agony for 12 hours until he died. The same day I saw a terrible sight. When Chaja Kubrzanska, 28 years old, and Basia Binsztein, 26 years old, both with babies on their arms, saw what was happening, they went to the pond in order to drown themselves and their children, rather than fall into the murderers hands. They threw the children into the water and drowned them with their own hands. Binsztein jumped in and immediately sunk to the bottom, while Kubrzanska still struggled for several hours. The thugs that gathered around the pond behaved as if it were a spectacle. They told her to lie with her face in the water to make her drown faster. When she saw that the children were dead, she threw herself into the water and died. - and heard accounts rather first hand.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Quote from above (Icewhiz) -> Jews often conflated Nazis and their assistants (Polish or otherwise) in war time accounts - How do you know that? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz I agree that no primary sourcing should take precedence over another, and Wasersztein's testimony is no less merited here than any other. This said, please let's try to establish WP:CONS on the Talk page, instead of WP:BOLD edits, in order to avert an edit war. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wasersztein is more merited than others - as it is widely covered and quoted in several scholarly secondary sources (Gross, continuing with the positive and negative critics of gross, and of course other coverage of Jedwabne in the literature) - who either quote it - or paraphrase it.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So in other words Icewhiz it has to be your way, right?GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I presented several high-quality secondary sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So do I. Would you self revert until we reach consensus ? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources you've presented has been a secondary source - they are diaries and collections of primary accounts - and in all the topic is not Jedwabne - which is mentioned as an aside.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

These are perfectly valid sources. Would you self revert until we reach consensus?GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Self-revert what precisely?Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

[5] GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no secondary coverage of that, and "According to some Jewish witnesses testimonies shortly after the massacre, the Germans set the barn ablaze and shot those who tried to escape." - sourced to Michael Maik's diary is an incorrect description on a number of counts:

1. It should at the very least be attributed to "according to Michael Maik's wartime diary, he had heard from Jedwabne and Radziłów refugees that...".
2. Maik himself (looking at non-V source - that may be misquoting - but in the direction of denial of Polish participation), in the hearsay account says "With the help of local peasants, the Germans...." - not, "the Germans" - omitting "with the help of local peasants" misrepresents Maik in relation to the point this ill formed piece of text is trying to make.
3. This fragment - is mis-sourced - as this Maik's diary (in a different translation), and is not present in the two cited sources at the end of the pargraph - According to a diary, penned during the war and citing reports by Jews who fled from Jedwabne and Radziłów: “With the help of local farmers, the Germans gathered the Jews of these places, with the rabbi and leaders of the community at the front, in the market square. At first, they beat them cruelly and forced them to wrap themselves in their tallitot, to jump and dance, accompanied by singing. All this was done under an unceasing flood of lashes from cudgels and rubber whips. At the end, they pushed all the Jews, while beating and kicking them, into a long threshing house and set it on fire with them inside."
4. The second quotation appears in The Warriors but not in the Ostrolenka yizkor (the Ostrolenka citation not supporting any of the text it is referenced to).
5. No secondary source.

So no - I will not self-revert something that misrepresents a source (that doesn't seem to have been verified itself - being apparently copied from fringe material) and that is not mentioned in a secondary source on a topic that was written about extensively in a secondary manner.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t ask for your opinion because I know it. And you know that I don’t agree with you, not even a hair. I asked if you would self-revert UNTIL some agreement is reached. Sadly, you have revealed again a total lack of willingness to work toward the settlement. It has to be your way or no way. Then no, my sourced information stays despite your objections. (Sorry Chumchum7 (BTW thank you for trying) but in the face of this uncompromising stance and total lack of flexibility I have to revert. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out above - you restored a version that misrepresents your own primary citation on several point - the most notable being turning a hearsay account to a witness account and "With the help of local peasants, the Germans..." which morphed into "According to some Jewish witnesses testimonies shortly after the massacre, the Germans set the barn ablaze and shot those who tried to escape.". I do strongly suggest you self-revert or correct said points- while inclusion/exclusion of this UNDUE material is a content dispute - such misrepresentation is a serious WP:V and WP:NPOV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Having assumed the sources were not being misrepresented by editors, I had not considered this issue. If they were, that's a serious problem that must be rectified.-Chumchum7 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jedwabne was widely written about - generally if it doesn't appear in a borderline source (i.e. if even the much criticized (for interpretation and omission mainly, but what he does choose to quote usually exists) Chodakiewicz doesn't make use of it) - there usually is nothing there. Beyond scholarly material - there is alot of FRINGE material on the internet - mainly of the denial sort - these self-published / user-generated forum posts - tend to really make a mess of primary material, often misquoting/misrepresenting. I did attempt to find sources using these particular primary accounts - what I did find is all fringe, and the wording that was introduced to the article was similar to a few of these fringe sources (who themselves tend to copy-paste one another, with various morphing alterations).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the book by Gross scholar or fringe?Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Maik's diary was written contemporaneously during the German occupation. The original, in Yiddish, is found in the Warsaw Jewish Historical Museum Archive, record group 302, numbers 92 and 249. It is not mentioned in the Institute of National Remembrance's massive study Wokol Jedwabnego, which contains all sorts of testimonies from that archive, but not Maik's. Before it was published in its entirety in English translation in 2004, excerpts were published in the Sokoly memorial book, the town Maik hailed from: Michal Majik, “Khurbn Sokoli” in Mosheh Grosman (ed.), Sefer zikaron li-kedoshei Sokoli: Sokoler yisker-bukh [Tel Aviv: Former Residents of Sokoły, 1962]. The passage in question appears at p. 64. It was reproduced in English translation in Chodakiewicz's (2005) The Massacre in Jedwabne, July 10, 1941, at p. 128 (chapter 6).(https://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/book/the-massacre-in-jedwabne; https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20131106_Jedwabne6.pdf) Chodakiewicz book on Jedwabne was one of the very few, of very many books on the topic, that was cited by Peter Longerich, one of the leading German Holocaust historians, in his acclaimed study, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). The relevant passages from these these three sources - Maik, Rywka Kurc (an eyewitness), and Zissman - have been published in Glaukopis, a scholarly journal. The Maik diary and Zissman's memoir (Harold Zissman, The Warriors: My Life As a Jewish Soviet Partisan (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005) have been referred to by Marek Wierzbicki, a highly regarded Polish historian. A study of his appeared in a 2014 book edited by Timothy Snyder and published by Oxford University Press (Stalin and Europe: Imitation and domination, 1928-1953). The test of reliability has been more than met for these three sources.Tatzref (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz has been unilaterally and systematically purging and deleting my contributions to the article for what I others believe to be spurious reasons. When I try to undo/restore them he turns around and accuses me of being engaged in an edit war. Here are some examples from the revision history: • (cur | prev) 20:22, 22 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,172 bytes) (-2,126)‎ . . (Undid revision 842488448 by Tatzref(talk) OR. Much of the text is not sourced, the rest is presenting rather cherrypicked primary accounts, perhaps not acurately) (undo)(Tag: Undo) • (cur | prev) 20:17, 20 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,061 bytes) (-1,711)‎ . . (→‎Pogrom: POV. Poor citiations. Quotation of PRIMARY accounts and stringing together - WP:OR - as opposed to a respected secondary source making this observation.) (undo) • (cur | prev) 20:14, 20 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,772 bytes) (-1,074)‎ . . (→‎Background: PRIMARYish and published in a right wing newspaper - not an academic source.) (undo) • (cur | prev) 20:12, 20 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,846 bytes) (-244)‎ . . (→‎External links: Already in references, with link. Wikipedia is not a place to promote Marek's books.) (undo) 3RR Warning[edit source] Your recent editing history at Jedwabne pogrom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRDfor how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Tatzref (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz most recent deletion (which he restored) alleges that the impugned text constitutes "misrepresentation of sources." The impugned text is referenced to highly reliable sources: IPN's massive 2002 study, Wokol Jedwabnego, the starting point and key source for all subsequent scholarship on the topic, and Chodakiewicz's book on Jedwabne, which is mentioned by Peter Longerich, a leading Herman Holocaust historian. The accuracy of the text can be readily verified against those sources.Tatzref (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I initially thought this was copyvio warranting this action, but note I self-reverted a few minutes later. There however re POV issues with the inserted text, some of which was copy-pasted from a KPK handout - jedwabne fact sheet - KPK Toronto which is a source with reliability and POV issues. The recent edits have taken a pronounced POV shift, embracing a narrative rightwards of Chodakiewicz, whose work has faced quite a bit of criticism and is not as accepted nor cited compared to more notable scholars.Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words there is absolutely no reliability issue regarding these citations from Jewish testimonies found in memorial books and memoirs, but the problem is that they're being cited in a number of sources so that makes their use suspect. One of the "problems" is that Chodakiewicz is also citing them, as is historian Marek Wierzbicki. Chodakiewicz is one of the few authors' works (of very many on the topic) that Peter Longerich, a leading Holocaust historian, mentions. Obviously Longerich's criterion is quality of scholarship, not ideological labels. So all this ideological mumbo jumbo, where historians someone doesn't like are being tarred, is bereft of merit. Gross's book Fear was also severely criticized by virtually all Polish historians, from left to right, including Bożena Szaynok, Jacek Walicki, Paweł Machcewicz, August Grabski, Dariusz Stola, Feliks Tych, as well as by many non-Polish historians such John Connelly, James R. Thompson, David Engel. Maybe he too should be marginalized in Wikipedia.Tatzref (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Tatzref (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

External links

Preserving here by providing this link. The links were excessive; semi-official sites; some in a foreign language; etc. I kept the transcript of the speech by the President of Poland. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Zydokomuna

For use in this article, truly excellent paragraphs here connecting pogroms with stereotypes about Jews and Poles alike: [6] -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've placed this link into a new, "External links" section in the "Żydokomuna" article.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Few details

Polish historian Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski

Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski was a Polish-born polymath writer.Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

In 2009 Polish politician Michał Kamiński

He changed his political opinions joining Civic Platform in 2011.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wałęsa

Wałęsa demanded Poles to apologize in 2001. [7] Both opinions should be mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

1600 in the lede

While it's entirely accurate in the lede to say there has been an estimate of 1600 murders, it's slightly misleading of us to give the impression that the estimate of at least 340 is qualitatively equal to that estimate. Afaia the 1600 figure was first made by the Polish communist regime, most notably when it put the number on the inaccurate monument that pinned the massacre solely on the Germans. Gross then contested the accuracy of the monument on who it blamed for the killings, but appears to have taken the monument's number of victims at face value. The IPN then directly contested that figure in its report, a report which Gross then endorsed in the highest terms. Afair I have seen uncontested estimates in the 600-900 range. The 1600 figure either needs to be qualified in the lede, or removed from it. As an option, we might add the other estimates. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross did not endorse the IPN's conclusions - only praised (in an interview) the conduct of the investigation, and he contested the casualty estimate also afterwards - as sloppy, done in a hasty manner, and saying that they should be disregarded entirely.[8]. (the IPN itself revised its lower bracket upwards following some criticism - one should note that they wanted to do an exhumation, but at the end didn't, leading this to be an educated guess). The provenance of this estimate is not communist - but rather the Yizkor book / early witness statements / and population figures for the town. The IPN's estimate is merely a lower bracket (and they say so explicitly - at least) - which is a number they could stand behind in a criminal trial (that never went ahead - but that's a different story) - estimates have varied - Gross cited 1,600, Bikont 900. There is no particular reason to treat to IPN's numbers as authoritative - to the contrary - this is a PRIMARY estimate by a political agency. The IPN's own reputation is variable - back when they did the Jedwabne investigation they had a fairly good reputation. This has changed in recent years - e.g. with the involvement in the Wałęsa publications.[9][10][11].Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The 1,600 figure (which seems to be based on the population register), has been the number used, fairly widely, in sources subsequent to Gross (2001) and the IPN (2002-3) who cover this in a secondary manner - [12][13][14][15] - which clearly shows the IPN's estimates are not treated as definitive (though I think it does bear mentioning in the lede as a lower bound).Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Constructively - we could attribute the 340 lower bracket to the IPN, attribute 1,600 to Gross (who still, AFAIK, stands behind this), and mention other estimates in the 600-900 range.Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the options I proposed, and my point was precisely about attribution. To clarify: I didn't say the IPN's figure is authoritative, and I don't think it is; I've referred to 340 as their estimate of a minimum; the IPN's reputation in recent years under a nationalist government has no bearing on its reputation 15 years ago under a socialist government; I used the word 'endorsed' as a synonym for 'praised'; I acknowledge that Gross disagreed with some of its findings; there are 'uninvolved' sources who take issue with some of his findings too; Bikont's estimate has a place; are your sources citing Gross and Yizkor, or did they verify the 1600 figure in other ways?; FYI this source [16] also points to NKVD archives for data on the Jewish population of Jedwabne as an indication for an estimate; credible sources directly contest the 1600 figure and Wikipedia policy requires us to somehow communicate that to readers; by contrast it doesn't seem to be verifiable that anybody is contesting that 340 is the minimum end of the range of murder victims. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I attributed both the 340 and 1600. The 340 isn't really accepted as anything but a lower end bracket (and to the IPN's credit - their standard is different - they were not producing a historical estimate (which would try to get to a 50% certainty number) - but an estimate for prosecution (in which you want to have a 95% number - which is why they did the "at least" qualifier)). I do agree that there are estimates in the 500-1000 range that bear mentioning. My understanding of the estimates is that the IPN tried to estimate by the grave sites (mainly in and around the barn) they were able to locate (but did not dig up). Gross (and others that pre-date him) was using a pre-war population estimate with some revisions (refugees from elsewhere in the town, departures under the Soviets). Those who present numbers in the 500-1000 range use the Soviet population registers (which may also have reliability issues).Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Gross accepted the IPN findings and updated the information in the second edition of his book. Additionally, it's worth keeping in mind that IPN was widely attacked by the far right for the results of their investigation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not precise - while Gross praised the conduct of the investigation (including accepting what was difficult to accept) - he specifically objected to the casualty estimate - as sloppy, done in a hasty manner, and saying that they should be disregarded entirely.[17]. The 1,600 estimate is still being mentioned following the IPN in 2003 (see .[18][19][20]). Anna Bikont in 2015 - [21] put the number at between 600 to 900 (there is also an estimate in her book). And there are several other estimates. In most sources I've seen post-2003 (and I've gone over many of them - some examples above) - the whole range of casualty estimates is discussed (and the 340 is not seen as definitive, merely a lower bound).Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Wrong links, see: [22][23][24][25].

Look, repeating a lie does not make it true. One more time - Gross said the archaeological survey, NOT the IPN investigation was "sloppy".

I have no idea what your google books search for "ipn lech wałęsa" has to do with subject at all. What is your purpose in even linking to that, given that it absolutely in no way support the claim you're making??? Like, do you think I'm going to be too lazy to bother clicking on your link and checking that it is what you claim it is or something?

And I don't care about "most sources you've seen". That's nice. Let's see them (and they better be recent and ACTUALLY SAY what you claim they say).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(and somebody's travel diary is not an authoritative source here) Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The stmt of sloppiness is on the archaeological survey that determined the casualty count. So far in this discussion - I've presented several sources showing coverage of the 1,600 following the IPN investigation, sources presenting the IPN's 2003 estimate as definitive or accepted haven't been presented thus far.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's your own WP:OR. And no, you haven't "presented several sources showing coverage of the 1,600 following the IPN investigation". You linked to some google book search for... "ipn lech walesa"! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad in copy-pasting this.[26][27][28][29].Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

To repeat the question, are these sources re-quoting Gross re-quoting earlier estimates from Polish communists and Yizkor, or did they corroborate this data some other way? For Wikipedia policy purposes, if a figure is disputed by academia, it doesn't make it any less disputed if it has been re-quoted ad infinitum. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say disputed by the academia. But to the question - many repeat Gross (which is based on essentially 1939 population estimates) - however they are doing this in an academic context. this 2015 source discusses the various numbers - discussing both Gross, the IPN's archaeological survey, and estimates from Soviet population estimates. I think it is fair to say there is no definitive number - but a range of different estimates - as Karn (in 2015) says - "both "sides" will probably have to accept some degree of uncertainty".15:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No. It's not just they "repeat Gross"' estimate. Rather they simply state that that was Gross' original estimate. The first source above only says that Gross made that claim in the first edition of his book (which nobody's disputing). The third source, similarly, notes that this was the number which was claimed in the 1949 Stalinist trials (then goes on to discuss IPN's findings in a positive light). The fourth source, which you just link to the title page, is the "Ethnicity and Family Therapy" book which is completely off topic (and you were just objecting to non-specialized sources, weren't you?).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• On this point, I second Volunteer Marek.
• Moreover, the Karn citation above does not support the Gross estimate of 1600; it positions that in opposition to (i) the excavation's indication that 400-450 bodies were found and (ii) Soviet documents "that suggest Gross's estimate may be too high by a factor of three".
• Karn also points out that forced migration may have depleted the prewar Jewish population of ~1600, which is where the murder count of 1600 comes from.
• Indeed the key fact that undermines the myth of Zydokomuna at Jedwabne - and some kind of twisted justification for the mass murder, including that of babies - is that so many Polish Jews were deported to Siberia by the Soviets. We can't have it both ways: either (i) the Jewish population remained ~1600 through July 1941 because they were collaborators with the Soviets who helped with the deportation of ethnic Poles, or (ii) it's an anti-Semitic myth that the Jewish population were friends with the Soviets as indicated by the evidence that their population in Jedwabne tumbled to far less than 1600 while under Soviet occupation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the crime, not about the book by Gross, especially not about errors committed by Gross. The 1600 is interesting only because some writers still quote the number.

Gross didn't estimate, but repeated the Communist estimate from the period when the number of Auschwitz victims was 4 million.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Jewish refugees from Western and Central Poland were deported. Some Jews migrated looking for work.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Chumchum7: - I actually came by this working on a different article, however the USHMM enyclopedia entry - published in 2012 - well after the IPN investigation / Bikont / Soviet population figures provides a good summary of the current scholarly consensus on casulty figures. Seems 1600 is still accepted by some, while others have revised downwards. The IPN results (incomplete and controversial per USHMM) are not generally accepted - though they have led some to revise down the figures. I'll note that USHMM notes significant numbers of refugees from other towns. The source is available online - but you have to fill out a questionnaire to get it. I do suggest we use this to word the current scholarly consensus. Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

  This source - from 2014 - gives a range - several hundred to a thousand.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the note, let's take a look at the content you want to add. Right off the bat, I'll likely support it going into the article lower down first. Making a further addition to the lede, per the lede summarizing the article, would be a further step to be discussed. Speaking of which, all sorts of weirdness is coming back into the article - it was right for the IP to cut the bizarro "against their wishes" from the background section [30] and I hereby thank them for that. Wikipedia is not in the business of commenting on whether child killers did or did not want to be child killers. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP seems like a good edit. I would like us to reflect a currentish evaluation of the accepted casualty range (as opposed to "ancient history" - e.g. Gross's book and the IPN's partial archaeological estimate) - and doing this in the body would indeed be a first step. I'll turn the tables back on you, :-), - I provided two post-2011 sources (USHMM is more detailed and authoritative, Marci Shore really just gives a summary without going into details) - how would you reflect this information into the article?Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a start: [31] Full disclosure for all users: I have not verified the content Icewhiz provided, so I am trusting their word on it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a start regarding refugees - however we should provide a more up to date range for accepted casulty figures (using, say, post 2008 publications which should reflect all the heavy bots of 2000s evidence). You can get USHMM's encyclopedia (useful in general - thousands of pages of fairly up to date info in English and written by field experts) - here. You meed to fill out a survey, but it can bogus info - you just need to fill something out to get to the download. It is a heavy set of filesin small print- laptop/desktop is best.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Preserving here by providing this link. I replaced the individual pogroms with the link to the List of anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland during World War II article. Some links were already in use in the body of the article, such as Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and a few others. A few links were only tangentially related such as the 1945 massacre in Germany. Etc. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the list. It includes only three of about 27 Podlasie pogroms but includes Ukrainian Lwów pogrom. The pogroms took place during several weeks of 1941, so the title is too general. The Tykocin pogrom was in reality a mass execution made by Germans. Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Gang of roaming serial killers

I've read somewhere that the same group of murderers traveled from one massacre to the next in the July 1941 pogroms, and we don't appear to have that content in the article. Does anyone recall where a citation for that can be found? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Degree of SS involvement as well as movement of robber-killer gangs is more complex than that(it is not one size fit all- the 19 vary quite a bit one from another). The killers from Wąsosz did go to Radziłów, but were turned away by the locals (who then did the deed themselves the next day). Kopstein and Wittenberg have good coverage of why this happened in some places and not ino others - generally local town comditions had to be "right" in terms of pre war tensions, and the local mayor/aux police/strongmen usually had to be onboard (or not opposed). I think you can see this in the USHMM encyclopedia.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In 1941 any mayors were dead or were collecting cranberries in the east. One needs to describe social processes after the extermination, deportation, and imprisoning of educated Poles. Educated men were drafted in 1939 and probably hadn't returned by 1941 (if they were alive, they had emigrated to fight or were imprisoned in German Oflag POW camps. Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The exhumation - source

https://oko.press/dlaczego-chcial-wstrzymania-ekshumacji-jedwabnem-prostujemy-klamstwa-manipulacje/

The OKO Press is against the IPN and government.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very interesting. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits to background section

actually Anna does not accuse the Russians of bringing in anti-Semitism, but rather an atheistic or anti-religion approach. The appropriation of shops and busineses was an anti-private enterprise policy

Removed sentence about Jewish militiamen (Jewish militiamen were a small short-lived group that had little to do with selection for deportation. ‹Bikont P.150›) Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is a controversial, pro-Polish nationalist historian who propagates the canard that it was the Germans that "staged the massacre". Joel Mc (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. While Bikont herself is a useful addition here, I'm not yet sure that binning the NYRB source - Julian Barnes - is justified. The NYRB / Barnes source used[32] states: "So though many Jews might have been relieved by the first arrival of the Soviets in 1939, which freed them from anti-Semitic Nazis who had invaded earlier in the year, the new arrivals brought their own (Russian and atheistic) anti-Semitism." So having replaced the source with Bikont, please transcribe precisely which line of Bikont you are using to change the article content, because the implication of your edit is that your position is that Julian Barnes and the NYRB misrepresented Bikont, which would be a serious matter.-Chumchum7 (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Secondly and separately I concur that there are very serious problems with Chodakiewicz but please note that Wikipedia policy and guidelines does not censor controversial or allegedly nationalist historians - quite the contrary. The correct solution per WP:PRESERVE is t retain the content but properly flag it as coming from a controversial or allegedly nationalist source.-Chumchum7 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It was at the end of 2015 that I read Julian Barnes's excellent review in the NYRB of Anna Bikont's book, The Crime and the Silence: Confronting the Massacre of Jews in Wartime Jedwabne, but it took me until his year to finally read the book. I then went back and re-read Barne's review and was surprised that he wrote: "the new arrivals brought their own (Russian and atheistic) anti-Semitism: Hebrew schools were closed, Yom Kippur turned into an ordinary workday, shops and businesses (which had been largely in Jewish hands) Sovietized."

Since Barnes doesn't have any other references than the Bikont book, I have concluded that he misinterprets Bikont's description. That is an easy mistake to make and doesn't change the quality of his review. After all Barnes is primarily a novelist--his is a Booker prize winner and was shortlisted three other times for the prize. Yes he has written non-fiction, but a I already commented, he is not an historian.

Bikont devotes a whole chapter to the Soviet occupation, (Chapter 4: You Didn’t See That Grief in Jews or, Polish and Jewish Memory of the Soviet Occupation) She makes it clear that in spite of policies that negatively affectively Jews, the Soviets did not implement the anti-semitic policies that had existed previously: "on the first day of Yom Kippur, Soviet tanks thundered into town and for quite a while their noise silenced or muffled the voice of poisonous anti-Semitism—the anti-Semitism nourished by the right-wing nationalist regime dominant here in the last few years before the war. The Jews of Tykocin received and saluted the Red Army with special sympathy, they felt free, breathed fresh air, and gratefully and respectfully offered their services to the Soviet authorities.." p.150. No where do I find that she accuses the Soviets of anti-Semitism.

My problem with Chodakiewicz is that as a historian, I do not consider him a reliable source. He claims that the Germans staged the massacre which runs counter to the serious historians I have read, and echoes Polish anti-semtic nationalists. Elsewhere, he has written that "Barack Obama was once a Muslim." Not an indication that he is a reliable resource for a Wikipedia article. I suggest that my original edit that was reverted should stand. Joel Mc (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Joel Mc, thank you for getting round to engaging in discussion here. I appreciate it.
• You say: "My problem with Chodakiewicz is that as a historian, I do not consider him a reliable source... I suggest that my original edit that was reverted should stand." As far as I can see your Chodakiewicz removal is not in fact being reverted, and I for one am in no hurry to do that. I'm inclined to mull over your removal but were others here to chime in that Wikipedia asks us to include qualified historians such as Chodakiewicz who are controversial and even nationalist, and flag them for the reader as such, they would have a case.
• On your point about him not being a reliable source, your opinion needs to be taken to due process at the reliable sources noticeboard, see WP:RS. As far as I recall there may already be precedent here on Chodakiewicz.
• The ad hominem point that Barnes is not a historian and therefore somehow irrelevant or inferior to Bikont is moot - Bikont isn't a historian either. She's a psychologist.
• For Wikipedia policy purposes, reviews of works are not inferior sources to the works themselves: they are different, and both have a place.
• As an old hand on Wikipedia you'll recall there was an old line of guidance that ran: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiabiity, not truth." Your assertion that Barnes has made a mistake might be true, but it's not verifiable. If you can show us a verifiable source alleging that Barnes made a mistake, then there'll be a case for removal. See WP:NOTTRUTH.
• We also need to note the use of 'right of reply' practiced by all reputable media: Bikont had the right to demand the NYRB correct any inaccuracy if she'd wanted to, or at least reply to it, and it appears she has not done so. So we have no evidence that she finds it inaccurate.-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that my post is clear. I don't really see most of your points so will move on from here. Joel Mc (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Unvetted account

A portion of this article says:

"Meir Grajewski (later Ronen), a native of Jedwabne, identified five Jewish “louts” who "lorded over" the town, denouncing Poles and, sometimes, fellow Jews."

The problem here is that the above is not a verified and well documented/vetted account. I am not impugning Bikont, the person who cited Grajewski, but rather the use of Grajewski as an authoritative source. From his words, without any refutation or context, one might read that Jedwabne was some sort of revenge for "Jewish communism," which is just a narrative some try to push.

Atrix20 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you in that Wikipedia policy dictates that the article should not give the appearance of citing a primary source (Grajewski) when it is in fact citing a secondary source (Bikont). So the solution is:

"Anna Bikont writes that Meir Grajewski (later Ronen), a native of Jedwabne, identified five Jewish “louts” who "lorded over" the town, denouncing Poles and, sometimes, fellow Jews."

Given that there's academic and criminal-law consensus that Jedwabne Jews (including a rabbi) were forced to carry a statue Lenin to the barn before being murdered, there's certainly a general interpretation that the mass-murder was staged as a revenge for "Jewish communism" - which was a false stereotype used as a pretext to murder all Jews, including children. Bikont's citation of Grajewski serves to illustrate that the alleged misdemeanors of a few Jews became used a stereotype by anti-Semites to kill all Jews. Including Grajewski serves to illustrate the anti-Semitic stereotype, it does not justify the anti-Semitic murders, including the murders of children.-Chumchum7 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Many commentators were shocked by the findings

Do you mean the book by Gross and results of the IPN investigation or the excavations only?

Not only commentators were shocked. Tryczyk has published a long book about pogroms in the region. Is he a commentator?Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Does Anna Zalewska deserve a whole paragraph?

She didn't impact history manuals, she told few words about a subject she didn't know. She has studied Polish language. She will gone in few months and noone will remeber her.Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 I'd support your reduction or even full deletion of the content per WP:NOTNEWS. This is meant to look like an encylopedia, not a summary of recent news clippings. More broadly, we're not meant to be exploiting Wikipidia to push the POV that some people are in denial about WWII, by the same token that we're not meant to be exploiting Wikipidia to promote fringe theories about WWII, per below. There are umpteen other examples of official ignorance about this chapter of history, and we haven't included them. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hieronima Wilczewska

I removed this paragraph as the sources supporting it - a gazetabaltycka piece interviewing Ewa Kurek and Niezależna Polonia (Independent Polonia) are not remotely a WP:RS for any of assertions of fact in Wikipedia's voice made in the paragraph. It is also rather WP:UNDUE with this sourcing, but the unattributed bits do not pass WP:V with this sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz I support your change. The only question it prompts for me is whether we're certain that all the rest of our sourcing here is WP:RS either, and whether we're applying that principle universally. Because some of our sourcing is very WP:PRIMARY indeed, yet it still seems to benefit the article, which is shaping up quite nicely. So to my mind the strongest case for your removal is that the content was WP:FRINGE. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In general - for this article I think we should stick to high quality academic sources in English - there's simply so much written about Jedwabne in the past 20 years - that there is no need to use primary, low-quality, or non-English sources. In some other articles (e.g. many other events in 1941) - this isn't true - e.g. I've been involved with some topics in which using Polish, Hebrew, Yiddish, and German sources (complemented with some primary sources and news media) - was necessary. I took out this bit specifically (as it was easy - and needed no replacement - unlike other parts of the article where it isn't a straight removal that is required - but a replacement to a better source and re-crafting the text) - I will support anyone's effort to raise the sourcing bar overall. There may be merit to quoting some of the primary material for Jedwabne (the testimony/yizkor from the 40s) - but only since it is quoted and analyzed by multiple high-quality secondary sources (and a good citation would be to, say, 2 such sources with the quotations/passages - and not to the primary source). Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

high quality academic sources in English but reference 46 Neighbours - Polish edition, reference 19 wyborcza.pl (Polish, non-academic). The most professional book "Wokół Jedwabnego" is in Polish. So why to formualate crazy rules?Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Neighbours has an English edition. I personally would consider both Neighbours (Gross, 2000) and Wokół Jedwabnego (IPN, 2002) as PRIMARYish here due to age (WP:AGE MATTERS) - they both were very important, but both items are already analyzed themselves in a secondary fashion by multiple sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and Ochman

This is a good faith edit [33] which would skew the straightforward encyclopedic line of the article about the massacre towards a focus on the related but separate topics of Holocaust Denial and the Polish far right. Verifiably, the nationalist fringe exploited the investigation; verifiably it's also alleged that many others exploited it for political gain too, including Kwasniewski, Poland's left-wing president who was a former official of the totalitarian (and at times anti-Semitic) communist regime trying to win over Poland's progressive liberal voters who liked kind words about Jews. The sources show that the premature news of the German bullets (without their pre-WWII origin) was greeted by "philo-Semites" such as the 2001 mayor of Jedwabne named Godlewski (who later resigned in protest at the conduct of some of his colleagues in local politics), with great celebration. This was the mainstream response in the national press and if anything supports the notion that the reality of Polish culpability in the massacre is difficult to come to terms with for many Poles not because they're conspiring in a sinister snowjob but because it is incomprehensible to them, shrouded as they are in narratives of anti-German resistance and the heroics of the 303 Squadron and Zegota. The main feature of the episode is that the chief forensic investigator spoke too soon and without responsibility for public discourse; not only that a bunch of fringe fruitcakes exploited the situation as usual but that ordinary people jumped to the conclusions they'd hoped for: confirmation bias. The University of Manchester's Ewa Ochman writes:

We now know that bullets found during the exhumation came either from weapons that had not been in use until 1942 or from older rifles not usedby Germans in World War II. But this was only established by the IPN in December 2001, almost six months after the official commemorations.When, in June 2001, the IPN gave a report on the exhumation, it simply stated that 89 ammunition shells had been found and appeared to be of a type used by German troops during the war, suggesting that soldiers may have fired at Jews trying to flee the burning barn. The report also stated that further investigation into the bullets was necessary in order to establish their origin with certainty, but the IPN failed to make clear that the outcome of the partial exhumation could not prove anything -before careful analysis of the excavated material was completed- other than the existence of a mass grave of Jedwabne Jews. In summer 2000 Mayor Godlewski believed that only after the official investigation was finished and it was confirmed that Poles had taken part in the killing voluntarily should the inscription on the old memorial stone be changed. Otherwise, he maintained, the monument would divide rather than reconcile both communities. But this did not happen.

Please read the PDF: what Ochman goes on to say is that the tension between the rush before the 2001 anniversary and the progress of the investigation is the root of a lot of tension in the discourse. She goes on to list six points about the ways in which exploitation of Jedwabne caused damage, only one of these six covers Polish nationalism. The article would be better off to stick to this neutral point of view. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well - I put this in since the preceding edit was - diff - with the edit summary - "No evidence exists to prove that German forces were not involved in the Jedwabne masacre - removing this as it does not make any sense.". There is in fact evidence, and false claims on bullets were in fact manipulated by Polish nationalists (not the IPN itself - whose conduct at the turn of the century (as opposed to no) was fairly good - but far right media) on a rather massive scale. As for how to frame this - I think the "bullets issue" has lasting significance here - however one could perhaps spin this differently (I focused on finding a RS - which I did - and re-inserting the content based on the source). If you have an additional source to use to balance the bullets angle - I'm OK with that. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wąsosz-Radziłów-Jedwabne

Historian Tomasz Szarota links three pogroms Wąsosz (July 5)-Radziłów (July 7)- Jedwabne (July 10). Karuzela na placu Krasińskich. Studia i szkice z lat wojny i okupacji, Oficyna Wydawnicza „Rytm” – Fundacja Historia i Kultura, Warszawa 2007, ​ISBN 978-83-7399-259-7​Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

However Wasersztajn, however Fogel

This article has: "Wasersztajn was not an eyewitness to the events of 10 July 1941, since he had spent the day of the pogrom in a hiding place near Jedwabne.[87] Wasersztajn was however an eyewitness to events on 25 June 1941, saying..." then "However, Rivka Fogel, another eyewitness, disputes Wasersztajn's version..."

It's an examplar of WP:HOWEVER. Plus WP:SYNTH relying on WP:PRIMARY sources. It's got to go. There are reliable secondary sources out there raising concerns about the credibility of Wasersztajn as a witness, as well as Gross' reliance on him, and we can use those sources. But we may not dispute Gross in Wikipedia's voice as we are doing here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Lokkhen

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account has made under 50 edits in four years, so the assumption is that you are a newcomer to our policy and guidelines and you may need some time to learn, as we all did. (i) Your comment (known as an 'edit summary') on your edit [34] alleges that Wikipedia's intro is "deliberately opaque" and in the edit you emphasized that the murderers were Polish citizens. (ii) Please read WP:AGF. We are all obliged to conduct ourselves as if we are assuming each others' best intentions. Alleging deliberate opacity breaches that. (iii) Take another look at the intro: it makes it abundantly clear that at least 40 ethnic Poles were implicated in the murder of 340 Polish Jews. If you read through the rest of the article, it goes into depth about that. (iv) In your edit, you've emphasized that the culprits were "Polish citizens", as if the Jewish victims weren't Polish citizens too, which they were. It would be similarly inappropriate for Wikipedia to state that the lynchings of black people in the Deep South were carried out by American citizens while omitting that the murder victims were American citizens. (v) The BBC source is actually less opaque than this introduction on a separate matter, that of the level of German involvement in the crime: the BBC states that the massacre took place "perhaps at the instigation of the Nazis". This introduction only says that some Germans were present at the crime, and that the additional involvement of other Germans is a matter of academic discussion. (vi) Non-English Wikipedia is no authority over English Wikipedia. We have something called 'Good Article status' articles which may be informative across languages. As English Wikipedia has the most editors and articles, it's often at the forefront of quality and quantity. For what its worth, the German intro on Jedwabne currently states: Es fand während der Besatzung Jedwabnes durch die Wehrmacht statt und gilt als gemeinsames Verbrechen einer Gruppe von polnischen Einwohnern und deutscher Besatzungsmacht while the Hebrew article on it is so small that it doesn't have separate sections and an intro. (vii) As a general way of navigating your early days at Wikipedia to set off on a good course, it's usually best to raise queries at the Talk page first, especially on well-established articles such as this one with many contributors who have established a form of consensus (although yes, it's difficult to perceive that at first sight). Also, it's best to read entire articles closely, before editing the intro. That's because we have a guidance at WP:LEDE which says the intro summarizes the article and that is how are meant to edit it. In fact, the guidance has been that we hardly need citations in the intro at all, because it is there to summarize the well-cited article. I hope that helps, and happy editing. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)