Talk:Jan Żaryn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Not in the source!

I removed this[1] from the article because the source[2] does not support the text. The source could still be used for other things.- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, deleting his senatorial career from the lead (where they explicitly say it was the IX term, which, as you can read, is 2015-2019), and his political participation in some organisations (including the committee for the March of Independence) is exactly the reason why I wrote at ANI - find another source, really, that says the same thing - don't just nuke the text. Particularly that being a senator is one of the reasons of notability for him. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szmalcownik

@Lembit Staan: You corrected here [3] but is there any reason to include that line at all? Just take a look at the Szmalcownik article itself - quote:

Szmalcowniks came from diverse backgrounds. About three-quarters were Poles, but members of the German, Ukrainian and Lithuanian minorities – and in some cases even Jews – were also engaged in blackmailing.

This is referenced to scholarly sources other than Żaryn. It is a historical fact, but here it is drawn as if Żaryn was declaring something out of the ordinary. Do you believe that the entire line should be discarded the same as I do? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To those who don't like logical reasoning, BUG OFF; I am talking to GizzyCatBella, not to you
Yes and no. In order to write a decent article about Zaryn, one has to know the whole context of what's going on not only with Zaryn, but with Polish politicum as a whole. Taken out of context, this sentence does look "out of the blue". But it did not catch my eye as strange, because I know where it was coming from and what it was insinuating. I started to write an explanation in section "Zaryn's position in the eyes of critics", but I was slapped with "NOTAFORUM" label in best traditions of a certain category of disputants who don't bother to address the essence of arguments. So I discontinued it, because
WP:DGAF
. I don't know what's your degree of knowledge here, but here is a "satellite view" on Zaryn: he is caught right in the middle of the "clash of conspiracies". Zaryn tries to combat one of them (Conspiracy A: "Poles are anti-Semites by the very nature of their Polishness"), but due to his sloppiness he gives an ample chance for his opponents to accuse him of propagating the alleged "Polish blamelessness plus victimhood theory" conspiracy theory (Conspiracy B), up to thinly veiled accusations of anti-Semitism. Supposing this supposition, several disputed statements suggested for inclusion will start making sense:
  • "miał swoje umocowanie w racjonalnym myśleniu" ("<antisemitism> was supported/reinforced by rational thinking"; discussed elsewhere above)
Here Zaryn tries to contest Conspiracy A: Poles are anti-Semites because they are Catholics in their faith and racists in their nature. His effort is understandable, if one remembers where Zaryn is hailing from.
  • ""mostly due to economic reasons""
Same as above. It is suggested to add "Historian Dariusz Libionka disagrees with the latter statement", but after reading more of Libionka, -- hell, no (talk about this later).
  • <...>
  • "szmalcownicy"
Yes, as you say, it is a well-known fact, but Zaryn is being accused of cherry-picking factoids to allegedly favor Conspiracy B, and this szmalcownicy "argument" is parroted by many critics (as may see yourself by the amount of refbombing).
Zaryn basically says "zsmalcownicy were a cross-section of (not the best part of) the whole Polish society". (That this is not his finding is irrelevant.) And his opponents say "what now, are you saying Poles are not guilty here????" I have no idea what exactly was written in Zaryn's book Polacy ratyjacy Zydow, but hell I am sure that he did not write as one of his "critics" ""summarized"": "<...>Szmalcowniks were recruited from Germans, Volksdeutsche, Ukrainians, and the Jews themselves. Well, of course there were some Poles among them <...>". If someone shows me that Zaryn did write something like this, I will eat my beard. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To those who don't like logical reasoning, BUG OFF; I am talking to GizzyCatBella, not to you IMHO a rather lousy way to ask people to stay off the discussion and stop analysing whatever you write (which BTW is insulting towards whoever does not agree with you). Don't ever do that in any discussion - it only makes the situation worse.
he is caught right in the middle of the "clash of conspiracies". The text you write actually does not present is as a clash but employing one conspiracy by his critics and assigning (supposedly unfairly) another one coming from the arguments he makes by his same critics, which is less of a clash and more of a full-scaled offensive. The only problem is, don't you find the text eh... too conspiratorial?
I have no idea what exactly was written in Zaryn's book Polacy ratyjacy Zydow, but hell I am sure that he did not write... 1. That critic was Libionka; 2. First make sure that he indeed didn't write it, and then say that his arguments are being manipulated. Speculation about what he wrote gives us nothing if you can't say what exactly he wrote. And even after that, the text can be reasonably interpreted by different ways. So no, excluding opinions of scholars for being harsh is not a good reason to exclude them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<plonk> On numerous occasions you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of
WP:BLP, so I am not responding to you anymore: waste of time. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

RfC: Jan Żaryn

This is a five-part RfC, the culmination of a month's work by several editors. The question being asked for each of the sections is:

Should the following be added to the text?

  • Yes
  • Yes, but...
  • No

You may vote in some or all of the sections, as you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Robere (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Section 1

Żaryn is commonly seen as a

historical policy as a "battle under the banners of sovereignty, justice [and] freedom", with the state exercising it "so that Poles don't mistake where there is good and where there is evil",[13] and wishes to "strengthen the educational role of history" so it becomes a "widely accepted... positive myth".[14][15] Żaryn describes Poles as “loving freedom, Catholicism, patriotism and especially being proud of their history”.[16][17]

References

Notes

  1. ^ [1][2][3][4][5]
  2. ^ [1][7][8][9][10][11][12]
  1. ^
    ISSN 1157-996X
    .
  2. ^ Mink, Georges. "Les Historiens Polonais Face À L'Expérience De La « Démocratie Illibérale »" (PDF). Histoire@Politique (in French) (31): 5. Retrieved 2021-06-09. Un des historiens propulsés sur le devant de la scène est le professeur Jan Żaryn, ardent défenseur du courant nationaliste et antisémite de « Endecja », dont il se fait le propagateur...
  3. ISBN 9782271128997
    . En revanche, ses chercheurs sont conspués par l'IPN, le gouvernement, une partie des médias et des historiens très présents dans les médias nationalistes, souvent non spécialistes de la Shoah (parmi lesquels Bogdan Musiał, Piotr Gontarczyk, Jan Żaryn et Andrzej Nowak)
  4. ^ Czuchnowski, Wojciech (2018-02-27). "Zrozumieć Jana Żaryna". Gazeta Wyborcza. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  5. ^ Flieger, Estera (2018-02-27). "Marcowa uchwała senatora Żaryna. W '68 Polski nie było". Gazeta Wyborcza. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  6. ^ Stobiecki, Rafał (Spring 2018). "Mimo wszystko w obronie polityki historycznej" (PDF). Więź.
  7. ^ Duch-Dyngosz, Marta (2018-05-30). "Prawica i Żydzi". Miesięcznik Znak (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-09.
  8. ISSN 2373-9770
    . It is within this context that Żaryn, one of the most prominent advocates of Poland's history policy, declared in November 2015, "This is the time to begin the much-delayed counterrevolution directed at changing the state of consciousness of the contemporary world, at least in our cultural area."
  9. doi:10.1017/S1062798720000502
    .
  10. doi:10.14746/ht.2017.6.4.01
    .
  11. eISSN 2366-2891
    – via Proquest.
  12. ISSN 2373-9770
    .
  13. ^ Radczenko, Antoni (2017-09-15). "W poszukiwaniu polityki historycznej. Dyskusja Żaryn-Valatka". zw.lt (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-10. Polska polityka historyczna, zewnętrzna i wewnętrzna, to jest starcie, na sztandarach którego są suwerenność, sprawiedliwość, wolność. Państwo powinno uprawiać politykę historyczną po to, aby Polacy nie pomyliliby się, gdzie jest dobro, a gdzie jest zło.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ^ a b Kalukin, Rafał (2018-03-20). "Senator Żaryn i obce siły". Polityka (in Polish). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-03-21. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  15. ^ "Toczy się walka o polską świadomość – najnowsza książka prof. Jana Żaryna – Strona oficjalna prof. Jana Żaryna" (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-10. Rolą senatora, do której być może szczególnie jestem predestynowany jako profesor historii, jest wzmocnić rolę wychowawczą historii. Tak by nasze dzieje stawały się powszechnie rozpoznawalne i by nas uczyły. Aby były przyjmowane w formule pozytywnych mitów przez większą część społeczeństwa. Mam nadzieję, że tak się rzeczywiście dzieje.
  16. ^ Żaryn, Jan (2016-03-24). "Recenzja wewnętrzna: Program funkcjonalno-użytkowy wystawy głównej. Muzeum II wojny światowej w Gdańsku, ss. 75" (PDF). Retrieved 2021-06-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. ^ Ciobanu, Claudia (2017-05-15). "Poland's WWII museum under political bombardment". Politico. Retrieved 2021-06-09.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Background

Vote (RfC: Section 1)
Yes, ultimately the editors opposing inclusion got what they wanted - any material that could be seen potentially offending (including, but not limited to, Żaryn's support of Marsz Niepodległości, which is quite often associated with the far-right and the hooligans, even though we didn't say he supported the latter and neither do I) is no longer there for various reasons, which in this particular case is "not electoral history". Because no one wanted to hear about
WP:ONUS
challenge, which is in fact misuse of the tool, because ONUS requires that people hear each other instead of hurling accusations every other edit.
It's not because I haven't done mistakes here - I have, but again those that I was aware of have been solved. Some misunderstandings while I was translating the article (it wasn't the best translation, I must admit) have been corrected, but repeated calls to propose additional sourcing on Żaryn I wasn't able to find and sourcing for subjects that describe him too and in which I'm not too proficient (his work on the Catholic Church, for example) seem to have fallen on deaf ears. I believe I've done my duty rather well as regards looking for sources and introducing them to the article (at least no one proved otherwise as regards sourcing), but it takes two to tango, and it seems that not only they didn't want to tango, but also they tried to stomp on the feet of those inviting to do so. Instead, in the course of the conversation, you can learn that Ukraine is terrorised by Azov in 2021 (alt news in action).
It's a yes on all five sections. Even after more than a month after the dispute is dead, when I look at the evidence, I can see all the lameness of the dispute and no good reason for it to have been initiated in the first place. I will initiate an RSN discussion on some deleted sources, as the dispute is still there but the method to change the outcome was dubious. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but maybe not the part about the 'myth' per concerns raised above. Otherwise the summary seems relatively neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — any issue about the "myth" wording is not an excuse to not include everything else, for which there seems to be agreement, and can be worked around through rewording or better sources by now. In general, I have to agree with what Szmenderowiecki wrote here, and I have decided to !comment precisely because apparently no one else has done so since September 2021. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC: Section 1)

  • A small syntactic point that applies to all the sections: each of these quotes should be phrased in past tense e.g. Żaryn describes Poles as "..." becomes Żaryn described Poles as "...". — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a native speaker, but IMHO, when speaking about something written, the present tense is usually OK, as on "the author describes". This is especially valid here, since we are writing about Zaryn's views. If we were to write it in past tense, that would be perceived that these are his past views and we imply he changed them since then. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Section 2

Żaryn believes that anti-Semitism in

Interwar Poland was reinforced by "rational thinking",[1] and argues that Polish-Jewish "tensions" intensified mostly due to economic reasons.[2][3][4] Dariusz Libionka disagrees; criticizing Żaryn's article Holocaust,[5] Libionka points out many errors and sloppy statements, and states that Żaryn "does not know basic facts" about World War II. He notes that, while Żaryn's works on other subjects are often "valuable historical literature", those on Polish-Jewish relations are tainted by his "ideological sympathies and inspirations".[6]
Ewa Koźmińska-Frejlak writes in her review of Żaryn's introduction to the educational booklet Polacy ratujący Żydów w latach II wojny światowej (Polish rescuers of Jews during World War II),
blame the victim" (the Jews) in order to diminish the responsibility assigned to Poles.[4]

References
  1. ^ "Best of "Onet Opinie". Jan Żaryn gościem Andrzeja Stankiewicza". Onet Wiadomości (in Polish). 2018-02-22. Retrieved 2021-06-10. Nie, nie jesteśmy niepokalanym narodem. Przed wojną też był antysemityzm, ale on też miał swoje umocowanie w racjonalnym myśleniu.
  2. ^ a b Kalukin, Rafał (2018-03-20). "Senator Żaryn i obce siły". Polityka (in Polish). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-03-21. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  3. ^
    doi:10.32927/zzsim.841
    .
  4. ^
    doi:10.32927/ZZSiM.330
    .
  5. ^ Żaryn, Jan. "The Holocaust". Truth About Camps | W imię prawdy historycznej. Retrieved 2021-07-02.
  6. ^ Libionka, Dariusz (2013). ""Truth About Camps" or the Uneventful 1942". Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały Holocaust Studies and Materials: 579–589.
  7. ^ Żaryn, Jan (2008). "Wprowadzenie". In Chojnacki, Piotr; Mazek, Dorota (eds.). Polacy ratujący Żydów w latach II wojny światowej. Warsaw: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej. pp. 5–11.
Background

Vote (RfC: Section 2)
- Here we go again; an IP arrives making gross
WP:BLP violations. We are dealing with such behaviour since the beginning [22]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
- I seriously believe administrators should take a look at the entire dispute with their hammers ready to strike... - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bon appétit. (I mean, no, really, you've got SPI and ANI - there's no use making these arguments here). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No. This is 1) referring to translation of SECONDARY sources, not translating PRIMARY sources, which is quintessential original research (especially when done by people who aren't even fluent in the language). And 2) there is that "faithfully" in there. This isn't "faithfully". All this too has already been explained. Volunteer Marek 16:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first sentence or two. His views are relevant, views by others less so. Can add those views to articles about them. If any of JŻ's works are notable, and the criticism concerns them, it can be added there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — it can, and should be, improved through better paraphrasing and avoiding too much use of scare quotes, especially "tensions", as suggested by SMcCandlish and others. I do not see how presenting only his views is in line with NPOV, especially when they are controversial or revisionist, while scholarly criticism seems to be mainstream; if the views of others are sourced to reliable sources, are properly attributed, and are scholarly relevant, as it is the case for Libionka and Koźmińska-Frejak, there should be no issues. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC: Section 2)

RfC: Section 3

Co-editor of a two-volume monograph on the Kielce pogrom,[1] Żaryn has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for "censorship and propaganda, slander... and deceitfully remaining silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom.[2][3] This narrative is criticized by Rafał Pankowski and and Kate Korycki as evoking the stereotype of Żydokomuna.[4][5] Korycki writes that this narrative "unwittingly recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes", adding that Żaryn "[uses] a description of the post-war pogrom in Kielce, perpetrated on Jews by Poles, [as] an opportunity to blame the Jews".[3]

References
  1. OCLC 85784471
    .
  2. OCLC 457021849.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link
    )
  3. ^
    ISSN 0888-3254
    .
  4. ISSN 2373-9770
    . Representatives of the ruling party also repeatedly alluded to the stereotype of Żydokomuna in discussions surrounding the new legislation. Jewish participation in communist crimes against Poland was stressed by several politicians. For example, a summary of Senator Jan Żaryn's interview on state radio included the following passage: "Professor Żaryn discussed on Radio 3 the participation of Jews in the mass killings of Poles in the Eastern territories, and the assistance provided by Jews in the occupation of Poland by the Red Army.
  5. ISSN 1750-4902
    .
Background

Vote (RfC: Section 3)

Discussion (RfC: Section 3)

RfC: Section 4

Żaryn has stated that the accepted narrative of the

exhume the bodies of Jedwabne's victims.[4][1][5]

References
  1. ^ a b c "Przypominamy. Prof. Żaryn: Polska racja stanu polega na wznowieniu ekshumacje w Jedwabnem". tysol.pl (in Polish). 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2021-06-09. To jest ważne także z perspektywy politycznej, dlatego podkreśliłem, że piszę to jako historyk i jako senator, ponieważ kłamliwa, jak dziś wiemy jako badacze, wersja dotycząca przebiegu zdarzeń w Jedwabnem jest uprawomocniona przez dziesiątki tysięcy, i setki tysięcy zapewne, publikacji. Stanowi już mit założycielski dotyczący rzekomo udowodnionego polskiego zorganizowanego mordowania Żydów wyrastającego jakoby z polskiego, wypijanego z mlekiem matki antysemityzmu, ksenofobii, a na dodatek, w kontekście naszej chrześcijańskiej tożsamości. Te wszystkie nieprawdziwe stereotypy mają pożywkę w postaci niewystarczająco udokumentowanego do dzisiaj fragmentu dziejów II wojny światowej na terytorium Polski. I dopóki to udokumentowanie nie nastąpi, nie ma także możliwości, by zweryfikować te mitologiczne wersje.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ a b "Prof. Jan Żaryn: Niemcy byli "reżyserami" pogromów takich jak w Jedwabnem". dzieje.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-09. Fakty są takie, że Niemcy próbowali prowokować Polaków do takich działań posiłkując się stanem ich rzeczywistych emocji po okupacji sowieckiej i dążyli do wprowadzenia ich w krąg nienawiści budowany przez oddziały Einsatzgruppen. Formacje te były rzeczywistymi reżyserami każdego z kilkunastu tragicznych zbrodni z czerwca i lipca 1941 r., począwszy od wydarzeń w Białymstoku, poprzez Wąsocz, Radziłów, na Jedwabnem kończąc. Wszędzie tam Niemcy próbują przymusić Polaków do uczestnictwa w tych mordach, co w większości wypadków się nie udaje, a jeśli to jedynie w formie biernej. Oczywiście w Jedwabnem znajdują folksdojczów i osoby spoza tej miejscowości, które przychodzą tam razem z Niemcami. Wszystko jednak dzieje się pod dyktando niemieckie.
  3. ^ "Jan Żaryn o ekshumacji w Jedwabnem". Onet Wiadomości (in Polish). 2018-02-21. Retrieved 2021-06-10. Jedwabne zostało skrócone do przekazu kłamliwego. Ten przekaz obciąża Polskę i Polaków współodpowiedzialnością za Holokaust.
  4. ^ "Best of "Onet Opinie". Jan Żaryn gościem Andrzeja Stankiewicza". Onet Wiadomości (in Polish). 2018-02-22. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  5. ^ "Arcyciekawa dyskusja Kurek z Żarynem we wPolsce.pl!". wPolityce.pl. Retrieved 2021-07-20.

Vote (RfC: Section 4)
WP:BLP article is a persistent attempt to add things like "Leociak says that Żaryn.." etc. and every other little dirt one can google on the internet. Why? Well, you can examine that yourself ... - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Please allow me to disagree here. Exhumation is fully in line with his theory that we do not have complete information on what was going on in Jedwabne, and this section says of this IMO in a coherent and a neutral way. I cann undertandd that some may see this as kind of "grave desecration". But many places were exhumed many times. Out of my head I can name Katyn and Sandarmokh. The last case is very similar to Jedwabne: first it was exhumed by the initiative of Memorial society. Later Russain authorities decided to revise this to put some blame on Finns. Same here. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, the Kurek stuff needs to go. This has also been said million times. One editor already got topic banned (then indef banned) for BLP violations regarding that person. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but remove all this "scare-quoting". Do not use quotation marks for anything but actual quotations, and source each quotation in situ. It is not encyclopedic writing to imply things and "steer" the reader's interpretation with buzzwordy phrasing and manipulative language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. @SMcCandlish: the quotation marks are just there to mitigate any claims of copy-vio.[26] No problem removing them if that's not an issue. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - per 3 month discussions above and below this RfC. (Please see the entire debate, not only this RfC)-GizzyCatBella🍁 11:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, also the Ewa Kurek part, I don't even see the controversy talking about her... indeed, it adds interesting information to the context.--Mhorg (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but not the Ewa Kurek part, with the note that if those views come from a notable book or such, splitting the discussion there would be pest per DUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — like for No. 2, avoid scare quotes unless they are an actual quote. As for Ewa Kurek, it seems fine for context. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC: Section 4)

RfC: Section 5

In 2018 Żaryn had proposed a Senate resolution for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March 1968 political crisis. An excerpt of the resolution stated that "in arranging anti-Semitic demonstrations and forcing Poles to take part, as well as by introducing pathological anti-Jewish sentiments into the public discourse, the communist government did not represent the will of the People, but only that of Moscow and its intra-communist and international interests". This has been criticized by historians as an attempt at whitewashing Polish history,[1][2][3] and proved controversial even in Żaryn's own party.[4] Two weeks after the proposal was abandoned, Żaryn proposed that Israeli ambassador Anna Azari, who commented on the anti-Semitic events of March 1968, be deported.[5][6][7][8]

References
  1. ^ Pacewicz, Piotr (2018-03-01). "Jak się Żydów przeprasza, to po co ich obrażać - o uchwale senatora Żaryna (PiS) mówi prof. Osęka. Prawda o Marcu 1968". oko.press. Retrieved 2021-06-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Senator Żaryn autorem uchwały, która ma zostać przyjęta w rocznicę Marca'68. Czeka nas kolejny skandal?". Newsweek.pl (in Polish). 2018-02-27. Retrieved 2021-06-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Dobrosz-Oracz, Justyna (2018-03-02). "Jan Żaryn o swojej kontrowersyjnej uchwale. W 68' nie istniało państwo polskie?". Gazeta Wyborcza (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ a b Kalukin, Rafał (2018-03-20). "Senator Żaryn i obce siły". Polityka (in Polish). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-03-21. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  5. ^ "Polish senator suggests expelling Israeli envoy for linking ruling party to 1968 purge of Jews". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
  6. ^ "Żaryn o wypowiedzi ambasador Izraela: może trzeba poprosić tę panią, by opuściła to państwo - Polsat News". polsatnews.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-07.
  7. ^ Hartman, Jan (2018-03-09). "Skandaliczne słowa prof. Żaryna o ambasador Izraela". Polityka (in Polish). Retrieved 2021-06-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ "Zdecydowane słowa prof. Żaryna dla wPolsce.pl o wypowiedzi ambasador Azari: "Może trzeba poprosić tę panią, by opuściła to państwo"". wpolityce.pl. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
Background

Vote (RfC: Section 5)

One. More. Time. These sources do not say what you claim they say. How many times does this have to be said? Volunteer Marek 01:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, also the part of Israeli ambassador, as shown above, the Israeli newspapers have reported it, so I think it deserves a line of text. I don't know if the English term "Proposed" is correct, I let my mother tongue colleagues decide.--Mhorg (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One. More. Time. The sources simply do not state what the proposed text claims. It’s. Just. False. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is from an article[35] from Haaretz (Perennial sources):"A Polish senator for the ruling party said Friday he would not shake hands with Israel’s ambassador and that he favors her expulsion from Poland for saying anti-Semitism was on the rise there."--Mhorg (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
False interpretation of Zaryn's words, both by Ha'aretz and by proposed text. Here is what Zaryn actually said, citing Ha'aretz itself:
“If anyone today thinks to equate in any way the rule of the Law and Justice party to the persecution of Jews led by the communist party apparatus in 1968, or by the marshals, then I certainly will not shake hands with such a person. If this is done by the ambassador of a foreign state, then maybe we have to ask this lady to leave this country,” he is quoted as saying."
Which yet again demonstrates that you guys have limited comprehension skills. And Ha'aretz has limited knowledge of both Polish language and history. Zaryn actually said "że rządy Prawa i Sprawiedliwości w jakimkolwiek stopniu nawiązują do hucpy żydowskiej, prowadzonej przez aparat partyjny ‘68 roku, czyli przez moczarowców", i.e., Zaryn protested what he saw an attempt to link PiS and Communist past. Azari actually said "", well, hers is irrelevant. What is relevant is that twisting person's words is low decency no matter who does that and most certainly a BLP violation. (P.S. Not to say that one cannot comprehend the significance of this episode without looking at a broader context I will not say which. (But upon request I may give a brief overview in the talk page of a curious user)) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas the same interpretation of this sentence was given by The Time Of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, i24 News. It would appear that what Zaryn has suggested is an invitation to ask for the expulsion of the ambassador. If so, it seems important enough to me to report inside the article.--Mhorg (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that what Zaryn has suggested is an invitation to ask for the expulsion of the ambassador. What on earth is this supposed to mean now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is the best English I can speak.--Mhorg (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your English is fine; I'm not talking about that. What source says that: It appears that what Zaryn has suggested is an invitation to ask for the expulsion of the ambassador? How many times do we have to go through that!? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - per 3 monthly discussions above and below this RfC. (Please see the entire debate, not only this RfC) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The incident seems trivial (UNDUE). Politicians often make controversial remarks, NOTNEWS, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — per sources, whether we like it or not; nowhere it is said that it was rejected because of this particular passage, just that it was rejected, while some of his proposed wording was criticized by some historians and was controversial. As for Anna Azari, she seems to be relevant for context. We may disagree about the perfect wording, and how to word it, but it seems to be due. Our own interpretation is also irrelevant if not backed by equally reliable sources; what matters is what reliable sources have said about it, and they can certainly be wrong, but unless equally reliable sources (Haaretz, The Time of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, i24 News, and other English-language sources that back the proposed wording or something similar to it) are shown that such reliable sources were wrong about this, I see no valid reason to exclude this. Davide King (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC: Section 5)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_Żaryn&oldid=1212741490"