Talk:Jedwabne pogrom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former featured article candidateJedwabne pogrom is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 24, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2015, July 10, 2016, July 10, 2019, and July 10, 2021.

Stachura in Glaukopis

The article currently includes:

Stachura took exception to their letter. History declined to publish his reply; instead, it was posted on the website of Glaukopis, a right-wing Polish journal.[1]Stachura, Peter (6 February 2008). "Jedwabne: A reply to Antony Polonsky & Joanna Michlic" (PDF). Glaukopis. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2017.

References

  1. ^ Stachura 2008.

Glaukopis is a problematic publication, whose web site moreover only hosts the letter, after History declined to publish it. Finding this statement to be undue, I suggest it be removed. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree. "Glaukopis, a journal which caters to, and is led by, the Polish extreme nationalistic right. Its long-time editor-in-chief,
WP:BOLD removing it as a matter of urgency. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. When I initially encountered this, I thought this was an article published in a reliable outlet. Forward a decade, I concur this has issues with BLP / RS and does not meet our modern standards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hasten to add that the quote I used above is from the widely respected Polish chapter[1] of the International Council of Christians and Jews, their website publication of Jan Grabowski's controversial essay, "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". In that essay he makes wide-ranging allegations against Wikipedia that AFAIU Wikipedia has contested in part and responded to. Still, I treat his opinion about Glaukopis as a noteworthy mainstream-academic observation, one that crosses our threshold for source reliability and minority view concerns. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal, however I was wondering if Glaukopis should also be removed from other articles where it's used as a source and/or listed in the biography (here below in the collapse box). Obviously removing the quotation is not enough: the supported text should also be checked. Shall we have a discussion at
WP:RSN
on this?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I answered myself. The discussion at RSN is here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.prchiz.pl/2023-03-03-wikipedias-intentional-distortion
Yes, I fully support total removal of the source across Wikipedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the lede

After I removed Glaukopis per above, having seen it is associated with anti-semitism, now I see more discussion is needed about the lede. This once-volatile article has just had it's longest period of stability for ages, lasting for many months of peace and

WP:OR in the past. Thoughts? Chumchum7 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm glad you acknowledge that Gross's text is balanced in terms of Polish/Germans responsabilities; along with
WP:MOS, since the body of the article reports that While Gross recognized that no "sustained organizing activity" could have taken place without the Germans' consent, he concluded that the massacre had been carried out entirely by Poles (section Jan T. Gross's Neighbors, 2000
).
I agree that
WP:ONUS I'm now removing the contentious quotation/misrepresentation of Gross until a consensus is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Gitz, I'm sorry but this looks like original research on your part. The whole paragraph you quote is precisely about German culpability, and only the last sentence notes that their direct participation was limited. The "own initiative" are your words, not Gross' ("however, the pogrom was carried out by the Poles on their own initiative"). "Of own free will" is different than "on your own initiative". I am going to restore this text as I don't see much beyond creative and selective reading of the source here. Volunteer Marek 03:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the pogrom was carried out by the Poles of their "own free will" rather than "own initiative". Re initiative, Gross says Where the initiative came from [whether from the Germans or Poles] is impossible to settle once and for all. But it is also an academic question, since both sides apparently quickly agreed on the matter, and on the method of its implementation. However, you are using "original research" in a way that has no basis in policy:
WP:OR applies to the content of WP articles, not to the arguments exchanged by editors in talk page discussion, and both in the text I published [3] and in the talk page discussion (here above) the quotations from Gross were accurate, namely: Germans' direct participation in the massacre was limited, pretty much, to their taking pictures and the so-called local population involved in killings of Jews did so of its own free will. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In re: this edit, the remaining text leaves the impression that the Germans may have played a more active role than the current research suggests, with the clarifying material removed:

...their direct participation in the massacre, however, was "limited, pretty much, to their taking pictures"[1] and the local population was not compelled to participate directly in the killings of Jews but "did so of its own free will".[2]

References

  1. ^ Gross 2001, p. 78.
  2. ^ Gross 2001, p. 133; italics by the author; ivi, p. 138: "It is simply not true that Jews were murdered in Poland during the war solely by the Germans, occasionally assisted in the execution of their gruesome task by some auxiliary police formations composed primarily of Latvians, Ukrainians, or some other 'Kalmuks'...".

I recommend that the removed material be restored.
As the next edit, this text was then removed: [4]. Is this a separate issue, or related to the restoration above? Please help me understand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, what you're seeing is the
WP:BRD I took to the Talk page by opening discussion about above and reverted [6]
pending a new consensus being reached.
In discussion, Gitz has explained their objection to the use of the quote by Gross is that they see it as selective, and so their
WP:BOLD removed the first Gross quote that had prompted Gitz's intervention in the first place: [7]
This is in a sense Gitz's alternative
thread mode
of quotes in the lede.
As far as I can see, Gitz's second bold edit seems to have inadvertently also removed what were reference [6] reference [7] and note [a], from the end of the same paragraph in the lede, which can be seen here [8]. It's easily done, and easily fixed. Happily reference [7] was a repetition of Persak anyway so it is right to remain deleted. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from one minor detail, I agree entirely with Chumchum7 account of the editing process and discussion we've had so far. I think we should discuss whether we want a full presentation of Gross's book in the lead (this version of the lead, following my first bold edit) or rather we don't want to have any mention to Grass (the current version, following my second edit quoting WP:ONUS). However, I objected to maintaining the status quo version, which IMHO misrepresents Gross's book.
The "minor detail" I don't agree with is that I didn't remove reference [6] reference [7] and note [a] inadvertently. These references were supporting/strengthening the claim the undisputed bosses of life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. If that sentence is removed, those references are no longer needed. At most, they should be placed somewhere in the article body rather than the lead.
Honestly, I think that that
WP:OVERKILL, that clutter of references and verbatim quotations supporting the claim "It's the Germans' fault!", was there for a (questionable) reason. The historical consensus seems to be that both the German occupiers and the local population were responsible for the pogrom. The Germans were the triggering factor, the necessary condition: without them, there would have been no pogrom. The local population, however, was not directed by the Germans, but acted autonomously. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Right, but then why is this exact information being removed? Volunteer Marek 03:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is already explained in this thread, which I invite you to read. The text you have restored misrepresents Gross's book, as it contains a selective quotation from him that is likely to mislead readers who are not already familiar with his work. What about the text resulting from this edit of mine (reverted by Chumchum7): [9]. The information you don't want to remove (the undisputed bosses of life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans) is still included, but is supplemented by other quotes from Gross so as not to distort his findings. Would you be OK with that drafting of the lead? Or do you want to have that the undisputed bosses were the Germans and stop - no mention of local popolation acting of their own free will? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My gut is that the "of their own free will" language is duplicative of what is already there. We are already saying At least 40 ethnic Poles carried out the killing; their ringleaders decided on it beforehand with Germany's Gestapo, SS security police or SS intelligence and they then cooperated with German military police. The words "cooperated with" and "decided on it beforehand with" make it clear that the Poles were not compelled. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: "in cooperation with German military police"

The same Gross quote under discussion above is supporting the infobox statement:

At least 40 ethnic Poles in cooperation with German military police[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ignatiew 2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Gross 2001, pp. 76–78 "There was an outpost of German gendarmerie in Jedwabne, staffed by eleven men. We can also infer from various sources that a group of Gestapo men arrived in town by taxi either on that day or the previous one." [...] "At the time the undisputed bosses of life and death in Jedwabne were the Germans. No sustained organized activity could take place there without their consent. They were the only ones who could decide the fate of the Jews."

This quote from Gross was removed in this edit: [10], because (as I understand it) it was lacking the follow-up of "their [German's] direct participation in the massacre, however, was "limited, pretty much, to their taking pictures".... and the local population was not compelled to participate directly in the killings of Jews but "did so of its own free will."

I find the statement to be lacking nuance, being in the infobox, and it perhaps leaves the impression that the Germans may have played a more active role ("cooperation") than the current research suggests. Suggest "... in cooperation with" be removed from the infobox. "German incitement" is mentioned under the Motive parameter in the infobox and this is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Thank you. Apart from the Polish nationalist minority of sources that we ignore, all mainstream sources including Gross concur that Poles carried out the massacre in cooperation with German personnel. That refers to the well-documented meeting between the Polish ringleaders and German personnel right before the massacre took place, as well as the control of the town by German personnel at the time of the massacre. It's unambiguously a case of direct Polish collaboration with the Nazis.

So that we're all on the same page, let's ensure we're all familiar with this current research, and which sources we are referring to beyond Gross 2001. Because it's important to note at over the past 22 years the academic consensus has corrected parts of his generally excellent first-mover work. Initially, that was followed by an official murder investigation by the prosecutor Ignatiew which concluded in 2002. This was praised by Gross, it entailed far more witness testimony and documentation than Gross had, as well as a forensic excavation of the the massacre site to test the Gross hypotheses.

After the investigation, literally hundreds of secondary sources on Jedwabne were informed by it, a good indication of which is our reference, Stola 2003, which directly revises specific details in Gross, including that hypothesis around the taking of photographs. Stola himself has been in trouble with Poland's current nationalist government, because during his excellent leadership of the

Museum of the History of Polish Jews the institution pointed out anti-Semitism among the pro-government media. I invite familiarization with Stola 2003 as it's right there for download through our article. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Number of victims We have now in the lead "At least 340 men, women and children were murdered, some 300 of whom were locked in a barn and burned alive". On this, we are relying on the findings of the IPN investigation (Ignatiew 2002, 2003). However, Stola 2003 says estimates vary from 300 to 1,600; he also says that estimates ranging from 400-800 seem much more plausible than those above 1,000. The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 2, part A, 2012, p. 900, reports the following:

Some set the number of victims at 2,000, including 230 Wizna Jews, and others at 1,400, including refugees from Wizna and Radziłów. Until recently, the most widely accepted death toll was 1,600, likely drawn from the testimony of Szmul Wasersztejn.7 However, the Soviet population figures and an incomplete and controversial forensic investigation in 2002, which estimated 300 to 400 people perished in the barn, have led some to argue the fire claimed fewer lives. The number of survivors also varies, with Rywka Fogiel (Rivka Fogel) remembering 125 and Menachem Finkelsztejn, a Radziłów survivor, mentioning 302

On the basis of these sources, I suggest adopting Stola's non-committal formulation about estimates ranging btw 300 and 1600 and possibly providing more information on the number of victims in the article body. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that Stola's range of should be given more weight vs the "340" number (due to the incomplete exhumation) and the "1600+" numbers which I believe is widely considered too high today. Perhaps along the lines of: 400-800 victims, with a note in re: incomplete investigation confirming 300-400 bodies + estimates of up 1600 victims and higher having been put forth as well. Something like this.
Note: my comment refers to the infobox, which states, in this version of the article, "At least 340 Polish Jews[1]". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I wouldn't object to having the "400-800 victims" figure also in the lead, if this information is supported by the sources (Stola, Crago) and supplemented by the quotations now in footnote 5. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Those who retracted included . . ."

My gut is that the individual names of those who retracted their confessions is

WP:BOLD and delete it. One option might be to say that "at least nine people retracted . . ." as there are nine names on the list. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed my mind as no one else has replied. Names are now deleted. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"burnt alive"

I'm not 100% up on British English. I would have said "burned alive". But I'm not British. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt alive is fine. Very quick addendum , "it's fine" from a spelling sense. Also as the article repeatedly uses a quote using "burned alive", burned is probably best for consistency. Also now realising this is a really old comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

Change: After the German occupation, Polish villagers participated in pogroms against Jews in 23 localities of the Łomża and Białystok areas of the Podlasie region, with varying degrees of German involvement.

To: After the German occupation, Polish villagers participated in pogroms against Jews in 23 localities of the Łomża and Białystok areas of the Podlaskie region, with varying degrees of German involvement.

Also: Podlaskie region should redirect to "Podlaskie voivodeship" not "podlachia". LEJ PO ŁYMPIE (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  23:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jedwabne_pogrom&oldid=1211870778"