User talk:Witekjl

Witold J. Ławrynowicz June 26, 2009 To Whom It May Concern:

I recently found the following page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)

This page essentially accuses me of plagiarizing material from the Electronic Museum website for the “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” article I wrote for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication. Since I was not informed about these proceedings against my work, I was denied the possibility of addressing the charges. I will do so at this time.

The accusation of plagiarism from the Electronic Museum page is not only a very serious attack on my reputation as a writer and historian, it is also completely false and unfounded. What your investigators, namely “Yellow Monkey,” found was the person who plagiarized my original work. I can easily prove to be the author of the article entitled “Battle of Warsaw 1920,” originally published as “W siedemdziesiątą rocznicę bitwy warszawskiej 1920” in Polish on August 9, 1990 and August 16, 1990 (in two parts), in “Głos Polski/Gazeta Polska” in Toronto, Canada. I am in possession of original newspaper copies of this article from 1990.

The piece was later translated into English, by myself personally, and subsequently published in “Hetman: Biuletyn Koła Miłośników Militariów Polskich im. Andrzeja Zaremby” (Hetman: the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication), in 1996. I am also in possession of this copy of “Hetman.” Later in 1996, it was published on the Hetman website at www.hetman.org, which no longer exists, and is now found at www.hetmanusa.org. I can produce a witness to all of the above facts, as well as photos of the original publications.

Bożenna Kirckpatrick, whom I have never met, placed a shorter version of my work on http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Soviet-Polish_War/spw_3.html. Kirckpatrick rewrote and posted my work as her own before the www.hetman.org website was closed. This is the reason for which it seems that my work followed hers.

To put it quite bluntly, your investigators did not do their research, and my name and reputation have suffered the consequences. The accusations made against me by “Yellow Monkey,” on behalf of Wikipedia, are borderline slanderous. Before waging such an attack against a writer, Wikipedia employees and/or agents should have fully investigated the background of the article. Their failure to do their duty demonstrates a serious lack of due diligence.

At the very least, I expect Wikipedia to withdraw the accusations made against me on the Battle of Warsaw (1920) page and issue a proper apology. I will be monitoring this issue closely.

Unfortunately, there are several other issues on this webpage that I am also forced to address.

Quote 1: “As for Witold Lawrynowicz - this FAR will serve as a broader venue for his status as a reliable source. His results in Google books - 2; 1 is a biological abstract, the other a footnoting snippet [13]. Google Scholar - [14] (chemical except for one to Wikipedia) or, for W. Lawrynowicz[15] - no history-related articles.”

“Novickas” is simply unable or unwilling to find my numerous historical works published in the USA, Canada, Poland, Sweden and Great Britain. There is a grand total of 173 articles, four books, and several Internet publications on historical topics under my name. I have been publishing in the history field since 1973. It seems that “Novickas” is attacking me as if I was his personal enemy, yet I cannot recall anyone with such a pseudonim.

Quote 2: “Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by Witold Lawrynowicz. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.” I do not see any justification to the statement that hetmanusa.org is not an FA-quality source. The opinion of “Novickas” has no factual foundation. I suppose “Novickas” never encountered this organization, and for this reason regards it as untrustworthy; this alone is not a reason to state that it is not an FA-quality source. I doubt that “Novickas” has ever ready any of the publications produced by Polish Militaria Collectors Association. Quote 3: “If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to Lawrynowicz's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to Lawrynowicz, says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)” “Novickas” may not realize it, but the bibliography for “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” is simply too large to provide a comprehensive study for such a short article. Furthermore, Richard Pipes’ opinion is not supported by numerous other researchers, such as Norman Davies in “White Eagle, Red Star,” Orbis Books, London, 1983, page 210. The destruction of the Russian radiostation was a direct result of action by the Polish 203rd Uhlan Regiment, which I myself described in detail in „Zdobycz ciechanowska”, Przegląd Polski, Nowy Dziennik, 08.17.2007, New York, USA. It also was described in Zbigniew Wieteska’s “27 Pułk Ułanów im. Króla Stefana Batorego,” Warszawa 1992, page 8, B. Skaradziński’s “Polskie lata 1919-1920,” Volumen, Warszawa 1993, page 241 and T. Machalski „Zagon na Ciechanów” in „Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej”, London 1962, Nr. 28. pages 12 – 15. Writing or commenting on the history of Poland requires knowledge of the Polish language and study of Polish language sources. By his own admission, “Novickas” is not an expert on the topic, but I will refrain from attacking his ignorance personally. Most disturbing, however, is the following statement:

Quote 4: “I submit that his historical works are not reliable sources "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Novickas (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)”

Publications in Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej, MARS, Wojskowy Przegląd Historyczny, Armoured Fighting Vehicles News, Hetman, AJ-Press, and others, as well as lectures for the Polish-American Historical Association and the Piłsudski Institute in New York prove “Novickas” wrong. I could defend myself further, but I think that my published pieces speak for themselves. I would encourage you to research my work further and convince yourselves of this fact.

I fully expect Wikipedia to immediately withdraw its false and unfounded judgments and publish letter of apology to myself.

Sincerely,

Witold J. Ławrynowicz [email protected]

The plagiarism query was whether the editor had plagiarised your book, not whether the material in the book was plagiarised from somewhere else. I'd advise you to calm down. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a response to your comment at my talk page at User talk:Novickas. The response includes links to members of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to whom you may address your concerns. If you experience difficulties with these links, feel free to post at my talk page again. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]