Talk:New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship

Ten year test

Aside from being written in a tendentious over-the-top POV manner, the article fails the ten year test and does not satisfy Wikipedia criteria for notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

VM - I've repeatedly requested that you cease WP:HOUNDING me (April 2019, December 2018). The event in question caused an international incident between Poland and France and has profound implications regarding academic freedom (meeting WP:LASTING), coverage is in multiple countries meeting WP:GEOSCOPE, is WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, and meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This event has even been covered in an academic book chapter (a rather quick turn around - most academic coverage usually takes several months and years after an event). As for the article balance - it closely follows the cited sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I am not hounding you and you really need to stop making such WP:NPAs. You're editing in the same topic area as I am, which you well know, and most of your edits are controversial, and/or against Wikipedia policy. Likewise, as has been shown, you actually followed me to a lot more articles and discussions, including quite recently [4]. You do not WP:OWN this topic area and your edits can be scrutinized like anyone else's, particularly given their nature.

As to the issue at hand, no there's no "profound implications regarding academic freedom". You made that up afaict. There's no WP:LASTING. In ten years... scratch that, in couple months no one will remember this. There has been almost no additional coverage in media since this happened. This is classic WP:NOTNEWS. And that's, again, putting aside the fact that the article is written in a completely over-the-top POV manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Israeli occupation of the West Bank‎ has been on my watchlist for a long time - since 2018). @Volunteer Marek: - pray tell - how did you get to this article, created less than 24 hours ago, precisely? Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it has - but the point is that you jumped into a discussion that didn't involve you and you even took a position which apparently contradicted your earlier position, simply to disagree with me. That takes effort. And I saw this article when I was looking for some diffs. Now, can you please address the issue at hand? Is there ANY evidence of lasting notability here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The 21 cited sources amply demonstrated WP:NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:NEVENT they actually don't. There's been no coverage for several months afaict.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Feb - JunJul 2019. Coverage starting prior to event, and continuing - even in an academic book chapter. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC) June->July - misread cover.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, no, more like Feb-March 2019, which is kind of obvious since this happened in Feb. Not sure where you're pulling "June" out of. But even then, like I said, no coverage for several months.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do try to read the sources and article prior to commenting. Besides extensive coverage in Feb-March. We have - Late March, April, April, April-May, May, July academic book chapter. So - in-depth coverage from February through July.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not make the bad faithed and erroneous assumption that I didn't read the sources. Most of the sources are from February and March. I'm not sure how you listing the sources from March contradicts that. The source from July is unpublished. Even if it was published it would go nowhere near establishing lasting notability. You got two sources from early April, which is still several months old. There's been no coverage of this for awhile.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Please do check what you write before you make false assertions. We have coverage from May. The source from July was indeed published - here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, there is one single source from May. Ok. That doesn't really change anything. That's still several months ago. That's still a single source. The majority of sources are still from Feb and March. It still doesn't pass WP:10YEARTEST.

(and seriously, a book about an event that occured in late Feb was published in July of the same year? You think that's "peer review"???) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you mention your concerns by writing a polite letter to Les Presses Universitaires du Septentrion which would seem to amply pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP per Wikipedia standards. I will also note that further journal papers are expected to be forthcoming.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems borderline to me. I'd suggest a good faith AfD where we could judge community's input on whether this fails NEVENT or not. Or, if we could argue that the conference itself is notable, this could be merged into its article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a very clear AfD pass - wide international coverage, persisting over a period of several months, and with additional coverage in journal articles and books expected. As for a separate conference article - we don't have one AFAICT, and I don't think we should have a separate article. In as much as we cover the conference itself (and not just disruption thereof) - Nouvelle école polonaise d’histoire de la Shoah (or English form The New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship) - it should be the same article. Definitely surpasses most conferences in RS coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh please. It's nowhere near an AfD pass. We can give it a month or so to see if it gets covered again but it very clearly does not past WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT no matter how much you insist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Several POV issues

The article is one sided and uses extreme language. For example:

• Polish government is named as nationalist regime
• Antisemitism is named as character of Polish religious identity(this is actually named as part of antipolish stereotype in some studies)
• almost no information about content of presentations by lecturers which was highly controversial
• there is no information that Polish authorites reviewed transcripts from the events and they differ from some of the claims presented in the article.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount - we follow sources. Mainstream sources do not accord much weight to Polish authorities regarding their opinions on events in Paris - it seems French authorities (as well as recordings, online evidence, and witness statements) are given much greater weight. Nor do mainstream sources consider the conference, or its speakers, to be "highly controversial" - this is simply absent in the cited mainstream sources (who tend to portray the work as groundbreaking and in a positive tone). As for points 1 and 2:

1. Cited source (mainstream newspaper) writes: "As has been widely reported, the nationalist regime leading Poland since 2015 has pushed back against researchers who have turned up facts that are seen as blackening the good name of the Polish nation. Even after it was modified, a law passed in early 2018 made it illegal to publicly ascribe any Holocaust complicity to the Polish nation or people. ". Nor is this language particular to this source - see e.g. [5].
2. Cited piece, by Polish-French sociologist (currently - Associate Professor at the Institute of Sociology at the University of Warsaw), whose piece is directly on the topic of the attack - "In the Polish case, the best organized of these groups are Roman Catholics. Emigres of this group benefit from the institutional support of the Church in which parishes maintain Polish cultural identity via Polish language Sunday schools and other religious-traditional activities. While the version of Catholicism practiced in Poland (as well as the diaspora) often results in the making of strong distinctions between “us” (Catholics) and “them” (non-Catholics), in recent years anti-Semitism has become one of the strongest markers of this cultural identity.[3] With regard to the recent protests against the NPSHS, the Parisian Polish community, unified around Polish Catholic Mission, seems to have been mobilized by Fr. Jeż to protest against what they perceived as an attack on good image of Poland.". I will note that she cites a book by professor Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (cultural anthropologist, literary scholar, and religious studies scholar - chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies.) - for this. This is a domain expert, back up by a citation by another domain expert, used in an attributed manner (which probably actually is not required). I will note that, as the source notes, those disrupting the conference were led by a senior Roman Catholic priest - which may be the reason this expert source considers this relevant.

We follow sources on Wikipedia. If you have issues with WP:RSes - I suggest you write their respective editors a polite letter. Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that propaganda fighters deserve politeness. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There are no sources supporting the alleged disruptions.

Some of the lecturers attacked the government of Poland. Such attacks are in any way scientific but political and emotional. Poland doesn't organize anti-Macron confrences disguised as academic.Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is biased anti-Polish

Some editors apparently want to ban all Polish editors and continue their anti-Polish campaign without any resistance. Writing trash is on eof the methods. The name of the page is biased and misinforms. The name of the conference was different. I agree that the conference wasn't notable so the only notable fact was the critics succesfully banned by organizers.

Professor Ryszard Legutko has been invited by an US college and his lecture was banned when he alredy arrived from Europe. So the incident desrves at least Disruption of Ryszard Legutko's lecture. Similarly the former assault on a female college professor.08:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia contains only 135 pages in Category:Academic conferences, nonre about the Holocaust. It's obvious that this conference doesn't belong to top 1000 of world conferences. So such informations belong to the Polish Center for Holocaust Research. It was a propaganda event of the Center, no outsider was invited as a speaker.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Yehuda Bauer, present in the article, the scholarship of the New Polish School - some 28 scholars (mainly based in Poalnd) - is groundbreaking.[6] While there has been some reactionary push back, the conference was a celebration of their scholarly achievements in the past 15-20 years - a Polish accomplishment. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A celebration? Thank you for your sincerity. The president of PAS claimed it was strictly academic. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Academic celebration - akin to a Festschrift for an individual, but to the group. Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Which exactly lecture do you mean? Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This entry could certainly stand to have the rhetoric toned down substantially. An NPOV presentation of this event would be significantly shorter, which would be much more effective in conveying the information. The French sources I've looked at do seem to suggest that it was notable news.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Renaming?

Opinions on renaming article to The New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)? François Robere (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Not opposed. I chose the descriptive as it is shorter and since the English translation of the French conference title is not entirely consistent (some use Shoah (which is much less used in English (to the point that I think many English speakers aren't aware of what it is) - but is the French term and in the French title) + various other variations. So I have a slight preference to the current descriptive, but not opposed to conference title. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tylko Polska

The weekly is published by pl:Leszek Bubel, it doesn't exist without Bubel. Bubel is persecuted and ridiculed in Poland, he has been examined by psychiatrists. Postmen refused to distribute his another paper, Empik refuses to distribute "Tylko Polska". I don't know any reader of the trash. Either the conference is anti-Polish, so "Tylko Polska" is notable, or the conference is academic so "Tylko Polska" isn't notable. Bubel has finished probably only a high school, so his opinions about academy aren't notable.Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The majority of the text is about an another article in the same issue. Icewhiz, please don't make fun of you.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tylko Polska being distributed by the Sejm press office (as well as around Poland), given the nature of the publication - in regards to this particular conference - has garnered very wide international attention - e.g. The Washington Post (and nearly every top-tier NEWSORG). We certainly shouldn't be use Bubel or Tylko Polska as source, however we should follow the overwhelming weight of RSes that cover the distribution and content of Tylko Polska in this particular regard. Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the Sejm press office? As far as I know it was a newspaper stand. Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, answer please. Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Information center I mean. See source: "The director of the Sejm Information Centre, Andrzej Grzegrzolka, initially said his office could not take action as the paper was being sold from kiosks inside the Sejm who were responsible for the choice of newspapers. He also suggested a court could .... However, Mr Grzegrzolka later announced his office would request the publication be removed from the Sejm’s press kit.. [7] So it was in some sort of press kit. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is the unprecize word newspaper betetr than precise weekly?

The nationally distributed right-wing Polish newspaper - nationally distributed - what does it mean? Why isn't weekly enough, must be nationally distributed? The circulation would be interesting, but I doubt that the editor publishes the number. https://www.wirtualnemedia.pl/artykul/sprzedaz-tygodnikow-opinii-kwiecien-2019-roku-gosc-niedzielny

Is the paper right-wing? It's antisemitic. I doubt they have any other program. The editor is a goldsmith, not a thinker. There exists also leftist anti-Semitism.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"It's your task to prove the connection between texts in the issue. I don't know the weekly, but they probably publish an anti-Semitic article in any issue, so you invent things (WP:OR).Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Dalej jest noc(...)covered the role played by Poles in killing Jews as well as turning them over to German authorities

Thank you for your sincerity. I believe the authors weren't to shy to name their goal. so precisely. Do you know that the Germans designed and implemente dthe Holocaust? That they murdered about 1.7 milion of ethnic Poles? That the Germans punished any form of contact with Jews? According to this page the main goal of Poles was to kill or deliver Jews. Because they were anti-Semitic. Is this a Wikipedia or Antipolishpedia?Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Cited source:

Among the subjects these academics have examined is the vexing question of the role played by Poles during World War II, both in turning Jews over to the German occupiers and in killing them. A newly published collection of Polish-language articles — comprising two volumes, each some 800 pages long, and called “Night Continues: The Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland” — is among the fruits of their labors.

I merely attempt to summarize, paraphrase, and condense.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you see among? Selecting one of many points is bias or OR. Please don't. You attempt to rewrite the Holocaust and the book. http://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/4847727/dalej-jest-noc-losy-zydow-w-wybranych-powiatach-okupowanej-polski Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The book is about "Jewish survival strategies".Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Survival strategies in the face of (same book jacket... Just read to the last paragraph):

The current group norms, anti-Semitism everywhere, and the mechanisms of social conformism did not favor this. The more we should admire those who were able to oppose not only German legal regulations, but also written and unwritten rules of group life. [break] The pronunciation of numbers is inexorable: two out of every three Jews seeking help - died. The studies contained in the volumes provide evidence indicating a significant - and greater than previously thought - scale of participation of Poles in the destruction of Jewish fellow citizens.

In any event - that's a PRIMARY description of the book, we're using a SECONDARY description that is furthermore SPECIFIC to this event.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this part is clear attempt at WP:COATRACKing material that has been disputed elsewhere. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust was designed by Germans and Austrians. The Poles who helped the Jews or even didn't inform about their presence were punished, frequrentlly with death, sometimes death of the whole family. Icewhiz rewrites hisytory of the Holocaust transferring responsibility from Germans to Poles. Icewhiz ignores responsibility of Ukrainian nationalists. Thiss WIkipedia is biased. Editors who support icewhiz are unethical.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your source is not a neutral summary of the book. It's a typical for Haaretz hate speach, quoting Havie Dreyfuss, a biased anti-Polish writer. An example from the article "Polish denial spread its reach to France this past winter." - which "denial"? Do they mean Leszek Bubel? The research by Engelking and Grabowski is mostly founded by Polish tax-payers, who obtain partial truth. There is basic question - why don't the Center study German archives? Polish archives (the August cases) were cretaed by Communists. Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"greater than previously thought" is wishful thinking. The whole Israel is waiting, let's prove that the primitive Poles were responsible, not those educated and chic Germans and Austrians. The sołtysi committed the Holocaust beacsue they hated Jews. Sorry, Icewhiz, sooner or later you will accept you misinform the readers. And your manipulations will survive forever.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The program in English?

AFAICT only the French is available. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added the "meat" of the program in English; editors are welcome to review. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: - add an inline citation(s) please.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. François Robere (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Notability tag?

The conference appears to be notable; not sure if this was tagged before it was moved. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The conference was notable? No, no it wasn't. Not according to Wikipedia criteria. This is an (empty) assertion not an argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It drew statements from two Polish ambassadors and two ministers of education (of Poland and France), and receives covered from major newspapers in at least countries. You can argue about relative notability, but saying there events weren't at all notable isn't true. François Robere (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. Ambassadors doing their jobs isn't some extraordinary event. Yes, it did receive some newspaper coverage but LOTS OF STUFF does. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This topic fails the WP:10YEARTEST. There hasn't been any coverage for several months now. If I search for "Paris Holocaust Poland" or similar for the past month or two all you find is articles about ... Islam in Germany, something about Turkey... nothing about this.

To sum up, here I am quoting explicit Wikipedia policies. You and coffman just assure us that "no no, it's notable, we promise". Sorry, Wikipedia policies take precedence over personal feelings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article on Polish Center for Holocaust Research-it might be better to merge this bloated article and put relevant(and neutral) information there, it already has subsection on the conference.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The conference is notable the way spitting is notable, This Wikipedia degenarates.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also concerned about notability of this, per WP:NEVENT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• A previous notability tag was removed in Oct 2019 with this rationale: "Ample sources, presence of protests, and well-known historians suggest that this page is indeed notable.". I removed the subsequent tag. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand the word "conference"

Please learn what is a confrence. It's not a "disruption", this page should inform about the conference. The alleged disruption is a detail. No lecture was canceled. Please compare cancellation of lecture of Ryszard Legutko in a US college. Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What about mathematicians?

How do you know that only nationalists protested? What about mathematicians? Grabowski uses false numbers.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Spurious removal of tags

Please do not remove the notability tags since the concerns have not been addressed. The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and does not pass the WP:10YEARTEST. With one or two exceptions all the sources are from right around when the event happened. There has been no coverage of this in months.

Please also refrain from using false and misleading edit summaries such as here. Quote: "Seem to be resolved following page move. No reliable secondary sources have been produced to demonstrate any neutrality issue here"

The neutrality concerns most certainly have NOT been resolved as indicated on talk, and the fact that Icewhiz is blind reverting to "his" version [8] in violation of WP:OWN and WP:TEND. Also the edit summary fails to address the neutrality issue, yet the revert also removes the notability tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You've removed quite a bit of content without any rationale, you've furthermore broken reference formatting (by inserting bare-urls which have been improved), and further have failed to follow WP:ONUS in regards to insertion of WP:PRIMARY sources - and WP:OR on top of said primary sources (use of letters by organizations involved in instigating the event). I've reverted this, while retaining the tags. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

As for the POV tag - please provide reliable secondary sources covering this violent event in a different manner from this article and/or demonstrate where there is a POV issue with sources used in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm no. This is also another instance where you used a false edit summary. The "blanket removal" occurred here - see the RED number with a big minus sign in front of it? It was done by Francois Robere. You then made the same "blanket removal" here (you and Francois Robere, once again, performed exactly the same edit).

Likewise, it's actually YOUR edit which has messed up formatting. See the lost little "{{" in your version?

If you have concerns about primary or OR then please articulate them properly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a justification for the POV tag - what POV issues remain?. Please justify your blanket revert of content - e.g. the expansion of Vidal's statements to match Le Figaro better that shouldn't be under dispute or the formatting of bare url refs. Please justify your insertion: (again - WP:ONUS on you:

1. WP:OR + WP:WEASEL attribution on-top of a primary letter (to the lead no-less):

   The conference was criticized for not allowing discussion and denying representation to scholars representing Institute of National Remembrance, an institution which was subject of lecture during the gathering.

2. spelling mistakes + primary letter:

   Polish ambassador Jakub Kumoch and consul Markus Blechner in their official statement wrte that they requested recordings from the conference but were met with rejection, they did however received a private recording of the conference lasting 4 hours and 37 minutes in which no antisemitic slogans or shouting are visible, the only shouts visible are the ones directed at representative of Institue of National Rememberance. According to their statement the recording also shows organizers of the conference also tried to stop filming of the events

3. False attribution (to Josepha Croitoru) added to a segment sourced to Jerusalem Post (no Croitoru) + Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Croitoru there) - both of these are top-notch WP:RSes, and no attribution is required.
4. WP:SYNTH - use of sources that are not on the conference. Furthermore, the source here is the IPN which beyond being involved in this incident, is described as promoting revisionism (Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta),[9] or state propaganda (Behr)[10]. Behr extensively describes the unsual nature of IPN's "critique" here in his book chapter.

   he book has been criticized for using unreliable sources, for ignoring the context of Germany's draconian occupation policies and practices, for some authors' alleged personal interests, for selective treatment of witness statements (questioning Polish witnesses' statements, while taking at face value witness statements that were in line with authors' theses), and for presenting rumors and gossip as actual proven facts.

On the English Wikipedia, we tend to use secondary reliable sources of some repute. We generally avoid primary tracts of writings of such a nature. Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)-zero results on Google, propose to merge with more appropriate page

I note that New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) has exactly 0 results on google search. I propose to merge this with Polish Center for Holocaust Research which already has a section about the conference. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems MyMoloboaccount needs to learn how to search. Clearly false assertion. Article has 35 references, most (MyMoloboaccount did add some SYNTH sources) of which are on the conference, and include top notch NEWORGs (very wide international coverage) essays written by academics, and an academic book chapter. At 13KB of prose, it would overwhelm this article. The conference furthermore included scholars not associated with the center - e.g, Gross or the rather sizeable French speaker list. Icewhiz (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This subject is not notable. Icewhiz, please stop your anti-Polish war.Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I was unsure if the indicent is notable, but the conference may be even less so (ping User:Randykitty and User:DGG on their thoughts here). Hmmm. Ugh, I am not seeing a good compromise right now, it's bad choice vs bad choice. I am really torn here, on one hand this seems like some sort of attack page with notability issues, on another, this got some coverage in media... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The attack on the conference is part of the conference - it only lends to notability of the topic. As for "attack page" - this page is using WP:RSes - if this isn't standalone - per WP:PRESERVE content on the IPN should go to Institute of National Remembrance (where a summary will end up anyway - this is well past WP:DUE there with international and academic coverage of this). Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, Google news - zero hits [11]. Google books - zero hits. All together [12] - nothing. This should probably go to AfD, not to DYK. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  Wrong search terms - well refuted by sources within the article. At best, you've demonstrated that the title possibly should be descriptive (as it was to begin with) - though that's not obvious (either way). All of the multitude of sources in the article are reacheable from google-news, google-scholar, and google-books. As well as google. E.G - google book hit (and it's early for books). Google news, multiple hits with - Vidal EHESS, Holocaust conference paris, Nouvelle école polonaise d'histoire de la Shoah, and so on and so forth (obviously - the correct search terms in German and Polish are different). Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @MyMoloboaccount and Xx236: A search for the exact term in French ("Nouvelle école polonaise d'histoire de la Shoah") has ~3160 G/Search, 28 G/Scholar and 20 G/News results. Unless you can present a policy-based reason not to keep, this would have to be rejected. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an English language Wikipedia. Why should it describe a Polish controversy taking part in France, described in French? Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Notability. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly notable given that the page is amply sourced, the event was attended by well-known historians, and protests received significant news coverage. This page appears on the english language version of Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination on hold for good reason

This page was nominated by its author for DYK on 18 August. As a neutral observer I agree that as is the text pushes a point of view in a manner incompatible with encyclopedic presentation. My recommendation would be to shorten the text by at least 40%. Though I've eliminated a few, there are still far too many repetitions, for example. I also think it is inappropriate to provide translated titles without including the originals. If a Polish speaker could fix the Polish references (the embassy, for example) into a "proper" {{cite web}} template, it would be helpful. Festina lente ! 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please suggest what in particular should be shortened. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality template

Any reason to keep this template? What problems are there with neutrality? François Robere (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I still think the text stutters and slants and repeats everything it hears. If anyone would just fix those bits, it certainly couldn't hurt...

Also, I found this when reading an automated translation of the German version of the embassy page:

Almost at the same time as the NZZ published the text of Mr Croitoru, the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Poland granted the Grabowski Group a grant for the magazine it edited.

Revisionism is a test of our tolerance and democracy. Considering that our country subsidizes the books of Prof. Grabowski, as well as all other well-founded research projects, we think that Poland passed this test pretty well.

Is it worth including in the paragraph about what the embassy staff says, that they say this? Is it an accurate translation from German? Is it true? (etc.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Machine translation between European languages is generally correct, though it may miss nuances and idioms in either language.

I don't know about veracity - G. works at U Ottawa, which doesn't seem linked to the Polish government, and whether his books are directly subsidized in Poland (as opposed to "bought by institutions that are government-subsidized) I can't tell. If you're curious we can just email him and ask. I did check the statement about the Jerusalem Post, which I thought would be the easiest to verify, and couldn't find anything to corroborate it in a period of three months centered on Feb. 2019. François Robere (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You can't tell but you discuss. Grabowski participated in the project summarized with Dalej jest noc, financed by Polish government.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Source? François Robere (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Academic conference?

What is the source of the category? The lead says conference. Promotion of opinions is not always academic. Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xx236: I suggest you head to ANI. You're about to get T-banned from the topic area, and haven't defended yourself despite a TP notice. François Robere (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

>I suggest you to write the truth, which you don't. I don't care if this project prefers to misinform. I happen to be an expert, comparing to you, so please don't patronize me. The Truth. Why don't you like it?Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not about Xx236, answer is point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not this time, Slater. One of the reasons this editor was called to ANI is his repeated slander of scholars from the "New School"; this is just one of those occasions. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Do RS say it was an academic conference?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know. You tell me.[13][14][15] François Robere (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not get shirty, your first source does not call it an academic conference, your second source may as it refers to an academic conference in France (but does not name it). I am unable to check the last source so ask for a quote. But as one says nothing and one has limited access it is reasonable for someone to ask if it is correct to say it was an academic conference. Snotty attitudes help no oneSlatersteven (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

1. The French materials refer to it as a "symposium", which is scholarly by definition.
2. "scientific event", "The aim was to acknowledge and discuss the new scholarship" (interviewee), "The Paris conference was an opportunity to sum up the results of nearly 20 years of research" (same), "What do you think [the disruption of the conference] tells us about the future of scholarship on the Holocaust in Poland?";[16] "a two-day conference about recent Holocaust research coming out of Poland";[17] "an academic conference in Paris last week".[18]
3. Academic institutions that organize conferences with academic speakers rarely state their conferences are "academic" (what else would they organize? a magic show?), and news outlets that report on them rarely say that either. This conference was organized by seven academic and research institutions (School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences at PSL, Strasbourg University, Polish Center for Holocaust Research at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, the Fondation pour la Mémoire de la Shoah) and one academic journal (L'Histoire), and featured academic speakers, so it being "academic" is pretty obvious. François Robere (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Rarely does not mean never.

symposium

/sɪmˈpəʊzɪəm/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1.a conference or meeting to discuss a particular subject.

So no its not "scholarly by definition".

So again I would say that you have one source which may be referring to this as an academic conference, and a lot of synthases. Whilst this might convince me it is OK to call this an academic conference I can see why others might disagree, and so do not consider the question unwarranted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The first source specifically lists the organizers (academic organizations) and calls it a conference of Polish scholars of the Holocaust. Can you explain how this does not mean "academic"? The second source specifically says "academic conference". I see no synth going on here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The first source does not say they were academic institutions, it says "scientific", it may be semantics, but that is my point. It was a reasonable question to ask. The second source does not say which conference, it is almost certainly this one (I can think of no other this year). But I may also be wrong on that score, and there may have been another. So again, I can see why someone might be in doubt (and yes it is syntheses to say Source A says X and source b says Y there for source be supports X). Reasonable requests should be dealt with reasonably, we not all experts, nor can we read everything ever written.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, yes, that seems reasonable to me.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The third source (behind a paywall, so I'm linking a Google cache) does call it an academic conference, in its first sentence: [19] It's specifically referring to the conference this WP article is about. DoubleCross (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)