Talk:Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citing misinformation and misinformed opinion

It appears that many commentators, even respectable ones, did not read the law; instead they read other angry news and spread further misguided opinions and gross overstatements such as the bill is "criminalizing discussion of any Polish crimes relating to the Holocaust", etc. Wikipedia is supposed to be the source of correct information, not provably wrong sloppy comments . Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Staszek, I very much enjoy your namesake's books. But back to the subject. The most important point is that whether Kopstein and Wittenberg have misinterpreted the law or misinterpreted the ways in which the law will be used in Polish law courts is not for Wikipedians to judge. They are academics who expressed an opinion, reported by a mainstream English-language newspaper. We have a WP:RS and the fact is WP:NPOVed. Wikipedia is not a source of correct information, it's a source of NPOV information based on RSes. Readers have to judge what is correct by checking the methods of collecting and writing about the information and the source chain.

Kopstein and Wittenberg's point is at least credible. Consider the content of the English-language Wikipedia. In Szczuczyn_pogrom#July_Massacre we have an RS'd statement "Some 100 Jews were executed by Polish policemen in the town's Jewish cemetery on 24 July 1941.[5][3]" Polish policemen are (in general) part of the Polish state. So the second part of the term ,,Narodowi Polskiemu lub Państwu Polskiemu" in the 26 Jan 2018 law would reasonably apply to the Wikipedia article Szczuczyn pogrom. On the other hand, the use of WP:RS and ,,wbrew faktom" (against the facts) would disqualify the application of the law to the Wikipedia article. But an academic - or someone without formal artistic or academic status, unprotected by Art 55a.3 - would have to judge what lawyers and a court would think. Any such person living in Europe (e.g. Wikipedians editing articles) could be at risk of a European arrest warrant. As for the first part of ,,Narodowi Polskiemu lub Państwu Polskiemu", the definition of ,,Naród" for any ethnic or national group tends to be quite fuzzy, and potentially quite open to arbitrary interpretation by lawyers or judges. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with Kopstein and Wittenberg, since that's irrelevant.

Please revert this edit that removed Kopstein and Wittenberg's POV from this article. If there are responses claiming that Kopstein and Wittenberg made a "gross overstatement" with a "sloppy opinion", then of course feel free to add them to help NPOV the subsection. Boud (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"Misguided opinions" is the last judgement that should be made regarding a law which is so elastic as 55a. So, I would never discard ony opinion on such a basis. On the other hand, however, we may argue whether it is so relevant to the main issue so as to enlarge it by nearly 1000 characters.KrzysztofLeski

Feel free to re-insert a more compact version. Boud (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Calling this local police "Polish" and referring to it as a part of the Polish state is misfortunate because Poland was occupied these years. This is a notorious omission prevalent among western scholars who do not fully grasp what occupation meant for Poland. All kind of "Polish" forces (except for the underground ones) were formed and controlled by the Soviets or Nazi Germans in 1939-1989 so no responsibility can be assigned to Poland for anything that happened during these years on the polish soil. --Kieraf (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source of correct information, it's a source of NPOV information based on RSes -- Sorry, thoroughly disagree. Wikipedia is a source of correct information. Reliable sources, including scientists, err all the time. We are not it a position to correct them, but we are in a position to ignore the sources which are provably in error. not for Wikipedians to judge -- yes, it is for wikipedians to judge. It is called "editorial decision". Wikipedians do it all the time. Your explanation about "Polish policemen" neatly nails the problem with this law. And this is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do: explain things. Unfortunately it looks like "reliable sources" do not do this; they simply make a sensation. As a result, our both articles are a chaotic mess of bickering of Polish and Israeli talking heads. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, the K&W's article does say something close to what I wanted to see. Added. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Staszek Lem is 100% right. (I haven't read Kopstein and Wittenberg, and I'm not commenting specifically about them.) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As editors, every one of us exercises editorial judgment about what belongs in an encyclopedia article and what doesn't. Just because something appeared on a website or in a newspaper or magazine doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Per WP:ONUS, being sourced to a reliable source is the minimum threshold for inclusion; all information that can be reliably sourced does not automatically get included. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was oversimplifying. There is some degree of subjectivity in choosing whether or not to include info from a RS. Looking at the WP:ONUS paragraph, it seems to me that sentence 2 says that default is inclusion ("Consensus may determine ... should be omitted") while sentence 3 says that the default is exclusion ("The onus ..."). I'll post this concern over at that meta page, since it's getting off-topic here. Anyway, thanks for the restoration of content :). Boud (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

How much of the law should we quote

Let's focus on the main agenda. That's why I have just added a few more words about 55b, but I know it's not perfect English, and I'm no lawyer. Literally, 55b says: "Regardless of the law regulations existing in the site where the prohibited act was committed, this law applies to a Polish citizen and a foreigner in case of crimes described in art. 55 and art. 55a". In my opinion, 55b is just as important aa 55a and should be quoted in its entity, what, however, remains beyond the limits of my abilities. KrzysztofLeski —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the copyright considerations would be, but putting a translation of the law on Wikisource might be an alternative to including lengthy quotations in this article. (In many countries, laws and proposed laws are in the public domain. Translations distributed by the government on their website may also be in the public domain. A translation undertaken by a newspaper or a news organization, such as the Associated Press or Reuters, would almost certainly be subject to copyright.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

pl:Domena_publiczna - Polish copyright law does not use the term "public domain", but there's a "working definition" for the purpose of that Wikipedia article used for what is more or less the equivalent. Scroll down to "Czy mamy do czynienia z: aktem normatywnym lub jego urzędowym projektem? urzędowym dokumentem, materiałem, znakiem lub symbolem?" - roughly: "Is this an act defining legal norms or a governmental project? [or] Is this a government document, material, sign or symbol?" An answer of "yes" in either case means that the document is effectively public domain. That section of the article refers directly to an active law ("ustawa"). I'm not going to check it, and I'm not a lawyer, but I think we can reasonably trust the pl.Wikipedians on this. (As for using a media translation instead of our own, two lines lower gives "prostą informacją prasową" - simple press information. So in principle, Polish "simple" press information is effectively public domain.) So IMHO we're reasonably safe for these translations. But shifting to Wikisource would make sense if people want to include a bigger translated fraction of this law (a law that amends a previous law). Boud (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Cultural aspects vs legal text

The reminds me a bit of the idea of a Ban on sharia law in several states of the US, where usually the word "sharia" does not even appear in the legal text, and the purpose of the legislators is more rhetorical in furthering a culture war than something that will directly affect law enforcement. Still, I think it is useful to include the larger political atmosphere around this type of legislation (and go beyond primary sources), even if the direct impact of the law will perhaps be limited.--Pharos (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, however you have to find neutral sources which make an overview of the type you want. Otherwise we are in danger of unwittingly introduce a bias. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Meaning?

Part of the bill, as quote in this article, states:

"2. If a perpetrator of the act referred to in paragraph 1 has acted unintentionally, [such person] shall [only] be subject to a fine or restriction of freedom."

What does this mean? I would understand "restriction of freedom" as incarceration. Surely that would be not only inhumane, but stupid, in the case of a person who has acted "unintentionally"?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have enough trouble understanding laws (allegedly) written in English, let alone translations of laws written in other languages, but "restriction of freedom" might refer to a variety of restrictions other than prison, such as house arrest, revoking a person's passport (or otherwise limiting their ability to travel), taking away (or reducing) their pension or salary, etc. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to understand this provision's import. I am not a lawyer either, but it is a basic universal concept in law that a person cannot be found guilty of a crime in the absence of intent to commit a crime. (Perhaps a different matter, here, is that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse.")

So, is the text cited in this article an accurate English rendering of the Polish original? (Could someone please quote it on this page in the original? We could then verify the translation.)

Nihil novi (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• The original of "unintentionally" is "nieumyślnie" - I'm not a native PL speaker, but I'm reasonably sure that "unintentionally" is a fair translation. However, the "[only]" definitely needs the square brackets, because that's an interpretation, which seems to be implicit by contrasting with 55a.1. (The pl wiktionary is a lot less complete than the en and fr ones; I don't see either "nieumyślnie" or "umyślnie" there. :( )
• The original of "restriction of freedom" is "ograniczenia wolności" - pl:Kara ograniczenia wolności - from 1 month to 2 years in PL = Community sentence. So "community sentence" would be a better translation. I'm not sure if we should put internal Wikipedia links in the translation or not...?

Boud (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I see we do already have some internal links in the translation. Boud (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful link to "pl:Kara ograniczenia wolności". From that Polish article's definition and description, the legal institution in question would correspond to the English-language "community service", when the latter is imposed judicially in lieu of incarceration ("incarceration" in Polish being "kara pozbawienia wolności").

An individual may be sentenced to no less than 1 month, and no more than 2 years, of community service; during which time he will be required to perform 20-40 hours' community service (e.g., in a hospital, charitable institution, etc.) monthly.

In the event that the individual is already gainfully employed, he may be required instead to surrender 10-25% of his monthly wages.

Perhaps the above information could be provided in a note to this article, with links to the Polish articles.

English definitions of "nieumyślnie" include "unwittingly", "unintentionally", "involuntarily", "inadvertently". "Unintentionally" would be acceptable in this context.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Earlier I added the link to the Polish term into the article, but someone removed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

History of the Amendment

I expanded this section, from which it becomes clear why the scandal erupted: In public deliberations and in the rationale written to the Amendment the witless Polish politicians used the phrasing "protecting the good name of the Polish citizens", etc., i.e., not " the Polish People or to the Polish State". While clearly the second phrasing would clearly combat racism, the first one just as clearly indicates whitewashing individual citizens, with the natural consequent international outrage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this distinction, which points up the vital importance of precise thinking and wording. If this point has not yet been introduced into the ""Polish death camp" controversy" article, could you please do so? This matter seems to be the real bone of contention in the whole controversy. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is my sneaky original research :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Second "offending" piece, overlooked by the most of the world

I am sorry I do not have enough time, but you may believe me, there is quite a stir in Ukraine media and politics about the second piece I've just added. I simply don't have time to dig for reasonably neutral sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

An ukrainian source writes there was the following rationale for Article 2a:

"...беручи до уваги зростаючі міграційні рухи з України, коли носії ідеології українського націоналізму і адепти світогляду опертого на прославляння формувань, які скоїли геноцид, все більше представлені в Польщі, що також призводить до напруженості у польсько-українських відносинах"

google-transl : ...taking into account the growing migration movements from Ukraine, when the bearers of the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism and adherents of the world-view, based on the glorification of the genocidal formations, are increasingly represented in Poland, which also leads to tension in the Polish-Ukrainian relations

-- I have to time to find Polish-language original source -- Good night for me for now. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

German Wikipedia equivalent article

There is a German Wikipedia article on both the original act from 1998 and its recent amendment: de:Gesetz über das Institut des Nationalen Gedenkens – Kommission für die Verfolgung von Verbrechen gegen das Polnische Volk.--Pharos (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reactions in European newspapers

This might be interesting.--Pharos (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Broader topic: Act on the Institute of National Remembrance

I think it would make sense to broaden this article to cover the original 1998 law, as well as the recent amendment.--Pharos (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have secondary sources which discuss it in sufficient detail, which I doubt. Even Polish wp does not have one. There is a huge number of laws in the world; we have articles only on those which pass WP:GNG, and for this case the Act is currently discussed only in the context of its amendment, but may be older sources exist. IMO whatever basic info available from encyclopedic sources on the Act, can be easily included into a subsection of Institute of National Remembrance. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur. It is hard to intelligently discuss the Amendment without access to the basic law that it is amending. Nihil novi (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "without access"? It is online in its entirety. And we do not have to discuss the Amendment; we have to summarize reliable sources which discuss the Amendment. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and to its Amendment?

Secondary sources are often inaccurate, especially when they involve translations of text.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The links are in the "External links" section. Secondary sources are required to establish WP:NOTABILITY and for proper summarizing of its content: the law in 54 pages long, and it is not for a wikipedian to decide which parts of it are of encyclopedic value and which are trivial formalities. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that politicized secondary sources can twist and cherry-pick the original, exactly how it was happening with this law presented in "death camp" article. I am not defending this poorly written Amendment, but mixing the law content with its corruption by its opponents is a disfavor to Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There are actually a number of secondary sources on the original act, written in English before the recent controversy, and I'm sure there are more sources in Polish. Most of these secondary sources focus on Article 55, and also on the provisions related to PRL-era state secrets, and it is appropriate that the Wikipedia article focus on these areas, rather than the areas that less has been written about; this is normal for articles on legislation--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources which mention particular items of the law, which drew attention. I was talking about the law as a whole. I guess, there should be some general announcements to provide a generic summary in wikipedia. My point above was whether the coverage was in reasonable detail, may be a section about the law will be enough. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made an experiment to restructure the article as Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. The content has been preserved. More secondary sources can be added, but I think it's clear that the larger topic is notable in itself, and provides more useful context.--Pharos (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Delinking already linked articles

I just unlinked some duplicated links (see MOS:DUPLINK) and was reverted, not sure why. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

And I linked them back because they are helpful in longer articles. This "one-link-rule" is one of the most idiotic guidelines in Wikipedia. When I read, say, "Institute of National Remembrance", I have to waste my time searching it in the page, which is especially frustrating with mobile readers with small screen, such as cellphone. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Maybe change the guideline then. If others agree with you, I will relink them myself. --Malerooster (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not OK. The guideline is ..er.. guideline, not mortal law cast in stone. Please do something more useful, such as fill in citations in {{cn}} or something. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, just because you don't like it is not enough. This article actually really isn't even that long. Again, if you want to go against a guideline, fine, just get consensus for it, that's all, the onus is on you since you don't like it and are going against MOS. --Malerooster (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include a few duplicated links, as long as they are not duplicated in the same section.--Pharos (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

How many is a "few"? --Malerooster (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The links in question now are prominently linked with "Main article" links. --Malerooster (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Consider "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" for additional guidance. Nihil novi (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Considering how poorly written this article is, that works here. --Malerooster (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs copyediting for English usage.

Please feel free to try your hand, where you feel confident about your interpretation of the text.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

One institution or two?

The 2018 Amendment referenced in this article amends the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation.

How many institutions are thus amended, one or two? Are the "Institute of National Remembrance" and the "Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation" one institution, or two?

Nihil novi (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

One. " Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes. against the Polish Nation" (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu ) is the full name of the organization, but pretty much everyone shortens it to just Institute of National Remembrance because it is long enough, same in Polish. But see Institute of National Remembrance, or official English about page of IPN. Here, NN, I'll trout you, this is a question you can answer yourself in few seconds through google :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is commonly shortened even in official documents. Sometimes there is a confusion, because one of its units is called very similarly: "Chief Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Law against Holocaust denial?

Hmmm. Reading the text "article 55 of the Act criminalized "public denial, against the facts, of Nazi crimes, communist crimes, and other offenses constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes, committed against persons of Polish nationality or against Polish citizens of other nationalities, between 1 September 1939 and 31 July 1990"" - does it really criminalize Holocaust denial? In so much as the fact that many Jews were Polish citizens, I guess so, but if I were to say "Nazis didn't kill any non-Polish people/Jews", would I be violating the law? Is denying that Nazis committed crimes against persons of non-Polish nationality/citizens a violation of that law? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the same ambiguity. Nihil novi (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the law does not directly criminalize Holocaust denial, unlike some laws in some states, bout colloquially it is common to call it "law against ..." Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Piotrus, it is not Wikipedian's job to interpret the law. What is the point of your questions? Do you want some clarifications added to the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Two points. Do we have sources that 1) call it a law against HD? and 2) can it be used to persecute people who engage in HD (without mentioning Poland) - and that should be based on sources, not our analysis? Since the only time it was used was against DR, would be nice to see the details of his case (what exactly was he accused of, what did he say, what was the court analysis, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: 1) The best summary I could find is Memory Laws, Memory Wars, which says the Holocaust is covered only indirectly, and contrasts it with Gayssot Act and other Western European laws. The source seems to imply the Communist crimes covered are those of the USSR but not the PRL, but I don't know if that's true. 2) The law definitely does not apply to HD unrelated to Poland. We should probably have a brief summary of Article 55 in the intro, and a more detailed explanation based on sources in #1998 act ()maybe a subsection).--Pharos (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: I agree, except I am pretty sure the law covers communists crimes related to PRL too. Come to think of I am surprised the law wasn't used for anything related to that, but I guess few people in Poland would deny communist crimes (interesting, when compared to Russia where Stalin still has a significant bunch of fans). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead

In this article's lead, What does "colloquially known as the 'law against Holocaust'" mean? And how can an Article (55 a) contain another Article (2)?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"contain" is a mistake", fixed. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Colloquially known" is supposed to mean that this not a formal term; people are referring to Art. 55 in this way. May be my English is not good; may be "informally referred to as" is a better description. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I have tried a different version, saying "though not directly mentioned, it is also understood to prohibit Holocaust denial". I believe that summarizes it well. It is important to say both that the word is not in the legal text, and also that it is implied; and indeed, there has been a criminal case on this basis. I don't think it is correct that Article 55 is actually called the "law against Holocaust".--Pharos (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

With your edits on this article, and your move of it to "Act on the Institute of National Remembrance", we now have the article that was needed. Thank you! Nihil novi (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well done rewriting the article to focus on the act, with the controversy on recent legislation being part of it. I was thinking about proposing we do just that, but you beat me to it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Section on 'Allegations of censorship' should be deleted

I don't think this speculation is notable enough to justify even a mention here, not to mention a section. See my rationale here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed,GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I agree "possibly the first application of the new Holocaust law" is clearly incorrect. It does seem like there is a chilling effect with the local government's overzealousness, though.--Pharos (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSes disagree (particularly the English speaking ones which are more accessible to me) - I think it should be in - however I am not averse to modifications in language here (e.g. chilling effect) - if there are WP:RSes to back it up (while I might agree this is a chilling effect - i.e. perhaps local government being wary of sponsoring/participating in an event that would contain possible violations of the law - that's WP:OR by our part without a source saying so).At present, this event was fairly widely covered. The vast majority of the coverage we have on the new portions of the law (the 2018 amendment) are media-based (we did have a bunch of holocaust scholars speak up in op-eds in the media - but I don't think there is credible peer-review journal coverage yet - it is simply too new) - it is still in the "current event" realm.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is this is only speculate to be related to the new law. It would be one thing and totally relevant if someone was charged. But if someone spoke before a smaller audience because someone else didn't want to listen... this is business as usual. Honestly, new law or not, I expect the very same thing would happen anyway - the claim of '200,000' is controversial in Poland (and not only) and many people would complain and cause some trouble anyway. Currently we have 3:1 in favor of removing this section, so I think it should go. At best, could try to summarize it to a single sentence and include in some other relevant section; but this totally does not deserve a section of its own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If we run a RfC on this - I think you know what the result will be - with over 10 RSes reporting on this (and mentioning the new "Holocaust law" explicitly), this will easily pass a RfC. What I think is unusual - is the Polish authorities asking for the speech in advance for a historical review - I do not think one usually asks visitors for their speech in advance in order to review its "acceptability" - or to be precise, I do not think this was done in the past.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to run an RfC on this, I would not be sure of the result. As for asking for a copy of the speech, I'd think this has been done on occasion. How common the practice is, hard to say. For now I've merged this section with other criticism, we don't need a separate section for each minor development. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Adam Pulawski

reverted as "undue and off topic". Odd to see how this is off-topic when WP:RS tie this to the new "Holocaust Law" (or amendement) - [1][2]. This is also covered in Polish - [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Multiple world class historians have chimed in on how it is worrying the the new amendment is affecting the freedom of speech of historians. Seems another historian was terminated due to the previous 2016 amendment - [9] - but this was perhaps not covered as widely. In short - this is definitely "on topic", and it is far to say that such wide attention - by the press (Polish and English) and world class historians - is undue for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Errors

Biased section 2018 amendment, it presents only critics. The critics doesn't have any connection with the real text. You may hate the law, but you edit an encyclopedia.

Bad order: 2016, 2018, 2017.

Wrong Snyder link.

Even before being passed, the law damaged the Israel–Poland relations - The law has been consulted with Israeli Ambassador and changed according to Israeli wishes - academic research and arts were excluded. The law was attacked by Israeli politicians accotrding to internal Israeli needs. Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This amendment has caused international controversy

international - and what is the second nationality?Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the first? This act of censorship and decriminalization of discussion of Polish Holocaust complicity was widely criticized by Holocaust scholars world wide (in Poland too), as well as by European, American, and Middle Eastern sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean Arab academicians?Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The Polish government followed Israeli law. There are apparently two types of cenzorship and criminalization of Holocaust research - the good one in Israel and the bad one in Poland.

Please verify, what decriminalization is.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

According to (not always reliable) Polish media the law was coined against German TV ZDF in connection with the biased series Generation War and introduced after the TVN TV attacked the government using an idiotic Hitler's Birthday party video. Please define Polish Holocaust complicity. Do you want a discussion or control of POlish brains?Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link 28

Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Does this Wikipedia inform about support of Israeli laws?

The fighter informs that 51% of Poles are against the law. Does this Wikipedia inform about support of Israeli or US laws? How many of the polled Poles know the law? Anyone? Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The goal of the is like always - everything Poles do is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The page is biased

The page informs about a controversial edition of the law, which has never been applied and was reset after few months. Only two phrases inform about current situation and the context of the reset.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Removal of 9,049 bytes of content (or 23.3% of the page) sourced to WP:RSes in this edit with content explicitly tied to the 2018 amendment (better known as the "Holocaust law") is unacceptable. We generally cover legislation as it is covered in reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The material has been challenged. Get consensus. WP:ONUS is on you. The stuff is off topic, trivial, cherry picked, WP:UNDUE or irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The material is in the WP:STABLE version of the article - being here for around a year. No actual challenge has been presented. Removing non-opinion pieces as opinions is counter-factual (and WP:RSOPINION applies anyway). Claiming some aspect is "irrelevant since it wouldn't even apply"[10] - is not an argument when WP:RSes consider it relevant. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's break this down:

• "Propaganda effort" - you can call this however you want ("public education effort), but it's notable and due. It does look like an attempt to sway public opinion to improve public image, rather than strengthen ties.
• If we all agree we don't need Lapid and Bennet there (diff), then Zuroff's response is also out.
• I already softened the reference to the two pogroms (same diff). You can fight all you want about the wording, but it's sourced and due.
• We need an "enforcement" section. If people start suing or threaten others with lawsuits, then our readers need to know.

François Robere (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There were at least two enforcement actions (both in the removed text) - one the newspaper in Argentina, and the second the censoring of an Israeli mayor who wanted to mention the 200,000 Jews killed by Poles. Both were widely covered. Agree an enforcement section makes sense.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, in the last few months there have been a number of journal papers covering this censorship/hostorical denial law.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

the 200,000 Jews killed by Poles

Do you find acceptable that a frendship visit contains insulting of hosts? Will you accept a Polish mayor's speach in Istrael about Jewish Communists in secret police?Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't tell the truth to your friends, who are you going to tell it? François Robere (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the 200 000 fake news the truth?

Do Israeli politician tell the truth visiting Germany? Austria has rewritten its Nazi history, please show me your edits correcting Austrian mythology. Xx236 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, FR could you clarify what if you just stated above?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have commented the censoring of an Israeli mayor who wanted to mention the 200,000 Jews killed by Poles. Icewhiz is unable to prove that Poles killed the 200,000 Jews, but he repeats Grabowski's lies. As far as I know Israeli mayors don't visit Western countries to spread lies, only Poles are obliged to listen ignorants. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors generally avoid "proving" assertions (WP:OR), however the 200,000 estimate appears in mainstream scholarship such as this award winning book, this Routledge book,, and in this journal article. This is also used by mainstream media such as Washington Post, or BBC. Politifact notes some populist backlash and anger, however we generally prefer published historians in mainstream publication to populist anger.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Awardwining lies are still lies.

Yad Vashem and Janicka. Academy. Xx236 (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK. François Robere (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

authors of the book, Intimate Violence: Anti-Jewish Pogroms on the Eve of the Holocaust, about anti-Jewish violence in Poland

We don't have anything about the book in this Wikipedia. Probably no editor has read it, but we know that is about anti-Jewish violence in Poland. There was no Poland in 1941 and Ukrainians participated in the crimes.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course there was. It was simply occupied by Nazi Germany.

Sourcing criteria?

@MyMoloboaccount: Re: this - what criteria were you referring to in the edit summary? François Robere (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the article

• 1.It is terribly outdated. In effect it is a dead law that has no effect.
• 2.Some of the sources are terribly cherry picked. We have a niche publication from The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2018 in the lead which presents as a statement of fact a very accusatory claim, more in depth analysis with more important publications and authorities is omitted.
• 3.A lot of information has been manipulated, for example the Polish Death Camps term is casually thrown around without actually explaining what the controversy is.
• 4.There is a lot of spotlight on amendment that was annulled.It seems to be of undue weight considering it didn't even pass legislation process.It might have been a newsworthy curiosity when it happened but it doesn't seem to have importance validating such coverage.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

1. See below on lawsuits filed under the amendment.
2. more in depth analysis with more important publications and authorities is omitted Like..?
3. It links to the relevant article, which has more than enough information on the subject.
4. See §1. As an aside, an extremist government in a major European country trying to pass legislation on censorship is more than just "newsworthy curiosity".

François Robere (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we list litigtion?

Like [11] or [12] here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's otherwise WP:NOTABLE (and both of these are), then yes. It's a direct result of the law, and probably the result that was feared by critics. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, interesting find, the articles seem to show that the article works as intended in once case pursuing false claim about "Polish regime" working with Nazis, in other false image of post 1945 soldier blaming him for Jedwabne Pogrom. In both cases no research is pursued, just false claims-so it seems critics fear mongering was unfounded.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. François Robere (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Split

It would be easier to write a balanced article if the 2018 amendment were split off into its own article, as it is clearly independently notable. (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The article actually started as Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. We should consider a move as well as a split. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How on earth can it be a BLP vio to be left or right wing?

@Piotrus: I just cannot see how it is a BLP issue to be right wing, perhaps you care to explain? The source is reliable and it is relevant, as I explained, because this historian is not someone who would be expected to agree with Gross. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I am not sure how reliable is OKO.press. At the very least, it is pretty niche (a new Polish news portal launched in 2016). It seems to be about as reliable as the PiS-associated (and right-wing-ish) media like NaTemat and so on that it is in clear opposition too. Given that the portal is rather anti-right wing and as such not very neutral, I wouldn't use it for adjectives like right-wing, just like I wouldn't treat NaTemat and like as reliable or neutral if they'd describe someone as left-wing etc. (I will note that the author, pl:Adam Leszczyński, is reliable, but I don't see why is he more reliable than Piotr Gontarczyk. One professor described another as right wing, this at the very least should be clearly attributed. And what if Gontarczyk describes Leszczyński as 'left-wing'? :) ).

Second, this is cherry-picking - given that the subject's article doesn't describe him as a right-wing, I don't think he is described as such. Some people certainly are cleary right or left wing, and we can say so if the majority of the sources usually mention this when discussing the subject. In this case, I do not see this - a few sources do describe him as such, but this seems to be not a very common description of him; in other words, he is not universally seen as a 'right-winger'. It is not his defining quality and should not be used in a passing attribution or mention of him.

Third, terms like right or left wing can be seen as pejorative in some contexts and yes, per BLP we have to be careful with such descriptors. See for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_82#NPOV_in_possibly_contentious_labels,_X_vs_far-X_etc, and I'll quote User:Blueboar, who's closing comment said: "In a BLP, it is fine to note who says what about the subject... we can say that “X considers Y to be a LABEL” (assuming X is noteworthy enough for their opinion to be included in the first place). What we should NOT do is present the label as fact, in WP’s voice (as in “Y is a LABEL”). ALL labels should be attributed (in text) to those that use them". I think this is best practice. In the article about the subject we could add an attributed source saying that "such and such in an oko.press article described him as right-wing". But here it is an undue, non-neutral and pejorative adjective that can prejudice some readers against the subject.

PS. I see you also asked this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_being_right-wing_a_BLP_vio?. I think it is best to centralize a discussion in one place to avoud WP:FORUMSHOPPING/copying comments/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I specifically linked back here. "Far right" is very different from right wing because it has a negative connotation. "Right wing" does not, it's just a description of someone's political views, no more charged than being left wing. For BLP, "contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject"—well, there is no harm to anyone's reputation in being called right wing. In addition, the BLP policy should not be cited to exclude verifiable and relevant content.

I think oko.press is perfectly reliable, it has already received noteworthy awards for its journalism. Yes, it has an editorial line, but I've never seen any false information or mischaracterization there. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

While I think the source, properly attributed, might be added to Piotr Gontarczyk, there is no reason to use the right-wing description here. Just like we don't add various potentially or clearly problematic descriptiors discussiong political or other leanings of other people mentioned here. Why call Gontarczyk right-wing but not others? Is everyone else cited here centrist? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

In this case, being right wing is both verifiable and relevant. As I stated, he is not the sort of historian who would be expected to agree with Gross. That is why Leszczyński says that it is surprising. We should let the reader know, they may not be familiar with Gontarczyk. Anyway it is not just his opinion because other sources say this about Gontarczyk[13][14]

If at some point we are mentioning what Leszczyński says and a verifiable source says that he is left wing and it is relevant to mention, it should be. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

stuff in lede

I removed this from the lede for several reasons.

First, it's simply UNDUE for the lede. Lede is suppose to summarize. This goes into details and academic debates (with no effort to establish these are significant or notable)

Second, lots of the wording is clearly POV. For example: "Although Poland compared the law..."

Ummm.... what? "Poland" is a country. "Poland" can't compare anything. That in itself is bad writing, but worse, even if we overlook that aspect, it's seems that the person who wrote these words is treating Poles as if they were a homoegenous group, all believing the same thing, all doing the same thing, all "comparing" in the same way. Please refrain from gross stereotyping such as this.

Third, the first source doesn't even support the statement. Volunteer Marek 23:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

By Poland, the Polish government is meant. This is already how the word "Poland" is used both in this article and in sources. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, assuming that "Poland" == "Polish government" is also problematic. Volunteer Marek 00:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I find the edit summary used here to be completely ...misleading. One editor adds a lot of undue stuff to the article without discussing any of it. Another editor (me) removes this new material per WP:UNDUE a little bit later and explains the rationale on talk. The first editor then restores their changes with an edit summary which claims they're undoing "undiscussed major changes"

How in hey does that work? How can you accuse other editors of making "undiscussed major changes" when YOU YOURSELF JUST ADDED this stuff without discussion, AND failed to reply on talk before reverting? Volunteer Marek 00:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed a lot of longstanding information from the lead, most of which has been present for months without any dispute. Also, some of it was not added by myself, but various other editors. (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I removed a chunk of UNDUE text which you JUST ADDED to the lede, less than THAN AN HOUR AGO! What are you talking about?

Here is you adding this material at 23:03, January 1, 2021 [15]

Here is me removing that undiscussed change at 23:22, January 1, 2021, 19 minutes later [16]

Current time stamp is 1:06, January 6, about 44 minutes later (!!!)

The diffs are right there Buidhe. Volunteer Marek 01:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The material that you deleted was not just my recent edit, which revised earlier material without significantly expanding it, but also longstanding revisions by other editors such as Nihil Novi and Lembit Stan. Try using Who Wrote That? to find out who wrote what when. (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is what you added at 23:03 [17]

Here is what I removed at 23:22 [18]

The only difference between what was added and what was removed is the sentence "As most Ukrainians residing in Poland had Polish citizenship, Article 2a indicates that the law's references to the "Polish nation" must be understood in an ethnic sense." which is also undue for the lede.

The diffs are right there Buidhe. Volunteer Marek 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This statement is false, VM also removed a sentence stating "Article 2a, which requires the Institute of National Remembrance to investigate crimes against Polish citizens by Ukrainian nationalists, also caused controversy." The resulting version of the lede did not mention Article 2a at all.[19] (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And now Buidhe has began edit warring with another revert with another false edit summary [20]. The content was NOT "removed without explanation". The explanation is right HERE. And in the edit summaries. Budihe even acknowledges implicitly that they're aware of the explanation since they replied to it above. Volunteer Marek 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of material that has been removed by you without any explanation being provided, such as information about the Ukrainian aspect of the law, and summaries of scholarly commentaries on the law. Some of this information has been present in a stable version of the article for months without any objection. (t · c) buidhe 00:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this is false. The explanation for me undoing your "undiscussed major changes" is. right. here. Every single one of my edits has a self-explanatory edit summary [21] [22] [23] [24] AND we are discussing this in a section *I* created.

If you want to restore the "stable version" of the article, here it is: [25]. Be my guest. "Stable version" does not actually mean "the version I made just fifteen minutes ago"

I'd appreciate it if you self reverted your edit warring and discussed your proposed changes first since there's obviously an objection to them. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Scholarly sources are usually preferred on wikipedia because they are the most reliable. In this case, most of the scholarly sources that I can find are highly critical of the law from both a historical and legal perspective. You seem to want these harsh criticisms excised from the article, for reasons which I won't speculate on. Incidentally I would have said that this [26] was the stable version, in place 2 months without any intervening edits. However, I don't support reversion in this case since I think the article should be expanded with relevant reactions. (t · c) buidhe 01:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This statement has nothing to do with the issue here. Volunteer Marek 02:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of well-sourced content

I'm happy to discuss but it isn't productive to mass-remove almost half the article content as you did in this [27] edit, especially since most of it is well sourced to strong sources such as academic articles and so forth. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you have removed tens of thousands of bytes, so now the expectation is that you explain in detail the reasoning behind that removal, not to mention touching on the origin of that which has been removed. El_C 01:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C I am currently - right now - working on restoring the part of it which can be verified. There are chunks of this material that should NOT have been added unilaterally without discussion. Volunteer Marek 01:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C, User:Buidhe - I've restored the parts which I think are fine. I've kept out a whole bunch of "someone on twitter said something" kind of stuff and a few other UNDUE paragraphs or instances where the sourcing didn't look strong. If Buidhe wishes to restore this other recently added text, they can propose it here on talk and discuss it, per the usual procedures.

The biggest chunk I've left out though is the "Persecutions" "Prosecutions" sections. Some of it was not very well sourced. Some of it is simply not clear if it's related to the this law. Some of it was cases that were dropped or such. Since nothing every came out of any of these cases, EVEN IF, they're based on this amendment (which isn't clear), and EVEN IF theyre based on legit sources, they seem UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I've also kept the restored POV tag. I'm not adverse to removing it, provided we can affirm consensus that we have a version that everyone's happy with. Volunteer Marek 02:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This does not assuage my objections. Relevant and well sourced content has been subject to mass removal. I will give just a few examples:

Former prime minister Donald Tusk tweeted, "Whoever spreads the false phrase about "Polish camps" is detrimental to the good name and interests of Poland. The authors of the law have promoted this vile slander to the whole world as effectively as no one has before. So, according to the law ..."

(criticism by former prime minister, referenced in a news article written by a notable historian Irena Grudzińska-Gross)

According to Polish scholar of constitutional law Piotr Mikuli, the amendment appears to contradict provisions of the Polish constitution including: "Art. 2 from which the so-called principle of decent legislation may be derived, Art. 42 para. 1 expressing the rule nullum crimen sine lege and Art. 54 para. 1 on the freedom to express opinions." He also expressed the opinion that it did not meet the requirement of being necessary in a democratic society in order to allow a restriction in freedom of speech per Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(Analysis by a notable legal scholar, published in a peer-reviewed journal. There's whole paragraphs of that which have been removed with very little in the way of explanation.)

In 2020, Dariusz Stola told Time that the law may have triggered "intimidation that discourages scholars, especially those of the younger generation" from studying the Holocaust in Poland.

(Concern about the law's effects, expressed by a notable historian).

The first case to be brought under the law was by Polish League Against Defamation against an Argentine newspaper, Pagina/12, and its journalist Federico Pavlovsky for an article on the Jedwabne pogrom, published in 2017 before the amendment was passed. The League did not challenge the content of the article, only the use of a picture of cursed soldiers to illustrate it. Following the notification, Pagina/12 and eleven other Argentinian publications reprinted the article, publicizing the information about Jedwabne in Argentina. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Edison Lanza, as well as several Argentine politicians, jurists, and human rights experts, criticized the attempted censorship. Lanza called the amendment "a censorship law that aims to close the academic debate on crimes against humanity". He added that "the concept of 'defamation' of a nation or a state is incompatible with international standards that refer to the protection of the reputation of individual persons" and such a law would not be accepted under the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.

(Censorship case that was widely reported in Latin America and brought reactions from many notable people). It is clearly relevant to the law when prosecutions (not persecutions) based on it occurred, and what the result was. One cannot leave that out and still have a comprehensive article. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good, now we can discuss these in detail. Here is the problems:

1) A tweet is not notable. Even if it's by former Prime Minister. Too much stuff about who said what on twitter making its way onto Wikipedia these days anyway.

2) Mikuli article - I was unsure about keeping that one out. What is this journal? Why would this particular opinion be notable? Can you provide more info? Maybe we can put it back in.

3) Offhand comment by Stola - UNDUE. Is there more here?

4) The stuff about Pagina is silly. The article was published before the amendment. It's not even clear it had anything to do with this amendment. The sourcing here sucks - it's mostly sourced to... Pagine itself! And Pagina is, best I can tell, a tabloid which doesn't believe in "journalistic objectivity". This is irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, checking on the Pagina stuff more closely, this claim: "The first case to be brought under the law..." is just incorrect. "The law" here means Article 55a. The Pagina suit was under Article 53o. Different laws. Volunteer Marek 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Your personal opinion about Twitter is irrelevant, what matters is that we have a reaction from a noteworthy person, which was covered in a reliable source.
2. I think that most or all analyses published in academic journals should be included. You deleted practically all info on, for instance, whether the law is in concert with ECHR and related international law.
3. Since much of the criticism focused on academic freedom and chilling effect, the impact of the law according to knowledgeable people should be included. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, my opinion of twitter and whether discussion of tweets belong in an article simply follows WP:ENCY.

Again, can you provide more info on the journal that Mikuli's article was published in?

If you are objecting to some other edit of mine then please be specific. What is the "practically all info" you are referring to?

Volunteer Marek 04:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Again, it's your opinion that tweets don't belong in the article. That does not follow automatically from any policy or guideline. Indeed we have entire articles about tweets (Category:Twitter controversies).
2. You removed entire paragraphs of analysis published in peer reviewed journals and books from various historians and legal scholars, in "Scholars and historians" section. You still haven't presented any valid reason for its exclusion, so I propose that it should all be restored.
3. So, I take it you agree that Stola's opinion on the effect of the law should be included? (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly “Twitter controversies” that are notable. This isn’t one of them. In fact, it’s not even a “twitter controversy”.

Specifically, what would you like to restore? Mikuli article? I can’t address vague and ambiguous statements.

No, I don’t think Stola’s off hand comment should be restored. I thought that was clear. Volunteer Marek 07:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Looking a bit more. That text somehow manages to omit the other significant part here - that the "League" demanded an apology and... obtained it from the publisher, issued along with a correction. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Article 53 is part of the 2018 amendment. Perhaps you care to find a source for the rest of what you are asserting? (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide actual reliable sources for the Pagina thing? Volunteer Marek 07:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pagina/12 is only used for WP:ABOUTSELF and quoting statements by notable individuals, and oko.press is a reliable source which has won journalism awards. (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol, no, you can’t quote Pagina here on its own controversy and claim “about self”. Oko press is highly questionable as it only publishes highly polemic opinion pieces. Please find an independent reliable source. If this info is legit then it shouldn’t be a problem. The fact that it’s only Pegina and a highly partisan opinion piece is a WP:REDFLAG. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Lede sentence

I removed the following sentence from the lede:

"Under the Act, charges of offending the "good name" of Poland or the Polish nation may be brought by the Institute of National Remembrance or by accredited NGOs such as the Polish League Against Defamation.[1] Originally, offenses against the "good name" of Poland were punishable as criminal offenses with up to 3 years in prison. Following an international outcry, a June 2018 amendment modified the "good-name" offense to a civil offense that can be prosecuted in civil courts. The June 2018 amendment also removed exceptions for research and the arts that were present in the original law.[1]"

This is a misleading mischaracterization of the source. In fact these claims are contradicted by this very Wikipedia article further below. The amendment itself says nothing about "good name of Poland". What it says, as quoted in this article is:

"Whoever claims, publicly and contrary to the facts, that the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich, as specified in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal enclosed to the International agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, ... or whoever otherwise grossly diminishes the responsibility of the true perpetrators of said crimes—shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years. "

Nothing in there about offending the "good name" of Poland. And indeed, Heckmann does NOT say that that is what the amendment says. He does say that the purpose of the amendment is to "defend the good name of Poland" but that's different. The sentence as written claims you can be charged with "offending the good name of Poland". You can't. You can be charged or prosecuted for other stuff. But not that. Volunteer Marek 02:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be accurate since insulting the "good name" of Poland is prohibited by article 53 which was introduced in 2018 as part of this amendment.chapter by Bogusław Lackoroński (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That link doesn’t work. Volunteer Marek 07:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And the source that you were using certainly doesn’t say that. Volunteer Marek 07:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Articles 53o–53q were introduced into the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation of 18 December 1998 (further the IPN Act) by the Act of 26 January 2018 which amended the IPN Act along with the Act on graves and war cemeteries, the Act on museums, and the Act on collective entities’ liability to penal sanctions for prohibited acts (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 369, hereafter referred to as “the Amendment Act”). This amendment to the IPN Act has come in a new chapter entitled “The Protection of the Good Repute of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.”" You can easily find this source with google. (t · c) buidhe 10:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, right now, after your rewrite (which I mostly restored) this article is about article 55a amendment, not 53. Perhaps splitting this up unilaterally without discussion wasn’t a good idea? Volunteer Marek 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I did not split it up unilaterally without discussion. Second, the article is about all of the legislative changes that occurred in the 2018 act. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. [28] and [29]. The diffs are right there Buidhe. And I don't see a RfM or an RfC on splitting and moving. Volunteer Marek 01:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not reliable sources

[30] Volunteer Marek 07:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Verfassungsblog however, is a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Not if we're talking about WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Volunteer Marek 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of historical background material

The following material was removed from the article:

During the Holocaust, 98% of the Jews in German-occupied Poland were murdered, mostly in extermination camps set up by Nazi Germany. The controversy about the role of Poles in the Holocaust centers on the fate of an estimated 250,000 Jews, out of 2.5 million, who escaped from Operation Reinhard by fleeing ghettos or jumping off of Holocaust trains and sought refuge among non-Jewish Poles. Only around 50,000 of these Jews survived. Other controversies involve Jews killed in pogroms such as Jedwabne pogrom and Szczuczyn pogrom.

Many Poles view any participation by Poles in the Holocaust to have been only a tiny, criminal element outside the mainstream of Polish society. In contrast, the vast majority of Poles are viewed as having either helped Jews or else viewing them sympathetically but too terrorized by German occupation to help them. Aid to Jews is viewed as occurring due to altruistic reasons, rather than a desire for material benefits. These perceptions, initially promoted by the Communist government in Poland, have been increasingly challenged by historical research since the 2000 publication of Jan Gross' book Neighbors about the Jedwabne pogrom.

All of this is directly supported by sources (check them yourself), no OR involved. (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, as per my edit summary [31] Please examine WP:SYNTH, and then please tell me what you think about the above combined material from multiple sources to be introduced into this article. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't combine material to reach a conclusion not in the sources. It just reports what the sources state about events during the Holocaust and perceptions about them. (t · c) buidhe 10:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, it took you 2 minutes to reply....have you studied WP:SYNTH in 2 minutes or you were already familiar with WP:SYNTH? Well, I examined WP:SYNTH for longer than 2 minutes, and I believe you are mistaken Buidhe. Let's see what other editors think then. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, when you get a chance, please read this as well [32] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I already know what is NOT original research, and that is just reporting what the source says. For instance, the first sentence is directly supported by the cited source, which states: "[the Holocaust] was such an efficient operation that on the territories controlled by the Third Reich at most only 2 percent of Polish Jews survived." (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I still maintain you are confused here, Buidhe... What all those combined texts -->"Many Poles view any participation by Poles in the Holocaust to have been only a tiny, criminal element outside the mainstream of Polish society.." + "Other controversies involve Jews killed in pogroms such as Jedwabne pogrom and Szczuczyn pogrom" +"...the role of Poles in the Holocaust.." have to do with that Law other than suggesting something? WP:SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement... - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• The text does not state or imply anything about the amendment, all it does is provide background information. The historical background IS discussed in sources relating to the law,[33] (just one example) but it's preferable to cite specialist sources. (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, okay, let's try this...Do you agree that one could mix different text and sources to write a background section that would sound completely different from what you wrote? Do you concur with me on this point so far? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The one I wrote is the one that's most relevant to the article, since it very briefly summarizes the issues in contention regarding Polish participation in the Holocaust, as well as the view of many Poles regarding the issue. (t · c) buidhe 11:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, you didn't answer and instead you wrote something irrelevant ... How do you expect to maintain the productive dialogue if you act this way? Could you please go back above and re-read my prior comment? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the text “does not state or imply anything about the amendment” is precisely why it’s WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Volunteer Marek 17:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References