Talk:Institute of National Remembrance

Repeated deletions of a list of professions for which lustration is obligatory

I guess, for POV issues Polish friends delete the information about professions which undergo obligatory lustration in Poland.

This passage was deleted by user Piotrus unwilling to read the sources with following comment "adding your old sentence with a new ref is amusing but please don't do it: quote on talk sentences from this new ref which support it".

Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for 53 categories including all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials, judges, prosecutors, tax advisers, attorneys, all academics (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyzszego).

I find it amusing that user Piotrus censors and hides the truth from the readers misleading them about current situation in Poland and doesn't give clues as to why Polish history article in Wikipedia are so POV for rest of the Wikipedians.

USTAWA z dnia 18 października 2006 r. o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów (dokument w formacie PDF) (wersja - na potrzeby wewnętrzne IPN)

Art. 7. 1. Obowiązek złożenia oświadczenia, dotyczącego pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z tymi organami w okresie od 22 lipca 1944 r. do 31 lipca 1990 r., zwanego dalej "oświadczeniem lustracyjnym", mają osoby, o których mowa w art. 4, urodzone przed 1 sierpnia 1972 r.

Art. 4. Osobami pełniącymi funkcje publiczne w rozumieniu ustawy są: 1) prezydent RP; 2) poseł, senator, poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego; 3) osoba zajmująca kierownicze stanowisko państwowe w rozumieniu ustawy z 31 lipca 1981 r. o wynagrodzeniu osób zajmujących kierownicze stanowiska państwowe (DzU nr 20, poz. 101, ze zm.); 4) członek Rady Polityki Pieniężnej; 5) członek Zarządu NBP; 6) członek Kolegium IPN; 7) prezes Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia i jego zastępcy; 8) prezes Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i jego zastępcy; 9) prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego i jego zastępcy; 10) przewodniczący, zastępcy przewodniczącego oraz członkowie Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego; 11) osoby wchodzące w skład służby zagranicznej w rozumieniu ustawy z 27 lipca 2001 r. o służbie zagranicznej (DzU nr 128, poz. 1403, ze zm.); 12) osoby powołane lub mianowane na podstawie przepisów innych ustaw na inne, niż wymienione w pkt 3 - 11 i 14stanowiska przez prezydenta RP, Sejm, Prezydium Sejmu, Senat, Prezydium Senatu, Sejm i Senat, marszałka Sejmu, marszałka Senatu lub prezesa Rady Ministrów; 13) prezes sądu; 14) sędzia i prokurator; 15) kierownik powszechnej lub wojskowej jednostki organizacyjnej prokuratury; 16) radca i starszy radca Prokuratorii Generalnej Skarbu Państwa; 17) organ i członek organu jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, organu związku jednostek samorządu terytorialnego oraz organu jednostki pomocniczej jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, której obowiązek utworzenia wynika z ustawy; 18) rektor i prorektor publicznej lub niepublicznej szkoły wyższej, członek Rady Głównej Szkolnictwa Wyższego, Państwowej Komisji Akredytacyjnej i Centralnej Komisji do Spraw Stopni i Tytułów; 19) członek rady nadzorczej, członek zarządu, dyrektor programu i jego zastępcy, wydawca lub autor audycji publicystycznej lub informacyjnej oraz dyrektor terenowego oddziału i agencji Telewizji Polskiej - Spółka Akcyjna, Polskiego Radia - Spółka Akcyjna, a także członek Zarządu, członek Rady Nadzorczej oraz członek Rady Programowej Polskiej Agencji Prasowej - Spółka Akcyjna, dyrektor oddziału, dyrektor biura, redaktor naczelny Polskiej Agencji Prasowej - Spółka Akcyjna oraz członek rady nadzorczej, członek zarządu, dyrektor i jego zastępcy w spółce radiofonii regionalnej; 20) członek zarządu lub rady nadzorczej osoby prawnej, która uzyskała koncesję na rozpowszechnianie programów radiowych lub telewizyjnych oraz osoba fizyczna, która uzyskała taką koncesję; 21) członek zarządu lub rady nadzorczej wydawcy, wspólnik spółki osobowej będącej wydawcą lub osoba fizyczna będąca wydawcą w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe (DzU nr 5, poz. 24, ze zm.), a także redaktor naczelny w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe; 22) dyrektor generalny NIK oraz pracownicy NIK nadzorujący lub wykonujący czynności kontrolne; 23) członek organu zarządzającego, nadzorczego lub kontrolnego podmiotu podlegającego nadzorowi Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego; 24) pracownicy urzędów państwowych oraz członkowie korpusu służby cywilnej, zajmujący kierownicze stanowiska: a) w urzędach organów władzy publicznej, w tym naczelnych i centralnych organach administracji państwowej: dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej, b) w administracji rządowej w województwie: dyrektora i jego zastępcy, kierownika zespolonej służby, inspekcji lub straży i jego zastępcy, kierownika w organie administracji niezespolonej i jego zastępcy; 25) osoba zajmująca wysokie stanowisko państwowe w rozumieniu ustawy z 24 sierpnia 2006 r. o państwowym zasobie kadrowym i wysokich stanowiskach państwowych (DzU nr 170, poz. 1217 ze zm.), inne niż wymienione w pkt3, 7, 11 i 24; 26) pracownicy Urzędu Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego zajmujący stanowiska dyrektora pionu i jego zastępcy, dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej i jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej; 27) pracownicy NBP zajmujący stanowiska dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz doradcy prezesa, terenowego koordynatora inspekcji, głównego specjalisty kierującego zespołem, kierownika zespołu, kierownika sekcji i głównego specjalisty; 28) pracownicy IPN; 29) członek Rady Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia, dyrektor i zastępcy dyrektora oddziału wojewódzkiego Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia, dyrektor i zastępcy dyrektora departamentów (komórek równorzędnych) w centrali Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia oraz główny księgowy Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia; 30) dyrektor (kierownik) komórki organizacyjnej w centrali Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, dyrektor oddziału w Zakładzie Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i ich zastępcy; 31) dyrektor biura centrali Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego, dyrektor oddziału regionalnego Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego i ich zastępcy; 32) skarbnik województwa, powiatu lub gminy oraz sekretarz powiatu lub gminy; 33) prezes, wiceprezes i członkowie samorządowych kolegiów odwoławczych; 34) pracownicy regionalnych izb obrachunkowych zajmujący stanowiska: prezesa, członka kolegium, naczelnika wydziału oraz inspektora do spraw kontroli; 35) dyrektor generalny Poczty Polskiej i jego zastępcy oraz członek Rady Poczty Polskiej; 36) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej banku państwowego; 37) dyrektor przedsiębiorstwa państwowego, jego zastępca oraz osoba zarządzająca przedsiębiorstwem na podstawie umowy o zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem państwowym; 38) osoba sprawująca zarząd w spółce powstałej w wyniku komercjalizacji przedsiębiorstwa państwowego, której sprawowanie zarządu zlecono w oparciu o art. 17 ust. 1 ustawy z 30 sierpnia 1996 r. o komercjalizacji i prywatyzacji (DzU z 2002 r. nr 171, poz. 1397, ze zm.); 39) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej spółki handlowej z udziałem SP, w której udział SP przekracza 50 proc. kapitału zakładowego lub 50 proc. liczby akcji; 40) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej w spółce handlowej z udziałem jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, w której udział jednostki samorządu terytorialnego przekracza 50 proc. kapitału zakładowego lub 50 proc. liczby akcji; 41) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej spółki o istotnym znaczeniu dla porządku publicznego lub bezpieczeństwa państwa w rozumieniu art. 8 ustawy z 3 czerwca 2005 r. o szczególnych uprawnieniach SP oraz ich wykonywaniu w spółkach kapitałowych o istotnym znaczeniu dla porządku publicznego lub bezpieczeństwa publicznego (DzU nr 132, poz. 1108, ze zm.); 42) osoba będąca przedstawicielem SP w radzie nadzorczej spółki handlowej innej niż wymieniona w pkt 39; 43) osoba będąca przedstawicielem jednostki samorządu terytorialnego w radzie nadzorczej spółki handlowej, innej niż wymieniona w pkt 40; 44) pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego: a) pracownik naukowy, naukowo-dydaktyczny lub dydaktyczny zatrudniony na stanowisku profesora zwyczajnego, profesora nadzwyczajnego, profesora wizytującego, docenta, adiunkta lub starszego wykładowcy, b) osoba zajmująca w publicznej lub niepublicznej szkole wyższej, w PAN lub w jednostkach badawczo-rozwojowych stanowisko kierownika lub zastępcy kierownika podstawowej jednostki organizacyjnej, w szczególności dziekana albo prodziekana wydziału, c) osoba zajmująca w publicznej lub niepublicznej szkole wyższej, w PAN lub w jednostkach badawczo-rozwojowych stanowisko dyrektora instytutu, wicedyrektora instytutu, kanclerza, kwestora, prezesa, wiceprezesa, sekretarza naukowego; 45) dyrektor szkoły publicznej lub niepublicznej; 46) dyrektor Centralnej Komisji Egzaminacyjnej i dyrektor okręgowej komisji egzaminacyjnej; 47) adwokat, radca prawny, notariusz; 48) komornik; 49) biegły rewident; 50) doradca podatkowy; 51) audytor wewnętrzny w rozumieniu ustawy z 30 czerwca 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (DzU nr 249, poz. 2104, ze zm.); 52) dziennikarz w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe; 53) członek organu zarządzającego, organu nadzoru lub organu kontroli wewnętrznej polskiego związku sportowego lub spółki kapitałowej zarządzającej ligą zawodową w rozumieniu ustawy z 29 lipca 2005 r. o sporcie kwalifikowanym (DzU nr 155, poz. 1298 ze zm.). Vlad fedorov 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful please. Wikipedia must be cautious to avoid providing incorrect legal advice. I would be very careful about translating any of the above terms into English (some are quite complicated). A link to the text of the law in the External Link sections would do the trick.

Just to illustrate the problem, it was claimed that "all teachers" fall under lustration. Why? I do not see any such category among those listed above. Did I overlook it? Balcer 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Vlad misinforms.Xx236 10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel is considered as personal attack in Wikipedia, Xx236. If you once again would lie about me, I would report you on admin noticeboard. Besides, you could meditate over the meaning of 44 paragraph of article 4. Vlad fedorov 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We could indeed write which professions in Poland have obligatory lustration. Find other arguments for not including them apart from your logical fallacy in labelling my citation from law as "legal advice". Legal advice, at least, as I was told at many universities including Warsaw University, presents what in Wikipedia is called original research. Citation of law is neither "legal advice", nor "original research". Vlad fedorov 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel is considered a personal atatck in Wikipedia, Vlad. You have written "all teachers". I don't know why you have written, it's your problem. When informed you are wrong, you attack me. You misinform the readers of the article (see below). Why is the IPN your hobby if you lack knowledge? Xx236 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, you are the one who starts every second post with accusations that your opponents are falsifying, censoring, deleting, lying or whatetver - so please, if you have nothing else to say, go ahead, report this incident and we will see who will get blocked.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, before we trust your skill in translating Polish legal documents, could you please kindly explain to us how you made the "all teachers" mistake? What was your reasoning, and which category above led you to believe that? It would be very helpful. Balcer 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pan Balcerowicz :-), previously words "all teachers" was sourced with Russian journal "Ogonyok" article. There is no place for reasoning here in Wikipedia, but just sources. Vlad fedorov 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that when you made the "all teachers" edit[1], you specifically referenced it with a link to the Polish law. Do you admit then that you have not even read it? Surely you must understand that if you make a claim and support it with reference A, that claim must actually be present in reference A, and not in some other reference B that you are not citing.

Also be aware that name-twisting is an activity for elementary school students. Are you operating on that level? Balcer 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, neither "all academics" is better. Note that point 44 (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego) is split into subpoints listing which of the "academics" are affected: some professors (note it excludes pl:Profesor uczelniany and pl:Profesor tytularny, nor professor emeritus (yes, Polish professor ranks are confusing)), and while it includes "directors" and some lower academic ranks, it doesn't include "lektor" and "instruktor" (see pl:Pracownicy uczelni for the Polish academic ranks). So saying "all academics" is confusing, and all teachers was completly wrong (as teacher applies to below-high education level). So yes, Vlad, please don't spice the articles with your translations (or with those from Russian newspapers) - especially after we have pointed out the errors in both.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Friends, Romans and Non-Countrymen (sheepish grin): It is obvious to all who read and write here that many of us sincerely hold disparate views as to what the facts are, how they should be emphasised and what should be included or excised.

However, we need to focus on producing a more informative article for our readers so that they can make up their own minds. All relevant sourced facts should be included - the difficulty comes in deciding what is relevant.

My ignorant (I do not read any slav languages) opinion is that if it is relevant to include Lustration in the article (and there seems to be a clear consensus that Lustration is an important function of the institution) then it almost automatically follows that we must attempt to accurately illustrate the scope, procedures and effects (`good and bad') of the Lustration process.

I think there are enough people here with good Polish to provide an accurate English translation so that Vlad does not feel aggrieved?

Then, armed with this translation, we can discuss what is relevant?...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, although I'd strongly suggest adding details to lustration article, Poland's section, and only summarizing key points here. Lustration, while important, is only one of the several functions of IPN, its newest one and arguably not the most important (although perhaps the most controversial). My quick reading of the documents shows no support for "all teachers", briefly it may support "all politicians, all civil servants and all lawyers", as for educators, "some professors and directors (rectors, etc.)", but I'd be careful with generalizations (the texts names quite a few very specific and small categories (like "director of Polish Post" or "employees of IPN" and I am not sure if its not missing anybody who belong to general groups of politicians, civil servants or laywers). A reasonable compromise would be "many politicians, civil servants, lawyers and high-ranking educators)", perhaps? PS2. I find the current version with "Lustration by IPN is currently only obligatory for 53 categories of people born before August 1st, 1972 and holding positions of significant public responsibility" quite satisfactory, with the exception of word "only" (sounds weaselish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, Vlad?

Could you provide a contracted list giving the flavour and scope of the compulsory lustration `victims'/subjects for inclusion in this article and another (larger and more extensive) list for the lustration article?

It would be wonderful if we could actually agree the text of both lists here first before any unilateral editing/revertion/deletion occurs on the article pages! (I'm getting a bit fed up at having to keep re-doing the translations into better English only to see them whapped by mistake...)...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that I am the only one here making translation from Polish so far amid a horde of Poles criticizing my "bad spelling" ;-). Roll on your translation then, just to keep the spirit of competition, Poles. I have already revised translation of Piotrus with Irpen to find out that "resistance" and "opposition", according to Piotrus, are actually the same thing (c) Piotrus. I have published the relevant texts for transalation. Vlad fedorov 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vlad, it's always easier (in the short term) to delete and revert rather than to discuss, improve and keep moving forward. That's why I think we need not be so hasty on editing the article pages. Obviously neither of us can force anyone to provide a better translation here on this page but assume good faith! Many editors here genuinely want to make a better article and we should give them time - at least 3 or 4 days...

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you present your two lists here; one should be the most abbreviated and concise one you think is reasonable for the main article and the other one can be more comprehensive and detailed for the lustration article.Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have an article about Lustration in Poland - write it. This article is about the INR, which has 5 divisions.Xx236 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I can't believe I've had to protect this article again. Posting a statement on a talk page is not the same as discussion. Discussion goes back and forth, and should not be punctuated by a revert of the article after each editor says something. Most (if not all) of the parties involved here are very experienced editors who should know that.

To give you all a chance to try to reach consensus before editing the article or removing any tags, I have locked the article for 2 days. I hope everyone will use that time to either come up with a compromise, seek mediation, or at least cool off a bit. Kafziel ^Talk 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am at loss how can we "discuss" with an editor whose best arguments resolve about accusing others of "propaganda" and such...? :( I am going to ask for article's RFC/TO, but I doubt it will help much.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, in my edit summary I said that the reasons for tagging is your revert warring to undo this edit without explanation. I also said that one only needs to click on the diff above to see that it is self-explanatory. However, forcing your opponents into lengthy discussion with no substance in order to filibuster the change you object is not new on your part, and raised at your ongoing ArbCom. I will not allow this to happen here again. So, only briefly as per this diff

• you don't allow the change of the lead that would correctly define the IPN in agreement to its real functions, a gov institutions with research, prosecution and lustration prerogatives. You say, that your definition (merely a research institution) follows from the mission published at the institution's web-site. USSR Stalin's constitution made also some startling statement about the all-positive nature of the Soviet state. We do not define the USSR according to this self-published source. The fact that the purpose of the institution is three-fold is referenced and not doubted. Nevertheless, you try to avoid this being presented properly and want to define IPN merely as a research institution. Doing so helps make it seem a more credible source than it is and counterfactual
• You insist on introducing the academically non-defined term called Communist crimes. It is ORish to stretch the established definitions of Nazi crimes and the "Crimes of the Communist regimes" to this term that somehow implies, again ORish, that those fall in the same league
• Holocaust in Poland was not conducted just by Germans. It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it happen. Nevertheless you keep restoring the unfactual "by Germans" clause
• Every crime committed against Poles has the "by who" explanation (by Red Army, by Soviet or Nazi authorities, by Lithuanians, Germans, etc.) Every crime committed by Poles leaves the reader wondering, like who the hell mobbed the Jews in Kielce, Krakow and Jedwabne. I corrected that and you reverted on the spot
• You were so eager to revert me that you also restored my innocent correction of your spelling errors. Why else would you restore the non-English perogatives (prerogatives), particulary (particularly), occupants (occupiers)?

If you handle the good faith objections with immediate resorting to revert warring and go asking otherw for help when you use up "your revert quota", don't play the outrage that the articles are tagged and end up protected. --Irpen 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a basic error in thinking here. The purpose of the article is to report what is the scope of the IPN's investigations, as defined in its charter. We should just quote it and be done with it. The issue whether this charter correctly describes what happened during the war is an issue for another discussion.

Furthermore, in the listing of cases, we should list only those with a citation linking to a relevant IPN report or announcement of an ongoing investigation. Even then, the list should probably be cut down from its current rather long form (as the purpose of this article is not to list all crimes against humanity committed in Poland during World War II). Balcer 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not reply to your personal attacks and ArbCom allegations best describing yours, not mine, behaviour. Now that finally you decide to explain the reasons for your edits on talk with some detail, I will however address the isssues you raise.

• lead definition: We have plenty of sources explaining Stalin's constitution was not what it said. We have no sources putting IPN being primarily a research institute into question. Information Processing Centre defines it as jednostka badawczo-rozwojowa and makes no mention of lustration ([2], granted this entry might have not been updated yet considering lustration change is recent, but for now this is what this very reliable ref states). English "about" page about the institute does not list lustration ([3], again I agree it might have not been updated). It does mention prosecution. Polish "about" mentions existance of Lustration Bureau without going into detaiks [4]. Legal act ([5]) mentions prosecution early on, but not the lustration. As such, I agree that the lead needs a rewriting (and I invite you to propose a version here we can edit without revert warring in the article). Briefly, I suggest that we should make it clear that it is primarily a research institute, with more stress on prosecution for past (communist/Nazi) crimes and less stress on lustration (which is reflected on IPN's own page); after all the entire lustration issue is both very new to IPN and likely overblown by current media attention - we should not define the institution by a minor function it acquired in the past few weeks. Here is my propsed compromise version of the lead:

---

Institute of National Remembrance — Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Template:Lang-pl; IPN) is a Polish government-affiliated research institute with prosecution perogatives founded by special legislation. It specialises in the legal and historical sciences and in particular the recent history of Poland. IPN investigates both Nazi and Communist crimes committed in Poland, documents its findings and disseminates the results of its investigations to the public.

Since March 15, 2007, IPN is mandated to carry out lustration procedures prescribed by Polish law.

---

• Nazi crimes redirect to Nuremberg Trials which make it a not very useful redirect. I will prioritize translating pl:Zbrodnia komunistyczna, it is a notable term from Polish legal system. Please note that IPN in English text uses phrases like "major responsibility of the Institute is to investigate Communist and Nazi crimes", implying some equality on the definition level and the article is merely following its phrasing.[6] Extrapolating from it that "communist crimes were as bad as Nazi crimes" or sth like this is only your conclusion, the article makes no such assertion - we could as well pick apart the phrase "as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity and peace" and discuss whether war crimes, crimes against humanity and against peace are equal or not.
• "It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it happen." Keep your "well-known" unreferenced facts to yourself, please. The purpose and research sections are based on the best source there is - definitions from IPN pages and what they sumbitted to IPC. If they don't say something, we don't include it in those sections. Crimes committed by Poles are of course investigated by IPN too, and several (Jedwabne, Kielce, Bloody Sunday) are mentioned in the second part of 'Research' section; but please don't include your own ideas what IPN should investigage - or what it does - in the official parts, until IPN decides to do so itself (feel free to write them a complain letter about their POV).
• the 'by whom' section is inconsistent; Bloody Sunday mentiones "by Poles", Massacre of Lwów professors does not state "by Germans". I have no objection to adding "by Poles" where needed, I reverted you because I found "by the mob" to be inelegant. Perhaps a much better suggestion is copying a lead of every of those articles? Or no description at all, just the titles? Or as Balcer suggests, drop this subsection since it has a potential to be an overblown content fork indeed.
• I am sorry if I missed some of your spelling corrections, they become hard to see when you are changing entire sentences, not words. In the future, may I suggest doing a separate spellchecking edit with an edit summary of 'typos only' or something along those lines, so if a revert happens, the reverting editor has an easy way of keeping beneficial minor changes.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If pl:Zbrodnia komunistyczna is a definable term within the framework of Polish legal science, it does not make its translation a valid term, not a subject of the article whose name would imply the term is universal. You are welcome to translate the article, but if its scope is going to be a Polish-based definition, the title should clearly say so. If you find any PA's in my entry, take it elsewhere. Try to convince the ArbCom or anyone that this is a PA indeed. So far, because of misuse of the term and the policy, two boards were thankfully deleted by this community.

If some sources prefer to not mention the institution's non-research functions, it does not mean that we should follow the suit. These functions are included in the article and properly referenced.

If the complicity of Poles in Holocaust is not known to you, take a look at Gross and Piotrowski I cited elsewhere.

If you dislike "by the mob" as inelegant, you should have changed it to something more elegant. You simply deleted the description, thus leaving only the perpetrators of massacres of Poles in and keeping the perpetrators of the massacres by Poles out. --Irpen 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Communist crime has been translated per requests. Other issues you raise are covered sufficiently by WP:V and WP:NPOV, I am getting tired of citing them in discussions with you. If our sources don't say "A", we will not add "A" to the article, it's as simple as that. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Piotrus, wikilawyering and filibustering. It is too obvious to be convincing to anyone. --Irpen 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Irpen, complete ignoring of our policies - I see you started from WP:CIV months ago, added WP:RS recently and now are challenging even the basic content ones...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And again the case of Volodarka: on one hand we have a plethora of sources, on the other we have... Irpen's judgement. Sorry Irpen, but I find your behaviour highly disruptive. You're a sensible man, why don't you focus on building this project rather than fighting those who do? //Halibutt 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Lead should be neutral

While the 2-3 comments above are not most eloquent or neutral, I agree that the lead has become non-neutral, unduly focusing on modern events and biased towards undue criticism of IPN due to that. It is possible that some of this stuff could be summarized and perhaps 1-2 sentences can describe modern developments, but generally such controversial recentism is not advisable, hence I removed the lead paragraph. Interested readers can get all the details from the relevant sections (or entire subarticles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the paragraph I initially removed per reasons above. Some parts of it may be restored, perhaps, or made more neutral.

Pursuant to a new law which went into effect on 15 March 2007, the IPN was tasked with lustration; however, on 11 May 2007 this was found by Poland's constitutional court to be unconstitutional. A new 2016 law, formulated by the Law and Justice-led government, stipulates that the IPN oppose publication of matter that dishonors or harms the Polish nation, and that history be made available as "an element of patriotic education". The new law also removed the influence of academia and the judiciary on the IPN, and four Law and Justice candidates were appointed to the IPN kolegium, replacing former independent members. A 2018 amendment to the law, often referred to as the Holocaust Law, added an article 55a that attempts to defend the "good name" of Poland and its people against any accusation of complicity in the Holocaust. Originally a criminal offense, an international outcry to to the modification of the act so that it is a civil offense. The IPN is tasked with making charges under article 55a, though these may also be made by accredited NGOs. Historian Idesbald Goddeeris sees changes in the IPN as marking a return of politics to the IPN, and Holocaust scholar Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs sees the post-2015 IPN as a body promoting historical revisionism.

My thoughts:

• lustration - brief episode and in the past. Is this really worth mentioning in the lead? IIRC this did lead to some controversies/coverage in the past, so I guess this could be restored, but I think one sentence would be enough
• 2016 law - problematic, but does it deserve such a long summary, if any, in the lead? Also, I don't think the 2016 got much coverage in the international press
• 2018 law - ditto, through that got more international coverage.
• opinions of Goddeeris and Ambrosewicz-Jacobs - minor POVs that while welcome in the article should be given undue weight in the lead

Here's my shortened version without undue stress on recent events. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Until 2007 the IPN was tasked with lustration. Recent changes to IPN governance and powers in 2016 and 2018 have led to some controversy both in Poland and abroad.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Goddeeris and Ambrosewicz-Jacobs are not opeds or "minor POVs". The first is a chapter in The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945. The second is published in Holocaust Studies. Both, as several other 3rd party sources, state this as fact. I suggest you find a way to incorporate mainstream coverage of the IPN - Wikipedia does not, usually, use the "about page" of a topic as a source. All, or almost all, recent academic sources cover the political nature / memory games / revisionism of the IPN - as outright fact.Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you show more than two sources saying that? Preferably with quotation. A list here would be good.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well Behr2017 (pre dating these two) states this is scientific consensus - "As a result of these contentious public debates, the IPN has been mainly referred to as a ‘Ministry of Memory’ (Stola, 2012) or a political institution at the centre of ‘memory games’ (Mink, 2013) in the scientific literature.". And comes to a similar conclusion himself (one should he goes much farther in 2019 given developments). Now - I have provided more than sufficient mainstream sources. We reflect acadmic consensus on Wikipedia - which is very clear amd rather uniform here in pieces that cover the IPN itself as a subject - and we should do so clearly and in WikiVoice. Icewhiz (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

e.g. Goddeeris -

"However, many of these studies were dubious. The bulk of them dealt with the secret service’s perception of or the reaction to particular events, organizations, individuals, ethnic or social groups, or topics. They all described this in a very chronical and factual style and with a political focus, even when they dealt with economic, social, or cultural themes. They often reduced cases to a particular region or a short period and lacked comparison or contextualiza-tion. They made few attempts to connect to international literature or to the trends and turns that have occurred in historical sciences. They mostly limited their sources to the secret services’ archives, from which they extensively quoted. Moreover, few authors questioned the quality of the reports...On the contrary, most of these books only aimed to reveal the “real truth” of the past events. However, they reduced the entire history of the Second World War and the Polish People’s Republic to a simplifed narrative by dividing the world into two camps: the good Polish nationalists, and the bad communists, Russians, and Germans. Moreover, the IPN had the fnancial means to spread this image. Thousands of copies of a new history book about the twentieth century were distributed for free to Polish schools and libraries (Dziurok e.a. 2010)."

- not stated as opinion, but as fact. When covering institutions that are covered in this manner in scientific literature - we follow the scientific literature - not the about page of the institution or an editor who states mainstream science is a "minor POV".Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly think that all of this should be discussed in the body of the article, but I don't think it represents the prevailing view. Most scholars, in Poland and abroad, are still citing IPN and unaware or uncaring with regards to this criticism. In either case, this is true for many other topics, from Trump to religion to whatever - we rarely mention controversies and criticism in the lead, unless they are a major defining part of the topic. And this is not the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that the IPN is seldom cited in general in an academic context - though specific works - e.g. Wokół Jedwabnego are cited (per google scholar - 55 citations for 2002 work - respectable - though far less than Gross's Neighbors which is at 911 citation - and I'd note that some of the Wokół Jedwabnego citations are analysis of the public debate in Poland - and not historical use) - various pulp books and popular publications are hardly ever cited. Even when cited - some of these citations are analysis of the IPN/Polish-government (e.g. in sources covering the IPN as a topic, or sources noting outlier positions or statements). Regardless of our own personal opinions here - we should be sticking to independent 3rd party sources that study the IPN itself - I produced several such sources in this discussion. Our lead covering institutions generally does cover analysis of them - which in this case (the political nature) - is a defining characteristic in most sources covering the IPN in depth - as noted by Behr in 2017 - in scientific literature the IPN is "mainly referred" in this context. Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you show us examples of comparable organizations which discuss such criticism in lead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The IPN is described here like an elephant studied by blinds. The IPN has had a number of presidents, plenty of historians including professor Dudek. The IPN has published hundreds of books of different values. The "Jedwabne" two volume set is a basic text.

Icewhiz is revisionistic himself, he transfers German Nazi responsiblity to Polish peasants. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We cover topics, such as the IPN, per coverage in external 3rd party independent reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The are no "we". There is you and your supporters (FR). Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead should inform. "between 1939 and the Revolutions of 1989" - "committed between 1917 and the 1990".Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"Per discussion on talk"

Re: this - where did the discussion take place? François Robere (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Uh, look just above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Where? There wasn't any discussion. I invited everyone to discuss but only two people participated, of which one didn't even comment on content. François Robere (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

IPN is not ideal, but this article shouldn't be dominated by a laundry list of complains. At the very list, I'd limit them to those criticisms published in reliable sources, preferably academic. And attribute them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless to sourcing, some parts of this page read like parts of "The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich". They should not. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both comments. I suspect the addition of the trivial items was meant to support more prominent content, eg. criticism of politicization. As a first step I'd rewrite the "director" and parts of the "purpose" sections into a "history" section, and continue from there. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I will leave this to you, guys, but this is not good. Just saying. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Check the rest of their contribs... François Robere (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Georges Mink

Georges Mink isn't overwhelmingly negative about IPN as it might seen from use of his publication-there is an extensive section in his publication on efforts by IPN to address criticism and openness to dialogue on controversial issues.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added a summary of Mink to the relevant section. François Robere (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Stola

I've undone this addition, as it looks cherry-picked to me [7]:

• While critcal of IPN, Stola also notes that some of its critics suffer from oversensitivity.

The full context from Stola is this:

• An academic environment heavily dominated by one institution, which is not itself famous for inner diversity, excellence and innovation (unlikely in most government offices), does not provide the best conditions for progress in research. Such a situation may be particularly dangerous when the dominant institution shows a tendency for a questionable vision of interpretations of the past.

There were moments when the Institute or its senior officials were justifiably blamed for insufficient neutrality towards party politics or for highly controversial public statements. Oversensitivity of some of IPN critics does not invalidate the argument that misconduct in the delicate and highly emotional matters of the recent past may have dangerous consequences.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Further, I explanded on the recent addition [8], to provide more context. My edit: [9]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked" is an understatement. This borders (?) on dishonesty. François Robere (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Stola 2

Re: "revisionism" - Stola doesn't use the term - I chose it to convey the essence of statements like these: "...the dominant institution shows a tendency for a questionable vision of interpretations of the past"; "A particular figure of militant historian has emerged out of my profession... Producing dissensus around memory [as] a cheap means of attracting media attention, sharpening ones ideological profile and strengthening position on the partisan scene" (emphasis in source); "IPN has a tendency to polarize the Communist past of Poland... [the] Soviet-imposed totalitarian regime... [vs] “the society,” the people or the nation... these are the opposite Poles so to speak, that give an orientation to the authors and the readers, probably a moral orientation they desire." François Robere (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and NPOV

Individual incidents may or may not be WP:UNDUE, but the central criticism of the IPN is that it is not a scholarly research institute engaged in a dispassionate search for the truth, but exists to build national memory. This is not really a "criticism", as it relates to the central purpose of the institution, but is absolutely essential to mention for precisely that reason. Any type of researcher may be searching for the objective truth, or promoting a particular cause or ideology, but can't do both at once. If you are looking for the institution that does scholarly historical research into Polish history, that is the Polish Academy of Sciences. Similar criticism and controversy exists around many other national memory instutitons, such as those in Lithuania and Ukraine, which are much less known internationally. For example, academic journals published by the Slovak Academy of Science will be more DUE and better regarded internationally than the journal of the National Memory Institute (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should discuss the aspect of IPN being a national memory institution more, and de-emphasizing the POV inherent in the word criticism. Many research institutions have various missions, goals and biases, which do not make them less reliable, as long as research is subject to the same standard (peer review, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Many research institutions have various missions, goals and biases, which do not make them less reliable except that it usually does. Institutions with "various missions, goals and biases" (other than an impartial search for truth), such as think tanks, are generally dispreferred to scholarly sources, because they exist to promote an agenda (and will end up twisting the truth to that end).

Now, the IPN is primarily reliability-based, but that does not mean that its publishing is necessarily up to academic standard. Another editor stated above, My impression is that the IPN is seldom cited in general in an academic context... that is mine as well. A google scholar search finds that IPN publications sometimes achieve respectable citation counts (50–100)[10] but compare that to basically any academic publisher.[11] (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside that I don't think it is good to quote indef-banned editors per WP:DFTT, your first claim "are generally dispreferred to scholarly sources, because...", while plausible, needs a citatiom. Are you familiar with any studie that have arrived at that conclusion after looking at non-anecdotal data? As for the comparison of IPN to Syracuse UP, this is apples and oranges. Google Scholar is not very good at indexing non-English language works. For example, a reliable Polish university publisher, from the most famous Polish university, Wydawnictwo UJ, generates only half the citations (or at least mentions, as this is what our search is showing) of Syracuse: [12], [13]. If we compare IPN to WUJ, we see that IPN mentions are 20% that of WUJ, but to conclude they are less impactful we need to check compare the volume of publications. I.e. what we would need is a statistic that shows that an average publication of IPN has a citation index of y, compared to an average publication of WUJ. And I'll repeat that using Google Scholar for non-English works is problematic, so when we compare English to Polish we are getting major errors due to systemic bias present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Critiques have pointed out that many think-tanks do not contribute research in any real sense, and frequently serve elite, government or business interests instead."[14]
• "My assessment of their research is critical. It is often polemical and of limited theoretical value. It pays too little attention to the politics of debt reduction and follows rather than leads partisan debate."[15]
• "The post-Communist think tanks do not focus on long-term academic research and their studies are neglected in academic circles. Few of them publish in respected journals and few publish academic books. Only 29 of the institutes devote more than 50 per cent of their time to policy research. " Ivan Krastev 10.1080/14683850108454635
• "Doberstein has shown, in experimental research, that even those policymakers who profess a belief in evidence-based policymaking may not hold think tank output in the highest regard as they consider it substantially less credible and more ideological than, for example, academic output (Doberstein, 2017).... Similarly, in an extensive study of the media representation of seven think tanks, Haas found that think tanks, regardless of whether they were advocacy-oriented or not, were presented by the media as credible sources in almost all cases. This occurred whether or not professional norms of academic research were followed (Haas, 2007).... Some claim, still with regard to climate change but in a U.S. context, that the ways in which media treat think tanks as credible sources of objective information means they have achieved the status of an “alternate academia” while falling short of academic standards of rigor, transparency, and impartiality (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013, p. 701)... However, as other research has shown, there could be a problem regarding think tanks’ credibility and also the (perception of the) quality—or, rather, the lack of it—of their output on the side of government policy analysts (e.g., Ceccarelli, 2011; Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008)." https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1420
• "the politicization of think tanks that usually comes with a close affi nity with, and advocacy on behalf of, a particular administration or political party has been identifi ed as having a more subtle and detrimental impact on the scientifi c integrity and scholarly credibility of think tanks... organizational survival is a pre-eminent concern and one that takes resources away from ‘ thinking ’ or policy research towards marketing, advocacy and PR." 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00649.x
• "Rather than promoting scholarly inquiry as a means to better serve the public interest--a goal embraced by think tanks in the Progressive era •6• advocacy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Policy Studies have come to resemble interest groups and political action committees by pressuring decisionmakers to implement policies compatible with their ideological beliefs" 10.3138/CRAS-025-01-05
• "Some academics have warned of the spotty rigor of some think tank or advocacy organization research (Ceccarelli 2011; Jacques et al. 2008)" 10.3138/cpp.2016-067

Whether IPN is reliable for a particular claim has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, your search is showing that Wydawnictwo UJ is cited more than IPN: its books are cited 199, 192, 152 times, which is higher than any of the results for IPN. I would tentatively conclude that WUJ is a more reliable publisher.

I don't agree with the evil things that Icewhiz has done to advance their agenda, nevertheless, they are not wrong about everything. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "criticism" relates to the fact the institute is often assumed to be (or presented as) objective, while in fact serving some purposes other than just research. François Robere (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. But we should present its actual purpose, according to RS. Whether that purpose is a good or bad one is not for Wikipedia to decide. (t · c) buidhe 08:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, though it doesn't preclude criticisms by RS of whatever aspect of the institute they perceive as problematic. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of criticisms

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: Between 03:09 and 07:38 you made 39 edits removing the following from the article:

1. [16] The statement is a reasonable reading of a longer quote given in the source (p. 58). Given the RS status of the author, the statement should've been amended rather than removed. This has been discussed in the past.
2. [17] Same. You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago.
3. [18] Few of the IPN's "hundreds of investigations" resulted in international incidents, hence WP:DUE. Also previously discussed.
4. [19] Concerns current, rather than historical affairs. While we can certainly up our quality of sources, this has been an acceptable standard in the TA thus far.
5. [20] Of course this is about recent affairs (the IPN has only existed for a couple of decades), and how are "personal disputes" relevant to removing a major RS who is hardly unique in his criticism? And BTW, you have your own "dispute" with Grabowski, so if that doesn't matter (as you previously opined [21]) I can hardly see how his disagreements with the IPN do.
6. [22] Yes, that is literally the title of Dariusz Stola's chapter in the second source.
7. [23] You can hardly say that it's "unsourced" if it links to a whole article full of sources on a subject no one denies exists. If you're bothered by the lack of an inline citation, use {{cn}}, don't remove the statement.
8. [24] This isn't "cherry picked" nor "misrepresentative" - it accurately represented an entire chapter dedicated to the IPN, including the use of the phrases "Ministry of Memory" and "Orwellian". You can argue on "speculative", but then you'd be doing OR.
9. [25] Again current affairs.
10. [26] Both NFP and ToI use the phrase "far right" and note his reception of the Bronze Cross of Merit.
11. [27] As you can see by clicking on "about us", NFP was founded by Stanley Bill, Director of the Polish Studies Programme at the University of Cambridge, and Daniel Tilles, an assistant professor at the Pedagogical University of Kraków;[28] is ran by a team of journalists with a long resume (Wilczek writes for The Times and Balkan Insight, Wądołowska was with multiple Polish newspapers including GW, Koschalka has a long list of publications in multiple roles), and advised by the likes of historians Norman Davies and Timothy Garton Ash, and Nobel Prize recipient Olga Tokarczuk.
12. [29] Explain?
13. [30] The text clearly stated that the disturbance was organized by GP activists. If you thought this needed further clarifying, you could use {{clarify}} rather than remove this notable and widely covered incident.
14. [31] Again, current affairs.
15. [32] p. 1023: "gross imbalance between the quality studies it publishes and the massive amount of writing of no real scientific interest it also publishes".
16. [33] Stola discusses politics from p. 55 onwards
17. [34] Tomasz Stryjek is a political scientist at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The entire paper is a discussion of the evolving "remembrance and identity policy" in Poland, including the IPN.
18. [35] Investigations have at least two subjects: the investigator and the investigated. As IPN was the investigator here (with the investigated being a major study and a watershed line in Polish historiography), how can you claim this is a "POV fork"? Also, your summary of Behr isn't exactly representative: he doesn't "commend" IPN for taking in young historians, just describes a situation. Most of his paper has a very factual tone, with few overt commendations or criticisms. That said, his statement that the IPN "mainly [takes] in historians from the fringes of the academic field. Due to their ideology and/or their failure to achieve a prominent academic career, they were disposed to look for alternative pathways towards legitimization as historians", most of which do not hold academic positions at the same time. He also notes that the IPN's mandate seems to attract historians who "might feel very comfortable with the totalitarian paradigm and the schematic opposition between state and society, as their political views are closer to the right-wing camp. The so-called ‘militant historians’... do not hide their sympathies for conservative or nationalist interpretations of the past." This seems more relevant to the "research" section than a commendation "for being an outlet which offers hiring opportunities"
19. [36] "Outdated recentism"? It's either/or, not both. Also: how is it either?
20. [37] That's hardly just his opinion, isn't it?
21. [38] "a 2018 Polish statute attempted to protect the “good name” of the Polish state and people against any charges of complicity in Nazi atrocities" (p. 157). The amendment itself uses the phrase "Whoever claims... the Polish Nation or the Republic of Poland is responsible or co-responsible for Nazi crimes".
22. [39] Again not representative of the source. Behr does not "praise" the IPN for "creating hiring opportunities", he merely notes that the IPN has a huge budget and lots of openings. Again, his paper is for the most part very mellow and detailed.
23. [40] This tags a statement that two days ago had three sources representing perhaps five historians.[41][42] BTW, the "low quality source" is historian Gideon Greif, interviewed on a prime time news show on Kan 11.
24. [43] Explain?
25. [44] Explain?
26. [45] Explain?
27. [46] Indeed dated. As of 2019, the IPN's lustration office constitutes around 8.8% of the total IPN workforce, including 34 prosecutors (pp. 371-372 here).
28. [47] The issues here have to do with the institutional responses to far-right extremism, not with the length of the event or level at which it occurred. With respect to that, these cases do merit a mention, if not a section.

François Robere (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. I disagree that it's a "reasonable reading". It's just not.
2. This makes it sound like "objectivity" is a bad thing. Why exactly? More broadly, historians may differ in their opinion of what the appropriate methodology is but this isn't the place to hash out these arguments (and the source doesn't really portray it as a criticism either)
3. The IPN has conducted more than 9000 investigations. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. This wasn't an "international incident". Actually read the source please.
4. Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Actually even w/o sourcing requirements it doesn't qualify. BTW, in Stola's article the term "Ministry of Memory" isn't used in a necessarily negative sense, even though this article tried really hard to pretend it was. It just means "an institution that preserves memory". Just like Yad Vashem or other institutions in countries that have gone through some horrible experiences.
5. The Wikipedia text pretends this is some long running criticism or something. Rather it's just axe grinding and a personal dispute between some historians.
6. See above. There's nothing in the source (though I don't have it in front of me right now) which says "rather than objective historical research institute". Funnily enough, the other criticism that you want included is that the institute tries to be too "objective", which is, like, outdated, man.

For now. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Take your time. I'd rather reply to everything at once. François Robere (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a thing. You've taken every single one of my edits and listed it above. Surely not every single one was bad? I mean, just by probability and the stochastic nature of the universe you'd find one that you didn't object to? Hmmm, well, how about we try it this way: please list the top five that are most important to you and we'll start there. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, If you would be so kind as to tell me which numbers above refer to my edits I'll try to explain. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Edits nos. 18, 22, 23 and 28. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Feel free to rewrite/expand the sections, and then we can see how to arrive at an acceptable compromise. In either case, Behr was used very selectively as only criticism of IPN from his work was used, and somehow anything positive (or even neutral) he said about it was omitted. This is hardly a 'best practice'. We need to strive for balance, or rather, NPOV. IPN has been subject to various criticisms, true. But it has also been subject to praise, including, as Behr himself notes, for trying to address some of those criticisms (rather than ignoring them wholesale). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for NPOV, but wholesale removal of criticisms (two editors who barely touched the article in over a year suddenly make 38 revisions over 4.5 hours) isn't the way to do it, especially while IPN is being discussed in another article. The extent of the changes alone makes it difficult for any one editor to review, so I've posted at NPOVN RSN for more eyes. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty of criticism left. What was taken out was stuff that was either cherry picked, irrelevant, WP:COATRACK or not meeting sourcing requirements. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Would you like to reply on each? François Robere (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Like I said above , let's start with say 5 of them that you feel are most importan t. You seemed to just have listed every single one of my edits and it's just very unlikely that all of these objections are meant seriously. Volunteer Marek 15:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't catch where you said that, but that's fine. As for your edits - I didn't list all of them, but I did spend several hours go through all of them, and I did not do it for jest. I'll start a subsection below and copy relevant comments. François Robere (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, I have no idea how not touching the article for years is relevant. How about you comment on how an editor who never edited Witold Pilecki's article removed approximately half of the article content? Also you should link the relevant new discussion you started, not just mention it (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mass_removal_of_criticisms_from_the_Polish_Institute_of_National_Remembrance). Best practices, you know... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just really unusual timing, and the mass of the changes makes it difficult for others to review. As for the other discussion - you already know that I commented there like I comment anywhere else,[48][49] despite receiving a rather cold welcome.[50][51][52] François Robere (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

1. The summary was not perfect but was not totally off mark. Full quote is: "The historian must strive not only to reconstruct a given reality, but also to understand the background of events, the circumstances in which peo- ple acted. It is easy to condemn, but difficult to understand a complicated past. [... Meanwhile, in the IPN] thick volumes are being produced, into which are being thrown, with no real consideration, further evidence incriminating various persons now deceased (and therefore not able to defend themselves), and elderly people still alive – known and unknown. The impression is created that the entire PRL – not only in the early Stalinist years, but throughout the entire period – was a UB kingdom, which no one was able to resist."
2. Agree with François Robere. This is clearly what the source says.
3. Can't read Polish.
4. Editors should abide by WP:COI.
5. Agree with FR. WP:COI applies.
6. Agree with FR.
7. Agree with FR.
8. Agree with FR. "Ministry of Memory" is an important theme of Stola's paper.
9. This event looks WP:DUE.
10. Can't read Polish.
11. I am indifferent regarding this edit.
12. Again, editors should apply WP:COI.
13. I agree with Volunteer Marek that the summary was not a fair representation of the source material. However, I think a deletion is excessive.
14. Can't read Polish.
15. I am indifferent regarding this edit.
16. Agree with VM that Stola does not make this argument.
17. Agree with FR. The source says: "After the last change of management in mid-2016, the Institute of National Remembrance became again an institution of identity policy. An expression of this policy is not only the conduct of activities that the authorities perceive as a fight against the defamation of Poland in the international arena, but also the implementation of a broad plan of exhumation of “cursed soldiers” and other victims from the period 1944-1953 on the territory of Poland. [...] The Act of 29 April 2016 abolished the participation of the scientific community of historians in the appointment of the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, giving politicians an unrestrained control over this process. [...] Concentrating almost all the func- tions of the state’s remembrance policy in Poland, the National Remem- brance Institute, together with the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage (MKiDN), approached the ideal of the Orwellian “Ministry of Memory”."
18. Deletion: The reason given for the deletion are not clear. Addition: Not a fair summary of Behr's paper, which is more critical of the IPN than the edit suggests.
19. This information is WP:DUE.
20. Zuk's opinion is WP:DUE.
21. Agree with FR. The source says that.
22. Agree with FR. Again, Behr's paper is more critical than this summary suggests.
23. WP:WEASEL states that "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."
24. This information is WP:DUE.
25. I am indifferent regarding this edit.
26. Content should be restored.
27. If information is outdated, it should be updated.
28. I am not aware of such a policy. WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply.

--JBchrch (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have been here only a couple months yet seem to have pretty in depth knowledge of both Wikipedia policies and controversies in this area. I'm not sure why you're bringing up "COI" though the fact that you do suggests involvement in this topic that is uncharacteristic of a brand new editor. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to shatter your ego but Wikipedia policies and controversies in this area aren't that complex. Also I would expect a Master Editor III to be familiar with WP:AGF.--JBchrch (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what my ego has to do with it. You might want to change your tone if you expect others to AGF. I note also that you didn't bother addressing the actual issue I raised. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

On 4 and 12, it looks to me like the Haaretz article mentions you explicitly (I am not familiar with the story and I expect that you have a different version of the events). On 5 I am reading that you have a personal dispute with Grabowski (which I am not familiar with). I am not saying that these articles should be kept or removed, only that the policies have to be followed.--JBchrch (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Riiiigggghhhhhttt. You think I have "a dispute" with Grabowski, wetf that means (I don't) but you just found out about it from a brief (and erroneous) assertion by FR above but you claim you have no knowledge of this topic area. Look, buddy. If you actually did not have much knowledge of this topic area then you wouldn't immediately jump on that assertion and you wouldn't invoke "COI" (which most users don't even know about). Volunteer Marek 20:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I sense that you're trying to incite conflict, but I don't care enough about you or your personal life to go in that direction. I encourage you to engage constructively with the objections people have raised about your edits. I have tried to be fair and I even support some of your edits. And you know what? I would be very happy to learn that I was wrong and that there was no COI after all.--JBchrch (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• That looks like a whitewash to me, even if individually the edits were unimpeachable (they aren’t) taken as a whole the edits would still raise massive due weight etc issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If the edits are fine individually then taken as a whole they're fine too. All that's happened here is that the article got stuffed chuck full of cherry picked POV based on misrepresentation of sources. These has now been removed. There's still plenty criticism left in the article. NPOV and DUE weight has been restored. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I said the edits *aren’t* fine individually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Then actually make that argument. Otherwise this is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You made a simple reading comprehension error (it happens to all of us), theres no need to get so defensive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

ookay. If you say so. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A wise man once said "You might want to change your tone if you expect others to AGF.” now I’m not so sure that statement is actually supported by wikipedia policy but I seems relevant here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. Anyway... Volunteer Marek 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's take the second one as an example. The text in the wikipedia article that I removed was:

"Concerns have been raised with the institution's approach to historical research, which tends towards historical positivism and a claim of objectivity."

First, this makes it sound as if the problem with the Institute's historical research is that it's not objective. However, what the source is actually complaining about - or to be more precise, what the source says SOME people are complaining about - is that the institute strives to be objective and generally follows a positivist rather than historicist approach. Basically, some argue that there's no "objective truth" only competing "narratives". Whatever. Regardless, it's not our place to rehash this argument in the article on the institute and in addition to giving a false impression of the source, the info is just simply WP:UNDUE

(what really happened is that one editor went through and trawled the internet for anything that could be used to put the Institute in a negative light and dumped it all into this article in one massive violation of NPOV, DUE WEIGHT and RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That editor has been indefinetly banned and this is simply long overdue clean up) Volunteer Marek 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, But IDONTLIKEIT... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

#1-6

Opened subsection and copied relevant comments from above. If there's anything relevant at RSN, please copy here. François Robere (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1. [53] The statement is a reasonable reading of a longer quote given in the source (p. 58). Given the RS status of the author, the statement should've been amended rather than removed. This has been discussed in the past.
2. [54] Same. You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago.
3. [55] Few of the IPN's "hundreds of investigations" resulted in international incidents, hence WP:DUE. Also previously discussed.
4. [56] Concerns current, rather than historical affairs. While we can certainly up our quality of sources, this has been an acceptable standard in the TA thus far.
5. [57] Of course this is about recent affairs (the IPN has only existed for a couple of decades), and how are "personal disputes" relevant to removing a major RS who is hardly unique in his criticism? And BTW, you have your own "dispute" with Grabowski, so if that doesn't matter (as you previously opined [58]) I can hardly see how his disagreements with the IPN do.
6. [59] Yes, that is literally the title of Dariusz Stola's chapter in the second source.

François Robere (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. I disagree that it's a "reasonable reading". It's just not.
2. This makes it sound like "objectivity" is a bad thing. Why exactly? More broadly, historians may differ in their opinion of what the appropriate methodology is but this isn't the place to hash out these arguments (and the source doesn't really portray it as a criticism either)
3. The IPN has conducted more than 9000 investigations. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. This wasn't an "international incident". Actually read the source please.
4. Doesn't meet sourcing requirements. Actually even w/o sourcing requirements it doesn't qualify. BTW, in Stola's article the term "Ministry of Memory" isn't used in a necessarily negative sense, even though this article tried really hard to pretend it was. It just means "an institution that preserves memory". Just like Yad Vashem or other institutions in countries that have gone through some horrible experiences.
5. The Wikipedia text pretends this is some long running criticism or something. Rather it's just axe grinding and a personal dispute between some historians.
6. See above. There's nothing in the source (though I don't have it in front of me right now) which says "rather than objective historical research institute". Funnily enough, the other criticism that you want included is that the institute tries to be too "objective", which is, like, outdated, man.

For now. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. JBchrch gave the quote above. How would you summarise it?
2. You didn't remove this as "undue", but as a misrep (which it's not). Regardless, this isn't just a disagreement on methodology (eg. this or that sort of archive), but on the very role of the historian. The "historians aren't objective" gist is "Historiography 101" these days, and if the IPN sees itself differently then it goes against the mainstream of modern historiography (cf. criticisms against scholars in MJC's circle), which makes it DUE.
3. Apologies, I was mixing that with another international incident (though Sahryn did get some international attention regardless [60][61][62][63]). I would've happily read the source like I did with many of the other diffs (as you can see from the quotes), but it does get tiring when you have to go through 38 of them.
4. I assume we can defer here to our discussion at RSN.[64] The bottom line is that there's no wiki-policy that would support removing the opinions of two scholars published in a paper of record, on the grounds that the piece was motivated by the story of a blocked user.
5. How is the text pretending that? And how do you discern between valid criticism and a "personal dispute"? Because there seem to be an awful lot of these with the IPN.
6. Remember this statement is a condensed rephrasing of multiple sources with multiple messages, resulting simply from editors' unwillingness to have more criticism in the lead; it is bound to be inaccurate. All of the sources criticize the IPN's politicization and "memory politics" at the expense of research (especially under PiS), and I'm fine using that phrasing instead. François Robere (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Not the way it WAS summarized. The article text is the "IPN's historiographic approach is more broadly concerned with assigning blame than with understanding of historical processes". The relevant part of the paragraph, which IBchrch ommitted reads:

At the center of research trends in Poland today, there remains a solid, workshop-oriented, traditional, and positivist historiography (mainly event history), which defends itself by the integrity of its analysis and its diversified source base; the latter virtue allows the research instrumentarium to modernize and to avoid the trap of narrating only “how it was in fact.” The work of “IPN historians,” promoted so widely by the media, fits nicely into this traditional vein, broadly defined.

So:

Solid.

Workshop-oriented.

Traditional historiograpy

Integrity of its analysis

Diversified source base

Avoids the trap of narrating only "how it was in fact"

But somehow out of this you pull out "concerned with assigning blame than with understanding of historical processes"? Even in the truncated part offered by the Jbchrch account there's nothing in there about "understanding historical processes". Volunteer Marek 23:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're misreading Traba. Earlier in the article (p. 43) he writes the following: "Under the very name (and along with that name, the practices) of the IPN, tasks related to the “national politics of memory” were – unfortunately – merged with the mission of independent academic research. In the public mind, there could be only one message flowing from the institute’s name: memory and history as a science are one. The problem is that nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more misleading. What the IPN’s message presents, in fact, is the danger that Polish history will be grossly over-simplified." Then in p. 57 he writes that "in the opinion of many of its representatives, “access to the files” designates the only correct way to learn about the past. The mindless promotion of the “folder/teczka” fetish leads to a simplified claim that only “secret” sources, not accessible to ordinary mortals, mark off the paradigm of “objective truth.”" It is then that he introduces the quote from Śliwowska as "[highlighting] - against that background - the tendencies set forth (fortunately not always realized!) by the standards of the IPN". And then, in p. 67: "There is... a need for genuine debate that does not revolve around teczki in the IPN archives, “lustration,” or short-term and politically inspired discussions designed to establish the “only real” truth... We must look at “our own past” through the prism of transnational histories... I see another key in the promotion of debate about diversity in methodological strategies (in the spirit of an expanded perspective)... None of this means that I want to create out of interdisciplinarity a canon of modern historical research; I am an advocate of a polyphonic narrative about the past, whose overriding feature is not some hermetic method, but rather imagination..."

So is it solid? Yes. Does it have integrity? In some sense, yes. But it's also dated, esoteric, narrow, simplistic and uncritical, to the point of stymieing the historical discussion and endangering public discourse. François Robere (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The " dated, esoteric, narrow, simplistic and uncritical" is obviously your own WP:OR rather than anything that's actually in the source. The criticism above appear to be mostly about IPN's role in the lustration process which is a different thing (and a separate department). At any rate, this isn't what the Wikipedia article text was saying. Volunteer Marek 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not at all what he says? Lustration is only mentioned as part of the problem; almost everything else is about methodology, role of the historian etc. As for accuracy, see my comment to Piotrus below, and to MVBW on RSN.[65][66] In both cases the problem stems not from anyone's intentional misrep, but from others' unwillingness to allow any sort of detailed criticism in the article, leading to attempts to condense and shorten it enough that it'll be accepted (but then a couple of years pass and it's removed again, this time as "inaccurate" or "excessive"). François Robere (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Regarding one, while there may be something rescuable here, the sentence was a disaster, as it took a specific attributed (at least) criticism (that IPN is unduly stressing the power of UB) and made it sound like any and all research by IPN is biased. While we could try to rewrite it, nuking the sentence as grossly exaggerating the source is fine. Regarding other sources, I'll be happy to chip in if quotes from the source are provided. Also, I suggest we discuss each diff in its own subsection, for further clarity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus:: Thing is, we originally quoted it much more accurately,[67] and guess what? That too was nuked,[68] as were several other criticisms that were quoted accurately. The issue does not seem to be one of accuracy, but one of existence.

And regarding "nuking": if the source is very good and you "nuke" it, then you lose it. Why would you want to lose it? Bring it to Talk instead. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That text was inserted by (yet another) sock puppet [69]. So yeah, it was undone, as it should've been per WP:DENY and per the specific ArbCom restriction passed to deal with the persistent socking in this area. Oh but I should thank you bringing this diff to my attention since it looks like it reveals some info about some of the other sock puppets currently operating in this TA. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You undid it before the SPI was concluded; the ArbCom decision wasn't passed until four months later; WP:DENY isn't policy; the content was legit; and this is far from the only such incident, most of which have little to do with "socking", and much to do with removing criticisms. François Robere (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol, anyone with ounce of sense could see that was a sock. And yes it had everything to do with socking. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Indeed. WP:DENY. It is because of such editors, mostly indef banned but socking left and right, this area continues to have problems. 500/30 helped but only a little, as the most dedicated trolls have no trouble making accounts that are many months old, and rack few hundred edits easily doing some semi-automated maintenance tasks... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by " You actually removed the statement yourself a couple years ago."? Volunteer Marek 19:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. It may have been on MJC's page - we've had a similar discussion there. François Robere (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Who's MJC? Volunteer Marek 08:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz? François Robere (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

6 Should be easy. There's absolutely nothing in Stola's article which says "rather than objective historical institute". Someone made that last part up. Volunteer Marek 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Volunteer Marek -->[70] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit summary says "see talk". There's nothing on talk about either oko press or Notes from Poland. First one isn't even RS. Notes from Poland may be RS for some things but at the end of the day it's a blog. Neither of these sources meets APLRS and no, this isn't just about current events.

The account which introduced this material - and which Francois Robere restored - has once again been one that is barely past the 500/30 threshold, which hasn't showed much interest in the topic until recently, and which, after passing that 500 threshold recently has immediately began going after editors that Icewhiz has had conflicts with (MVBW, GCB etc) (and I'm sorry but there's no freaking way that someone brand new to this topic area would know about a source like oko press given it's obscurity). Can we please NOT repeat this pattern? Volunteer Marek 15:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that this event should be included in the article — however, WP:WEIGHT has to be given to the fact that the IPN fired the guy, as has been reported by several news outlets and announced by the IPN itself [71]. Regarding Mhorg, a quick overview of xtools shows more than 4'000 edits across wikimedia, including more than 2'000 on the Italian wikipedia, many of them on similar political issues, so I don't really see the problem. Editors come and go. JBchrch (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

VM, how many times do I need to tell you not to make misconduct allegations in content discussion venues? Once again, there are noticeboards for that (AE/AN/ANI) as well as WP:SPI. Seriously, it's becoming a problem, so please desist, or sanctions are likely to become imminent. El_C 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)