The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points, and I share the concern of some delete voters over the use of nationalist sources and other sources of dubious reliability. That said, there is no consensus to delete at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Brzostowica Mala[edit]

Massacre of Brzostowica Mala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is based entirely on an unreliable source, a non-scholarly website, "Electronic Museum." The author of the source, from which the entirety of this article is taken, is Mark Paul, a fringe right wing writer whose work consists largely denialist apolegetics for anti-semitism in Poland. This poorly sourced article reads like racialistic sensationalism (e.g., "It has been established that the leader of the murderers was a local Jewish man.") It is not clear there are any reliable sources for this alleged incident extant. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that I have copy-edited the article; a reliable source ([1] - IPN) confirmed that a massacre has occurred, and that it was carried by pro-communist minority members on the non-communist Poles. Due to lack (death...) of all primary witnesses, IPN however was unable to verify details to the extent it would like, and has declared that there is simply no way to proceed further with the investigation. We can discuss how reliable is this website giving more details - I'd guess it's based on the newspaper account, and that should be clarified, so the readers know what details come from IPN and what from the newspapers - but there is no doubt that the massacre of ~50 people occurred then and there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That link points to a picture of two people sitting at a table... VG ☎ 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the number of confirmed dead and the amount of coverage this war crime received (half a page in a 350 page report), I still don't think a separate Wikipedia article is warranted. With the risk of sounding callous, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than many other killings perpetrated by communists and their sympathizers when they took power. I'm sure it can be mentioned elsewhere, e.g. in Communist crime. VG ☎ 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please leave your opinion of the Institute to yourself. It is a government-sponsored institution, which consists of professional historians, doctors and professors. And a note to user Mordoor - do not delete it, or you will be reported.Tymek (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I've already left you a WP:CIVIL warning for your truly uncivil and onnoxious demand that I not express my opinions on a page where...editors give opinions! And my "opinions" were sourced to Haaretz and Professor Jan Grabowski. And I suggest you retract your uncivil threat to Mordoor, before I report you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you can report me. Surely you can express your opinion about the Institute, but not here. We are not talking about criticism of the Institute, but about this real and heinous massacre. Or perhaps there is a direct link between criticism of the Institute and the massacre itself. Then it is clear. Tymek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One person's terrorist is another person freedom fighter, indeed. IPN makes mistakes, of course, but it also investigates many issues which some hoped would be forever buried under communist censorship and ruffles many feathers. This makes it, for some, a very annoying entity indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that the IPN is a controversial source. And I'm sure you are not inimating that critics such as Dariusz Libionka and Jan Grabowski were hoping certain issues "would be forever buried under communist censorship." Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you agree that Gross is a controversial source, and has been criticized by reliable scholars.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Gross has exactly what to do with this article or this nom? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is one thing, but the constant contradicting of those who have questions about the article's value is becoming a little uncomfortable. And making an accusation of a "bad faith nomination" and telling someone to "be serious" is not pleasant. Since IPN is a Polish government source, I also have to question whether it passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering questions and pointing out errors (the ENTIRE nominator rationale upon which most of the objects were cast is not outdated - the external site is not used, academic sources are now cited, controversial claims about Jews are gone) is rather constructive. Bad faith can be judged by anybody who follows the arbcom link. Non-English sources are allowed, per WP:NONENG and WP:CSB.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the arbcom link - it only confirms that bad faith (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder (I prefer beauty, but that's another story). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you Malik Shabazz. This is not the place to talk about reliability of either Haaretz or IPN. Tymek (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But in two of the three citations, the IPN isn't really the source. As M0RD00R noted, they're merely IPN summaries of what had been reported in various newspapers. The first newspaper, cited three times, is Nasz Dziennik, which is described by Wikipedia as "far right,[2] radical nationalist,[3] anti-semitic,[4] and ethno-nationalist.[5]" I don't know anything about the second newspaper, Kurier Poranny. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Haaretz was quoted to prove IPN was not reliable. I showed that Haaretz article can't be used as "final proof" that IPN is bunch of unreliable nationalists. Mordoor is not right, at least not totally right. The quoted article indeed contains summary of Nasz Dziennik article. But it's not summary of ND, but also contains phrases:

Wobec wyczerpania w chwili obecnej możliwości dowodowych postępowanie w niniejszej sprawie należało umorzyć - poinformował gazetę prokurator Dariusz Olszewski z IPN w Białymstoku. Okoliczności uprawdopodobniały, że zbrodnia została popełniona w celu zniszczenia grupy osób narodowości polskiej, należącej do kręgu przedstawicieli inteligencji i władzy państwowej. Tym samym czyn te zakwalifikowano jako akt ludobójstwa, popełniony przez osoby działające w interesie państwa komunistycznego i z inspiracji jego władz - twierdzi prokurator Dariusz Olszewski."
"The circumstances made it probable, that crime was committed with goal of destruction of Polish nationals, belonging to intelligentsia and representants of Polish government"

This is what IPN historian says. He also says, that there is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions and that's way investigation was suspended. Simply put, the people who committed the crime were impossible to identify. They decided that massacre MOST PROBABLY happened, but they couldn't reliably identify perpetrators Szopen (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sz, for the info and translation. But being greedy here, please post the entire IPN finding on the article's talk page. If it's in an online PDF that is not, I think, asking too much. A government will probably not sue WP for a copyright violation on several paragraphs. Novickas (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, we have a better source - IPN publication itself reporting on the ongoing investigation (IPN activities report of 2002-2003). Although I still cannot find official IPN status report post-2003, but than, even through IPN is above average in Poland in making its research available online, Poland (like most other non-English countries) is pretty bad with moving research online.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, oh please. How many "public universities" have as their mission statement a declaration that they were "created to address issues which are considered essential to the legislative power in (country X)" and have as their task "to fulfill the duty to prosecute crimes against peace, humanity and war crimes." Maybe public universities in Oceania. I'm not even going to argue this with you, it's too silly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boodlesthecat, you are mixing apples and oranges. IPN is funded by the government, like BBC, but it is a historical institute, consisting of a number of professional historians. It is engaged in several projects [7], it publishes books and organizes conferences, it cooperates, among others, with Yad Vashem [8]. It takes a lot of bad faith to compare it to State Department. BTW those interested are welcome to check IPN's webpage in English [9]. Tymek (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of English sources is not a reason for deletion (see also WP:CSB). I've read the academic IPN source, it states that the massacre occurred. Interested users can confirm this via machine translation, as John Z did. I am sorry, but I don't see the need to translate large batches of text (the existence of the academic source and that it confirms basic details is not doubted, is it?), particularly since Szopen has already translated some of it. But because some people have asked, here's the key part of [10] (from p. 52): --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<blockquote|>"Jak ustalono, po agresji ZSRR na Polskę we wrześniu 1939 r. zwolennicy ustroju komunistycznego utworzyli na terenie gminy brzostowickiej uzbrojoną bojówkę komunistyczną. (...) Następnie sprawcy zamordowali wszystkich zatrzymanych."

"As has been determined, after the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, communist sympathizers formed an armed communist paramilitary in the Brzostowice district. [There follows a list of detainees, including nobility and officials.] Next the perpatrators murdered all the detainees."
  • I'm not saying non-English sources are a reason for deletion, I'm saying they don't help verifying the article. And lack of reliable, third party sources is a reason for deletion. "Verifiability, not truth." As I said above, it's all too vague. I think M0RD00R has summed it up well. (And for your information, I don't fit WP:CSB at all.)    SIS  22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense do non-English-language sources "not help verify the article"? And what, in this context, is a "third-party source"? Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More