Talk:Jedwabne pogrom

message: The article currently includes: 
Glaukopis is a problematic publication, whose web site moreover only hosts the letter, after History declined to publish it. Finding this statement to be undue, I suggest it be removed. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely agree. "Glaukopis, a journal which caters to, and is led by, the Polish extreme nationalistic right. Its long-time editor-in-chief, Wojciech Muszyński (an employee of the IPN), openly praises the ONR, one of the most militant, rabidly antisemitic organizations of prewar Poland."https://www.prchiz.pl/2023-03-03-wikipedias-intentional-distortion There's no place for use of publications associated with anti-semitism as secondary sources on Wikipedia, and this one would almost certainly fail a WP:RS review. Any editors who disagree, I invite them to take it up at WP:RSN for community discussion. In the meantime, I am WP:BOLD removing it as a matter of urgency. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Agreed. When I initially encountered this, I thought this was an article published in a reliable outlet. Forward a decade, I concur this has issues with BLP / RS and does not meet our modern standards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasten to add that the quote I used above is from the widely respected Polish chapter of the International Council of Christians and Jews, their website publication of Jan Grabowski's controversial essay, "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". In that essay he makes wide-ranging allegations against Wikipedia that AFAIU Wikipedia has contested in part and responded to. Still, I treat his opinion about Glaukopis as a noteworthy mainstream-academic observation, one that crosses our threshold for source reliability and minority view concerns. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal, however I was wondering if Glaukopis should also be removed from other articles where it's used as a source and/or listed in the biography (here below in the collapse box). Obviously removing the quotation is not enough: the supported text should also be checked. Shall we have a discussion at WP:RSN on this?
#Propaganda in the Polish People's Republic
#Żydokomuna
#Gwardia Ludowa 
#Henryk Rossman
#Roman Dmowski
#Roman Romkowski
#Bolesław Mołojec
#Holy Cross Mountains Brigade
#Zambrów massacre
#Sochy massacre
#Władysław Siemaszko
#Władysław Łukasiuk
#Franciszek Przysiężniak
#Dalej jest noc
#Wronki Prison
#Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski
#Kurdybań Warkowicki
 
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I answered myself. The discussion at RSN is here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I fully support total removal of the source across Wikipedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stachura in ''[[Glaukopis]]'' 

message: The same Gross quote under discussion above is supporting the infobox statement:
This quote from Gross was removed in this edit: , because (as I understand it) it was lacking the follow-up of "their [German's] direct participation in the massacre, however, was "limited, pretty much, to their taking pictures".... and the local population was not compelled to participate directly in the killings of Jews but "did so of its own free will."
I find the statement to be lacking nuance, being in the infobox, and it perhaps leaves the impression that the Germans may have played a more active role ("cooperation") than the current research suggests. Suggest "... in cooperation with" be removed from the infobox. "German incitement" is mentioned under the Motive parameter in the infobox and this is sufficient.  --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox: "in cooperation with German military police"

message: My gut is that the individual names of those who retracted their confessions is WP:UNDUE. However, I don't feel terribly strongly about it, and idk how to handle the related citation, so I'm not going to be WP:BOLD and delete it. One option might be to say that "at least nine people retracted . . ." as there are nine names on the list. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind as no one else has replied. Names are now deleted. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Those who retracted included . . ." 

message: I'm not 100% up on British English. I would have said "burned alive". But I'm not British. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Burnt alive is fine. Very quick addendum , "it's fine" from a spelling sense. Also as the article repeatedly uses a quote using "burned alive", burned is probably best for consistency. Also now realising this is a really old comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "burnt alive" 

message: Change:
After the German occupation, Polish villagers participated in pogroms against Jews in 23 localities of the Łomża and Białystok areas of the Podlasie region, with varying degrees of German involvement.
To:
After the German occupation, Polish villagers participated in pogroms against Jews in 23 localities of the Łomża and Białystok areas of the Podlaskie region, with varying degrees of German involvement.
Also:
Podlaskie region should redirect to "Podlaskie voivodeship" not "podlachia". LEJ PO ŁYMPIE (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  23:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2023