Talk:Wiktor Poliszczuk

message: W.Poliszczuk holds a special place among the non-scientists. As a Ukrainian politologist
who deals, so to speak, "scientifically" with the problem of Ukrainian nationalism, he is
sometimes seen as a credible person. To the Polish reader, he tries to play the role of the "good
Ukrainian"; good, because he condemns Ukrainian nationalism. W.Poliszczuk claims that the
OUN-UPA was scarcely supported by Ukrainian civilians, and that its dense web was built only
because of the terror they used against the Ukrainians. He persistently disregards strongly
emphasized elements of independence fights in the program of Ukrainian nationalists. In his
opinion, the source of all evil in Polish-Ukrainian relations is "Ukrainian nationalism, which
should not be confused with the Ukrainian independence movement... For tactical reasons
Ukrainian nationalism has identified its ideology with Ukrainian patriotism from the very
beginning of its existence, thus misleading not only ordinary Ukrainians, but also scientists,
politicians, and many Polish and western historians. Frankly speaking, Ukrainian nationalism,
being a developed and intensified form of fascism-Nazism, was antagonistic to Ukrainian
patriotism."60''
W. Poliszczuk, like representatives of the non-scientific group of Polish nationality, gives
full support to Vistula action. He also deliberately overlooks attempts to reach agreements and
also presents exaggerated numbers of UPA casualties among Poles (125,000) and Ukrainians
(40,000)63 ''
In other place of the article is written:
The third, para-scientific trend consists of works that are of no scientific value. Their
authors play freely with historical facts. They appeal mostly to the reader's emotions. Their use
of sources and researchers' findings does not contribute to historical discoveries. Instead it is
used to make their "true" version of events credible. It is often only politically involved
publicism, not historical work. Edward Prus, Aleksander Korman, and Jacek E. Wilczur are
followers of this trend. ''
Rafal Wnuk Recent Polish Historiography on Polish-Ukrainian Relations during World War II and its Aftermath
Пізніше головним “фахівцем” з антиукраїнської істерії став Віктор Поліщук. 
Головна його теза, що українцям перед війною, до 1939 р., 
у Польщі жилося добре, а етнічні чистки на Волині і, меншою мірою, 
в Галичині були викликані рішенням ОУН і УПА реалізувати ідеї інтеґрального націоналізму, 
сформульовані Дмитром Донцовим.  Ярослав ІСАЄВИЧ, академік Національної академії наук України, директор Інституту українознавства
праці таких авторів, як Едвард Прус, Віктор Поліщук чи інші, з огляду на тиражі, нетрадиційні 
(наприклад, за допомогою кіосків у костелах) способи розповсюджування, а також пропагандивне 
представлення подій, краще промовляють до уяви статистичного громадянина ІІІ Речі Посполитої. 
На цих авторів посилається частина депутатів Сейму, також деякі держані службовці, їх рекомендується 
(як це мало місце у 1996 р. в Перемишлі) школам.   --Yakudza 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Edward Prus and Poliszczuk are not to be mixed together. Note that the paper of Wnuk that you quoted above did not mention Poliszczuk in this context (well, maybe because he is not Polish, simply). Certainly both have controversial opinions and neither of them can be considered "mainstream". Both their views and the methodology of their research seem quite different, however. I have my personal opinion on both authors, but the bio article is not the place for discussing this, I'm afraid. It might be appropriate (or may be not) to quote the opinions of other historians, unless these are isolated views of course. --Lysytalk 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yakudza, can you put a few lines to the article, showing that his works are contraversial and such and such authors put such and such unpleasant comments about his works. You seems to know this topic better than the most of us abakharev 23:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-scientific group  

message: Hey Yakudza ! Are you member of non-scientific group ? :))) Perhaps you have access to same Polish, English, Russion, Jewish, German, Czech ...  newspapers from the end of the war
and can find further sources for this information about the Galicia and Malopolska Wschodnia killings, massacres of Polish, Russion, Czech by ukrainian bands occurred in many towns after the end of the war !!!!!!!!. [..disgusting personal attack removed by Irpen..]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.248.99 (talk • contribs)  22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have blocked the IP for 24 hours (first time to use my mop and bucket actually), if he will continue, the IP will be blocked for longer time abakharev 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Next time it will be longer. I have to check if it is a personal IP or some shared one abakharev 23:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trolling

message: *Poliszczuk's books as a source: pl:Dyskusja Wikiprojektu:Stosunki polsko-ukraińskie. --Birczanin 07:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disscusion/polish Wikipedia

message: Here is the quote from Wnuk : "I do not find G. Motyka's para-scientific trend part of historiography at all. These authors' works can be treated as neither scientific nor objective. Since they have shaped the historical consciousness of some Poles, I refer to these as "non-scientific" works. This non-scientific trend depicts a world seen from a supposedly "true" perspective. In addition to the above-mentioned E. Prus, A. Korman and J. Wilczur, I also include Polish Ukrainians like W. Poliszczuk and M. Siwicki in this trend." I summarized that in this article by stating "Polish historian Rafał Wnuk of the Institute of National Remembrance in Lublin categorized Poliszczuk's work as belonging to the 'nonscientific' tradition and described it as 'neither scientific nor objective.'"  Present summary is accurate, please do not remove it or claim that he didn't write it.
Also, if we include a term such as "Operation Vistula" a brief descirpion of that term is reasonable and appropriate. Please do not remove that, either.Faustian (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is a blog on a Catholic website whose stated purpose (via googltranslate) is "is discovering the truth - little seen przemilczanej, transformed, and distortions in the educational process at different levels of education,. For several centuries inflected view of man, his individual and social activity and meaning of human life. Especially the Rationalist-Enlightenment writers were able to exert its deleterious effects on social life, leading in recent centuries, the numerous revolutions, whose ideology continues..." It is not a reliable source.  Grott, the author you quote, is not a professor of history but of Religious Studies.  He does admit that Poliszcuk is (also) not a historian however, although whatever is posted on this blog probably doesn't belong on wikipedia, given that Grott himself is not notable and the source does not meet wikipedia criteria for being a reliable source.Faustian (talk)
Sorry but all sources you dont like, are not reliable, all your sources are unbiased. Grott is historian much more reliable than Wnuk. Look at his scientific degrees--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I simply follow wikipedia's rules and guidelines, according to which a blog is not a reliable source. This one is a pro-Polish Roman Catholic one, dedicating by its admission to limiting the "deletrious" effects of the Enlightenment, suggesting bias. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.Faustian (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:RS - "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." The blog is not a personal one, it belong to a Catholic organziation's website that is devoted to fighting the "deletrious" influcne of Rational-Enlightenment in Polish society. I wonder if it is linked ot the infamous extremist Polish Catholic Radio Maryja?   According to his wikipedia article Bogumił Grott is a lecturer at the Institute of Religious Studies.  In the philosopy department. He is thus not a reliable source on history. Looking at his publication history, he seems to be into Polish right-wing and ultra Catholic nationalism issues.  He also writes for the infamous, extremist antisemtic Radio Maryja as can be seen here: . This piece pretty much confirm that Grott is not a nuetral scholar. Grott is like a Polish version of a Ukrainian pro-UPA researcher. If he were famous, which he is not, his opinion would be notable in and of itself. But we can go to RFC to discuss Grott if you want to spend the time doing so, to get others' opinion, if you insist.Faustian (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's probably notable that Poliszczuk's work is frequently cited positively on racist extremist Polish portals such as Radio Maryja.Faustian (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wnuk on Poliszczuk

message: It seems that the only time historians mention him, it is negatively. But right-wing activists, some of whom are academics (but not historians, such as the professor in the philosophy department at te Institute of Relgion Bogomil Grott) like him.  Should this be summarized in the article? For example - "While historians say he is nonscientific etc. etc. non-historians (with such background) defend him as etc. etc."Faustian (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Historians on Poliszczuk