Talk:Institute of National Remembrance

message: I've undone this addition, as it looks cherry-picked to me : 
*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)
replies: text: Further, I explanded on the recent addition , to provide more context. My edit: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stola 2 

message: Well, as soon as the full protection lapses, that is. Please see :Template:Editnotices/Page/Institute of National Remembrance for the documentation. El_C 15:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:1RR]] now in effect

message: Scathing criticism by Tom Junes, an Assistant Professor of History at the Polish Academy of Sciences, which mentions a lot of the things editors argued endlessly against on this, and other talk pages:
* 
François Robere (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another piece on PiS's politics of memory and the politicization of the IPN 

message: One thing that is for certain is that Mazowiecki, he was a supporter of a Christian democratic, German-style social market economy- see per say Kowalik's account ('Solidarity to Sellout'). Wałęsa didn't have a particular view or support. The political leadership overall didn't have an initial ideological push tot he most radical form of neolbieralism, ie what was enacted, even to the exten otf support for neoliberlaism. Balcerowicz was, as was the IMF and in general much of the world even among traditionally social-democratic or left-wing parties, in great part partly carrying on the previous government's policies 
Many activists in Solidarity to the extent they were able to also made 'anti-communist' statements, the issue isn't the change to anticommunism, perhaps more openness and possibility- the issue is that the language became right-wing.
In my opinion, in order to be more scathing, David Ost delegitimises the true left-wing credentials (implying Michnik's support for John Stuart Mill as their hero made them not truly, in a non-pre modern sense, which is insuling to insinusate, left-wing, when he had sympathy for redistrbution, socialism and worker self-management). There is no contradiction between openly anticommunist statements and positions, referring to communism as an actual existing ruling system and its correlates, which Karol Modzelewski in the sense at the time he did refer to 'communist society' and you can look up his view or statements. I dislike this implication. 2A02:A310:E23F:400:4C6A:BCFC:365A:EC0E (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  on mazowiecki and others' ideology as the reason behind the neoliberal turn in the opposition after martial law