Talk:Institute of National Remembrance

Criticism

The IPN has been criticized by many, often being characterized as an organization created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts.

First, many is a WP:WEASEL word. It has been criticized by some, but unless we have a source that states 'majority', some - politicians and journalists - is more adequate. Second, none of the sources state it was "created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts". It is the Polish govenrment which is criticized for trying to use it for that purpose; the sources are critical of Polish government but not of the Institute (which has been created in 1998, a good 8 years before the current government started to try to use it for its purposes - note the critical refs are from 2006 and 2007). Let's take a look at the refs. Guardian criticized Polish government, but the Institute is only mentioned as the institution which analzes 'the archives of Poland's communist secret police'. Newsday similarily notes "independent Institute of National Remembrance will scrutinize the files ... and declare them clean or guilty of past collaboration." Sure, "Many in Poland loudly condemn the law as an excuse for a political witch hunt" - but this is a critique of the law and government, not the IPN, which - as its chairman states - is only carrying out a legitimate research. Similiarly Chicago Tribune makes no criticism of IPN, but only of the controversial law and government motivation. Thus, we should correctly note that it is only a small part of recent actions of IPN that are criticized, and primary criticism is against the Polish government which may be using IPN findings in political games, not against academic research carried by IPN itself.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

many is not a weasel word when it is followed by 3 sources :P

--Jadger 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is, just read WP:WEASEL which specifically advises against the use of "many" (How many people think that? How many is some?).--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"how many people think that" is >=3, as I have provided 3 sources. It advises against using it as a weasel word, but when it is used in conjunction with multiple citations it is not a weasel word.

--Jadger 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Instead of using 'some' or 'many' - unless they are uncontroversial, which is clearly not the case here - we should list specifically who is saying what. Your version created the misleading impression that IPN is an highly controversial institution, which is certainly not the case. It is a respected research institute and we should take care not to misrepresent it (per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how Pan Piotrus could complain for Weasel words, when he uses term "academic research" for the activities of the Institute? Why then committee of the Institute is called "Committe for prosecution"? "Prosecution" and "academic research" are two different terms, indeed. However, if Piotrus desires other sources - I would add Russian sources in support of "politically motivated witch hunts". Vlad fedorov 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is all well explained in the article. Please mind WP:NPA - or can I call you 'tovarishch Vlad'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First. I certainly mind NPA. On Polish language "Pan Piotrus" or "Panie Piotrusie" is pretty polite reference or something has changed in Polish language since the year 2000 - when I graduated from UW? On Russian language the thing like "tovarishch" is different and could count to personal attack. Second. You complained that Criticism section contains many weasel words. I suggested helping you to source these "Weasel words" with reliable russian sources. Your inclination to look for personal attacks in my posts is pretty ridiculous, however, you may call me "spadar Vlad", because I consider myself mainly Belarusian, not Russian. Vlad fedorov 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of valid sources

I believe that deletion of Russian criticism by Piotrus is an example of Tendentious editing WP:TE. There are no applicable policies and guidelines in Wikipedia precluding from adding valid existing criticism. Even further, Rusian criticism is analogous to Guardian in comparing IPN with McCarthyism, Russian sources cite Italian newspaper "La Stampa", cite Polish journalists and cite Polish sources on the scandals surrounding the existence of IPN. Vlad fedorov 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Russian criticism from this article is like deletion of non-fascist criticism from articles on fascism. Russia is a party invloved, and her POV should be presented here as notable and deserving coverage.Vlad fedorov 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Iwould like also to pay attention that article on Internet brigades is completly irrelevant to this article, despite Piotrus mentioning. However, I could also regard it as a personal attack on me by hinting, Piotrus, please, explain why have you mentioned Internet brigades article in your edit summary. I cite reliable sources (TV channels, and notable russian magazines) which have respective articles in English Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that deletion of Russian criticism by Piotrus is an example of Tendentious editing WP:TE. There are no applicable policies and guidelines in Wikipedia precluding from adding valid existing criticism. Even further, Russian criticism is analogous to Guardian in comparing IPN with McCarthyism, Russian sources cite Italian newspaper "La Stampa", cite Polish journalists and cite Polish sources on the scandals surrounding the existence of IPN. Vlad fedorov 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the info is totally valid. Not that it would be easy to keep it here. I will try to research the matter. For now, I can only assure that all the sources cited are as mainstream a press as there can be. I am somewhat skeptical about using press publication for the historic article but since this is a current politics and society issue rather than a historic one, the mainstream press is certainly acceptable. We should just make sure how representative each of the points being brought up is. If the point is not widely discussed and universally agreed, the disclaimed "According to..." or something similar should proceed every statement. At the side note, I see nothing outrageous or unexpected in this kind of information. Witch hunt is not uncommon upon the regime change and institutions tasked with such investigation, even in good faith, will always be involved in similar controversies. Lustration, even when warranted, may never be fully fair. So, I do not approve the removal of information.

Vlad, please do not repeat past mistakes re revert warring and discussing editors. Concentrate on content. --Irpen 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of IPN by Russian sources

I am not sure about the sources. But the inclusion of this section creates undue weight to promote certain POV. This article included already "Criticism" and "Reply to criticism" sections, which were of approximately the same size. The "Criticism" section included "McCarthyism", "smear campaign", etc. The section about Russian sources only repeats the same claims second time and create the undue weight. Therefore, I must agree with deletion of this segment by Piotrus.Biophys 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to merging all criticism under a single section. It only makes sense. --Irpen 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. First of all I have chosen not right name for the sub-section "Russian sources", because these are actually not only Russian, but also Polish and Italian sources. Second, of course we could shorten criticism section, but also we have to shorten response to criticism section and introduce in the opening paragraph information about contraversial nature of this institution, I mean "political police" first of all. We also should note that response to criticism covers not all questions which are asked by critics.Vlad fedorov 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the criticism should be in one section. Russian, Italian, British, whatever. In my earlier days I made similar mistakes: having something to add to the article, I pasted it to the new section I created. New sections may be sometimes needed, but more often than not, they are not. This approach disrupts the text flow. Keeping the overall integrity of the article takes more effort than to inject a point you'd like to make but this effort pays off bit in article quality and in reduction of revert wars. The more serious your entry is, the less people there would be around to revert you. Some will always revert what does not suit their POV as there are always editors who see the WP as a tool to advance some agenda. But such editors are only a minority, while a loud one. --Irpen 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have incorporated facts into other sections and added shortened Russian criticism to Criticism section. Vlad fedorov 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sections which were arbitrarily deleted from the article

I reinsert that section for evaluation of readers.

Criticism of IPN by Russian sources

Journalist Albert Akopyan of analytical journal "GlobalRus" points that "lawyers of IPN" and not researchers or academics, "prepare the documents for charging the Russia of invasion on September 17th 1939". IPN, according to Akopyan, also censured popular in Poland movie "Four tankmen and a dog", was searching for Soviet agents, "turning itself into something like McCarthy commission on investigation of antiamerican activities".

According to NTV Russian TV channel, IPN is more often called "unofficial political police".

Journalist Victor Polyakov of APN (Agency of Political news), described IPN as "unique scientific institution (as it could learned from its name), having in its staff special prosecution office which investigates crimes against Poles".

Russian magazine Ogonyok reported that IPN is a governmental, and not academic, organization which "performs criminal prosecution functions" and "rewrites history". Ogonyok described IPN as "Ministry of Truth" referring to George Orwell "1984" novel, "factory of vengeance". According to Ogonyok there is no public access to the archives of IPN. This access is restricted only to individuals "authorized by the authorities". Some of the documents in the archive may conatin forgeries made up by secret services in order to coerce people into cooperation. Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials and judges. Each year IPN issues 40 000 certificates for individuals confirming their status as individuals "which never cooperated with secret services". In January, 2005, the rightist journalist Bronislav Vildstein copied from IPN computer the list of 240 000 individuals and published it on the internet.

Elections of new IPN president in December 2005 also were accompanied with discolsure scandal. Janosz Kurtyk, current IPN president, was rivaled by Andrzej Przewoznik, also historian from Krakow Jaggielonian University. But Przewoznik was discredited by suddenly appeared documents which were confirming his connections with secret services. The scandal was aggravated by the fact, that these documents were coming from Krakow IPN unit, which was headed by Przewoznik himself.

A number of distinguished Solidarnosc movement memebers, like Jaceck Kuron, were convicted by IPN, including most recently archbiscup Stanislav Velgus nominated for Warsaw Mithropolit.

According to Ogonyok, IPN was named by Italian newspaper "La Stampa", "a factory of national vengeance".

Some of Polish journalists, Ogonyok reported, are even more radical in their evaluation of IPN. Helena Luczivo of Gazeta Wyborcza maintains that "The use of state security dossiers to discredit and defame political opponents is not a new method. The same weapon was used by communists Gomulka and Gerek and during martial law period in Poland"..

Mistakes in translation

Ok, I've read the source on "List w "obronie historyków z IPN". I have corrected previous translation made with mistakes, omitting words.

Original:

"Według sygnatariuszy listu, "historii opozycji antykomunistycznej i 'Solidarności' nie mogą zaszkodzić ani naukowe badania źródeł, ani wynikającej z nich poszerzanie wiedzy o przeszłości".

Translation before my corrections:

"History of Solidarity and anti-communist resistance in Poland cannot be damaged by scientific studies and resulting increase in our knowledge of the past".

Translation after my corrections:

"History of Solidarity and anti-communist opposition in Poland cannot be damaged neither by scientific studies of sources, nor by resulting from it increase in our knowledge of the past".

Czekam na komentarze Panstwa!! Vlad fedorov 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New mistakes!!!!

Original:

"Dzieje antytotalitarnego oporu są własnością milionów Polaków, a nie jednej, towarzyskiej czy politycznej koterii, uzurpującej sobie prawo do decydowania, które wątki narodowej przeszłości należy upowszechniać, a które przemilczać".

Translation before my corrections:

"History of opposition to totalitarism belongs to millions of Poles and not one social or politicial group which usurps the right to decide which parts of national history should be discussed and which forgotten."

Translation after my corrections:

"History of antitotalitarian opposition is a property of millions of Poles and not to one social, or politicial group which usurps the right to decide which parts of national past should be disseminated and which should be silenced."

Ponownie czekam na komentarze dotyczace poprawnosci przekladu. I also would like to note that the last sentence was also grammaticly incorrect, since somebody forgot to insert "to" to link the additional phrase. Vlad fedorov 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could read Russian or Ukrainian as well as you read Polish. That said, you need to improve your fluency in Polish more before you can make completly accurate translations. I will see if we can incorporate some of your suggestions into the text. Thanks,-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)