Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust

Cooper is WP:UNDUE

I think it's one thing to cite reviews which are in-depth, and another to cite mentions in passing (hence, removal of Cooper: [1]). Lukas book is cited in hundreds of works ([2]). I don't think attributing one liners fits with WP:UNDUE (also consider WP:BLP/WP:FRINGE with regards to descriptions that are not supported by majority of sources). I think we should focus on what is said in the in-depth works, and not on passing comments. PS. Reviewing this again, I think it is undue to call Lukas an apologist based on a single comment in passing (I did find the page in question here: [3] in case anyone else wants to review this) BUT I do think it can be mentioned somewhere that his work is challenging the view of Poles as antisemites, this was mentioned in some sources I read, but I don't recall if there were reviews of this books of his or some others. PPS. I checked the book in Google Print and I can't verify "He states Lukas had attempted to minimize the effect of antisemitism on the treatment of Jews in WWII Poland,[21]:103" (that page does not mention him?) and "and cites several example in various areas." seems to be WP:SYNTH. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Cooper is more focused on breadth than depth, and gives Lukas as an example in 8-9 places in different contexts. His importance here is as one of the more recent sources, who's had time to evaluate Lukas in a historical context; most of the other reviews are from the 1980's. In a way he's an example of how Lukas is perceived today, rather than then. This is one reason, I believe, for why there aren't any more recent reviews. The others that do exist, like Pawlikowski's - who gives an anecdote (which I've been unable to get a citation for, so didn't add) of how Prof. Thaddeus Gromada, entrusted with presented one of Lukas's papers, edited it for what he perceived were "antisemitic undertones" - or Grabowski's, give a similar impression.

P. 103 cites Lukas as a "prominent Polish historian". François Robere (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That anecdote seems to be false: Talk:Richard_C._Lukas#False_claims_(BLP)_issue. At least according to both Lukas and Gromada. Even if Lukas could be biased, I think Gromada's word can be trusted.

Re Cooper, I have reconsidered my view and I am fine with adding more from him, as long as we avoid SYNTH. It's important to illustrate how modern scholars feel about older works. It's a bit of a shame reviews of older works are rarely published (through we do have one from 2014, I think). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've emailed Pawlikowski to hear his version.

Agreed. Quote as much of him as you will. He mentioned Lukas in different contexts, so there's something for everyone. François Robere (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Prof. Pawlikowski replied with permission to quote him here:

The conference at which Dr. Gromada read the Lukas paper goes back well over a decade, if not longer. So my recollection is a bit faded. But I can confirm that Dr. Gromada made the statement to which you refer. If I recall correctly, he told several of us prior to the session that he was going to distance himself from some of Prof. Lukas' statements in the paper. I also recall that he made a public statement in this regard prior to beginning of his reading of the paper. In short, Dr. Gromada definitely said this even though I am unable to remember every aspect of his disclaimer.

— John T. Pawlikowski (by email to the undersigned, 11.04.2020)

François Robere (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, but considering that Gromada said something else in the linked letter, I think we should conclude that Pawlikowski's memory is faulty, as he himself admits is a possibility. Through this entire direction of discussion is likely pointless, given WP:BLP as well as the fact we don't have a WP:RS for Pawlikowski's claim. See also Talk:Richard_C._Lukas#False_claims_(BLP)_issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume one is more reliable than the other, and indeed it's irrelevant as it's not in the article to begin with. What it does matter for are the problems inherent in Lukas's work, and the mixed acceptance it received. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep things in perspective. Fringe criticism is, well, fringe. When 90% of the reviews are positive, well, that's consensus. Dissenting minority views exist and are, well, WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

90% of the reviews are from the mid 1980's, and including the long correspondence over the pages of the Sarmatian Review are it's close to 60-40. Later reviews are less accepting. François Robere (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, but it is hard to generalize from such a small sample. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Btw, Cooper himself was criticized for using the term apologist here: [4] "His tone is frequently angry, repeatedly referring to some Polish historians as “apologists,” and even ultimately holding the Poles responsible for the slaughter ofJews by Ukrainian Cossacks under Bohdan Chmielnicki, because the revolt was caused by the Poles’ cruel treatment ofthe Cossacks. Libraries should balance Cooper’s interpretation of Poles and Jews during the Holocaust with Richard C. Lukas’s The Forgotten Holocaust". That's from John A. Drobnicki, from York College, City University of New York.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Newspaper critique

I almost forgot that Jan Grabowski (historian) criticized this book in a recent Polish newspaper article ([5]). He effectively endorses Engel's critique of the book (and he explicitly mentions his 1987 review). I am not sure if this should be mentioned here, given it's a newspaper mention, and in passing (few sentence). Interestingly, Grabowski claims that Lukas works have many errors and are not cited by modern scholars. Which is a bit stange, according to Google Scholar, Forgotten Holocaust has ~250 academic cites, and ~35 or so in the last 5 years, so it is still seemingly cited ([6]). I recently expanded Lukas' bio, and all I can say is that up to and including Forgotten Holocaust, academic reviews of his works were pretty positive. His latter works got fewer reviews, and they were more "middle-of-the-road", mostly since his latter works are collections of memoirs, so more descriptive, and less analytical. It is possible that the modern view of Lukas is changing, but I could not find any in-depth critique of this book (or of Lukas in general) to back up Grabowski's newspaper's critique. PS. Newspapers are also problematic per WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed he has, but WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations. See my comment above on what Lukas has done in terms of Polish and Jewish histories; you'll probably find he's treated differently on each. François Robere (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That said, I don't think there was a clear consensus in APL re newspapers. Maybe we should ask for a simple clarifications re newspapers as a source, citing this and the Times of Israel diff you recently removed elsewhere (Sunny Day I think)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It was there, yes, but we've had this discussion before. If you want to file on ARCA I'll be happy to oblige, just make sure you clarify no one's looking for reversing those sourcing requirements. François Robere (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In the context of the puzzling claim that the book is obsolete, it was called "elementary" in [7] but I think it's a passing mention that does not warrant a mention. Just a note that recently (2009) the book is still seen as useful by many scholars. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Davies

Re: [8]. Books in good presses are often subject to a peer review. Forewords and such might be subject to it as well. In all honesty, it is hard to be sure, the point is it is also hard to assume this was not peer reviewed. I think it should be fine as long as it clearly states this is from a foreword or such. It does pass a lot of the RS flags - reliable outlet, reliable publisher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is Hippocrene Books, not the original university press. François Robere (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A press does not need to have "University" it is name to be seen as highly reliable (Routledge...). Granted, Hippocrene Books is not in the same league, but I don't see why we should assume it is not reliable, particularly given Davies is seen as one of the main authorities on works about Polish history. Again, I think that as long as we clearly attribute him to a foreward, it is not a problem with RS? We can take this to WP:RSN if you wish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hippocrene Books is not in the same league, but I don't see why we should assume it is not reliable Because it's not in the same league.

A university press should have mighty good reason to drop a "best seller" like Lukas, and Lukas should have mighty good reason to take it to Hippocrene rather than to a larger, or more specialized publisher. François Robere (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask at WP:30 first. Norman Davies is reliable, and there is no proof Hippocrene is not reliable enough to have some sort of peer review. I don't see why a clearly attributed quote from his foreword should not be in this article. PS. I went ahead and asked at RSN anyway and pinged you; for the record: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Foreword_by_Norman_Davies_in_Hippocrene_Books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Procedural note: you can't really do both at the same time. The moment another editor commented on RSN, WP:30 became redundant. François Robere (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I'll go and remove the 30. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Salmonowicz

I found an interesting comment about this book in Salmonowicz ([9] open access but in Polish; note: he mispells his name in text, sometimes it is Lukas, sometimes, Lucas, I guess the copyediting of this journal is non existent...). The following is from a footnote on p.159 and refers to the book's (Polish edition I presume) treatment of "Jewish matters pp. 154–193 - this is a balanced sketch. It is true that the author did not know some of the unfortunate materials revealed only in recent years, however, taking this into account (including into the anti-Jewish actions of the Podlasie population in 1941), his many statements are closer to the realities of the era than works of both apologetic movement, as well as a kind of negativism represented towards Polish affairs in the "Gross's school". It is absolutely impossible to accuse Lukas of minimizing Polish anti-Semitism." It's interesting particularly that as Cooper thinks Lukas is a Polish apologist, Salmonowicz argues he is not and instead seems him as a middle ground. PS. Through Richards Plavnieks (11 September 2017). Nazi Collaborators on Trial during the Cold War: Viktors Arājs and the Latvian Auxiliary Security Police. Springer. pp. 4–. ISBN 978-3-319-57672-5. Lukas work is described as the other side view" compared to Gross. Although Gross work was published much later, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a good sign as far as editorial controls are concerned. François Robere (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenation of year span

Hi, just a trivial question: is there a particular reason behind the use of hyphen rather than endash in the page title? Eisfbnore ^(会話) 20:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eisfbnore: No, just a copypaste artifact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Dubious Reviews

Madanay

Piotrus, do you support or oppose this edit? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am particularly curious about why you chose to add the descriptor of "a PhD student"? It is technically accurate but gives an air-of-authority to the review which is misplaced. I am assuming good faith but hope to hear from you. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam I do not support removal of reliable, academic sources, although I fully agree those are not high-end ones. Their removal, IMHO, is unhelpful (WP:NOTCENSORED); my solution has always been to clearly attribute the author and the journal, so that the readers can make their own mind about which source is better than the other. As for the PhD student, I can't recall why I did so but ironically, I think that the descriptor "PhD student" indicates this is a lower quality source - still reliable (see also WP:THESIS) but not to be taken with as much authority as reviews written by "professors". I am open to adding some qualifications to the reviews you challenged - we can point out, for example, that some authors are not historians but librarians or such. But, again, I do not believe there are any grounds to remove their POV from the article. IMHO we should acknowledge the existence and content of all reviews of any given book, it's all part of making the article comprehensive. Btw, we should probably add the criticism of this book from the recent G. and K. article, it is peer reviewed and while the discussion of the book is not in-depth there, it is relevant. More content > less content, this is how Wikipedia grows. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. You need to show how the review by a "behavioral science and health policy PhD scholar" with research interests in "healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics" is DUE. I won't have objected if she was pursuing a PhD on Holocaust etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It is DUE because a reception section of the book should list all reviews, not just reviews by folks with relevant PhDs. We can qualify the reviews and note which ones are published by people with more relevant background and which aren't, but there is no policy justification for removing them. In fact, removing such reviews makes the article less neutral (and comprehensive).

From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books: "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations."

Nothing in WP:BOOK style guideline suggests we should be selective when it comes to including reviews (of course, common sense will stop us from including user generated reviews from Goodreads or similar). But yeah, a review written by a "behavioral science and health policy PhD scholar" is perfectly fine to include here (again, I don't mind including a qualification and for example saying that such and such reviewer is a "behavioral science and health policy PhD scholar"). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

And, your qualifier of "a PhD student" was disingenous because an average reader would have got the impression that she was pursuing her dissertation on some relevant topic, and had some expertise in the topic-area. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to that qualifier being removed. The mention of the review, however, should be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, consensus is against you. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Madanay (the PhD student) is still cited throughout as <ref name=":4"> . Should it be removed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be easier to spot, now; I replaced all the WP:VECRUFT using RefRenamer, so just search for 'Madanay' now. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah.... we need better sources for that content. I'm gonna go ahead and remove Madanay for any single controversial statement, keeping that review present for any uncontroversial things. I am also paring down controversial statements to the uncontroversial parts we can cite to Madanay without issue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Drobnicki

@TrangaBellam you wrote that Drobnicki is a librarian; no Ph.D. etc.. First of all, I don't see why being a "librarian" would exclude anyone's opinion. Secondly, Drobnicki is a historian by training and has published a number of works on Holocaust-denial literature. So his opinion as a professional historian and librarian is extremely valuable when it comes to Holocaust related literature. Marcelus (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is a proffessional historian without a PhD in some relevant discipline, please! He is obviously untrained to dissect the errors (and lack thereof) in specialist monographs like our subject. Fwiw, Drobnicki's body-of-work is mostly about whether libraries should feature Holocaust-denial literature and if so, best practices etc. Not the history of Holocaust and you know that damn well. We do not have a scarcity of reviews from domain-scholars to start scraping the barrel. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam I disagree with you. And (quote from your comment above): you know that damn well. How do you know Marcelus knows that damn well? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a sock of Icewhiz, if that is what you are implying. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No (why are you saying that?), I asked you how do you know that Marcelus knows that damn well?

And - are you aware that WP:BLP apply to talk pages also? GizzyCatBella🍁 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I assume that after raking in about nineteen thousand odd edits — primarily, in quite controversial topics on S. Asian History — with an unblemished block-log, such vague allusions to BLP do not have much appeal for me. if you are concerned, BLPN is a nice venue; I won't mind. Since Marcelius is aware that [Drobnicki] has published a number of works on Holocaust-denial literature, he ought to be aware of their content; I do not see how else he can have that knowledge! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I only know the list of Drobnicki's works. Nevertheless, I don't think this is enough reason to exclude his voice as ignorant, the list of his works as well as his education suggest that he is a person who is capable of evaluating such a book. Marcelus (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed content, for reference. In fact, I have concerns about the phrase "In 2000 Leo Cooper in his book In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond criticized The Forgotten Holocaust as an example of a work written by "present-day Polish apologists"." introduced here. While I think we should discuss all possible detail, Drobnicki's comment is a passing reference to passing reference about the book. It is not very relevant, but if so, I think per WP:DUE we should also remove the very passing mention of the book in Cooper - he doesn't discuss this topic at length, he just quotes the book in one sentence without even naming it, criticizing a single argument it makes. From Cooper's book: Between 1935 and 1937 there were, according to Jewish sources, 16 pogroms in which 118 Jews lost their lives. Present-day Polish apologists have a ready answer to this fact: ‘admittedly, the pogroms were quite regrettable, but they do not compare with the death of 2,000 Jews who lost their lives in a single pogrom in the city of Strasbourg in the Middle Ages, or the millions who lost their lives during the German occupation (Lukas, 1986, p. 125). First, this is a very definition of a passing mention (here, of Lukas work), noting in-depth. Second, I think that saying that "Cooper... criticized The Forgotten Holocaust as an example of a work written by "present-day Polish apologists"." is WP:EDITORIALIZNG. In either case, Cooper doesn't even name the book in his passing remark. Is mentioning his off-hand remark due weight? I have trouble seeing that it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Cooper cites Lukas several times, sometimes as a source, sometimes as a representative of historians who try to minimize Polish anti-Semitism during the war. Cooper himself certainly distances himself from such a stance, but I don't think he finds Lukas' book unreliable for that reason. It also seems to me that such a mention in a footnote is a bit too little to cite here as an opinion. Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

General comment

I agree with the recent edits by TrangaBellam; we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel by including an opinion of a PhD student. Drobnicki should not be included either; it's a one-para review -- the aim of its inclusion is unclear but perhaps to put Cooper's opinion into question and may be one-sided. Is Cooper's book generally criticized? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman Thanks. Fwiw, the author is a PhD student on "healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics." The POV-pushing in this area beggars belief :-) TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

To be completely fair I think that neither Cooper nor Drobnicki opinions should be included here. Cooper does not speak directly about the book, his comment is about the unnamed author, not about the book itself. And Drobnicki doesn't even review Lukas' book, plus the review itself is one short paragraph. Marcelus (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Levivich (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hoffman

I would like to hear why Stephen P. Hoffmann's review for The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society was removed? The edit summary is "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" JSTOR states [10]: "Published continuously since 1903, the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is among the oldest historical journals in the United States". Stephen P. Hoffmann (often referred to with out the P.) is/was a professor of political science at Taylor University, with a PhD from Princeton University. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hoffman is not a historian [11]; Taylor University has 2,000 students; The Kentucky Historical Society might be old, but I don't think that gives it or its Register any expertise in The Holocaust, or anything else outside of Kentucky. Levivich (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't discriminate in allowing only historians to comment on issues of history, political scientists or sociologists and others can comment too. Social science is a field with blurry boundaries. What does the size of TU has to do with anything, I don't know. As for The Register's expertise, its editors clearly thought otherwise by publishing that review. It is not our place to question their judgement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. It is our place to weigh sources, and a review of a book about the Holocaust by a non-historian from a tiny university writing in the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society should be given little if any weight. It should not be presented alongside David Engel writing in Slavic Review (for example), as if those two reviews were equal. Levivich (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-historian is still a reputable academic from a related field. Size of his university does not matter. Register is a reliable source (or if you think otherwise, please start a WP:RSN discussion). Removal/censorship of any mention of such a review goes against NPOV/DUE. If the issue is the length of the quotation, the solution may be to quote more from Engel, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books: "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations." Clearly, NBOOK suggests more, not less, is better. As is in general true for Wikipedia, which is WP:NOTPAPER and should include as much details about notable topics as possible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich and the onus of inclusion — guided by an idiosyncratic understanding of DUE — is on you. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, the Hoffman ref does not merit inclusion as a little-known journal published by a non-historian. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I cannot agree that Hoffmann is not a historian, or that Lukas' book is outside his field of expertise. He is the author of at least one, cited work on German history. Marcelus (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one, published in Fides et Historia (History and September 11th, 2005). He published more in that journal dicussing politics and history ([12], [13]). Or [14]: "Hoffmann traces European efforts to limit conflict back to the Peace of Westphalia in the 1600s... In making this case, Hoffmann posits not only a different reading of history ". He also had some kind of role beyond a regular participant during the 1988 conference of the American Historical Association, but the snippet view at [15] prevents me from figuring out the details for now. He is a political scientists but social sciences are interdisciplinary, political scientists publish about history and vice versa. And he is obviously a reliable scholar and the publications meets WP:APL. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Those look like political science papers, not history. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So what? Social science is a broad field. Holocaust studies is an interdisciplnary field (from our article: "Institutions dedicated to Holocaust research investigate the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary aspects of Holocaust methodology, demography, sociology, and psychology."). Why remove mention of Hoffman's review but not the opinion of George Sanford (political scientist)? We cite also pl:Jadwiga Maurer, who does not seem to be an academic at all. And John T. Pawlikowski is a "Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics" (and realistically, a professor of theology). Would you support removing all of these as well? (For the record, I strongly object to the removal of any review that RS/APL, per cited recommendation from WP:BOOK which does not suggest we should be selective at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So what? Marcelus says Hoffman a historian but he is not a historian. And that "German history" paper is not about German history. These kinds of details matter. Holocaust studies is not Hoffman's field. The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is not academia, it's not indexed, and it's a publication about the history of Kentucky. It's not APLRS. It's not high quality. It's a political scientist reviewing a book about Polish holocaust history in a journal about Kentucky. Obscure author writing outside his area of expertise in an obscure journal publishing outside its area of expertise. Not DUE for inclusion. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone writes about history than he is historian; and the paper is about German history. And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies, its scope is broader. Marcelus (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear that consensus is in your favor on this one. I would suggest reading WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus isn't voting Marcelus (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nor did I say it was. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is indexed in several databases, per this (which also states that it's subject is history). According to [16], "Although dedicated to Kentucky history, the Register seeks to be historiographically relevant to scholars around the country and the globe." Do you dispute that it is WP:RS? We don't have other limitations. If a source is RS, it can be cited in an article. Editors of a reliable, peer reviewed journal concluded that Hoffman's has sufficient credentials to publish his review of this book. It's not our place to second guess them or criticize them. WP:NOTCENSORED. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

First, it's not true that if someone writes about history, then he is a historian. That's just silly. Second, the paper is not about history. It's about contemporary politics. It's in a journal called "Review of Politics". It's about 1980s politics and it was published in 1986; that's not a history paper. Third, the "Forgotten Holocaust" is not part of Holocaust studies? That's even sillier than the first thing! Levivich (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust studies is a general study of the annihilation of European Jews by Nazi Germany, Lukas' book is about the tragedy of ethnic Poles, it is a similar field but not the same. Hoffmann's article deals with the evolution of the perception of the figure of Martin Luthr in East German politics; it is an article on the borderline between political science and history. The division into history, political science, history of ideas, etc. is artificial and quite arbitrary. If someone writes in a scholarly manner about the past then he is a historian. Marcelus (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In The Forgotten Holocaust Lukas argues that ethnic Polish (and others) should also be included as victims of The Holocaust. The suggestion that this isn't part of Holocaust studies is as nonsensical as the suggestion that a political scientist is a historian because he wrote an article about the use of history in contemporary politics. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy aside (nobody is suggesting TFH isn't part of HS; it's also part of a number of other fields, i.e. it is an interdisciplonary book - and so what?), the relevant facts are clear. Hoffman is a reliable scholar. Kentucky Register is a reliable journal. Or do you claim they are not reliable? Yes or no, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "reliable scholar" or a "reliable journal". Specific works (not authors or publications) can be reliable for specific claims in specific Wikipedia articles. See WP:SOURCEDEF. BTW we have an essay about this called Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). Anyway, a review is an opinion piece, so it's WP:RSOPINION. Hoffman's review can only be used to source Hoffman's opinion; it's not reliable for facts. The question here isn't WP:RS, it's WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE). Is Hoffman's review DUE for inclusion? No, for the reasons I and others have said above (an non-historian publishing in a journal about Kentucky history). Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As quoted above, "Although dedicated to Kentucky history, the Register seeks to be historiographically relevant to scholars around the country and the globe."

Nihil novi (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'm sure the poughkeepsie daily news also tells its readers about the state of economics in China. But we don't employ it as an expert publication on the matter. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What straw man? That is literally what Marcelus argued "And the Forgotten Holocaust isn't part of the Holocaust studies" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said later its scope is broader. There is also no reason to exclude reviews that aren't written by the experts in a very narrow field Marcelus (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Since we appear to have no consensus here, I have asked for additional input at WP:RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Coming here from that discussion I'd say its undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We’ve established the reliability of the source. Is including it in the article appropriate? I won’t claim to have an answer, but given the limited number of reviews in academic journals, I’d say it’s at least worth considering. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Lukas

I also don't understand why Lukas' own comment was removed here. He has the "last word" because that's what the editors of the Slavic Review decided by not publishing any more correspondence. The article cittes criticism from Engel and replies/comments from Pienkos, Redlich and Maurer. Why Lukas is not to be quoted? From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books: "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations." IMHO by censoring Lukas' views, we are violating cited guidelines and NPOV. And I think he makes a and useful contribution to this saying Engel's polemics reveal fault-finding partisanship, and the extraordinarily rancorous tone of his comment strongly suggests personal animosity. Since I have demonstrated that his own scholarship is flawed, one cannot give credence to his sweeping criticisms of my book. Readers interested in the issues discussed in our exchange should read both of our books and draw their own conclusion. Lukas' response to Engel's should be given equal weight to Engel's criticism, which we quote as well at similar lenght Engel states that while the book purports to counter bias, it is a one-sided rebuke of "Jewish historians". In his 1987 review, he enumerated alleged inaccuracies in the book and viewed it as "not only unreliable but thoroughly tendentious". Giving both sides equal voice is neutral, due, and that's what the editors of the Slavic Review did. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that a third positive blockquote, this one from the author, is WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more negative blockquotes from others. DUE is not 1:1, due is about due weight. If there are more positive then negative sources, we present them in proportion. See WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. "Reviews" shouldn't include "rebuttal". Levivich (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a quite novel argument and I don't see how DUE would support it; it's pretty much like saying that only one side can express their views but the others is not allowed a voice. I'll ask about whether this is a correct interpretation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books (Done). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The book became the subject of a lengthy discussion in Slavic Review, I think it would be fairer for the reader of the article to describe the entire discussion, even if it was the author of the book who had the "last word" in it. Marcelus (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Levivich, that the "reviews" section should not include more content from the author themselves than from their reviewers. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

But it does not, and did not. There are numerous quotations from various reviewers, a single quotation from the author is hardly "more". The editors of the Slavic Review decided to let him make a final statement in that series of polemic; are we saying we know better? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone recently described WP:DUE to me (over at Talk:Jordan Peterson) like this, and I think it's very helpful, although I didn't realize it at the time (paraphrasing):

Each mention has a level of primary, secondary, tertiary-ness to the subject. The subject themselves and what they say is primary, opinion of the subject would be secondary, and then someone else's opinion of that opinion would be tertiary.

In this case, this applies to these various different statements. Each level farther from the subject is less and less DUE. Reviews of the book would be 1 step removed. Reviews of those reviews (and responses, and the back and forth) would be 2 steps removed.

In this case, I don't think the overall way we've written the section, and what we've included, would make it an accurate depiction of the sourcing landscape to include Lukas' rebuttals to his detractors' rebuttals. That is my personal opinion, though, and I would be okay with an RFC about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here as flagged from WP:BOOKS. @Piotrus, "Giving both sides equal voice" is not really what we're supposed to be doing here; we're supposed to be summarizing the state of existing scholarship on a topic. This is sometimes very difficult for Wikipedia editors to do, since most of the time the pages we write aren't particular areas of academic expertise such that we're really plugged into whatever debates are currently happening. For the sake of explanation, let's imagine there have been six full-length studies on a topic that all mostly agree and develop each other's theories, and then a new study comes along that disagrees with them completely. Many editors would sensibly conclude from this that the recent book is fringe and either not include it or give it only minimal weight in an article. But what if that new study was widely lauded, including by the writers of the previous books? What if it was so conclusive that almost no one in the field disagreed that it superseded all the previous studies? An article that relies only or even mostly on those original six studies would not be useful to readers - it would not accurately sum up the current scholarship on the topic.

With that in mind, I do not think this article is currently successful, nor do I think giving another block quote to the author would be WP:DUE. The second full paragraph of the review section, which describes the debate in Slavic Review, is difficult to follow - it's more of a blow-by-blow than anything that allows me to really understand the objections of individual writers. Adding a final note from the author would not help me here. What was the state of the field after all of this? It's very difficult to see that from this article. And what are the current scholarly opinions on this book and its legacy? It's been out for nearly 40 years, but the more recent writing on the book - the "after the dust has settled" stuff that I would expect to be most representative of what scholars in general actually think about it - is almost completely absent, and tucked in with older reviews at the bottom of this section. How has scholarship built on this work in the 40 years since it came out? The absence of this is extremely "undue". Right now, the article gives the impression that this book was controversial when it came out, but is no longer, and that it is, overall, seen to be quite useful and objective. But that final sentence about Lukas's "basic error" raises a lot of alarms for me as a historian, and suggests that "quite useful and objective" may not in fact be current consensus among historians. My advice would be to fix that first, and then come back and look at the earlier section.

To answer the broader question you asked directly: no, I would not put a response of the author to reviews in a book article, myself. Unless perhaps it had set off a whole new debate or caused some social or professional ramifications that are themselves worth bringing up, in which case I probably would mention it so that I could discuss those. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering If there is any review of the book, newer or older, that isn't cited (and that hasn't been recently removed - see talk discussions here), I am not aware of it, and I pretty sure they simply do not exist. Per WP:BOOKS and NOTPAPER, I believe an article about a book should mention and summarize all reliable reviews about it. In fact, a big problem with what is happening now in the article is that some editors are trying to remove some reviews (completely leaving them out, not even adding them to further reading), making the article less comprehensive and IMHO less neutral.

Regarding the debate in the Slavic Review, it's quite possible it should be split into a dedicated section, instead of being in the reception, which would address the "out of place" concerns, although it is worth nothing that it begun with a review critical of another review (Engel criticizing both the book and the review by Pienkos), so at what point would be split stuff, exactly? I think that was suggested by User:Marcelus before. The exchange was notable enough that it was commented on by other scholars in the past (although for some reason this was recently removed as well).

And regarding the "basic error", it's worth nothing that this comment was made John T. Pawlikowski, a theologist. There is lenghty discussion below about whether a review by a political scientist is due; and I have to wonder why people are not questioning in a passing comment (a paragrpah or two of the discussion of this book by a theologist) is not questioned. In either case, Pawlikowski says about the book that "I applaud Professor Lukas for taking up this issue [the Holocaust in the context of Polish American-Jewish American relations] when virtually no other Polish American scholar has done so. His Forgotten Holocaust, with some qualfications, is still the single best comprehensive volume on Polish trials and tribulations under the Nazis. Furthermnore, his other work on ethnic Poles who endured, including his recent Forgotten Survivors, are an important contribution to the body of literature on the subject." Then, yes, he does discuss his reservations about it in few sentences, which we partially quote from. In either case, he is hardly just critical of the book, his short passing review can be described, IMHO, as mixed (whereas what we have in the article seems to be unduly biased towards suggesting his view of the book is negative, and if we retain his view - which I would be in favour of as I believe it is due, like all other reviews by reliable scholars - it needs to be NPOVed, likely by adding part of the quotation I just cited). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that only reviews of books are admissible in book articles, no other kinds of scholarship? That doesn't make any sense - no one's going to review a book 40 years after it was published, unless it's republished in a new edition for some reason. We're not trying to preserve the debate in amber as it existed in 1988. It also seems quite bizarre to include all reviews of a work, if there are very many. The aim of Wikipedia isn't to be a catalogue of everything. We're supposed to be summarizing the state of existing knowledge/scholarship on the topics we include. It's not about the number of quotes. It's a difficult but much more important question: is someone who reads this article going to have an accurate view of the knowledge/scholarship on this topic? Adding another quote from the author will not help with that.

I don't follow what you mean by "out of place" concerns. I have not suggested moving the part on the debate in Slavic Review, nor do I think that would be beneficial for this article.

You misunderstand me about my "basic error" concerns. It is truly irrelevant whether the person who wrote that is a theologist or a historian. It raises a lot of alarms for me as a historian (emphasis added). I am the historian who is alarmed. This article in its current state is alarming. The quotes used in it have set off my alarms. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more quotes, or remove ones you think are undue. I'll just quote from BOOK: "Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations." To me, that implies more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better). And certainly, if you find any newer reviews that have been missed, please add them to the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not here to rewrite this article. I am here, as I said, because I saw your post in WP:BOOKS, where you requested a WP:3O. I do not believe it is generally expected behaviour to demand a 3O make changes to an article themselves if they should happen to express a third opinion you dislike. -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The way you seem to imagine explaining the book's reception is totally alien to how I am accustomed to writing about books. For comparison, I would point you to how I wrote about the reception of Beachy Head. A book that is a hundred and fifty years newer surely ought to be able to have its reception summarized in an overview of one to two paragraphs. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm another late voice from WT:BOOKS that would like to emphasize that we're shooting more for Beachy Head (poem)#Reception than this article's current Reception, which reads in more of a play-by-play style or capsule summary of each review rather than synthesizing the book's Reception as a whole. If the correspondence itself is worth summarizing, another source will do it. Otherwise it would be sufficient to summarize the disagreement in broad strokes per WP:SPSAS without overusing the primary source. Generally we want to know how the book was received as it was viewed in sources secondary from the subject. czar 04:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Like if the main point of this book is that it has a controversial thesis, as a reader, I want an easy summary of what other academics thought about the thesis and its comparative merits/deficiencies. Instead, the series of sequential quotes read like proseline. WP:CRS has some suggestions on how to potentially revise for easier reading, i.e., around theme rather than around individual reviewer. czar 04:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case, and Legitimizing fringe academics

According to a recent article published in the Journal of Holocaust Research, this Wikipedia article may have been strongly influenced by advocacy from a group with an axe to grind about the historical record. The journal articles lambastes Wikipedia for systematic distortion in articles specifically about the Holocaust in Poland, including this article, which is mentioned by name in the section "Legitimizing fringe academics".

Excerpt from the journal article:

Take The Forgotten Holocaust, a 1986 book by the aforementioned Richard C. Lukas that borders on Holocaust distortion. Lukas attempted, without any reference to historical evidence from the Polish, Israeli, or German archives, to broaden the definition of the Holocaust in such a way as to also include the killings of ethnic Poles by the Germans. As soon as The Forgotten Holocaust came out, David Engel, one of the most eminent historians of the Holocaust, wrote a thirteen-page scathing critique of the book in the journal Slavic Review, where he charged Lukas’s research with ‘distortion, misrepresentation and inaccuracy.’Footnote104 Engel demonstrated in detail that Lukas had made sweeping generalizations, invented facts, disregarded archival sources, and displayed a complete lack of familiarity with secondary sources.

Despite Lukas’s clear weaknesses, the editor User1***** has written him a glowing Wikipedia biography.Footnote105 User1****** trivializes Engel’s critique by juxtaposing it with multiple enthusiastic appraisals of The Forgotten Holocaust. ‘It has received a number of positive reviews, and a single dissenting critical review,’ wrote User1***** in Richard C. Lukas’s biography on Wikipedia.Footnote106 Indeed, User1***** created a new article dedicated solely to The Forgotten Holocaust, where he quoted from the positive reviews in detail. A close look reveals that the laudatory evaluations were written by scholars with far less expertise on the topic than Engel (one of them was a graduate student who never went on to publish in the field; several others were not historians), and most were only one or two pages long. By portraying Engel’s opinion as a lone dissenter in a sea of praise, User1***** massaged the Wikipedia article to show Lukas in a positive light. Another editor called User2****** tried to temper the article’s praise for Lukas, but User1***** reverted him immediately.Footnote107 With 92 percent of the page’s content authored by User1*****, Wikipedia’s article on The Forgotten Holocaust continues to celebrate Lukas.Footnote108

See the arbitration case request at WP:ARC#Holocaust in Poland.

Editors of good faith should read the article and draw their own conclusions. As always, the article should reflect the best secondary sources available. Given the seriousness of the allegations, I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. If the article was fine as written, we lose nothing by starting afresh, and building it back by consensus bit by bit, possibly even to exactly the point where it is now if that's what the sources support, although I suspect that that is not the path it will take.

If people are shy to take a step in such a charged atmosphere, I understand if no one replies here, and I would not have any qualms about considering a bold edit on my own reducing it to a paragraph, but I would prefer to hear from other editors first. If there is nothing here in a few days, I will likely take that step. Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The article does not merit a WP:TNT. I spend a considerable amount of time looking for references and summarizing various reviews; some of which are not in English. You are welcome to review each reference, add or remove content. But there is no justification for a TNT. However, if you think otherwise - WP:AFD is a place to propose a TNT solution. On a side note, please be mindful of BLP. The author of this book is a respected academic, still alive. That another scholar is very critical of them, is one thing, but we need to be careful considering whether to repeat such claims here (or act on them - WP:UNDUE is a thing too). Btw, the source you cite has been already discussed here (see discussion above), and I noted we should probably use it to add a bit of criticizm (authors G. and K. criticized this book) but I'd be careful with the quotations because, IMHO, saying for example that a book "borders on Holocaust distortion" is a very serious accusation, and the authors dicuss it for what? Two sentence or so? What we have here is effectively a very strong criticism but in passing. Anyway, I encourage you to check all sources cited in the article, see if they are summarized correctly, and look for additional sources to expand it. The more eyes fact-check this article, the better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If it ends up with TNT, that wouldn't be a BLP issue, because the idea would be to simply reduce the article to an essential kernel which is agreed by everyone (which means it wouldn't include any criticism by, or even mention of the recently published article). This is easier than it sounds, because this is an article about a book, and could be strictly about the name of the author, publisher, date, and so on. Essential information about the author could be added if needed, his vital statistics, employer, position, other books, etc. without getting into any controversial material. One could easily compose a paragraph or two or even more which nobody could object to. Removing 75% of the article wouldn't be a BLP violation, but it could very well be against consensus; hence this discussion first. We'll see how that goes. The references you found will be invaluable as a resource for rebuilding, and as you know, nothing is lost in the history. There's even a tool to extract all the urls or refs somewhere; I can see if I can find it, and copy it to Talk; I saw that done someplace, and it was very handy. Mathglot (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed. And while Engels' review is indeed the only strongly negative one, the tone of most of the others is rather restrained, with the main virtue of the book cited by reviewers being its pioneering nature. None of the reviewers rated the book as the definitive voice on the subject; rather, they appreciated its character as a popularization of an under-represented topic in English literature. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

On reading the article "The Forgotten Holocaust", I have the same impression: that, overall, the book's author Richard C. Lukas has done a useful thing in bringing attention to the fact that during World War II Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans. That Poland did not lose a good many more of the second category was due to Germany running out of time before it was defeated in the war. The German leadership's plan, only partly realized, had been to destroy Poland's educated leadership and most of the general population, and reduce the remainder to minimally literate servants of the German master race.

The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.

There is no point in various victim groups bidding for the role of sole, or even chief, victim. There was victimhood enough to go around for all.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. Within the genre of academic reviews -- a genre which prizes the art of the subtle, almost-undetectable insult -- any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book. So, a full accounting of the book will have to understand and explain that controversy. The controversy itself is clearly a complex one; I don't know enough about this era of history to find my way through the controversy itself. But I do know enough about these academic fields to see that there is a major controversy. And a reader who goes away with a dimly positive impression has been misinformed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book is an excellent point and it's the core of the NPOV issues with this article. Levivich (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

LEvalyn, what you write reads to me like "Where there's smoke, there's fire." That puzzles me. Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects? Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you believe that is what I am suggesting? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up. For that task I'd suggest beginning with the most recent scholarship in the area, for assessments of its current legacy. I'd expect the literature review sections of more recent monographs on the topic to have some good synthesis of its impact, which would spare us the task of trying to do our own research and make our own decisions about how to weight the reactions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes but what we really should do is just merge this to Richard C. Lukas where there is plenty of room to talk about his works. (For the same reasons, we should merge the newly-created Poland's Holocaust to Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist).) Levivich (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see how the book might be better contextualized on his page, so I see the value of a merge. But I do think this is a very clear pass of WP:NBOOK so it's entitled to its own article if people want to write one (and they sure seem to). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think there is no doubt this passes NBOOK, but just because it's notable doesn't mean it's entitled to a stand-alone page, per WP:NOPAGE. In this case, if this article were TNT'd, or stub-ified, I could see making this page a redirect and having the stub content at the author's page. Then, I could also see it being expanded again, this time in a policy-compliant way with proper RS and NPOV and such, and eventually reaching a size where it should be split into its own page again. But it really doesn't matter if the TNT/rewrite is done here, or on the author's page, I just think the author's page is better because I think the rewrite will take a while and involve a lot of arguing and RSN threads and such :-P Levivich (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If anyone thinks TNT is applicable, WP:AFD is that'a'way. There is no consensus here for deletion without discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Huh? This is the discussion. And AfD is obviously the wrong place to decide about TNT'ing specifically the "reception" section, which is what this discussion is about. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

TNT is about *improving* an article, and Afd is about *deleting* an article, so in that sense the two are diametrically opposed procedures. Of course, there's nothing to stop someone from taking it to Afd if they want, but imho that is doomed to failure, and in any case, nobody is talking about Afd (except those raising it as a straw man). Improvement of an article takes many forms, and TNT is one of them. I don't think it should be the first thing one turns to—I think I've recommended it three times in 15 years, this is maybe number four—but I don't think one should categorically close the door on the TNT possibility either, especially if that will lead to a better article. The purpose of this discussion (or at least, one of the purposes) is to determine what kind of support there is for TNT as a way to improve it. Sometimes it's easier to raze a rickety house based on a poor foundation or substandard building materials and rebuild a new one from the ground up, than it is to try to fix the old one. Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Following up on the idea that what we really need is a recent work on the topic which will survey the field and therefore contextualize this book's impact, this gscholar search gives some starting places for recent works which cite Lukas. I poked through a few without any luck so far. AJ Edelheit's Bibliography on Holocaust Literature looked promising, but I couldn't access it. I do immediately feel out of my depth in attempting to spot nationalist bias, though, since this specific topic is not an area of expertise. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

LEvalyn, a local library has it in their catalog. I believe I could go consult it and make limited scans or copies, if you can describe what you are looking for. Mathglot (talk)

Mathglot, oh, that's great! There are two things I'd hope to find. 1, If it's a descriptive bibliography, I'd love to see the entry for this book, which might have an overall summary of its controversy. 2, If the book itself isn't important enough for that, I'd look for some kind of section that gives an overview of Polish historiography, and hope that this book is mentioned in a context which positions it within the field. Really, I'd start by checking the index for Lukas and seeing if/where he gets mentioned, but I'd be doing that in the hopes of finding one of those two kinds of coverage. Thanks for looking into it-- I hope you can find something!! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have access to both of the volumes in a digitsl format courtesy my alumni-institution. No need to scan; I will consult and let you know the find. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think about TNT. If that path is not taken, I think that coverage of Engel's criticisms should expand by a sentence or two (he's one of the weightiest reviewers and his intervention led to a major debate, and we need to know what his specific criticisms were); Redlich's response should be trimmed as a little tangential and unclear; the other reviews cited should be reviewed to make sure that the Grabowski/Klein allegation that brief notices are given as much weight as in-depth reviews; and a proper check done that we've not missed key responses. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

USHMM bibliography

I've noticed that https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/poles ("following bibliography was compiled to guide readers to selected materials on Poles during the Holocaust") lists The Forgotten Holocaust with annotation that the book "An account of the systematic persecution of the Polish nation and its residents by the German forces. Features endnotes, a bibliography, appendices including lists of Poles killed for assisting Jews, primary source documents, and an index." Seems like a good source for describing what the book is about. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lukas interview

I removed this content, previously tagged as "unreliable inline":

Lukas decided to write the book when he realized that among the thousands of books about the Holocaust in Poland written by American historians, there was not a single publication that discussed the suffering of the ethnic Poles.

References

Here's the diff. I had previously looked at the interview and Lukas has made strange statements there, including: The entire history of Poland in the 20th century is written in the West from the perspective of the suffering of Jews., etc. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)