Talk:Wiktor Poliszczuk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] POV tag

There is no assertion of his notability, nor any references to his biography.

The text appear to have very strong anti-Ukrainian bias abakharev 07:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to de-bias it. What is disputed as far as neutrality is concerned ? --Lysytalk 08:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • UA nationalism exists, but what is "integral nationalism? esp. linking to \int_a^b f(x)\,dx .
  • "terror which was unfortunately successively implemented", can't agree more with "unfortunately", but it doesn't belong to the article. Someone corrected "butchery" already.
  • "His scientific interests include politology, like those of Zbigniew Brzezinski." What does that supposed to mean? Why not Albert Speer? Is he close to Brzezinski? this is O.R.
  • "ethnic cleansing in Volyn" is not established as a term for these tragic events even within WP.

I already cited half the article. He may be a notable guy, a good scientist even. But the article doesn't show it. --Irpen 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All issues addressed now, I think. --Lysytalk 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks that is much better. I have removed POV tag, but some Ukrainians, especially OUN-supporters may feel differently. It would help to have some references to his bio becides http://www.polonialife.ca/kto_poliszczuk.htm. My Polish-laguage skills are almost zero, but am I right that the source above acknowleges only that he is a technical editor of some journal, and there is no references to him as an Assistant-Professor in Canada (in which University, anyway)? BTW can we use in wiki his photo from the publication? abakharev 10:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll need a better reference than http://www.polonialife.ca/kto_poliszczuk.htm . I don't know where the "assistant-professor" came from. Anyway, he is a published author and is notable as such. This bio is obviously not perfect. It'll be good to keep an eye on it and improve it when more information is available. Personally, I have mixed feeling about his books, but I don't think this does matter. --Lysytalk 11:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree abakharev 12:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks! , Hope you feels better than you reads :

[edit] non-scientific group

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. [1] --Yakudza 16:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
  1. I checked the ISBNs of both books [2], [3] published by this person and they appear to be published both by the author himslef, that is not through any reputable publisher. This fact is more notable than the books themselves I think. That they have ISBN don't mean much either. It costs a couple of hundred dollar to obtain an ISBN assigned to your book and you can easily google how.
  2. He was called a lecturer of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies. No mention of him at the school's site found.
  3. He was called a "professor". We had one proFFeSor running for Ukrainian presidensy (whoever followed UA politics will get the joke). I am afraid, their claim for acamedic recognition is of comparable merit. I do not deny that he is still notable enough to have an article, but not because he "published" but because he gained certain notoriety.

I think my initial tagging of the article was productive. Otherwise, it would have still been totally unencyclopedic. So, please, no grudges. --Irpen 04:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trolling

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)

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)

I think 24h is not enough. The past block of this anon was for 1 week[4] and the s/he didn't learn anything. --Irpen 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Importance of this page

Poliszczuk is an often-referenced figure among certain Polish, anti-Ukrainian circles. While his credibility is certainly questionable, it seems important to have this page with information about the man in order to consider some of what he has written. His references have appeared on several wiki pages such as this one or this one. Faustian 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Faustian 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The guy is still not notable! Citing wiki entries where he is "referenced" does not show his notability. He does not have a terminal degree; he is not published in scholarly journals, and has done to my understanding nothing else to make him notable. If you can add something to the entry's page that shows his notability please do and then remove the "prod" template (not the other way around).--Riurik(discuss) 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing respectibility, with notability. Trofim Lysenko, for example, was about as much of a biologist as Poliszczuk is a historian, but he is clearly notable. Poliszczuk is more obscure, but nevertheless is considered one of the foremost examples of a nationalistic Polish historical school and recipient of, for example, an award from the Congress of Canadian Poles [5]. He is referenced not only by wiki, but certain of his references have appeared in the works of, for example, Norman Davies, and he is noteable enough to have attracted the condemnation of historians such as Torzecki. Numerous websites reference him or his works [6][7] [8]
It's important for info about him to be accessible.Faustian 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No confusion about respectability vs. notability, just a puzzlement as to Poliszczuk's significance (lack thereof) in general. Objection withdrawn.--Riurik(discuss) 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

The negative comments about Poliszczuk are referenced - there is even a link to that info. Unfortunately the link to Torzecki's comments has died, but it is still up for Wnuk's work (and I've included the full citation so hopefully even ifi that one goes the info will not be removed). With respect to his books, see for yourself who the publisher is and whether or not he has university backing.Faustian (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources for the following claims:
  • None of his works were published by any university
Look up his works, the publisher, etc. The first two books on his reference list were self-published, as revealed by a look through the ISBN [9] and [10]. The others of his listed in the wikipedia article I can't locate online, although at least one is simply an excerpt from his self-published book "Bitter Truth".Faustian (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • he is not affiliated with any university department
It is difficult to prove a negative. But neither his bio nor his books mention any current university affiliation: [11] "W Kanadzie od 1981 r. Początkowo pracuje jako korektor techniczny w ukraińskim tygodniku w Toronto i przez 8 miesiecy w Scranton, w Stanach jako redaktor tygodnika ukraińskiego. Następnie podjął badania nad problemem nacjonalizmu ukraińskiego."Faustian (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Along with several authors, Wiktor Poliszczuk is sometimes accused of playing freely with historical facts, appealing mostly to the reader's emotions
See Wnuk's work.Faustian (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the current phrasing but just show a single book he published through a reputable publisher. All his books I've seen were self-published. Costs about $200 to obtain ISBN. Google for how. Show one book he published by a university (books are easily searcheable) and this claim is gone.

Show which university he is affilicated with. Gone. --Irpen 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To avoid OR, we should add publisher info to the publications and let readers draw their own conclusions (if they were published by a known avenue for self-publishing, we could add a note on that). No need to stress that he has not been affiliated with a university (are we 100% sure of that) or that not a single book of his was published by a more reliable publisher (maybe one was? will you swear that none were?). I agree with you that he probably wasn't affiliated and they weren't published, but our original research and criticism does not belong here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not sufficient to postulate that something is true and then leave it there until somebody disproves it. If you have no reliable source saying it, it has to go. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
His own biography [[12]] states in Polish that since 1981 he has been an editor of Ukrainian weeklies in Toronto and Scranton with no mention of any university affiliation. His two most noted works are both easily found to be self-published when searched by ISBN. These facts are important because the guy is frequently cited favorably on Polish nationalist websites and it's important to know the nature of the source.Faustian (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's probable that he isn't affiliated with a university. However, you still haven't produced a source that says that he's not affiliated with a university, and until you do, you can't include that in the article. Saying "Well, this biography doesn't mention a university affiliation, so he probably doesn't have one," is both i. original research and ii. a slippery slope. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So, I cannot say that for example Eddie Vedder of the band Pearl Jam is not affiliated with a university because I can't find a source stating explicitly that he is not? Poliszczuk's bio doesn't mention any such affiliation, and nobody can find a reference stating that he is affiliated. Unlike in the case of Eddie Vedder, the fact of university affiliation for Poliszczuk isn't trivial because the guy is cited as an authority of history by Polish nationalists, Russian nationalists, and some extreme leftists. His non-historian status is significant.Faustian (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's a significant fact, somebody should have mentioned in somewhere in reliable source, no? And quite correct about Vedder. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The serious academics are busy people to comment on every crank that gets self-published. --Irpen 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, is this fellow notable, or is he just some random "crank who gets self-published"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How does one exclude the other? --Irpen 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll rephrase then: assuming not all random cranks who get self-published are notable, what makes this one different? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
He's cited in numerous Polish nationalist works, some Russian nationalist and leftist works as well. He's notable enough to have drawn the (negative) attention of some serious and notable scholars (Wnuk and Yaroslav Isayevich, director of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine).Faustian (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And if the question of his education is so important to mention in the article, why haven't any of these sources mentioned it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
He is just about as notable as Douglas Tottle whose main claim to fame is his "proof" that the Ukrainian Famine was a Nazi invention. Yes, they are both sometimes invoked by fringe movements (don't know, maybe Poliszczuk is non-fringe in Poland, perhaps Piotrus can help. But they both have no academic standing and none of them is referred to anywhere in academia. --Irpen 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Same for the self-publishing of books. Please give a link or explain in detail how "His two most noted works are both easily found to be self-published when searched by ISBN".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Go to the links that I provided, it says who published both of those books, under publisher. The first is listed as "Publisher: Toronto : Poliszczuk, 1997" and the second as "Publisher: Toronto : Author, 1999."Faustian (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no OR in saying that his books are self-published. The books themselves say so. --Irpen 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that indeed indicates they are self-published.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New wording

It is also unacceptable (I'm not reverting because I'm at 3RR, though I'd argue that this is clearly a case to which WP:3RR doesn't apply). You can't say that there is no record of his having a history degree/being affiliated with a university because you don't know if there's any record. You haven't cited a source saying that there's no record. What you mean is that you haven't found any such record (probably this is because none exists). That's textbook original research. The rules are pretty clear: if no reliable source has written about his educational career, we can't write about his educational career. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So, his biography does not mention but this is not enough. By your logic, that his books were self-published should also be removed despite they say so? --Irpen 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
By your logic, we should go to article about the Stalin and add notes that he was not made of steel, had no degree in political management, and his mummy does not come alive every decade during the eclipse of a green cheese moon. After all, there are no sources stating otherwise, right? :) Seriously, Irpen, in biographies we write about stuff that was, not about stuff that wasn't. The reader can and should draw their own conclusions from the fact that the article does not suggest any relation to academic institutions, it is not our job to point such things out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If it says somewhere that his books are self-published (which I gather it does, right?), that can stay, because it's verifiable. All we can write about is what's been written about by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not say anywhere that "his books are self-published." His books just say "Publisher: Poliszczuk". Are we ORishly combining this info when we make this claim? --Irpen 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably clear that in that context "Poliszczuk" refers to him (ergo, self-published), but you're correct that some editors might call that original research. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You got me wrong. I mean if we check his one book and see it is self-pulished, then we check another book, etc. and see the same. Would it be ORish to say that all his book (that is if we checked all) are self-published even if we established beyond doubt the facts for each of them? --Irpen 00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There are some extremists who would say that that's a WP:SYNTH violation, but I feel fairly confident that they'd be in the minority. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So, here we go. A person who claims to be an author about history places his bio on the web and does not mention any degrees or affiliation. Neither there exist any refs to him among the scholarly community. Still, we should not say so, right? --Irpen 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, unless we can find a reliable source that states that he has no degrees or affiliation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
An elementary act of reading comprehension does not constitute the original research. Reliable sources simply don't bother (or bother little) to write about cranks who get all their hype from the extremist organizations and writers. I would not care a slightest bit for his page (and would not mind it deleted even) if not some Wikipedians would not have used him as a source for serious articles . We have all sorts of nationalist sources around, newspaper articles written by modern journalists are now "sources" about what took place 100 years ago. Now this author. What comes next? Blogs? Wikipedian's blogs. As soon as some stop using his writings as sources of anything but himself, you can put anything you want into this article for what I care, even make him a Theology professor at the Ivy League institution. --Irpen 01:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no comments about this fellow's suitability as a source. If you believe that he's being used as a source inappropriately, you should take it up on the talk pages of the articles in which he's being used. The reliable sources noticeboard may also be helpful to you. As for your quoted passage from WP:OR, taking the fact that a bio doesn't mention a degree and concluding that the person doesn't have a degree is not "an elementary act of reading comprehension"; it is an extraordinarily clear example of original research, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many experienced editors who felt otherwise (I've brought this up at the original research noticeboard, so you should feel free to make your case there if you'd like to argue it before a broader audience. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Could the editors also comment on the need for a reference for the newly added claim to the lead: "His writings are considered outside of the scholarly mainstream"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a bald assertion does need sourcing. But I'm not sure that this sentence is the best way to communicate what it tries to say. I think it would be better at that place in the article to very briefly summarize Poliszczuk's main theses, possibly with comparison to mainstream views. That would give the reader more useful information than just a hearsay assertion that his views (whatever they are) are not academically respected. For example:
... His main thesis is that Ukrainian men tend to grow longer beards than the standard assumptions in mainstream bartology.
(or whatever. Since I don't read Polish it is not clear to me what the actual dispute is about). –Henning Makholm 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)