This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
That OR may or may not be correct. It is not however in the cited source, which also doesn't mention Datner. Nor does an institution established in 1999 seem relevant to our subject who died ten years prior, in 1989 (and IIRC was also retired for a few years before he died).
Icewhiz (
talk)
07:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
It's not "OR" it's just "knowing what the fuck one is talking about when trying to write an article rather than just making obnoxious POV edits".
[1].
Volunteer Marek (
talk)
07:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
If you cite a source - a source you introduced to the article - the text in the article is supposed to be supported by the source. @
Volunteer Marek:this source - encyklopedia.pwn.pl - still does not quite support the content (liqudated and replaced is not "now part of the IPN"), and furthermore is still
WP:SYNTH - as it doesn't mention Datner. Even if it did mention Datner - the relevance to his bio article would be rather minute.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think we need to mention IPN here. The relevant link is to the commission, which article should discuss IPN. And it does, in Polish. For now, I've linked the Polish article, feel free to translate it for context, and it can totally discuss how IPN is now part of its legacy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree the commission's article can definitely discuss its dissolution and the IPN taking over its role - discussion of the IPN itself should probably be brief, but it definitely is DUE there.
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Re
[6]. A compromise would be to create articles about his individual works (books), which probably are notable, and there it would make sense to say what he found, claimed, etc. A short summary could be present here, based on the lead of such articles or such. This is what we generally do with similar articles (Gross, Grabowski, Lukas, etc.), don't we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
I have removed a highly controversial claim from the lead. I checked the source, and it doesn't state exactly what was put, Zbikowski states he is similar. Feel free to rephrase the sentence, but note that Datner is a highly respected Polish-Jewish historian and we can't base his reception on cherry picked sources going against mainstream view.--
MyMoloboaccount (
talk)
15:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)reply