User talk:Piotrus/Response

Publicize this

Piotrus, you should really publicize this since this is a really good, in depth and very detailed reply. Maybe make your own substack or something. Volunteer Marek 17:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: FYI PubPeer and https://pubpeer.com/search?q=10.1080%2F25785648.2023.2168939 (via Elisabeth Bik). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée @Volunteer Marek I'll consider something, when I am done (still have few minor items to consider). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023-03 review

pl:Użytkownik:Halibutt/Nekrolog is an empty page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée Thanks. Fixed (https://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/U%C5%BCytkownik:Halibutt/Nekrolog) . M not P... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "20. On Chart 3"

To avoid duplicate discussions, a note that I have commented over at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent_research#Google_scholar_discussion about the corresponding statements Piotrus had made there. (TLDR: it looks to me that Piotrus seriously misrepresents what Grabowski and Klein actually say in the paper; which among other things implies that his detailed analysis of citations at "20.81 (Analysis of use of Chodakiewicz)" is rather irrelevant as a criticism of it.)

Also, since I see that this section here says (in reference to that Signpost discussion) Note: the authors seem to have acknowledged the error in citations regarding Lukas as of early March; see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research: That likewise is a serious misrepresentation of what was said there, in this case by myself. They authors haven't acknowledged having made an error, but instead state that the numbers provided by Google Scholar have changed from August 2022 (when they retrieved them for the analysis featured in the paper) to now, with drastic increases not just for Lukas but for all other authors in their analysis too - as evident in the table that I had extracted from the author's updated supplementary material in my comment on that talk page.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was continued there. I'll avoid replying to avoid, well, duplication. Section 20 has been slightly updated to reflect some newer developments, such as clarifying that the authors indeed didn't admit that they made an error, just stated that the numbers have changed in the meantime (a claim that is impossible to verify). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you have more or less come through the wringer safe and sound.

By the way, have you read the Scott Ury's paper? (and the one it refers to by Ezra Mendelsohn, specifically on two camps, Jewish/(pro-)Polish)? What anyone with a minimal grasp of scholarship should be obliged to recognize is that in areas like this, any 'research' paper which talks about 'scholarly consensus', or assumes that 'neutrality' is an unquestionable given in academic approaches to such fraught fields, ipso facto, is unscholarly, or at least several decades behind contemporary understandings of epistemological methodology in historiography. Ury remarks:

Many of the same questions regarding the possibilities and limits of academic research lie at the very core of the heated, at times vituperative, debates among scholars and community members regarding the study of anti-Semitism as well as the underlying tension between the academic study of the phenomenon and political campaigns against anti-Semitism. Scholars repeatedly wonder about the extent to which contemporary concerns influence academic and research agendas as well as the cyclical, seemingly inescapable relationship between hatred or fear of “the Jews,” on the one hand, and Jewish communal organization and politics, on the other. As with many other emotionally charged fields of scholarly inquiry with far-reaching implications, it remains unclear whether anti-Semitism can (or should) be studied in a detached academic fashion, and if not, what observers are to make of this academic minefield fraught with political overtones, existential ramifications, and emotional responses. As academics working and writing in a time that seems to be dictated increasingly by a concern with the potential appeal and consumption of scholarly works, we all want the study of history, and especially our own historical studies, to matter. But what are we to do when history seems to matter too much? Scott Ury, 'Strange Bedfellows? Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Fate of “the Jews”,' American Historical Review, October 2018, vol.123, 4 pp.1151-1171,pp.1552-3

Best wishes for your future editing. Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani Thank you. It is a very good paper. A while ago I read something like this, similar, by a Polish scholar, but I can't recall the details, sadly.

The sad thing is that everyone, in this story, is trying to do the "right thing" and "make the world a better place". But does the end justifies the means? (And uh, that's a very bad article at present...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]