Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 5 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus in favour of retaining the current title and not moving as proposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


The Holocaust in Poland → The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland – Since the infobox in the article actually says the full, correct name, and the article name clearly suggest that such state as Poland did exist and/or participated in Holocaust as a country. Not denying the examples of collaboration from the particular Poles, the title suggest that the country as a whole did cooperate, like e.g. Mussolini's Italy, or Ustashe NDH did. The title as a whole is misleading, and untrue. Since the Wikipedia should be objective and abstain from suggesting any views, I request changing the article name to the correct one, underlying the historical truth. Kasabian (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I don't agree that the article name 'clearly suggests' that such state as Poland did exist and/or participated in Holocaust as a country, nor that the title 'suggests' that the country as a whole did cooperate, nor that the title is 'untrue', nor that such a thing as a 'correct name' or 'historical truth' is objective. I do agree that the title should be changed to 'The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland' for purposes of accuracy and precision about the geographical area; this article incorporating as it does the pogroms of Lwow, Bialystok and Vilnuis inside the pre-1939 boundaries of Poland, rather than just the Holocaust within the post-1945 boundaries which would exclude those sites. --Chumchum7 (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
NB we already have Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Except that one-size-fits-all doesn't always fit. When we consider that unlike every other occupied Foo-country, 'Poland' ceased to exist as a territorial state, and was divided nearly 50-50 by the USSR and Nazi Germany in 1939. Over 400 Jews were shot by the Soviets in the Katyn Massacre of 1940, and many more were transported by the Soviets from eastern 'Poland' to their deaths in the Gulags. The current title of this article could be interpreted as supporting the inclusion of those deaths. Changing the title to 'German-occupied' would rule them out from this article. We might even want to specify 'The Holocaust of Jews in German-occupied Poland' in order to exclude the deaths of Roma/Sinti, etc., other ethnicities often being incorporated into Holocaust studies. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, but I don't think WWII Jews killed by the Soviets for any reasons are included in The Holocaust? Ping User:Icewhiz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Off the top of my head (so not definitive nor sourced - I could be wrong) - possibly by very broad definitions (the same definition that defines Jews fleeing/deported into the USSR as Holocaust survivors). Usually not, I think. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nitpicking and unnecessarily verbose. Happened in Poland, whether Poland was responsible or not (and the title in no way suggests that it was). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
So out of interest, by the same token do you also appose German camps in occupied Poland during World War II ? --Chumchum7 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. There is no need to specify that they were in "occupied" Poland. They were in Poland. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's an interesting puzzle. By this rationale, where was the Stutthof concentration camp, and Stalag VIII-E ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The Free City of Danzig and Germany respectively! They weren't in Poland at the time, German-occupied or otherwise. Claiming that Silesia was occupied at a time when it was legally part of Germany is pure historical revisionism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't claim that Silesia was occupied at the time; just asking questions to understand the rational and your exact definition of what 'Poland' means to you. The ruins of Stutthof concentration camp and Stalag VIII-E are today in Poland, so we've now established you don't mean Poland as we know it today. Moreover, what was 'legally' part of Germany is highly subjective. This is the point. Nazi Germany annexed parts of what had been Poland to Germany in October 1939, including the Gau of Upper Silesia, which put Auschwitz within the new border of the Third Reich. I'm sure that like me you think Auschwitz should be included this article, even though Auschwitz was within the Third Reich. My rationale is that our most applicable term was what historians call Occupied Poland, because unlike almost anywhere else, both the boundaries and existence of the state of Poland was not fixed. Poland outside the areas annexed to the Third Reich also ceased to exist as a state, and were replaced with a German-administered state known as the General Government. Again, the General Government was within what historians call Occupied Poland - it's a handy term. --Chumchum7 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
They were in the territory of what was Poland before the German invasion and what was still generally referred to by everyone as Poland even during the German occupation. To claim they were not in Poland is, I'm afraid, pure nitpicking. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed important to distinguish pre-war and post-war borders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What's the difference between precision and nitpicking? It's a highly subjective opinion about what constitutes one or the other. With regard to the law (invoked earlier), precision matters entirely. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are precise. Somewhere in this article, policy and guidelines would ask us to be precise for the newcomer/general reader about what territorial area we are talking about. The fact that Auschwitz was annexed to Germany in October 1939 makes that imperative. But we don't have a Holocaust in Germany, so currently there's no overlap there. We also don't have a Holocaust in Austria, which was annexed to Germany in 1938, even as reportedly Austrians lack awareness of the Holocaust [1]. These subjects are handled by History of the Jews in Austria, etc. There is a resolution out there that we can all agree on, and it is likely to come from stating a definition of terms and geographical scope to accommodate the boundary changes, somewhere in this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

To the right is Wikipedia's map of Nazi Germany in 1944, showing the Gau of Upper Silesia - which was in Germany from October 1939 and included Auschwitz. Let's be clear: I am proposing we include a single line for clarification purposes for the newcomer/general reader that policy asks us to write for, and to reduce the chance of them getting baffled by the seeming contradictions of this subject. We here might have read enough to think all the differentiations are obvious, but not everyone out there has. We have a a duty of service to those readers. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: With Socratic method mind, in which country would you say was the Ponary massacre, and the Lviv pogroms (1941) ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Poland when they happened. Lithuania and Ukraine respectively today. I think what's important is the borders of the country in peacetime. We all know that in wartime borders become highly flexible. But that can be explained within the articles (as it is). It's the title that concerns us here. And Wikipedia article titles are not supposed to describe the content in painful detail. They're supposed to be accurate (and the current title of this article is accurate), make it obvious to the reader what they're about (which it does) and disambiguate between articles with similar titles. No more than that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and infobox should be changed as well. This is ridiculous verbose nitpicking. None of the other articles in Category:The Holocaust by country use this phrasing, nor should they (The Holocaust in German-occupied France?). It happened in Poland, so the existing article is correct and accurate; if this is related to modern Polish sensitivity about the exact degree of Polish complicity in the Holocaust, it can be addressed in the text. SnowFire (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. "The Holocaust in German-Occupied Poland" is a more accurate and logical title for the current "The Holocaust in Poland" article. "The Holocaust of Jews in German-Occupied Poland" would be even more accurate, and I would support that version in preference to the present proposal. Nihil novi (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The Holocaust specifically refers to the genocide of the Jews! It doesn't need further explanation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Poland" is both a country and a state; as a state it ceased to exist, as a country it hasn't. The reader is not likely to get confused between the two, so no reason to change. François Robere (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" isn't actually a good name. As a rule, we ought to choose the shortest possible name that is both accurate and uniquely identifies the phenomenon. The phenomenon here is "collaboration", so the two questions to answer are "by whom" and "with whom". The first we chose to aggregate - "anyone in Poland"; the second is "with the Axis powers". Hence, similar to Collaboration with the Axis Powers, the article should've been named "Collaboration with the Axis Powers in Poland". Unless we had further split it to "west of the Bug and "east of the Bug" (which I don't believe we have), the "German-occupied" clause was redundant. François Robere (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: That the situation in World War II Poland has not been clear to everyone is attested in the article on the "Polish death camp" controversy. Nihil novi (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    You'll notice that article is about an expression, not about the actual question of who did what. François Robere (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY. Discussions concerning this general topic, focused upon in the just-mentioned article, "Polish death camp" controversy, have extended to various related requested moves, such as the recent move of Sobibór extermination camp [with the Polish diacritic] → Sobibor extermination camp [the death camp's German name, without the Polish diacritic], following the lengthy discussion at Talk:Sobibor extermination camp#Requested move 14 March 2019. I am sympathetic to this nomination and support arguments by Kasabian, Chumchum7 and Nihil novi, but we would need a mass nomination of main title headers for articles such as The Holocaust in Belarus, The Holocaust in Belgium, The Holocaust in Estonia, The Holocaust in France, etc. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Would we though? Does WP:CONSISTENCY mean totally rigid uniformity? What about tolerance, for minority cases of one? WWII Polish history is full of contradictions, such as anti-Nazi anti-Semites, and Jewish members of Polish nationalist paramilitary groups. Wild cards, prime numbers, blue moons, all have a place in academia and the world of free thought, which Wikipedia surely is ( [citation needed] ) ! -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Excellent point. And in any case Wikipedia has already made a good start at accepting German place names, as with "Auschwitz concentration camp" for the camp the Germans sited near the Polish city of Oświęcim. Nihil novi (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
All true. I initially voted "Support" but, just before clicking on "Publish changes", rethought my vote. Having argued for WP:CONSISTENCY throughout my years on Wikipedia, I could not force an exception. In the unlikely possibility of a mass nomination of all such main headers, I would vote "Support" but, at this point, cannot see the main header of this single article standing out as "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland", while all the other headers, starting with The Holocaust in Albania, use the standard form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

But these are two different issues: the camps had just one name - the one given by the Germans who constructed them - and so that's the one we ought to use. If we were to apply that standard here, then we would've had to use "Poland", "the east", or "the GG", as clearly the Germans did not refer to Poland as "German-occupied Poland". Alternatively, if we assume the Germans did not have a "right" to name Poland, then we go by what the Polish Gov. in Ex. called it: "Poland". Thing is, the "founders" standard doesn't really apply here to begin with: here the issue is of framing. And since RS didn't have the same sensitivities some of the editors have, they didn't bother framing it as "...in German-occupied Poland" in every single chapter, as they assume the context is already reasonably familiar to the reader. François Robere (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Certainly, it should not be about sensitivities, but rationale. If we ought to use the names the Germans gave the camps, then the boundaries the Germans gave their territory would become significant. Our map of German Third Reich here [2] shows the logical problem. Currently Wikipedia shows (i) that on our map of Germany extends as far as to include Auschwitz by October 1939 and then to the border with Romania in late 1942, incorporating all the camps inside Germany (ii) we say there were German camps in occupied Poland during World War II and (iii) there was The Holocaust in Poland. How do we solve that one in terms of consistency?
  • Secondly on the point about e.g. Albania, it like others continued as a state (in this case a Kingdom) and a demarcated territory throughout the Italian protectorate and then the German occupation. Most other countries continued to function as states and are referred to as such and shown as such on the map, from Vichy France to Quisling Norway. Can we think if any country apart from Poland that ceased to exist as a territorial state because of the war? Perhaps we could compromise at Occupied Poland instead of German-Occupied Poland, to take off the some of the perceived WP:POINT ?
  • If so, Ukraine wasn't a state in the first place. I'd say there's a case for Occupied Ukraine (or even Occupied USSR) as well as Occupied Poland, by the same rationale.
Poland was indeed the only nation that existed as an independent entity between World War I and World War II, which was then completely partitioned and denied any local autonomy during German occupation. The next closest nations in that respect were the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which did not regain their nationhood following what they hoped was liberation by Germany from Soviet occupation and had little to none in terms of autonomy for the remainder of the war. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Chumchum, you can't argue for consistency in one, and exception in another - that in itself is inconsistent. Regardless, I think you're missing my point: The standard by which you can refer to a camp as a "German camp" doesn't apply here - the Holocaust was not a defined object that you can assign [linguistic] possession to to the Germans, but a grand sequence of events. The usage of "in Poland" is a choice to demark a certain territory that merits further study - be it to follow sources, or to ease the reading for a lay reader. If we so chose, we could use the German territorial names - it would certainly make sense in some expert contexts - but it'll be harder for a lay reader. By virtue of being a choice this is an issue of framing, and framing in this context is political. François Robere (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
François Robere, actually we're on the same page. I'm exactly talking about the territorial issue. As we know, unlike e.g. 'England', 'Poland' is not a fixed territory and some non-nerds don't understand this. Some people are surprised to learn that 'Auschwitz' was actually in Germany from October 1939. We - and this article - have been working under the unstated assumption that our definition of the territorial reach of Poland is the September 1939 boundary, not e.g. just the areas west of the Curzon/Molotov-Ribbentrop/Yalta line set in 1945. As you recall I've said elsewhere, a clear definition of terms always assists article stability because it reduces the amount of working at cross-purposes from diverging assumptions. Perhaps a consensus resolution would be derived from a line at the top of this article stating Note: this article covers the Holocaust within the September 1, 1939 boundaries of Poland, which ceased to exist as a territorial entity after the Nazi-Soviet invasion at the start of WWII. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I agree a clear definition is due. François Robere (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is part of a series: The Holocaust in Albania, The Holocaust in Belgium, The Holocaust in France, The Holocaust in Luxembourg, The Holocaust in Norway, The Holocaust in Slovakia, and so on. In some, Jews were deported/murdered before occupation; not all were occupied only by Germany; and in occupied countries, not all attacks on Jews during the occupation were clearly attributable to the occupation. The title "The Holocaust in" covers it all. SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We've given all aspects of the rationale a proper chance. We understand that even though Auschwitz was within Germany according to its new October 1939 borders, it's going to be incorporated into The Holocaust in Poland, because we are taking it to mean the September 1939 borders of Poland all the way up to 1945. This would therefore include the very large Kresy region throughout the conflict, including Soviet deportations of Jews from the Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939 and the later partisan warfare between Jewish partisan (Soviet affiliated) units and Polish resistance (British affiliated) units, in which Jewish civilians were fatalities of the Holocaust, ref e.g. Fugitives of the Forest: The Heroic Story of Jewish Resistance and Survival During the Second World War, by Allan Levine (first published 1998, 2008 reissue, by Lyons Press). -- Chumchum7 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    Gwardia Ludowa/Armia Ludowa and Soviet partisan units were mostly non-Jewish - there were Jews in the ranks, and there are a few examples of mostly or fully Jewish units or sub-units, however most of the communist partisans were not Jewish. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, most were not. We have the article on Jewish partisans to draw from. --Chumchum7 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
NB Vilnius and Lviv were in Poland, by this definition. That brings in the whole overlap with The Holocaust in Lithuania and The Holocaust in Ukraine. How do we demarcate? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Vilnius was transferred to Lithuania for a few months before the Soviet annexed the entire country. Take a look at History_of_Vilnius#World_War_II for example, the pogrom that happened there when Lithuanian army entered - seems more like in focus for Holocaust in Lithuania, not Poland. But yep, that's a good point, and I have no good suggestions outside of the general feeling that some issues should be discussed in both articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Right, and equally Auschwitz, the area of the future Chełmno extermination camp, etc. were transferred to Germany. We agree to overlap, and there's a case for stating this in a note before the lede. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY, and conciseness. Our series of articles cover the Holocaust in geographic terms - often following modern countries as opposed to periodic terms (thus - for instance - we have a Holocaust in Ukraine, despite Ukraine being part of the USSR). Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia - are all defined (all be it loosely on the boundaries) geographic terms. Nazi Germany being the primary perpetrator of the Holocaust (with the help of local collaborators - varying between regions - e.g. Poland relatively few, Lithuania relatively high) is made clear in the each article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Poland is accused much more than any other nation of participating in the Holocaust, frequently by western ignoramuses, so German responsibility should be stressed. No western nation was mistreated in the way the Polish people were. Descriptions of Polish crimes are disproportionately long in this Wikipedia, in the manner of man-bites-dog journalism. BTW, the Holocaust isn't precisely defined in this Wikipedia, so what is the subject of this page? Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Xx236, generally I let your snarky comments slide, but can you please retract your unnecessary snark in the above, please? There's no need for the clause starting "frequently by...". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • While I disagree that "Poland is accused much more than any other nation of participating in the Holocaust" it's a well-documented problem that ignorance about the Holocaust is rife and growing [3]. We've already started addressing popular misconceptions in the article, namely the myth of Jewish passivity. The article is the place for incorporating what the reliable-source record says about other popular misconceptions; per WP policy and guidelines, the title/header is not the place for it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Starting to wonder, why isn't there a Holocaust in Austria? I had first assumed it must be because Austria was annexed to Germany and incorporated in it. But then it turns out there isn't a Holocaust in Germany either. So speaking of consistency, why is it that the special case of Germany (as defined by inclusion of its annexed and incorporated lands) doesn't get geographic treatment? -- Chumchum7 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The Holocaust in Germany and The Holocaust in Austria are currently redirects to sections in other articles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the catch. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: unnecessary, per WP:PRECISION. There was no other Holocaust in Poland, whether in non-German-occupied Poland nor in unoccupied Poland. In addition, this is part of a series: the Holocaust in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Belgium, Luxemburg, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. All of these countries were occupied when the Holocaust there took place. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
On that point I agree. Separately, presumably you concur with User:François Robere and User:Piotrus above that a clarification note would be beneficial, perhaps at the start, to explain that this article covers territories that were inside Germany during WWII? Also, to check we're all on the same page: in which country did the Ponary Massacre take place, and those at Bronna Góra, etc.? That's the remaining issue at stake. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that the important qualifier may be the presence and extend of a collaborationist government. In Poland, it effectively did not exist, GG was a pure German administration with Poles only used as low tier bureaucrats/local labor. I am unsure about the case of Belarus, but in Lithuania the local government had some autonomy and was clearly collaborating with Germans, with much local support. Ditto it is hard to talk about Belarus as a location when effectively there was no independent and autonomous Belarus until the 1990s, but Lithuania existed as a political entity in the 1920s, had seized the area of the Ponary, with Soviet collaboration, in 1939/1940, and had much more autonomy (if, certainly, not complete) in the time of the massacre compared to Poland or Belarus. In other words, Ponary area, according to Lithuanians themselves, was legally transferred to Lithuania prior to German occupation (if very briefly). Belarusian area, however, was simply annexed by the Soviet Union outright, and Belarus had much less to say about it, being a 'de facto yes-man part of the USSR. Which is why I am not sure about the status of Bronna Gora, but the Ponary massacre IMHO was clearly a part of the Holocaust in Lithuania, with only a minor relevance to Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
In that case, what is the difference between Ponary being incorporated into Lithuania and Auschwitz being incorporated into Germany? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
In the eyes of the Polish government in exile in 1941 - possibly the same. However, Vilnius was annexed by Lithuania in 1939 (at the time as part of " mutual assistance treaty" with the USSR) which was then annexed by the USSR in 1940. Post-war (Yalta?) Vilnius remained in the USSR/Lithuania (per your view of State continuity of the Baltic states) - and remains in Lithuania today. Conversely Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany was viewed by many as illegal during the war, and by many more as illegal following the war. Today Oświęcim is in sovereign Poland. Were we writing a Wikipedia article in 1941, there might have been little difference, however post-war recognition/rejection of claims changes matters. As a general note - one could organize Holocaust article according to German administrative lines (e.g. Holocaust in General Government, Holocaust in Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Holocaust in occupied zone of Frnce) - there is some merit to doing so (and some professionals do so), however this can be confusing to the lay reader (who isn't well versed in these short-lived divisions) and is complicated by the changing lines during the war - so while this would solve the quandary above, this would introduce other problems.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by (per your view of State continuity of the Baltic states) ? I don't recall commenting on this matter, so maybe you mean our view, as editors? To clarify my last entry, that was a face value question rather than rhetorical question; I'm asking what the difference is in order for us to understand our presuppositions. By the same token, where is Lviv, Bronna Góra and Brest, for the purpose of this article? In a nutshell, you seem to have replied that the difference is that although Auschwitz was in Germany and Ponary was in Lithuania according to the the occupying states, Vilnius (including Ponary) is today in Lithuania and Auschwitz is in Poland according to international treaty (Yalta). But presumably you're not saying that means we shouldn't cover Ponary in this article, and that it should be dealt exclusively by The Holocaust in Lithuania? Nor that Stutthof etc should be included (see above), even though it is in Poland according to Yalta? So FWIW I'm not sure that the legal terms of the Yalta Agreement per se is going to work as our guiding principle about how to manage this article better than simply stating at the top that the Wikipedia community has made the decision that this article covers the territory marked by the 1 September 1939 boundaries of Poland. This seems to reinforce the clarification note at the top of the article as the best consensus resolution, and we could have a go at removing the title change banner and thank the initiating editor for prompting an improvement to the article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chumchum7: "your view" in terms of "our view" or "generic editor" view (not referring to you - Chumchum7)- as views differ somewhat, I stated both options (USSR/Lithuania and stated which was conditional on state continuity - on which I did not take a position myself). I think excluding Ponray from this article makes sense. Free City of Danzig and parts of East Prussia aren't equivalent - as they are part of Poland today (and Danzig had a special status). Sticking to 1 September 1939 may also perhaps make sense - was this reached by talk page consensus? Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz:So if excluding Ponary were to make sense, by that principle would you say Lviv and Bronna Gora should be excluded too? As to consensus, we are getting closer if you see the comments by Francois and Piotr above, supporting a clarification statement in the article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally I would go with Poland's borders in 1941 (as recognized in 1945) - as the Holocaust started around 1941. This would exclude the Kresy (save Białystok) - leaving modern-day Western Belarus and Western Ukraine in the Belarus and Ukraine articles. Danzig / parts of East Prussia may merit some discussion (given 1945 status). I suspect however some editors would strongly disagree with excluding the Kresy (and I don't feel strongly about this). This would match modern geography better. In terms of literature - I don't think there's anything consistent (e.g. you can find "Holocaust in Poland" books including Kresy, and you can find "Holocaust in Ukraine" (or USSR) including Western Ukraine (or Kresy) - it depends on the perspective of the writers involved, it isn't something that's a clearcut decision). Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Many readers don't know anything about the Holocaust or they have their prejudices. We have to write for them, not for native speaking academicians. We have to explain basic notions, which is not nitpicking. We have to explain in the lead what is Poland in the page, that many crimes were comitted by ethnic minorities who left Poland after the war. so Poland isn't repsonsible for their crimes. Now we don't even know, what The Holocaust is. Nazi Germany, aided by local collaborators is unprecize. It doesn't inform about Austrians, Axis and non-local collaborators. Austrians aren't mentioned in this page, Franz Stangl was Austrian, Adolf Eichmann was German-Austrian. There were many Austrians around them and among KZ guards. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Neither Eichmann nor Franz Stangl are mentioned in the page. Kind of revisionism?Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed per MOS:FIRST our opening sentence doesn't suffice. We're meant to define things by what they are, not what they are 'marked by'. The Holocaust in France does it better, as do others in the 'series'. Although in breach of WP:CONSISTENCY, Germany and Austria are treated differently and are not part of the 'series'. Although we have an article on Austria – the Nazis' first victim. As to Austrian Nazis, we have a Category:Austrian Nazis at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Austrian_Nazis and the related Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Poland at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_perpetrators_in_Poland which you could draw from and add to this article.-Chumchum7 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
In Talk:The holocaust I was told there is Austria under National Socialism, so as far as I understand Austrian participation in the Holocaust isn't important. But the local collaborators are notable.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nazi ghettoization policy

This section should be rewritten. Judenrats were generally formed in 1939 and participated in the ghettoization process. Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Patterns of Jewish Collaboration

https://www.academia.edu/3881105/_Przeciw_swoim_Wzorce_kolaboracji_%C5%BCydowskiej_w_Krakowie_i_okolicy_Zag%C5%82ada_%C5%BByd%C3%B3w_-_Studia_i_materia%C5%82y_Rocznik_naukowy_Centrum_Bada%C5%84_nad_Zag%C5%82ad%C4%85_%C5%BByd%C3%B3w_IFiS_PAN_Nr_2_2006_ss._202-220

Against One's Own: Patterns of Jewish Collaboration in Cracow and the Cracow Area. by Witold Medykowski. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Poor quality link

Perpetrators and Perpetration of Mass Violence: Actions, Motivations and Dynamics, edited by Timothy Williams and Susanne Buckley-Zistel, published by Routledge, is a collection of texts. It's probable that you are quoting Tomasz Frydel. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Frydel doesn't support the 200,000 , he quotes it as a number of Jewish refugees. here, in the space of the ‘hunt for Jews’ (Judenjagd), allegedly out of reach of German authority, ethnic Poles had a larger say in the fate of the 200,000 fugitive Jews who did not survive Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC) allegedly. Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the 200,000 story. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Well sourced writes a person, who refuses to discuss the problem here. He doesn't care to read his source by Frydel. Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Archiving issues

Overarchiving: Yesterday's comment has been archived. Something is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, would someone please restore this talk page's inappropriately, prematurely archived ""x" times "y" makes 200,000: or, Jan Grabowski as scholar" section?
Nihil novi (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I've managed to restore the inappropriately, prematurely archived text.
Let us continue...
Nihil novi (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not subdivide this section with subsection headings. That may have triggered the premature archiving.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem. I don't think it has anything to do with the subsection headings. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation errors, academic texts, Haupttreuhandstelle Ost

Citation errors Plenty of them. Please correct them. Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

An academic text is reviewed and published in a serious journal. An interview isn't academic. Was the interview authorised? Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Haupttreuhandstelle Ost "was a Nazi German predatory state institution responsible for liquidating Polish and Jewish businesses in occupied Poland." Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Szmalcowniks: "until finally reporting them to the Germans"[?!]. Extorting Jews was illegal, so some szmalcowniks were in fact punished by the Germans. Grabowski's book draws on German documents describing arrested szmalcowniks. Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The citation errors are still there, please correct them.Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "citation error"? Is that an error in a cited text? In the publication data for a cited text? Could you please give an example of a "citation error" in this article? Nihil novi (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean red comments "Cite error".Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see: you mean the items in the "Footnotes" section marked "Cite error", beginning with item 236.
Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Demographics

It is important that we understand the demographic composition of Poland’s Jewish population during the Holocaust.
1-Sources outside of Poland classify Jews by religion. By grossing up the data of the 1931 census the number of Jews was c.3.4 million in 1939
2-Sources in Poland such as the IPN classify Jews by language(Yiddish and Hebrew speakers). By grossing up the data of the 1931 census the number of Jews was c.3.0 million in 1939. c.400,000 Jews were considered “Poles” based on the 1931 census because they listed Polish as their mother tongue
3-In Polish figures the territory annexed by the USSR is included with the Polish population during the war. This is not the same Poland we see on maps today. The number Jews by religion in these regions was of c.1.3 million, including Holocaust victims of c.1.0 million. They are included in both the Polish and Soviet figures of war dead. The balance of 2.0 million Holocaust victims were from the Poland we see on maps today.
4-Holocaust victims from the Poland we see on maps today were mainly transported to the death camps or were victims in the ghettos. The 1.0 million Holocaust victims from the Poland in the annexed regions were mainly victims of the Einsatzgruppen or local auxiliary forces recruited by the Germans.
5-Grabowski does not clearly define the territory of Poland based on the Google books snippet that I have seen. We need to treat his figure of 200,0000 as a rough estimate that lacks detailed analysis.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
6-Note well that in Polish sources such as the IPN the number of “Poles” based on the 1931 census figures for mother tongue was 24.0 million.This figure in includes 400,000 Jews by religion as well as 1.1 million Greek Catholics/ Eastern Orthodox.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a revision proposal in mind? François Robere (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A revision proposal,no I do not have one. However readers need to see a better presentation of the demographic facts.Sources published in Poland define their territory based on 1939 borders and the number of "Poles"using mother tongue not religion data from the 1931 census. This needs to be pointed out to readers--Woogie10w (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: is good with this type of stuff I Support whatever he says!
Jack that's real nice of you but I did not ask for your support. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: what I mean is if any changes are proposed I will agree on them for approving the wiki and you recommendations are good that is why I said thatJack90s15 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the WWE, tag teams are not allowed. Again, I did not solicit your support. You are a newcomer on Wikipedia, but I remember the days when the High Command at Wikipedia HQ closed down the EEML for running a tag team[4]--Woogie10w (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Woogie10w: ok Thank for showing were I went wrong I did not know about the EEML thing my badJack90s15 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Woogie, thank you for your comment. I belive that German-Nazi definition of a Jew was basis of the Holocaust in occupied Poland, so neither religion nor language was important. There was a group of Christian Jews murdered by Germans, I have seen somewhere an estimate - tens of thousands (30,000 ?). Some of them allegedly joined the Jewish police (in Warsaw ?). One of the most important poets Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński was Jewish according to German law, but he lived outside the ghetto and died during the 1944 uprising. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Woogie I have added on the classification of Poles as Jews and imprisonment of Catholic Jews in Warsaw Ghetto a while ago[5]. Szymon Datner IIRC writes that it wasn't uncommon for people identifing themselves as Catholic Poles to be rounded up as Jews based on family records used by Germans.I was wondering once if the Catholic Poles classified as Jews by Nazis are counted as Jews as well in post-war casualties estimates but I never researched the subject deeper.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Poland/Archives/2019/July&oldid=908382770"