Talk:History of the Jews in Poland

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): George1738 (article contribs).

Template:V0.5

Polish passports

I'm not sure if the passports are issued to 1968 emigrants only. [1] Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits on Postwar Property Restitution

I've reverted as the use of a 1947 primary source is generally unacceptable. More seriously the passage misrepresented a volume edited by Grabowski&Libionka to the point it was libelous towards the cited authors - beyond the drivel pasted into our article from a questionable source, to assign such a summary to Grabowski&Libionka - is mind-boggling. I may of course refer to the 600+ page Polish language tome itself, however for the sake of those that read English, here's a short summary of Grabowski&Libionka: "The book, “Klucze i Kasa” (“Keys and Money”) details the ways in which Poles got rich off Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust – by plundering property that was left behind, charging exorbitant fees for hiding them, and so on. This may be another underlying reason for the Polish perception of Jews as a source of wealth – they literally enriched them. And paradoxically, their guilt feelings over this are being projected onto the Jews."[2]. Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galassi: - unless you've actually read and reviewed the allegedly cited sources - I suggest you self revert - the issue here is a misrepresentation of the cited sources (+misuse of a PRIMARY 1947 source). This certainly is not a reasonable summary of the 37 cited pages in Klucze i Kasa. I don't know if you read Polish (and have the Polish book available) - however This Palgrave book is available in English (which we should prefer per WP:NOENG - and is a short summarized chapter. Grabowski&Libionka is much more in-depth (being Poland specific) - but shares the same conclusion. By reverting this content in - after it was challenged as a misrepresentation - you are taking responsibility for WP:Verifying it. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not have access to the sources used, but, in general, the passage does look cherry-picked and presents too rosy a picture in re: Jews in post-war Poland. For example, Yad Vashem has the following:

After the Holocaust, there were tens of thousands of Jewish survivors in Poland, as well as refugees who had returned there from the Soviet Union. On comprehending the enormity of the destruction of Polish Jewry and being confronted with manifestations of antisemitism, which reached their zenith with the Kielce pogrom of July 1946, these Jews decided to move westward to the American-occupied zone, and so they too arrived at the DP camps. In 1947, they were joined by a further wave of Jewish refugees from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, and the total number of DP camp inhabitants reached a peak of some 250,000

Source: The Return to Life in the Displaced Persons Camps, 1945-1956. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The topic of Jewish property in Poland after WWII (and up to and including today) deserves a dedicated article. Nonetheless, the content here does not seem extraordinary, through there may be some undue weight issues, and it seems properly referenced (if to offline sources). I do not see sufficient rationale presented for reverting it wholesale, saying that 'it does not seem to fit with the spirit of the source' is hardly a serious argument. At the same time, there may be some synthesis issues when a claim is backed up by ~2 books and a wide range of pages. I'd generally suggest we focus on specific facts or interpretations. Is there something in the added passage that seems plain wrong? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - please provide quotes and translation of said quotes regarding the content you inserted here. Please be specific in terms of page numbers and works used for each bit. Your content has been challenged as a serious misrepresentation - onus on you to prove it is not a misrepresentation.Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Offline sources, I have no reason at this point to believe User:Tatzref made any serious errors in the content he inserted, and I see no reasons for its removal. Unless you have access to the same content and can prove there are issues? (That said, I'd encourage Tatzref to provide us with relevant quotes, if anyone actually challenges specific details of his additions, not that it has happened, as only vague generalities were criticized - that's hardly actionable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You've restored content challenged as a severe misrepresentation without actually verifying? Great. Contrary to said editing MO, I did access several of the sources cited by Tatzref, and stand behind my assertion this is a misrepresentation. I'm not sure how you want me to prove a negative here - some of the stuff isn't based on anything at all in the cited sources. WP:ONUS is on you (as well as all others who have inserted this content) to provide quotations verifying the content, and per WP:NOENG - with a translation please (I'm willing to work off the Polish - most editors in enwiki are not). Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As much of the content failed verification (versus the actual cited sources), and supporters of this content failed (over a period of 2.5 weeks) to quote and translate the sources they were cited (as required per WP:NOENG) I removed and replaced the content with a summary of academic sources, in English, available online. Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The information about postwar property restitution that Icewhiz reverted as "gross misrepresentation" and "failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source" and Galassi reverted as TW (defined as "acts of vandalism or unconstructive edits") is based on reliable sources produced by reputable Polish historians (Alina Skibińska, Łukasz Krzyżanowski, Krzysztof Urbański, Adam Kopciowski). These historians carried out research into hundreds of Polish court records for each town that they considered. Alina Skibinska states, in relation to Szczebrzeszyn, that at least one third of the 210 private properties belonging to Jews before the war were returned to their owners or their heirs by 1950, and that almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles (Klucze i kasa, p. 562-563). She goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favorably dealt with; the pace at which this was done was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon thereafter; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies in the applications (Klucze i kasa, p. 568-569). Moreover, the case study of Szczebrzeszyn confirms and is consistent with the research conducted by historians in relation to other towns (Grzegorz Miernik - Szydlowiec, Łukasz Krzyżanowski - Kalisz & Radom, Adam Kopciowski - Zamosc & Wlodawa). Moreover, it fully accords with the contemporaneous monitoring by Jewish organizations reported in the American Jewish Year Book (1947-1948), a highly reliable source produced by academics. Neither would have had the slightest interest in misrepresenting the situation to the detriment of Jewish Holocaust survivors.

Regarding the case study of property restitution in Szczebrzeszyn Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 562-563): “Scalenie dostępnych w materiałach archiwalnych informacji o nieruchomości należących przed wojną do Żydow prowadzi do wniosku, że było takich nieruchomości w Szczebrzeszynie ok. 210 (z wyłączeniem należących do gminy). Wszystkie te liczby świadczą o tym, że przynajmniej jedna trzecia spośród nich została właścicielom, ich spadkobiercom lub innym osobom za takowe się podającym do roku 1950 zwrócona. Wszystkie te nieruchomości (z kilkoma wyjątkami) w bardzo krótkim czasie sprzedano Polakom, bardzo często tym samym, którzy już je zajmowali.” GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The merger of information about real estate owned by the Jews before the war in the archives leads to the conclusion that there were about 210 real estates in Szczebrzeszyn (excluding those belonging to the commune). All these figures indicate that at least one-third of them became [were returned to] owners, their heirs or other persons [REMOVE: for such repayments until] [by] 1950. All these properties (with a few exceptions) were sold to the Poles in a very short time, very often to the same ones who already occupied them.”

Regarding the court process Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 568-569): “Oceniając więc postawę obu sędziów Sądu Grodzkiego w Szczebrzeszynie, należy brać pod uwagę nie tylko wyroki przez nich wydawane, a te były w zdecydowanej większości pozytywne dla wnioskodawców, lecz także tempo, w jakim sprawy rozpatrywali. Wielokrotnie data rozprawy wyznaczana była na ten sam dzień, w którym wniosek wpłynął, lub na termin bardzo nieodległy, co świadczy o przychylności tych sędziów, nie utrudniali bowiem proceduralnie spraw majątkowych. Wyroki zapadły z reguły jeszcze w dniu roprawy, uprawomocniały się po kilku tygodniach lub miesiącach. Obaj sędziowie brdzo często przymykali oko na nieścisłosci lub drobniejsze sprzeczności dowodowe, nie można w ich decyzjach dopatrywać się złej woli.” GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “In assessing the attitude of both Judges of the Grodzki [municipal] Court in Szczebrzeszyn, one should take into account not only the judgments passed by them, and these were mostly positive for the applicants, but also the pace at which they were considered. Repeatedly, the date of the hearing was set on the same day as the application, or on a very short date, which proves the favor [favourable disposition] of these judges, because they did not obstruct property matters in a procedural way. The verdicts were usually passed on the day of the abscess [the case was heard], they became stronger [legalized] after a few weeks or months. Both judges very often turned a blind eye to inaccuracies or minor contradictions of evidence, one cannot see evil decisions [bad faith] in their decisions.”

Regarding case studies for other towns (at. P. 171): “Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika, Łukasza Krzyżanowskiego, Adama Kopciowskiego. Ten ostatni zauważa, a jego wniosek potwierdzają również moje badania, “że choć odzyskiwanie utraconego w czasie wojny mienia wiązało się z ogromnym ryzykiem, stosunkowo wielu Żydom udało się je odzyskać”.” GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, "that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it." Tatzref (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Tatzref (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I neglected to mention what I pointed out in another post. The text that Icewhiz substituted for mine relies on publications of poor quality with no sources cited for the relevant claims (Laurence Weinbaum's article in The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust), publications that do not deal with court records with respect to property claims (Michael Meng, Shattered Spaces), or publications that refer to selected court records but do not undertake a systematic investigation of any one town (Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence -- the author admits she has no statistics). They then make sweeping generalizations that the scholarship which extensively canvases court records does not support. Additional comments will be provided with respect to other unfounded claims.Tatzref (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. I think the Klucze i kasa source is reliable and can be used. But I'll note that the reverted text ([3]) is not exactly the same one as discussed here (ex. here we talk about the town of Szczebrzeszyn, not mentioned in the talk). Still, I see nothing particularly wrong with most of that text, through the another part of it is based on another source (still seems reliable): Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).<ref name="Kopciowski">Adam Kopciowski. ''Zagłada Żydów w Zamościu'' (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2005), 203; Adam Kopciowski, "Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II," ''Holocaust: Studies and Materials'' vol. 1 (2008), 188.</ref> Through I actually like what is mentioned here, on the talk page, better, as Kopciowski just gives numbers and the Szczebrzeszyn text quoted here gives proportions. Once we have a subarticle, I think Kopciowski should be moved there. I also don't think the ending part is necessary (Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.<ref>Paweł Machcewicz and Krzysztof Persak, eds. ''Wokół Jedwabnego'' (Warsaw: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej—Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, 2002) vol. 1, 379–387.</ref>) - it seems undue here and as I believe I mentioned at some earlier point, I am sure some Poles were involved in this too, so what's the point of this sentence? I can think of any good reason to have this in our overview here (but as I also said, a dedicated subarticle on Jewish property in Poland is needed, and we can go into more detail there). As for the The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”<ref name="American Jewish Year Book">American Jewish Year Book, 5708 (1947–1948), vol. 49 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 390.</ref> , while this is an old source, I think it is attributed properly, and I see no reason to ignore it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOENG is policy - we have better English language sources - we generally prefer secondary academic sources in English (for which there is no lack, to say the least, on this topic). The Jewish Year Book, relating to 1947-8 and written in 1948, is a PRIMARY source - and contains two rather big BUTS (no under state control and direct-descendant heir (owner, son)) - which basically prevented the vast majority of Jews to even file a claim. As for the text itself - what was returned here was a gross misrepresentation. The quotations above support, at best, local anecdotes (number of cases in specific courts, attitude of very specific judes) - nothing more. Beyond being factually incorrect in "The restitution law in effect from May 1945 until the end of 1948" (as the 1945 decree was annulled and replace with another decree in 1946) nothing in the quotes (and WP:OR) above supports "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" (and I'll note that the number of court cases may be larger than claimants (multiple claims) and that many court cases were fraudulent (a matter actually made clear in "Klucze i Kasa") - in which property was not returned to actual owners), as well as misstating the severe difficulties Jews faced with attempting to claim property.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

NOENG only states that if we have equivalent sources, English are preferred. Tatzref made a point above about them not being equivalent, as in Polish sources are better referenced, while English sources you cite are tertiary ones and less accurate. So in this case it seems to me he is winning the argument here. I do agree, however, that I'd like to see what the Klucze... text has to say about the 1945, 1948, and such, as I agree there're possibly some issues related to translation, etc. A while ago I wrote the nationalization in Poland article, and the text added here might contradict what is there - perhaps it's a translation issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the cited Polish language sources are mainly microhistories - referring to very small and specific areas (e.g. one town), and incidentally some are by rather obscure publishers and authors - they also have very low citation counts. We have reputable English sources here - top-notch publishers - and with references incidentally - not sure where that claim is coming from. More importantly - the English language sources are referring to Poland as a whole - as opposed to shenanigans in a particular courthouse. Furthermore, the text Tatzref is proposing is not supported by the anecdotes he is citing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with microhistories if reliable sources use them for generalization. At least in this case we know the source for generalizations, unlike from your 'reputable English sources' which as Tatzref noted just make sweeping statement with no references. When Alina Skibinska of Polish Center for Holocaust Research writes "Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy", she is certainly a RS that can be quoted here. Or do you think she is not a reliable scholar for those issues? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Skibinska, one should note, says property returned to "owners, their heirs or other persons" and "were sold to the Poles in a very short time" (usually those occupying) - she doesn't make a definitive statement on what was returned and to whom. As for the English language sources - they all are extensively referenced - including Weinbaum. Tatzref's claim that English language sources ignore Polish communist court transcripts? While such microhistories are of some value, the value (and standards of justice) of post-war Polish communist court transcripts is generally seen as dubious - and it is far from surprising that many sources heed them little notice. That these are largely ignored by well-cited and received book (e.g. Meng's Shattered spaces published in 2011 has 78 citations) - is an indication we should ignore anecdotal locale-specific evidence as well. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no "gross misrepresentation" going on in my edits, as alleged by Icewhiz, and that my sources are far more authoritative than his. The historians I cited, all of them reputable, have carried out extensive research on this topic in several localities. Alina Skibinska, of the Polish Holocaust Center/Centrum Badan nad Zaglada, with which Jan Grabowski is associated, admits that the state of the research shows a consistent pattern and that "relatively many" Jews were able to recover their property. Neither Laurence Weinbaum nor Michael Meng carried out any research nor do they provide any source regarding the actual functioning of the property restitution regime. Cichopek-Gajraj admits she has no statistics, even though Miernik, Urbanski and Kopciowski all published the outcome of their research well before she published her book. Generalizations without supporting scholarship or research does not outweigh a consistent pattern that emerges from a series of scholarly microhistories. Essentially the same law was in place throughout this period, with minor adjustments. The edit also notes there was an exception for nationalized property, and cites the American Jewish Year Book for that reason as well.Tatzref (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OR based on your reading of local microhistories (whom themselves document widespread fraud and transfer of Jewish property to "other" non-related people) is of little value vs. Poland-wide secondary research. I have a question - your quote above - "Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika" - is this from page 171? Because page 171 is not by Skibinska. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That was a slip. The correct page number is 571. It is part of Skibinska's overall conclusion. The words “innym osobom za takowe się podającym”, i.e., "other persons holding themselves out as such," as Skibinska and others explain, refer to Jews posing as Jewish owners or their relatives in order to advance fraudulent claims. It was a big problem. Sometimes they were successful. However, it was virtually impossible for a non-Jew to pose as a Jew in order to initiate a bogus claim. At most, some Poles could be bribed to act as false witnesses for Jews. It is unlikely in the extreme that non-Jews would ever acquire property rights via the court process. Cichopek-Gajraj refers to this, and appears to recognize that it was essentially a Jewish problem. Jewish entities at that time did not attempt to shift the blame onto Poles.

At a meeting of the Central Committee of Polish Jews in August 1946: “News travels to Kraków from smaller Jewish communities that Jews started to sell houses which were not theirs… Jews sell houses of those who live abroad.” Polish courts increasingly became aware of these scams. The American Joint Distribution Committee: “The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the ‘racket’ of some Jews in going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs.” (Beyond Violence, p. 85)

This amply trumps your argument and demolishes any concerns about the value of the sources I cited.

As for late Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union they were treated no different than Poles who had to leave behind their homes in Eastern Poland territory seized by the Soviet Union. They were resettled on lands Poland acquired from Germany and received material compensation on the same basis as other Poles. Dariusz Stola deals with this matter in his article in Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe (New York & Oxford, 2007), at p. 244. I believe I pointed this out before, but it looks like it has been removed.Tatzref (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Another apparent misrep in Icewhiz’s text: “Polish officials blocked return of Jews from DP camp.” This is based on the article by Laurence Weinstein, a researcher associated with the World Jewish Congress. Weinstein provides no source for this information. A far more authoritative author is historian Yehuda Bauer, who estimates that about 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from camps in Germany in his article “Jewish Survivors in DP Camps and She’erith Hapletah,” in volume 9 (The End of the Holocaust) in The Nazi Holocaust: Historical Articles on the Destruction of the European Jews (Westport, CT, 1989), p. 527. If Jews were prevented from returning to Poland, a far more likely enforcer would have been Zionist agents. They often used violence against Jews in DP camps in Germany and Austria who were unwilling to be drafted to fight in Palestine. Hundreds of such reports are known. See Yosef Grodzinsky, In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II (Common Courage Press, 2004), pp. 199, 207, 230.

Yet another misrep based on Laurence Weinstein’s article: “with a claims deadline of 31 December 1947 (later extended to 31 December 1948) after which property devolved to the Polish state.” As Cichopek-Gajraj points out (Beyond Violence, p. 73), it was only after 10 years that an immoveable property remained “heirless” that the state could acquire ownership by right of occupation, which would mean mid-1955. In the meantime, claims could continue to be brought even by more distant heirs (apart from spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings) under the normal court process (Kasa i klucze, p. 523; Beyond Violence, p. 75).

Here’s a multiple misrep: “The majority of Jewish claimants could not afford the restitution process without financial help due to the filing costs, legal fees, and inheritance tax.” In fact, the source cited (“Beyond Violence”) states: “The majority of Jewish claimants residing in Poland could not afford to pay the fees without the help of the CKZP (which also offered free legal aid) or without obtaining an exemption from the court and lawyer fees called “poor man’s benefit.” So the state restitution process provided for an exemption from court and legal fees for needy applicants, and those who got an exemption didn’t need financial help. Second apparent misrep: the alleged destitute condition of most Jews in Poland. The head of the DP operations for UNRRA in Germany reported quite the opposite, noting the arrival of so many “well-dressed, well-fed, rosy-cheeked” Jews who appeared to have “plenty of money.” See Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift (John Murray, 2007), p. 330. Moreover, claims could be made from outside Poland. Skibinska stated that there was a booming business in Palestine and Germany, and that Jewish organizations around the world submitted claims. (Klucze i kasa, p. 530-531.) Tatzref (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The clearest and most accurate treatment of the law on abandoned property appears to be an article by Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska, an attorney and former judge, titled “Whose Tenements? A Legal Analysis of the Status of Former Jewish Property in Light of Postwar Polish Law,” in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews (Leopolis Press, 2012), edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski & Pawel Styrna, at pages 223–231: Here are some key passages:

The first act in Communist-occupied Poland to regulate the status of abandoned property was the decree from 2 March 1945 (“On abandoned properties,” Dz.U. no. 9, item 45, 1945). It was soon substituted by another law from 6 May 1945 (same title, Dz.U., no. 17, item 94, 1945.) There were no significant differences between the two regulations. The successor act merely introduced a new stipulation regarding farms and extended the time available for Municipal Courts (Sady grodzkie) to examine the claims of former owners attempting to reclaim abandoned properties.

The decree and the successor act granted the owners of abandoned properties a special privilege. They benefited from simplified and expedited legal procedures while pursuing their property restitution claims, as opposed to the regular civil procedures. The latter included burdening the claimant with the financial costs of the legal proceedings, calculated as a percentage of the value of the property in question. Claims pursued via the provisions of the decree waived this demand. The municipal courts, which were tasked with handling such cases, were obligated to rule within especially short periods of time. According to the decree, the hearing was to be scheduled on the eighth day, and the court was required to rule “within three weeks of the filing of the claim or sooner" … According to the successor act, the hearing was to be scheduled no later the twenty-first day, counting from the date of the filing of the claim, while the ruling was to be announced no later than within six weeks from the date of filing.

The act “on abandoned properties” from 6 May 1945 was substituted by a decree from 8 March 1946 on abandoned and “post-German” properties (Dz.U., no. 13, item 87, 1946). … An important difference existed between the decree and act of 1945, on the one hand, and the decree of 1946, on the other. In the case of the former, expedited-track restitution could only occur upon the request of the owner himself (or a legally qualified party). According to the 1946 decree, however, any proprietor, hence also an individual not in possession of a title of ownership, qualified to file a restitution claim taking advantage of the fast-track proceedings.

The decree of 1946 specified the deadline for restitution claims filed with municipal courts. After a twofold extension, the deadline finally lapsed on 31 December 1948. Afterwards, persons filing for restitution claims could do so only via ordinary civil procedures. The remaining regulations of the decree of 1946 did not differ in any meaningful way from those contained in the legal acts of 1945.

It may also be considered noteworthy that the decree of 1946 shortened by half the time period following which an abandoned property came under the official ownership of the state. According to Article 34, Section 1, this period was 10 years in the case of real estate, and five years in the case of mobile property. In both cases, the period was calculated from the end of 1945. By contrast with the legal acts of 1945, the decree of 1946 introduced legal fees for those claiming restitution and appealing unfavorable rulings (Article 28, Section 1 of the decree). The amount was to constitute 1/10 of the proportional fee (wpis stosunkowy) calculated on the basis of the value of the property in question.

The provisions contained in all three were essentially identical. Thus, the general legal doctrine developed as a result of the decree of 1946 was also applicable to the two acts of 1945.

A comparison of the legal regulations pertaining to abandoned properties with legislation regarding “land reform” and the expropriation of industry reveals unequal treatment and the conferring of a privileged position to the owners of abandoned properties in relation to the owners of landed estates [almost all of these were ethnic Poles – ed. note] , businesses, and other goods confiscated in the name of the “law” by the Communist state. Individuals in the latter category were required to vacate their properties within a three-day period. Moreover, they were forbidden to live in their previous county of residence. It is difficult to resist the impression that the reason begin the privileged status granted to the former category may be attributed to the fact that many of the abandoned properties belonged formerly to Polish citizens of Jewish descent. The regulations pertaining to these properties enabled such persons, or their legal representatives, to sell them immediately following revendication. Such cases (the selling of reclaimed properties) were not uncommon, and pertained mainly to property regained by Jews, who were leaving Poland en masse after 1945. Tatzref (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Weinbaum is reliably published, and the factoid you're quoting from Bauer (1984) doesn't disagree with him - 15,000 (mostly temporary) returnees is a very small fraction here. As for Leopolis Press - this is a WP:SPS, and the particular work you are referring to has received very negative attention - it is notorious (which is why it was covered at all) - for claiming that a large portion of modern scholars in the field, all in very prestigious institutions, are "neo stalinists" - see [4], [5], and there are a number of others. This paperback response to Jan Gross's Golden Harvest (Gross's work being cited and used in an academic context) - is not cited by academic works. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Either 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from DP camps, as Bauer and other historians (Glikson, Dobroszycki) state, or they were blocked from returning as Weinbaum claims. You can't have it both ways. Moreover, Jews continued to return to Poland from DP camps in 1947 - 1,500 according to Józef Adelson, "W Polsce zwanej ludową," in Najnowsze dzieje Żydów w Polsce: w zarysie (do 1950 roku), ed. Jerzy Tomaszewski and Józef Adelson (Warsaw: Wydawn. Naukowe PWN, 1993), p. 419. Weinbaum gave no source for his information, nor did you come up with anything to support it. It's not worth much compared to the sources I cited. Moreover, the fact most Jews didn't remain in Poland changes nothing. They could have made restitution claims before they left or in Germany, where Jewish organizations and lawyers set up a booming business. The academics and professional historians who published articles in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?, among them Piotr Gontarczyk, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Peter Stachura, John Radzilowski, Waldemar Chrostowski, have all published scholarly works that are widely cited. Jan Gross's Golden Harvest was also severely criticized by prominent historians such as Pawel Machcewicz and Bozena Szaynok, and Gross even falsely described the photograph on the dust cover showed Polish diggers searching for gold. So maybe Gross's book should not be relied on either. Moreover, Gorczycka-Muszynska's treatment of the actual law on abandoned property is not inconsistent with Cichopek-Gajraj's, just a lot clearer and more concise. In comparison with both of these authors, Weinbaum's effort is amateurish and contains blatant misreps.Tatzref (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz wrote:

The "grossly discrimanatory" Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&dq=poland+blocked+"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNqsvnhO3hAhWjAmMBHbQRBPI4FBDoATADegQIARAS though sources do place an emphasis on Jews fleeing for their lives to pogroms and other violence in Poland. There is no conflict between Polish authorities blocking returnees from DP camps - and a very small number, at specific intervals, returning. As stated by multiple sources making a restitution claim (which resulted in a notice, but not actual return of property) - and the subsequent much more ardous eviction proceedings against the Polish invaders - was close to impossible outside of Poland. Weinbaum is published by a reputable publisher, so is Gross. Both are cited by academic works, and cite their sources. As for Hearts of Gold - it seems reputable publishers refused to publish it and that the author/editor published it, in soft cover, by himself. The sole attention it received, it seems, is due to the outlandish claim that most of the leading scholars in the field in the US are "Stalinists". The author/editor of this WP:SPS being covered by the SPLC is a major red flag as well.2009 2017

Icewhiz, is this some sort of pathetic hoax or merely more flagrant misrepresentation? The text in the link has nothing to do with any “‘grossly discrimanatory’ (sic) Polish act [that] was criticized by US president Truman.” The text states:

Here are some of the most flagrantly discriminatory provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 which need correction:

1. The Act defines a displaced person as one who was in DP camps of Germany, Austria, and Italy on or before December 22, 1945. This date eliminates Poles, Czechs, almost all the Jews and others who fled into the camps during 1946 and 1947 and is, therefore, grossly discriminatory.

As per the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displaced_Persons_Act) “Truman had many objections to specific details … which he made explicit in his “Statement On Signing the Displaced Persons Act of 1948”: Truman, Harry S. (June 25, 1948). "Statement by the President Upon Signing the Displaced Persons Act - June 25, 1948". Internet Archive. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service. pp. 382–384:

https://archive.org/details/4728453.1948.001.umich.edu/page/382

You keep saying that Weinbaum cites his sources but you can’t seem to provide any source for the claim that Poland blocked the return of Jews from DP camps. So not only is there no evidence to support Weinbaum’s claim, which is contradicted by several Holocaust historians, but here’s an attempt to grossly misrepresent a text in order to bolster a bogus claim. This is highly disconcerting and discrediting.

Nor have you provided any source -- backed by actual data -- to support the claim that it was “close to impossible” to make restitution claims outside Poland. Moreover, persons making such claims didn’t want or seek possession of the property – they wanted to sell the property. Alina Skibinska of the Polish Holocaust Research Center, who has carried out in-depth research as to how the restitution process functioned, is quite clear about her conclusions as to the fate of real property owned by Jews in 1939: “there were about 210 such real estates in Szczebrzeszyn (excluding those belonging to the Jewish community) … at least one-third of them were returned to the owners, their heirs or other persons [i.e., Jews] holding themselves out as such by the year 1950. All these properties (with a few exceptions) were sold to Poles in a very short time, very often to the same ones who already occupied them.” Skibinska also refers to the booming restitution business outside Poland (p. 530-531). It was carried out in many countries, by many organizations, and involved applications made by law firms. In Israel, Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. alone submitted 1,821 claims for restitution by way of 37 batches up to July 4, 1948. It goes without saying that they would not have kept submitting claims if it was “close to impossible” for them to succeed. Skibinska also points out that her in-depth research confirms what other historians have found. “The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of ‘abandoned property’ seems typical,” she writes. “This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski.” No cogent evidence has been produced by you to put in question these factually based conclusions.

Leopolis Press, which published the English translation of Hearts of Gold, is associated with the Kosciuszko Chair at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC. Given that one of the book’s editors, Chodakiewicz, is the holder of that chair, there is nothing amiss in the book being published there, rather than elsewhere. So your derogatory remark, “it seems reputable publishers refused to publish it,” while typical, is also a misrep. Moreover, no one in that book claimed that most of the leading scholars in the field in the US are “Stalinists” – yet another misrep. John Radzilowski, Associate Professor of History at the University of Alaska, wrote an article titled “The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States.” Radzilowski’s credentials are impressive (http://www.uas.alaska.edu/dir/jtradzilowski.html). The degree of desperation to discredit Chodakiewicz is apparent by having to resort to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization. Niall Fergusson called it a “phoney civil rights organisation.” Mark Thiessen wrote an article in the Washington Post aptly titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a9889d037724).

Furthermore, SPLC has no historical credentials, so its views regarding a historian’s writings are worth zero. Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne that is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010). So enough of these insinuations that are brought up again and again, as if they haven’t been addressed and discredited. They are a useless distraction and don’t in any way undermine the merit of Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article about postwar Polish legislation on abandoned properties.Tatzref (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I was incorrect on the act, struck. Leopolis is a self publication - it has published very few items and is run by Chodakiewicz himself. The SPLC is considered a RS on Wikipedia for white supramacism and other such activites in the US.Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with https://kosciuszkochair.com/leopolis-press/ associated with the The Institute of World Politics. I guess you could take it to WP:RSN for more comments, but right now I think it's a reliable source that can be cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ONUS on those that want to use this. Leopolis press, which is run by the kosciuszko Chair in IWP, the chair also being the author of the book - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press."[6] - is by definition WP:SPS. With the publisher/author in question -being profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center - [7][8] - and has according to the SPLC "a long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism" - this is a highly inappropriate source which runs counter to V/NPOV/FRINGE. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous; you are saying that if an academic also has ties to University of Foo than if he publishes in Foo University Press it's SPS? And it doesn't matter that an NGO criticizes a scholar, he is still a reliable (if biased) scholar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Leopolis doesn't have the standing of a University press. It isn't even backed by IWP - it is backed by a single person - Chodakiewicz - who is designated by the SPLC. The Institute of World Politics itself (not that this is relevant, since Chodakiewicz is the publisher (and editor, and first named author)) is not a research institution - it is a very small teaching college offering a small number of M.A. programs. It is a "boutique graduate school for wannabe spies and national security nerds in Washington, D.C"[9] - and I'll expand - a large chunk of the very small student body (around 150) are CIA spooks (and the odd State dept. cultural attache who is not a spook - such unicorns do exist) who are back in the states on a desk job (and are studying concurrent to their stateside assignment) - the institute has a highly eclectic group of instructors who speak many European languages, some of whom represent various strains as nationalism (as, somewhat ironically, far-right nationalist elements in target countries are often exploited as intelligence assets). Another instructor employed there is - Sebastian Gorka (known for his support of Magyar Gárda in Hungary) - whose thesis adviser said "I would not call him an expert on terrorism".[10] Even if this were a IWP backed publisher there would be issues (as this isn't an institution known for its academic research or publications) - but here we are discussing a single SPLC designated individual who is the publisher. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And all it boils down to is that it's a minor scholarly outlet. But to me it still seems scholarly. I suggest WP:RSN if you want to get a community consensus on removing this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this recent change,[11] as it relies on a self-published work by an author/editor/publisher covered in WP:RSes for writing nationalist tracts that contain "prejudicial views towards Jews and other minorities", and who has been extensively covered by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I will further note that other sources (e.g. Stola in Martin Dean's book) were used in a highly selective fashion (Stola covering in the same page the anti-Jewish purpose of the 1945/6 decrees), or misrepresented (e.g. Klucze i kasa, which we shouldn't be using per NOENG, page 605 doesn't quite support the content attributed to it - and further notes that most Jewish moveable property remained in Polish hands, criminal gangs illegally taking over Jewish property, and that the post-war process was the last stage of the process that started under German occupation - and met by approval by Poles who became owners), and misused primary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As noted previously, I do not concur that primary source is used inappropriately, nor that Chodawkiewicz is non-RS. Since no other user commented on those issues outside you, me, and Tatzref, it seems clear that majority of views are in favor if using those sources. Again, as I said above, you can ask for more input at RSN re Leopold Press, and if you have issues with the primary source from 1946 I guess we could do an RfC for it. I do agree that the sentence from KiK (605) is not worded properly, so I tagged it with clarification note before your revert. I am also ok with its temporary removal, until quotations are presented here to support it. The sentence in question is: "According to several historians[who?] who examined court records, “relatively many” Jews successfully reclaimed “a large number of properties” throughout Poland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ARCA rejected a blanket ban - which is beyond WP:NOENG. NOENG is English Wikipedia policy - preferring English language sources. Using a self-published source by a fringe author is a definite no-go. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I will note that besides review articles (which are equivalent to opinion - which were decidedly negative in English journal), "Hearts of Gold" was the subject of a full fledged journal article in peer reviewed setting. Grzegorz Krzywiec notes in his journal article that "This collection is more like the material for a seminar of linguists or even scholars of rhetoric and propaganda. The book will not be good nourishment for readers interested in the Holocaust and its third phase". "There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the

modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre, which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.. Would care to elaborate on the academic background of Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska? The journal article has little to say on her other than "It seems that it is not a coincidence that Gorczycka-Muszyńska has the same surname as another author and editor of the collection. and notes that she "does spare the reader her relections on the communists of Jewish descent (“żydokomuna”) aside from a cleverly chosen part of a testimony of a “Jew from Lublin.” Obviously nothing tastes as good as a quotation of a real Jew in a parable with an anti-Semitic tag line!" - what pray tell are Gorczycka-Muszyńska (the sole thing I found about her in an academic setting, is Krzywiec journal article quote above) credentials here? Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I cannot get an access to this article. Would you be so kind and email me a copy? I would like to use it as a source for the relevant paragraph in his bio. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Krzywiec has ethical problems. No serious source? http://kompromitacje.blogspot.com/2012/09/grzegorz-krzywiec-o-romanie-dmowskim.html Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Chod. is not an RS, and less so as an SPS. As for this law, I have a confession: I have never heard of it prior to it being raised on Wiki. I've talked with a lot of survivors over the years (and heard or read the stories of many more), including some who stayed in Poland after the war, and none ever mentioned it as far as I can recall. This is not a representative sample, I'm sure, but I can't help but think that if there was such an effort by the Polish government it was short lived and poorly published. Reparations were well known and hotly debated; this? Nothing. François Robere (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Millions lost their properties after the war. Division of big farms (reforma rolan) and nationalisation, Bierut's decree in Warsaw, lost Eastern Poland. Owner's of houses had to accept destructive tenants. Now you come and say - hello the Poles, you robbed us. The Communists robbed everyone and constructed thousands of tanks to kill people of the West. Americans obtained compensations. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20384/volume-384-I-5518-English.pdf The majority of Polish people lost their economies as the result of money exchange 1950 and 1980-1995 inflation. Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We're not here to rehash Polish post-war agreements. If you claim this law, which I never heard of, was an exceedingly generous and considerate arrangement, you'd better have more than just one SPS source by Chodawkiewicz. Dropping the superlatives would also leave you with a much stronger argument, putting Poland's Jews in line with everyone else who lost their possessions. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss the problem of generposity with those editors, who claim it. My family lost everything during the war. Our house in Belarus was plundered by Polish neighbours. It's the real world of Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, as a compromise I propose we attribute any problematic sources. As for Chodakiewicz, isn't he just an editor for of this book? So we should figure out who wrote the chapter(s) being cited here. It could be someone more - or less - reliable, opening a new issue :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

I restored the WP:STABLE version here, please do not revert prior to establishing consensus. Use of a fringe work, edited and self-published by a far-right activist[12] - described as "farcical" in an academic journal article covering the controversy over its release, its contents (described as collection of polemic essays, not history) thoroughly roasted ([13][14][15]) by the few academics who bothered to respond to this (possibly due to the extremeness of the thesis, presented in a whole chapter: "The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. ... Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246)"). The particular author of the essay cited in the removed segment seems to have no academic credentials other than "it seems that it is not a coincidence that Gorczycka-Muszyńska has the same surname as another author and editor of the collection", also noting "does spare the reader her relections on the communists of Jewish descent (“żydokomuna”) aside from a cleverly chosen part of a testimony of a “Jew from Lublin.” Obviously nothing tastes as good as a quotation of a real Jew in a parable with an anti-Semitic tag line!".[16] This far right collection of polemic essays is clearly not an appropriate source. Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not actually the stable version and anyway, WP:STABLE is not a policy, it is most certainly not an excuse for edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Also - per WP:NOENG - we shouldn't be using non-English sources here at all as equal or better English language sources are available. Furthermore, in a spot check of Klucze i kasa - page 605 doesn't quite support the content attributed to it - and further notes that most Jewish moveable property remained in Polish hands, criminal gangs illegally taking over Jewish property, and that the post-war process was the last stage of the process that started under German occupation - and met by approval by Poles who became owner. Per NOENG - Please provide quotation (entire paragraph please, for context) + translations of every Klucze i kasa passage you want to discuss using. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For the millionth time, stop misrepresenting WP:NOENG. You even brought this to ArbCom and were basically told your claims about it were nonsense. One'd figure that'd be enough to put that to rest, but apparently not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked for a soircing restriction - beyond NOENG. NOENG itself remains policy and is quote clear in regards to preferring English sources amd request for quotation.Icewhiz (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT^8 Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already tagged some refs for verification, not sure it was provided. Please bring to talk before adding! François Robere (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The review you mention ([17]) discusses cherry picking, and it seems that this is the case here. The reviewers point out errors and bias in the book, but also that it contains good parts. Ex. [18]: "In writing this admittedly harsh review, I have worked to note what is valuable in the book.". The review at [19] seems neutral and does not make any value judgement about the book. Neither of those two seems to contain the word 'farcical' you 'quote'. Who called the book such? In either case, the book is a collection of the essays. Some are better, some are worse. You seem to repeat ad nauseum the controversial claim the book makes about some scholars being neo-Stalinist, but this claim is only from one of the book essays, and I don't think we even cite this essay here, so your criticism is a straw man fallacy. Since you say that the page 605 of Klucze... does not support the content given, I will not restore it, pending User:Tatzref response (and I note I have already agreed above that that sentence is problematic). I see no reason to remove other contents, and your repeated attacks on professor Chodawkiewicz might warrant a reminder about WP:BLP. PS. I will also note that some of the content you've removed had unchallenged quotations provided above, ex. the statistics for Szczebrzeszyn. I would like to see quotations for Zamość and Parczew, if possible. I think that the estimate that about (only?) 1/3 of the Jewish properties was reclaimed following the war is likely a correct, if rough, estimate, and a valuable summary for this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No consensus to include material published by a far right activist. Please stop edit warring and stick to the WP:STABLE] version. Micro statistics of property claims (many of which were fraud - not returning to the owners - per multiple sources) are UNDUE. Finally, please do not restore non-English sources without providing clear quotes and translations per NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus in sources that this professor is a far right activist. If you persist in calling him this left and right, this is something that BLP reviewers will have to be contacted about. And quotes and translations are recommended but NOT REQUIRED, so you don't get to remove sources that fail it unless they are clear red flags, and this is not the case here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SPLC and Newsweek, use far right. These are RSes. NOENG states editors may request quotation - which I have - please provide them. Finally, introducing extremist sources - the particular cited essay being by an author without academic qualifications and a review noting it contains an antisemitic motif - is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not citing that "particular essay". But anyway, who describes it as extremist? You may not like something (I am not a fan of their arguments, neither), but not liking something doesn't mean we get to censor it from Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The essay we are citing is described as containing an antisemitic motif in an academic journal article (not a short review). The author of the essay has no academic qualifications in the fields. The journal article does note a family relationship to one of the co-editors. The publisher (and editor, and author) is a far right activist, profiled by the SPLC. So far - other than stating this exists - you have brought no justification for the use of this essay (which runs counter to multiple published (by a publisher with a positive reputation), acadmic sources).Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Some recent edits:

• [20] CUP is "mainstream", but Chod. isn't. The very name of the book ("Polish-Jewish Conflict") is rather telling regarding its position, and Polonsky's review of the book, which I added earlier today to his respective article (regardless of your edit),[21] corroborates one's suspicion that it's far from "mainstream", or even acceptable.
• [22] Trying to look for the source of the quote in that Ph.D thesis; note that it was quoted by an RS, so it shouldn't be that problematic. There is, however, another quote there, that we can use without objection as it's sourced to Dobroszycki: "As the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945: ‘We will not permit some foreign Jews, for instance Argentinian Jews, to inherit property in Poland.’" I still object the use of Chod's SPS. The second par. is mostly cruft, and with all honesty I don't trust the estimate of "1/3 of all properties" - that would suggest hundreds of thousands of properties, and given that nobody I ever talked with ever mentioned it (stories of lost property, however, abound), nor is it mentioned in high-profile sources, I find it hard to believe.
• [23] "Suggests" and "effectively means" are not the same. Go with the source.
• [24] This is actually an interesting issue. Not at the core of our disagreements here, but I think worth covering in a wider context as it didn't affect only Holocaust survivors and their kin.

François Robere (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no phd thesis that was used. Weizman is published (in English) in a peer reviewed journal. One of his many sources was a phd thesis - however secondary sources routinely gather sources and vet them. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a consensus for this version of the section on section on Jewish property. Sourcing is not reliable & the content looks cherry-picked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So you seriously think that the version that cites a PhD thesis, unverifiable quote accusing Polish government of calling Jews parasites and making laws based on that attitude is neutral and not-cherry picked? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It does not contain a phd thesis - it contains a peer reviewed journal article that cites (one of a multitude of sources - 87 references) a phd thesis. We have a WP:STABLE version - please cease edit warring until we form a consensus here.Icewhiz (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will address the various points raised in detail shortly. For now I want to make it clear that Icewhiz's text is by no means a "stable version", which is defined by Wikipedia as: "The term "stable version" is a concept that refers to the most recent version of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war." Icewhiz introduced his text on March 12, 2019 after reverting my text of February 22, 2019, which was restored by others in the interim. There is no consensus for his text. Holding it out as a "stable version" is a misrep. Here's the sequence:

16:37, 22 February 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 218,162 bytes +3,071‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: added information on property restitution

06:23, 23 February 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 215,273 bytes -3,071‎ Undid revision 884586715 by Tatzref (talk) OR, misrepresentation of sources

15:34, 23 February 2019‎ Piotrus talk contribs‎ 218,184 bytes +3,093‎ Undid revision 884674904 by Icewhiz (talk) I don't see any red flags in this, please explain on talk what is this OR and misrepresentation of sources here?

15:40, 23 February 2019‎ Piotrus talk contribs‎ 217,467 bytes -695‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: this seems not particularly relevant, and could have neutrality/undue problems, also difficult to verify due to convoluted and offline (?) reference

01:59, 24 February 2019‎ יניב הורון talk contribs‎ 215,091 bytes -2,376‎ rv antisemitic vandalism

06:36, 24 February 2019‎ Volunteer Marek talk contribs‎ 217,467 bytes +2,376‎ please refrain from using false and offensive edit summaries

07:03, 24 February 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 215,091 bytes -2,376‎ Undid revision 884821883 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Use of 1947 primary source not acceptable. Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa (37 cited pages) - reading the book in question leads to a different conclusion.

13:55, 24 February 2019‎ Galassi talk contribs‎ 217,467 bytes +2,376‎ Reverted good faith edits by Icewhiz (talk): Meets all the WP:RS criteria (TW)

22:49, 25 February 2019‎ TonyBallioni talk contribs‎ m 217,467 bytes 0‎ Protected "History of the Jews in Poland": Edit warring / content dispute: AE action ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)))Tag: PHP7

12:23, 12 March 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 219,143 bytes +1,651‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online.

Tatzref (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

12 March is stable - and if not - we should return prior to Feb. Tatzref, per NOENG, please provide a quotation (entire parahraphs please) that supports "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives; the others were passed to new owners. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” case of a small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of the properties were very quickly sold to Poles..Icewhiz (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Icewhiz, I already provided the relevant text from Klucze i kasa (p. 562-563), so don't keep asking for the same thing over and over again -- look for it here instead of simply wiping out my edits under false pretenses. Besides, that's not my text. My text [04:32, 7 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ m 220,749 bytes +12‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property & 04:28, 7 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 220,737 bytes +1,343‎ →‎Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property] is set out below:

Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures. Until abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures. Pursuant to the decrees of May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, applications had to be heard by municipal courts within 21 days and ruled on within 6 weeks. Many claims were processed successfully the day they were filed. Needy claimants could obtain exemptions from court and legal fees; financial and legal assistance was provided by various Jewish organizations. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Although municipal court rulings did not confer immediate ownership on someone who was not a dispossessed owner, successful claimants were able to sell the properties immediately following revendication. Many properties were also transferred or sold by Jewish owners outside this process. Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union who settled in territories acquired from Germany received material compensation on the same basis as Poles who had lost their property in Eastern Poland.

According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” Numerous Jewish organizations and law firms outside of Poland submitted applications on behalf of non-residents. For example, Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. submitted 1,821 restitution claims by July 4, 1948. According to several historians who examined court records, “relatively many” Jews successfully reclaimed “a large number of properties” throughout Poland. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” case of a small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of the properties were very quickly sold to Poles. The following examples also pertain to county towns in the Lublin Province: 281 applications were submitted in Zamość, 240 in Włodawa, some involving multiple properties, and 301 out of 894 former Jewish properties in Parczew were recovered by 1946.

This is my next post (more to come) dealing with the following book -- published by the Polish Holocaust Center in Warsaw, with which Jan Grabowski is affiliated -- referred to in support of 4 statements in my purged text: Klucze i kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, ed. by Jan Grabowski & Dariusz Libionka (Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, Warszawa 2014). The relevant authors are: Alina Skibińska, “Problemy rewindykacji żydowskich nieruchomości w latach 1944–1950: Zagadnienia ogólne i szczegółowe (na przykładzie Szczebrzeszyna),” p. 493-573 & Łukasz Krzyżanowski, “‘Chcielibyśmy, by ten dom nie pozostał w obcych rękach’: Sądowa restytucja prywatnego mienia żydowskiego w Polsce na przykładzie Radomia i Kalisza 1945–1948,” p. 575-607.

1. Many claims were processed successfully the day they were filed.

Regarding the functioning of the court process Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 568-569): “Oceniając więc postawę obu sędziów Sądu Grodzkiego w Szczebrzeszynie, należy brać pod uwagę nie tylko wyroki przez nich wydawane, a te były w zdecydowanej większości pozytywne dla wnioskodawców, lecz także tempo, w jakim sprawy rozpatrywali. Wielokrotnie data rozprawy wyznaczana była na ten sam dzień, w którym wniosek wpłynął, lub na termin bardzo nieodległy, co świadczy o przychylności tych sędziów, nie utrudniali bowiem proceduralnie spraw majątkowych. Wyroki zapadły z reguły jeszcze w dniu roprawy, uprawomocniały się po kilku tygodniach lub miesiącach. Obaj sędziowie brdzo często przymykali oko na nieścisłosci lub drobniejsze sprzeczności dowodowe, nie można w ich decyzjach dopatrywać się złej woli.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “In assessing the attitude of both Judges of the Grodzki [municipal] Court in Szczebrzeszyn, one should take into account not only the judgments passed by them, and these were mostly positive for the applicants, but also the pace at which they were considered. Repeatedly, the date of the hearing was set on the same day as the application, or on a very short date, which proves the favorable disposition of these judges, because they did not obstruct property matters in a procedural way. The verdicts were usually passed on the day the case was heard, they became legalized after a few weeks or months. Both judges very often turned a blind eye to inaccuracies or minor contradictions of evidence, one cannot see bad faith in their decisions.”

2. Numerous Jewish organizations and law firms outside of Poland submitted applications on behalf of non-residents. For example, Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. submitted 1,821 restitution claims by July 4, 1948.

Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 530-531): “W zachowanej dokumentacji wynika, że niektóre organizacje, poszczególne biura prawne i adwokaci wyspecjalizowali się w sprawach o rewindykację mienia. Na przykład w Izraelu organizacja Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. miała Wydział Majątków Żydowskich w Diasporze, kierowany przez P.J. Jacobiego. W piśmie z 4 lipca 1948 r. do polskiej centrali KKL w Łodzi (Fundusz miał oddziały w większych miastach) informowano o przesłaniu trzydziestego ósmego już wykazu wniosków skierowanych do sądów w Polsce, ogółem wszystkich pozycji we wnioskach było 1821. Podobnymi sprawami zajmowały się wydziały prawne innych organizacji, np. Central Committee of Liberated Jews in the British Zone (Centralny Komitet Uwolnionych Żydów w Stefie [sic] Brytyjskiej), Federation of Jews from Poland in the U.S. Occupation Zone w Monachium (Federacja Żydów Polskich w Amerykańskiej Strefie Okupacyjnej), South African Jewish Board of Deputies w Johannesburgu (Żydowski Związek Deputowanych w Afryce Południowej), World Jewish Congress z siedzibą w Nowym Jorku, Association of Formerly Interned Jews in Italy (Stowarzyszenie Żydów wcześniej internowanych we Włoszech), Federacion de Los Israelitas Polacos en El Uruguay (Federacja Żydów Polskich w Urugwaju), Mosaiska Församlingen (Gmina Żydowska) w Sztokholmie i wiele innych, aczkolwiek nie posiadały one oddziałów w Polsce i nie prowadziły w Polsce spraw sądowych w imieniu swoich klientów. Listy w imieniu Żydów polskich w sprwach o restytucję mienia pozostawionego w Polsce napływały więc do CKŻP [Centralnego Komitetu Żydów w Polsce] z całego świat (Chin i Indii nie wykluczając), zarówno od osób indywidualnych, jak i organizacji reprezentujących skupiska polskich Żydów za granicą – niektóre bardzo liczne, jak te w zachodnich strefach okupacyjnych Niemiec czy w Izraelu.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The preserved documentation shows that some organizations, particular legal offices and lawyers specialized in cases regarding property restitution. For example, in Israel, the Keren Kajemet Le-Israel Ltd. organization had a Jewish Diaspora Department, headed by P.J. Jacobi. In a letter dated July 4, 1948, to the Polish headquarters of the KKL in Łódź (the Fund had branches in major cities), it informed about their sending of the thirty-eighth list of applications addressed to courts in Poland; the total of all items in the applications was 1821. Similar matters were dealt with by legal departments of other organizations, such as the Central Committee of Liberated Jews in the British Zone, the Federation of Jews from Poland in the US Occupation Zone in Munich (Federation of Polish Jews in the American Occupation Zone), South African Jewish Board of Deputies in Johannesburg (Jewish Association of Deputies in South Africa), World Jewish Congress based in New York, Association of Formerly Interned Jews in Italy (Association of Jews formerly internees in Italy), Federacion de Los Israelitas Polacos en El Uruguay (Federation of Polish Jews in Uruguay), Mosaiska Församlingen (Jewish Community) in Stockholm and many others, although they did not have branches in Poland and did not conduct court cases in Poland on behalf of their clients. Letters on behalf of Polish Jews in claims for the restitution of property left in Poland came to the CKŻP [Central Committee of Jews in Poland] from all over the world (including China and India), both from individuals and organizations representing clusters of Polish Jews abroad - some very numerous, as in the western occupation zones of Germany or in Israel.”

3. According to several historians who examined court records, “relatively many” Jews successfully reclaimed “a large number of properties” throughout Poland.

Regarding case studies carried out by historians for other towns Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 571): “Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów “mienia opuszczonego” wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika, Łukasza Krzyżanowskiego, Adama Kopciowskiego. Ten ostatni zauważa, a jego wniosek potwierdzają również moje badania, “że choć odzyskiwanie utraconego w czasie wojny mienia wiązało się z ogromnym ryzykiem, stosunkowo wielu Żydom udało się je odzyskać.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, “that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it.”

Łukasz Krzyżanowski wrote (at p. 605): “Zakończenie. Nie sposób określić całkowitej liczby przypadków odzyskania mienia prywatnego przez Żydow tuż po drugiej wojnie światowej w Radomiu i Kaliszu. Na podstawie akt sądowych z obu miast można wnioskować, iż posiadanie, nie własność, stosunkowo dużej liczby nieruchomości zostało przywrócone ocalałym z Zagłady, którzy powrócili do miejsc swego pochodzenia.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “Conclusion. It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of private property recovered by Jews in Radom and Kalisz shortly after the Second World War. On the basis of judicial files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin.”

4. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” case of a small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of the properties were very quickly sold to Poles.

Alina Skibińska wrote (at p. 562-563): “Scalenie dostępnych w materiałach archiwalnych informacji o nieruchomości należących przed wojną do Żydow prowadzi do wniosku, że było takich nieruchomości w Szczebrzeszynie ok. 210 (z wyłączeniem należących do gminy). Wszystkie te liczby świadczą o tym, że przynajmniej jedna trzecia spośród nich została właścicielom, ich spadkobiercom lub innym osobom za takowe się podającym do roku 1950 zwrócona. Wszystkie te nieruchomości (z kilkoma wyjątkami) w bardzo krótkim czasie sprzedano Polakom, bardzo często tym samym, którzy już je zajmowali.”

GOOGLE TRANSLATION (with adjustments): “The merger of information about real estate owned by the Jews before the war in the archives leads to the conclusion that there were about 210 real estates in Szczebrzeszyn (excluding those belonging to the commune). All these figures indicate that at least one-third of them became [were returned to] owners, their heirs or other persons holding themselves out as such by 1950. All these properties (with a few exceptions) were sold to the Poles in a very short time, very often to the same ones who already occupied them.”

Therefore, it is clear that what I wrote is accurate and fully supported by the sources I provided. Icewhiz’s repeated claims of “Gross misrepresentation of Klucze i kasa,” “misrepresentation of sources,” etc. are themselves a misrepresentation, as is his claim that his edit represents “Restore WP:STABLE version.” Icewhiz has also been caught in an egregious misrepresentation of sources in this very article, claiming that the following linked source supported Weinbaum’s claim that the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from Germany -- Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC): “The "grossly discrimanatory" Polish act was criticized by US president Truman,"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&dq=poland+blocked+"displaced+person"+camps+Germany+Jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNqsvnhO3hAhWjAmMBHbQRBPI4FBDoATADegQIARAS.” As I pointed, that text says no such thing. President Truman was criticizing certain provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948.

Before moving on to the next source (in the next post), the reports of Jewish organizations who were submitting restitution claims at the time and monitoring their outcome fully support what I wrote about the above sources. The American Jewish Year Book, a highly reliable source published and authored by academics, reported, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” ”https://www.jstor.org/stable/i23603328

Tatzref (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Apologies if I misread you, but this seems absurd to the point of dishonest:

1. The source describes just two judges - yet you generalize it to the entire system?
2. The source talks about "some organizations", which you turn into "numerous organizations"? And how does "the total number of items in the applications" become "the total number of applications"?
3. Cherry picking to the extreme:
   1. Why did you quote the source on "relatively many", but not on "enormous risk"? And what else does the source say about this risk? Presumably it didn't pluck this phrase out of thin air, especially as it claims to verify it independently.
   2. Again false generalization: the source only talks about two cities - why do you quote it for the entire system? And why on earth do you not mention that they didn't actually get ownership of their properties, just possession? It changes the meaning of the entire quote!
4. First off, the source doesn't say anything about Szczebrzeszyn being a "typical case" of anything. Second, the source suggests, most or all of these properties were already occupied - something you chose to omit, presumably as it doesn't serve the narrative that reclamation went quickly and smoothly and everyone got their properties back as easy as they asked for them. Third, despite the fact this is core to the context of the sales and you chose to omit it, you still mentioned the sales. For what purpose?
5. The American Jewish Year Book, other than stating what you quoted above, also makes this note: "Recently, [the Jewish organization] submitted a memorandum to the government asking the restitution of Jewish communal property, which in several towns was used by the non-Jewish population for clubs and recreational centers." I was curious to see what resulted from that effort, so I looked in the following year book and found this: "the unfortunate handling of the problem of the restitution of Jewish property must be noted. In a number of cases when property could have been restored to the owners, local courts ruled in favor of persons who had no right to it... It was reported by local observers that very little collective Jewish property, i.e., property of Jewish communities, schools, foundations, etc., had been returned." If you want to use this source, which you hail as "a highly reliable source published and authored by academics", be my guest.

François Robere (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I came to post the text below (more to follow), and was surprised to see that I'm now at "the point of [being] dishonest."

1. It's not me who is drawing general conclusions from the research, but Skibinska. Based on a pattern of large scale property restitution in a number of towns researched by several historians, she concludes that Szczebrzeszyn, where at least 1/3 of the private properties were returned, appears to be a "typical" case. She wrote: "The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski."

2. "Some organizations" refers to just the first ones mentioned, then there are many more: "some organizations, particular legal offices and lawyers specialized in cases regarding property restitution ... Similar matters were dealt with by legal departments of other organizations...and many others..." Sounds like "numerous" to me. That's what the source says: By July 1948, they had submitted 38 lists of court applications, and the total number of items, i.e., property claims, in these lists amounted to 1821.

3. The article already contains an entire section dealing with immediate postwar violence. Moreover, as the sources show, the court process itself rarely gave rise to violence. The violence sometimes occurred in other contexts, e.g., when someone wanted actual possession of an occupied home. The properties that were recovered via the court process were almost always sold immediately without incident. That was the norm. I also acknowledged this in my text: "Although municipal court rulings did not confer immediate ownership on someone who was not a dispossessed owner, successful claimants were able to sell the properties immediately following revendication."

4. As multiple sources show, the vast majority of claimants, many of them outside Poland, simply wanted to sell the properties after their claim was approved, and this they did. See also the findings of Stanislaw Meducki (below) regarding Kielce.

5. My article does not deal with communal property, but private property that was not subject to nationalization. Yes, there were a number of fraudulent claims, which I had mentioned in a previous version, but that edit was removed by someone. Cichopek-Gajraj refers to this in Beyond Violence (p. 85): At a meeting of the Central Committee of Polish Jews in August 1946: “News travels to Kraków from smaller Jewish communities that Jews started to sell houses which were not theirs… Jews sell houses of those who live abroad.” The American Joint Distribution Committee: “The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the ‘racket’ of some Jews in going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs.” This probably deserves mention, but it'll likely just get removed again.Tatzref (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1. I asked about the judges - how does you or the author generalize from two judges to a national system? And what does a "typical case" mean, exactly? A "typical case" of what?
2. Doesn't sound like it to me. And it is the "total number of items", rather than "the total number of applications".
3. The article does not contain a section on violence towards people filing reclamation requests, and that is what the source claims was the risk, doesn't it? Perhaps it is worth noting? And your phrasing is obtuse and illogical: if it did not "confer ownership" on anyone who wasn't dispossessed, who did it confer ownership to? And how could you sell a property that wasn't yours?
4. "Wanted" is your interpretation. Per your source the process was "enormously risky" (and you contradict yourself by claiming the violence was directed at returnees, yet that many of the applicants were from abroad - ie not returnees), the properties were usually occupied and the claimants rarely got actual ownership of the properties - all huge difficulties in realizing one's legal rights, which you choose to ignore in favor of a simplistic "[they] simply wanted to sell... that was the norm"? Whose narrative that this simplistic explanation serve?
5. You quoted AJYB; AJYB clearly states that the process was flawed, that in some cases courts ruled wrongly, and that no communal property was returned. Seeing this, instead of replying to the point on the conduct or misconduct of the Polish system, you raise the spectre of Jews cheating? Whose narrative does this serve?

François Robere (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Just highlighting this unfinished thread ⬆. François Robere (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Before moving on to the next source (Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold), I wanted to point out once again why my text on the outcome of private property claims is demonstrably superior to Icewhiz’s.

1. It relies on the latest scholarly research by reputable, professional historians.

2. Eight historians--Krzysztof Urbański (Kielce), Grzegorz Miernik (Szydłowiec), Stanisław Meducki (Kielce), Adam Kopciowski (Zamość, Włodawa), Sebastian Piątkowski (Radom), Mariusz Bechta (Parczew), Alina Skibińska (Szczebrzeszyn), Łukasz Krzyżanowski (Radom, Kalisz)--carried out in-depth examination of the relevant court records in specific towns and independently arrived at similar conclusions regarding the large extent of property restitution in those towns.

3. Based on this clear pattern (citing the studies of Miernik, Kopciowski, Krzyżanowski as well as her own), Alina Skibińska concluded that her town (Szczebrzeszyn) was "typical," in other words, this is a representative sample. She also pointed out that these were minimum numbers of recovered properties, as the court records were incomplete. Moreover, as noted in other sources, many properties were sold or transferred outside the municipal court restitution process.

4. Skibińska goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favourably dealt with; the pace was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon after; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies the applications.

5. Similar conclusions were drawn by other historians, who note that the vast majority of claims were processed without incident. Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.” See Z kroniki utraconego sąsiedztwa: Kielce, wrzesień 2000/From the Chronicle of the Lost Neighborhood: Kielce, September 2000, ed. by Marta Pawlina-Meducka (Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Kielce 2001), p. 202 (bilingual edition, English text cited).

6. This research both confirms and is further supported by what Jewish organizations reported at the time. According to The American Jewish Year Book (1947-1948), which was published and authored by academics, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”

7. Michael Meng’s claim that the number of recovered properties was “extremely small” (Shattered Spaces) is based on no research of his own, nor does he cite any sources in support. As such, it carries no weight. Since it conflicts with the findings of many other historians, it should not be cited at all, or if it is, it should be pointed out that this is a minority view that is based on sheer conjecture.

8. Similarly Cichopek-Gajraj’s research on the outcome of property restitution (Beyond Violence) is spotty at best, relying most on anecdotes, and her conclusion that only a “small” number of properties was returned is, by her own admission, not based on any “comprehensive statistics.” Moreover, it is in conflict with that of many other historians such as Urbański, Miernik, Meducki, Kopciowski, Piątkowski, whose findings were available long before she published her book in 2014, but which she was apparently unaware of.

Tatzref (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the well rationed analysis. I find it convincing (through I'd attribute “relatively many” to pl:Adam Kopciowski and "typical" to [25]), but few more items need clarification. 1) Quotes for number for outside Szczebrzeszyn, which seem to suggest that about 1/3 of Jewish properties were recovered: "the following examples also pertain to county towns in the Lublin Province: 281 applications were submitted in Zamość, 240 in Włodawa, some involving multiple properties, and 301 out of 894 former Jewish properties in Parczew were recovered by 1946.". 2) Regarding "Many claims were processed successfully the day they were filed" - this seems limited to Szczebrzeszyn, and I don't think we can use it to generalize to the entire Poland 3) "Numerous Jewish organizations and law firms outside of Poland submitted applications on behalf of non-residents." - true, through I don't see how relevant it is to this article (seems too detailed/undue). 4) I find your criticism of Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj interesting. WP:NOENG notes that English sources are preferable if they are equal or better quality that non-English. Logically, if those English sources are then of lower quality, the reverse applies... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The English sources here are of a higher quality (Meng is widely cited - a 2011 work cited 79 times per scholar, published by Harvard UP, Cichopek-Gajraj (2014) is cited 23 times, published by Cambridge UP) - focusing on Poland (and elsewhere) as a whole as opposed to very specific and very small towns (Klucze i kasa which is a collection of micro-histories (very local focus in each study - valuable for very detailed local study, but almost impossible to generalize - findings vary in each chapter), and in Polish, has been cited 7 times to date per google scholar). As for Tatzref's text - "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives" - is a gross misrepresentation. This is a WP:OR generalization (to entire Poland) based on approx. 70 properties in the small town of Szczebrzeszyn (population 5,299 in 2006), and furthermore misrepresents even those 70 properties - the source reads "at least one-third of them became owners, their heirs or other persons.". As made clear in Klucze i kasa - widespread fraud by Polish criminal gangs in receiving these initial decrees (which themselves did not grant actual possession - eviction of tenants was nearly impossible - so the typical result was a sale to the tenants at a very low price) - makes other persons a rather significant omission here. Frankly, this is about as bad as it gets in terms of OR and misrepresenting sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So... now you have a problem with microhistories and historians who generalize from a single locale to the entire country? Funny that you never brought that up when you were edit warring over Grabowski's number of 200,000. There is no misrepresentation or OR here. Stop making shit up. If you think something is being omitted, then maybe we can add it. But other than that the sourcing and the text is as solid as it gets.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If a researcher generalizes - e.g. Grabowski - that is usable. If a microhistory does not generalize - but a Wikipedia editor via a feat of WP:OR (+omitting the significant "other persons" mentioned in the source) - generalizes - that is unacceptable WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We should not generalize ourselves, this can be a WP:SYNTH problem. But if reliable scholars generalize, we can quote them. Klucze... may be a minor and new work on the topic, but it is a perfectly reliable one. Or do you think that scholars like [26] or pl:Adam Kopciowski are unreliable? Are they profiled by the SPLC too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Klucze i kasa is a well regarded source - all be it far too deep in the weeds for this article (very detailed but also very-very local research - findings vary per courthouse (different chapters in the book)), and fairly little cited in relation to English publications (perhaps they'll translate at some point?) .... The text proposed for our article is a blatant misrepresentation of the contents of Klucze i kasa - which honestly notes the widespread fraud ("other persons" mentioned in each such courthouse statistic throughout the book, besides coverage of fraud), and that doesn't anywhere make a generalization that "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives". Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You will notice most of Tatzref's comments above have already been addressed; much of the rest is just "name dropping" without actual quotations, which isn't something we can build on. As for their comment on Cichopek-Gajraj - that's plain false. She does not give "anecdotal evidence", but examples of what she otherwise analyse and synthesize from dozens of secondary and tertiary sources; and on some occasions where she cannot give a convincing estimate or explanation, she doesn't. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Endlessly repeating WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT in response to very detailed and well reasoned explanations is not "addressing". And ffs, their comments are a quotation after quotation after quotation so where in the world do you get "name dropping without actual quotations"??? Stop making shit up. How is it possible to even have a goof faithed discussion on this topic when two parties to the discussion, both on the same side of the issue, sit there and keep on insisting on something which is blatantly false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Marek, my reply to Tatzref from today ([27]), as well as a batch of new sources I left downstairs ([28]) haven't been aswered yet. If you have an argument other than "you just don't like it!!!" feel free to start there. François Robere (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, he already answered you. You replied with something like "It doesn't sound like it to me", which is, like, almost verbatim of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Diff of reply? François Robere (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I came to post my remarks about the book Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold (see below). I'll digress briefly to address some of the "new" points, which are simply a rehash of matters already amply addressed. Icewhiz wrote: "As for Tatzref's text - "Perhaps of a third of pre-war Jewish properties were restored to pre-war owners or relatives" - is a gross misrepresentation." That is not my text, to suggest that it is yet another or a disturbing pattern of misreps on Icewhiz's part. As for "widespread fraud by Polish criminal gangs", I've already set out complaints from Jewish organizations. Interestingly, they all complained of fraud perpetrated by fellow Jews. I even saw one from a Swedish organization to that effect. It would have been virtually impossible for an ethnic Pole to pose as a Jew and reclaim property. The Central Committee of Jews' own members were involved in property scams in Radom. See Łukasz Krzyżanowski, Dom, którego nie było: Powroty ocalałych do powojennego miasta (Wydawnictwo Czarne, Wołowiec: 2016), p. 307. The only large criminal gang that the sources refer to is the Jewish mafia ring that worked closely with Jews from the State Security Office in Białystok, among them Samuel Faber and Eliasz Trokenheim, who were eventually caught and punished. See Krzysztof Persak, “Akta postępowań cywilnych z lat 1947–1949 w sprawach dotyczących zmarłych żydowskich mieszkańców Jedwabnego,” in Wokół Jedwabnego, volume 1, p. 379–387. There used to be information about this in the article but, as I pointed out, it was removed. Wonder why?

The notion that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?: Studies of the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski & Pawel Styrna (Leopolis Press, 2012) is a self-published book is baseless. It’s an English language version of a book that was published by The Facto, a Warsaw publishing house (http://thefacto.pl/), in March 2011 under the title Złote serca, czy złote żniwa?: Studia nad wojennymi losami Polaków i Żydów. The book is a collection of essays by 14 authors, among them professional historians and academics such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (Institute of World Politics), Waledmar Chrostowski (Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University), Piotr Gontarczyk (IPN), Wojciech Muszunski (IPN), John Radzilowski (University of Alaska), Peter Stachura (University of Stirling), Teresa Preker (University of Warsaw). Clearly the authors and publishers are not the same for either the Polish or English language versions, so the book is not self-published. This is all readily verifiable, so suggesting otherwise is a crude ruse. The collection of authors mentioned, their academic and professional credentials, as well as their numerous publications (look them up), all clearly indicate that this book meets the test of reliable source. They are by no means fringe or extremist. The fact that some reviewers have criticized the content is immaterial. A number of historians trashed Timothy Snyder’s books as alleged Holocaust “revisionism.”

Just last year, both Icewhiz and K.e.coffman concocted a similar attempt to discredit a major book, Sowjetische Partisanen, by historian Bogdan Musial, published by a renowned German publishing house and hailed by Yehuda Bauer as “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia Yad Vashem Studies (vol. 38, no. 2). The book was removed from the “Bielski Brothers” article as allegedly “fringe” (!) and “SPS” (self-published sources) (!):

• • 06:16, 28 May 2018‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 20,929 bytes +137‎ Highly questionable fringe SPS.
  • 02:29, 1 June 2018‎ K.e.coffman talk contribs‎ 19,592 bytes -659‎ Pls see Talk:Bielski_partisans#"Further_reading"
  • 07:16, 1 June 2018‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 19,592 bytes -659‎ Undid revision 843878281 by GizzyCatBella (talk) No consensus to include this non-English fringe work

So, with all due respect, not only do they have no credibility in this regard but they are also involved in extreme POV.

The incessant attempts to smeer Chodakiewicz (and others mentioned) as “extremist” and “far right” are both hackneyed and unpersuasive. Invoking Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization, is a pathetic joke. SPLC was sued for falsely claiming that Maajid Nawaz was an extremist, paid US$3.375 million in settlement, and then pulled their list of alleged “extremists.” Niall Fergusson called SPLC a “phoney civil rights organisation.” http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/let-me-give-you-the-real-news-about-hate-crime Mark Thiessen wrote an article in the Washington Post aptly titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a9889d037724).

Furthermore, SPLC has no credentials to pass judgment on historical writing, so its views on Chodakiewicz and his writings are worth zero.

Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph, The Massacre in Jedwabne, is one of very few publications of hundreds on Jedwabne that is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010). If Chodakiewicz’s scholarly publications are good enough for Longerich, they’re clearly good enough for Wikipedia. So enough of these baseless insinuations that are brought up again and again, as if they haven’t been addressed and discredited. They are a useless distraction.

Moreover, these and other baseless insinuations don’t in any way undermine the merit of Barbara Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article on postwar Polish legislation on abandoned properties titled “Whose Tenements? A Legal Analysis of the Status of Former Jewish Property in Light of Postwar Polish Law,” found in found in Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold (at p. 223–231). Gorczycka-Muszynska’s treatment of the legislative framework is not inconsistent with Skibinska’s, Meng’s or Cichopek-Gajraj, it is simply clearer, more accurate, and much more authoritative. Why? Because, as the book notes, she is a retired judge so she is far better placed to discuss Polish legislation than historians. Moreover, referring to her simply as a former judge is much too modest. She was a member of the Warsaw Province Administrative Court who was decorated in 2012 by Poland’s President Bronislaw Komorowski with the Commander’s Cross of the Order of the Rebirth of Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Polonia_Restituta) for her “outstanding services for the administration of justice, for shaping the principles of a democratic state of law and legal culture” (za wybitne zasługi dla wymiaru sprawiedliwości, za kształtowanie zasad demokratycznego państwa prawa i kultury prawnej). https://www.prezydent.pl/archiwum-bronislawa-komorowskiego/aktualnosci/ordery-i-odznaczenia/art,1152,odznaczenia-i-nominacje-sedziowskie.html The ugly innuendos being hurled at her, based on speculation as to whether she’s related to Wojciech Muszynski, are both irrelevant and highly distasteful. They are the lowest for of “smeer” tactics – totally inexcusable.

The allegation that Gorczycka-Muszynska’s article is somehow anti-Semitic because it contains (in a footnote) a quotation from the memoir of Shiye Goldberg, who succeeded in regaining several pieces of real estate in Lublin with the help of Polish witnesses, is bizarre. This spurious charge itself contains racist overtones. Cichopek-Gajraj and Meng’s books contain a proliferation of such anecdotal information.

As Gorczycka-Muszynska notes, the laws on abandoned property did not supersede the regular court inheritance procedure, which remained in place for any heir to access. The problem was that it was cumbersome and expensive. That is why the simplified, expedited and far less expensive laws on abandoned property were introduced on an interim basis, and this was done primarily for the benefit of Holocaust survivors and their close relatives. However, access to that process (limited to spouses, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings) was more restrictive than to the ordinary court process. As Gorczycka-Muszynska also points out, the hardest hit under postwar “land reform” and expropriation of industry were the owners of landed estates, almost all of whom were ethnic Poles, and the owners of large industrial and commercial enterprises. The former got no compensation and were given 3 days to vacate their property. She also pointed out that it was the Communist-run state that was the primary beneficiary of property that was nationalized, both Polish and Jewish, not ordinary Poles.

Interestingly, Alina Skibinska mentions a 1947 memorandum, “Survey of Restitution in Europe,” prepared by the World Jewish Congress, that covers 18 countries. She notes, “Rozwiązania prawne, procedury i okres, w którym obowiązywał uproszczony tryb odzyskiwania mienia, były podobne.” (“The legal solutions, procedures and the period during which the simplified mode of asset recovery was in force were similar.”) The only significant difference was that in Eastern Europe, i.e. the Communist bloc, certain categories of properties were nationalized. (Klucze i kasa, 569-570.)

I will address Laurence Weinbaum’s writings in my next post.Tatzref (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Icewhiz's remarks: "the source reads "at least one-third of them became owners, their heirs or other persons.". As made clear in Klucze i kasa - widespread fraud by Polish criminal gangs in receiving these initial decrees (which themselves did not grant actual possession - eviction of tenants was nearly impossible - so the typical result was a sale to the tenants at a very low price) - makes other persons a rather significant omission here."

Yet another misrep by Icewhiz. Skibinska text does not simply say "other persons", but as I pointed out earlier, “innym osobom za takowe się podającym,” which means "other persons holding themselves out as such." In other words, this refers to Jews posing as Jewish owners or their relatives in order to advance fraudulent claims. Virtually no one wanted to evict occupants, they wanted the court to accept their restitution claim, which, as Skibinska and others points out, allowed them to then sell the property, and this they did in almost every case. Property pries were depressed because of widespread poverty, their poor condition, and the very uncertain status of private property (threat of nationalization). Poles who bought property were taking a gamble. If the Jews believed otherwise, i.e., that you could make money buying these properties, they would be scooping them up themselves.Tatzref (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. You're yet to comment on some of my points above [29]. I've highlighted them for your convenience, and shall refer to them as "the previous thread" henceforth.
2. That is not my text What's your text, then?
3. I've already set out complaints from Jewish organizations Diff?
4. Interestingly, they all complained of fraud perpetrated by fellow Jews Both biased and wrong, as both your comments on the AJYB (#5 in the previous thread) and the sources below show.
5. I even saw one from a Swedish organization to that effect Quote? (@Volunteer Marek: this is what I refer to as "name dropping". Unless it's quoted somewhere in the thread, it doesn't exist.)
6. It would have been virtually impossible for an ethnic Pole to pose as a Jew and reclaim property Why is that?
7. See Łukasz Krzyżanowski, Dom, którego nie było: Powroty ocalałych do powojennego miasta (Wydawnictwo Czarne, Wołowiec: 2016), p. 307 Quote?
8. See Krzysztof Persak, “Akta postępowań cywilnych z lat 1947–1949 w sprawach dotyczących zmarłych żydowskich mieszkańców Jedwabnego,” in Wokół Jedwabnego, volume 1, p. 379–387 Quote?
9. There used to be information about this in the article but, as I pointed out, it was removed. Wonder why? I too wonder. Diff?
10. The notion that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?... is a self-published book is baseless Well, it's edited by Chod. and published by his own publishing house - the definition of WP:SPS.
11. It’s an English language version of a book that was published by The Facto, a Warsaw publishing house Would you characterize The Facto as an academic, journalistic or popular publisher? I reckon it's the latter, which means the book probably never went through independent peer review.
12. The book is a collection of essays by 14 authors I find it curious that so many of our discussions here - in this and related articles - result in the same names popping up: Chodakiewicz, Gontarczyk, Radzilowski, Stachura, Musial (also in German) and Mark Paul - another contributor who you forgot to mentions, but we'll get back to him later - a small cadre of cross-referencing scholars, who - unlike Timothy Snyder - aren't well known or well regarded outside Poland. I've linked the articles, so lay readers can get an idea of their positions (academic and other) on their own.
13. Just last year, both Icewhiz and K.e.coffman concocted a similar attempt to discredit a major book You'll notice K.e.coffman used the edit summary to direct editors to the TP; following that link shows a very different picture than what you're trying to portray: first off, the removal was actually done by Pinkbeast [30] on grounds of POV, relevance and reliability; K.e.coffman supported it on grounds of language and usefulness to readers; and lastly Icewhiz joined, supporting it for his own reasons which you never bothered asking about (if you had, you'd have seen this diff). All of this took place after you added two links to Mark Paul [31] - the same Mark Paul from before - who's a pseudonymic writer of unknown provenance, who isn't considered an RS here.
14. The incessant attempts to smeer Chodakiewicz (and others mentioned) as “extremist” and “far right” are both hackneyed and unpersuasive When approaching Chod. one first has to ask: Do you think anyone who disagrees with him is a "neo-Stalinist"? Because Chod. seems to think so [32] (this he took from Radzilowski, from the same book you're citing). He also promoted the idea that Barack Obama is some sort of communist fanatic raised on Islam and extremist "Black power" ideologies [33]. That's not exactly "mainstream", is it?
15. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a thoroughly discredited and corrupt organization The SPLC is WP:GREL as far as Wikipedia is concerned [34]. If you want to argue against it, go to WP:RSN.
16. SPLC has no credentials to pass judgment on historical writing It doesn't, nor does anyone claim it does. The SPLC records extremists and extremist groups who are in the public eye, and Chod. certainly is given his political activities and popular writings. This is relevant to how we treat him as an historian as well, but even if it didn't - he received plenty of criticisms from within the field as well (see "reviews" and "criticisms" sections here).
17. Suffice it to point out that Chodakiewicz’s monograph... is cited and relied on by Peter Longerich No one said Chod. is always wrong, or never produced worthwile literature, and it's perfectly acceptable for Longerich to accept a particular narrative of the Jedwabne events and cite sources that support it. However, it doesn't change the fact that Chod.'s works are heavily criticized and haven't gained much traction outside of a narrow circle of like-minded scholars.
18. Gorczycka-Muszynska’s treatment of the legislative framework is not inconsistent with Skibinska’s, Meng’s or Cichopek-Gajraj, it is simply clearer, more accurate, and much more authoritative Maybe, but if it's published in a book that as far as we know did not go through independent peer review, then we've only your word to trust on its authoritativeness? Regardless, if it's not inconsistent with the other sources' - that is, we're not liable to introduce fallacies or inaccuracies by using them rather than it - then there's no real reason not to use them, if they suit us in other respects.
19. Because, as the book notes, she is a retired judge so she is far better placed to discuss Polish legislation than historians That's... arguable.
20. I can't comment on your claims regarding the discussion surrounding Gorczycka-Muszynska's use as a source here, as they lack context and I can't find them in the thread.
21. As Gorczycka-Muszynska notes... I'm not seeing anything in this par. that contradicts anything written by the other sources, or that's even relevant to this discussion. The Communist land reform isn't the subject of this article.
22. Alina Skibinska mentions a 1947 memorandum... We have other documents to this, and other effects. We also have some sources that explain that the realization of these policies was lacking.
23. Yet another misrep by Icewhiz I'm not seeing you actually disagree with Icewhiz. What did he misrepresent?
24. "other persons holding themselves out as such". In other words... Jews posing as Jewish owners or their relatives How does "other persons" in the source become "Jews" in your claim?
25. If the Jews believed otherwise, i.e., that you could make money buying these properties, they would be scooping them up themselves Again it's your understanding of events, not any of the sources' (see #4 in the previous thread), and it's suggestive as to what you yourself believe: that Jews coming back from the wastelands of the Holocaust had money, and choice - maybe even some "inside knowledge" - and just "preferred" to sell their homes, their businesses - whatever little they could've had - to strangers. This could not be further from the truth.

François Robere (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Laurence Weinbaum, who continues to be cited in the article, is not a RS. His essay in the book “The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust" (New York University Press, 2000), is dated, refers to no sources in the brief treatment of postwar property, and is replete with flagrant errors (p.101). Unclaimed “abandoned” property was nationalized not at the end of 1948, but at the end of 1955 (Gorczycka-Muszynska, Golden Harvest, p. 228; Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence, p. 73.) The claim that “except for individual cases, the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps” in contradicted by leading Holocaust historians. (Yehuda Bauer estimates that some 15,000 Jews returned to Poland from camps in Germany. See The Nazi Holocaust: Historical Articles on the Destruction of the European Jews, volume 9 (Westport, CT, 1989), p. 527.) There was no new succession law enacted on October 8, 1947. Intestate succession (under the law of March 8, 1946) was not “restricted to father, mother, descendants and the surviving spouse,” but also included siblings and grandparents. Weinbaum managed to make all these errors in just ten lines. As for Jewish returnees from the Soviet Union, Weinbaum failed to notice that many of them settled in the territories acquired from Germany and “receive[ed] material compensation on the same basis as Polish resettlers from the East.” (Dariusz Stola, Robbery and Restitution, Berghahn Books & United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2007, p. 244). Not surprisingly, neither the latter book, nor Meng’s Shattered Spaces, nor Cichopek-Gajraj’s Beyond Violence refer to Weinbaum’s article (based on a Google search). Moreover, Weinbaum is not an independent historian. He is the mouthpiece of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), for whom he works as a research and editorial officer. The WJC is a decidedly Jewish nationalist organization with an aggressive restitution agenda. Israel Singer, the Secretary General of the WJC at the time, who wrote the preface to this book, declared that Poland would be “publicly attacked and humiliated” unless it gave into Jewish restitution demands. Avi Beker, the editor of this book, is the Director of International Affairs of the WJC and Executive Director of the Israel Office. It’s clearly a POV effort.

I had another look at Robere’s long and growing list of queries and have come to the conclusion that any significant matters they raise have already been amply addressed in my lengthy posts. Suffice it to say that a scholarly consensus has emerged among historians who have actually carried out in-depth research into court records -- Krzysztof Urbański, Grzegorz Miernik, Stanisław Meducki, Adam Kopciowski, Sebastian Piątkowski, Mariusz Bechta, Alina Skibińska, Łukasz Krzyżanowski -- that large quantities of property were returned to Jews in 1945-1948 throughout Poland. The historians that claim otherwise have carried out no such research and appear to be aware of this body of highly reliable scholarship.Tatzref (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'appear NOT to be aware"? Klucze... is a relatively new work, and it is published just in Polish, so scholars who don't read Polish can be mostly justified for not being aware of it.

As for Weinbaum, I think you make a good points his research is contradicted by more recent and better researched sources. But I wouldn't discount him due to ties to WJC. Many scholars are biased and have ties to NGOs or such. If we were to call him unreliable solely based on his biases, we would have to remove, for example, most sources about Polish-American Congress from the PAC article, as most of the Polish-American scholars writing about PAC are also tied to it. Or, for example, the most reliable study on the International Sociological Association is based on the study commissioned and published by ISA itself... it's a slippery slope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And here the writer declares his intention to ignore his critiques and declares, out of the blue, that "consensus has been achieved". I will note that of the eight names the writer repeatedly quotes - Urbański, Miernik etc. - only one (Skibińska) has been discussed in this thread; for all of the others combined I could find only one more quote anywhere in the thread. This, again, is what we call "name dropping"; if the writer is serious about proving his point, let him give accurate citations and quotes (per WP:NOENG) for all eight, as I did with several sources in the section below.

Lastly, again the writer makes unsubstantiated claims against Jews and their representatives; let the reader deduce what they may. François Robere (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor's ORish opinion on Weinbaum, a well respected and cited researcher published by reputable publishers - Palgrave in this case. That Weinbaum also works in WJC is of little consequence to his published research, and does not indicate any particular bias. Outside of the far-right conspiracy circles (i.e. Protocols of Zion style smears), the WJC is generally well regarded as a reputable organization. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

More sources

Allow me to introduce a few more sources and quotes to the discussion:

Extended content

Bazyler, Michael; Gostynski, Szymon (2018). "Restitution of Private Property in Postwar Poland: The Unfinished Legacy of the Second World War and Communism". Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 41 (3): 273. Retrieved 2019-05-12. "After the war, many Jewish survivors left the country never to return, and those who stayed were often threatened if they attempted to recover their property."" (Citing Monika Krawczyk) "Krawczyk further describes how people manipulated the Polish legal system in the early post-war years by getting false witnesses to confirm the death of former Jewish property owners so that persons who were not the rightful heirs could purchase the property. These false acts prevented real heirs from being able to make legitimate claims." (Quoting Kraw.) "After liberation from the German occupation, assets lost by the Jews during the war could be reclaimed. This was facilitated formally by the legislation passed in the early years of independence. However, it was far easier, in practical terms, for Jews returning from camps or from hiding to regain possession of their property in large towns and cities than in small towns and villages. Jews returning to their family homes tended to find other families already living there, and they were often met with aggression, death threats or even murder. Exhuming mass graves and stripping corpses was the final form of plunder of Jewish property by their Polish neighbors. Terrified by such behavior, Polish Jews would often decide to leave the country in search of a new future abroad." (Quoting Halik Kochanski) "The state passed a series of decrees during 1945 which placed ‘abandoned and formerly German properties’ under state administration, but many of these ‘abandoned’ properties had been owned by Jews, who faced the prospect of court action against the state to reclaim them." The paper also criticizes Poland for being "the only EU country and the only former Eastern European communist state not to have enacted [a restitution] law," but rather "a patchwork of laws and court decisions promulgated from 1945-present." The post-socialist city: urban form and space transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after socialism. GeoJournal Library. Kiril Stanilov (ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. 2007. ISBN 978-1-4020-6053-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) Similar criticism of a lack of defining legislation on the matter Numbers the total restitution (or "re-privatization") claims filed in Poland by 1992 at 65,000. States in several places that, due to socio-political reasons, the Catholic church, trade unions and other "major organization" received preferential treatment on this matter. It later states that: "The flexible and highly individualized regulations... have promoted the advance of clientelism as oftentimes the procedures that quickly lead to successful restitutions may not be traced back... Once established, the dominance of powerful individuals or certain interest groups may hardly be reversed. This situation works to the disadvantage of claimants who possess little social resources and few contacts with the higher-ups." And yet later: "Why, for instance, has the Catholic Church been restored its property while Jewish individuals and institutions have to take court action with no promise of success? In Poland, re-privatization is primarily settled in administrative courts, which demands a lot of activity on the part of the claimant and therefore privileges those who are able to mobilize a large quantity of economic, social, and political resources." Stola, Dariusz (2008). "The polish debate on the holocaust and the restitution of property". Robbery and restitution: the conflict over Jewish property in Europe. pp. 240–255. ISBN 978-1-306-54603-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) "The authors of the [1945 and 1946] decrees did not conceal the fact that these restrictions had been imposed with, among other things, the possessions of murdered Jews in mind. During the debate in the Krajowa Rada Narodowa [National Council] (KRN), a temporary legislative body set up by the communists, the restrictions were justified, among other reasons, by a warning that without them there was a danger of enormous wealth being concentrated in a few hands. Such a concentration of wealth would, the proponents of the restrictions claimed, firstly be unjust and economically unproductive and, secondly, cause a rise in antisemitism. Therefore, the combination of low survival rates (i.e., the efficiency of the Nazi “Final Solution” in Poland) and the restrictions imposed by the 1945 decree meant that most of the property of the victims of the Holocaust was classified as “abandoned.” Consequently, it came under state administration and after a time (five to ten years) was nationalized." "Even if someone from the restricted circle of direct heirs had survived the war, there were many difficulties preventing them from regaining their inheritance." The author mentions the need to prove the claimant is the last remaining hair of a (now deceased) owner as one of those difficulties, and continues with a sad and absurd anecdote which I encourage you to read in the original (p. 245). "The fact that various persons took over “formerly Jewish” property without acquiring a legal title had a fundamental influence on Polish-Jewish relations after the war. Jewish people who returned to their apartments or shops often came up against the open hostility of those who had taken over these assets at the time of German occupation, convinced that the Jewish owners would never return. Accounts of homecoming Jews being threatened, assaulted, and even murdered are sufficiently frequent in survivor accounts and official reports published by Jewish organizations in the first years after the war that one may assume that such events were quite common. Nevertheless, they should not be interpreted as simply a continuation of prewar anti-Jewish behavior... " Similar criticism as before on lack of comprehensive restitution law. Notes "prejudice against and antipathy toward Jews still present in Polish society" (2008) as another difficulty standing in the path of restitution, specifically to owners or heirs who are foreign nationals. "This is fed by marginal, but obsessively active antisemitic organizations and publishers, and it is sometimes exploited or tolerated by more prominent factions and political figures." And later: "The question of restitution is in many ways connected to the question of Polish-Jewish relations, their history and remembrance, but particularly to the attitude of the Poles to the Holocaust." (for more info on the current situation, see Jewish space in contemporary Poland. Erica T. Lehrer, Michael Meng (eds.). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 2015. ISBN 978-0-253-01506-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)). Cichopek-Gajraj, Anna (2014). Beyond violence: Jewish survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944-48. New studies in European history. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6. Notes that in the first few months of 1945 restitution (or something to that effect) may have been easy, but as early as August 1945 the JOINT that "the new economic tendency of the Polish government... is against, or at least makes difficulties in, getting back the Jewish property robbed by the German authorities." "Undoubtedly, Polish restitution law [as of 1947] was as generous on paper as it could have been at the start of nationalization and land reform in Eastern Europe... The implementation of the restitution law, however, was uneven and contingent on the region and the rural or urban character of a community. More property was returned in the urban centers than in the countryside, but even in cities restitution was far from successful. In the villages and small towns... restitution was almost non-existent as Jewish survivors were to scared to pursue their claims. Murders were not uncommon as Jews were easy targets - lone individuals with no community to protect them." Case in point: Abram Berliński from Jastrzębie: "He had a mill which he was able to recover in 1945. In April 1945, an armed group broke into his house. Berliński and his relatives escaped to the forest. The relatives were later hunted down and killed. The local authorities concluded that the attackers wanted the mill. Soon after, Berliński left the village for good and a leaser took over his property. Then follow several reasons for why survivors in the cities might not have wished to, or couldn't, go through the process of reclamation, which conclude with "only a small fraction of survivors, perhaps a few thousand, perhaps less, attempted to go through the troubles of restitution." "Municipalities administered most abandoned and nationalized property after the war, and were the foremost obstacle in the urban restitution... Municipalities could also sell property if maintenance was too expensive... more often, however, the municipality 'assigned' the property management to well-connected individuals or public institutions." Proceeds to suggest that Jews were at a distinct disadvantage compared to non-Jews with respect to restitution: "The Association of Jewish Artisans... struggled to take physical possession of its prewar building, [which was[ administered by the municipal department of social welfare [and] was allocated to nuns... The nuns did not want to leave the building even after the district court ruled in favor of the Association... The Association was reluctant to use force, fearing a rise in antisemitism if 'the Jews kicked out' nuns." The source then gives various details on the fees and records that were required to file a restitution request during the early years following the war, which were expensive and difficult to obtain, and usually required CKŻP aid. But apparently even those weren't enough: "Having found the necessary records and witnesses, hired good lawyers and paid fees, and even having won their case in court, a claimant could still not be certain of success. The so-called 'interest of the state economy' and 'public interest' clauses were most commonly cited to prevent restitution." Gross, Jan Tomasz (2007). Fear: anti-semitism in Poland after Auschwitz ; an essay in historical interpretation. A Random House trade paperback (Random House trade paperback ed ed.). New York, NY: Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-6746-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Notes the difficulty faced by Jews who, during the war, gave various items to neighbours and friends for safekeeping, only to discover when they returned that they refuse to give them back. Notes that many of these cases ended in court, and the filers often asked that the case be adjudicated even in their absence: "For already in May 1945... Jews were running away from Poland, fleeing for their lives to, of all places, Germany." And later: "One would wish for a climate of compassion, especially among close acquaintances, toward the few returnees whose communities and families had just suffered an unspeakable calamity. But compassion was absent. Indeed, there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise. This is why Jews who dared to pursue the matter had to resort to the courts." And then: "Jewish property had been taken by people all around, and it was not a specifically Polish behavior by any means... But there had been many more Jews in Poland than anywhere else, many more had been killed, and therefore the phenomenon was much more widespread." He then gives several disturbing accounts that I suggest reading in the original. Denburg, Stephen A. (1998). "Reclaiming Their Past: A Survey of Jewish Efforts to Restitute European Property". Third World Law Journal. 18 (2): 233. Notes the relative ease with which the Catholic church managed to reclaim some of its property - by means of a designated law - and how "unlike the restitution of Church property, the idea of returning property to former Jewish owners has been met with a decided lack of enthusiasm from both the general Polish population as well as the government." He does not ascribe it necessarily to "latent antisemitism", but a popular fear that "restitution would only return Poland's upper class to their prewar social status" seems unsatifactory, and is suggestive of underlying prejudice. Notes that the Polish gov. had only recently (1998) and "grudgingly" started moving towards restitution of communal Jewish property for reasons of "international stature" and "foreign investment."

Other than that, I of course completely agree with Icewhiz. Tatzref is trying to introduce here a false narrative based on careful cherry-picking, and mostly fails to address the criticism. As an obvious example, take his quote of The American Jewish Year Book of 1947 [35]: When confronted with a conflicting quote from the year book of the following year [36] he completely ignores the contradiction, instead trying to deflect the criticism (in a completely off-topic fashion) towards the Jews [37], before again quoting the same source that was just contradicted [38]! Draw what conclusion that you may from this. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, and we can discuss what to include from these, but in the meantime, please don't remove *other* material that's also based on reliable sources from the article. Your mischaracterizations of Tatzref's extended and exhaustive explanation for their edits is quite simply wrong. For example you write that he "tries to deflect the criticism "towards the Jews"". You italicize the phrase "towards the Jews" as if it was a quotation from Tatzref or something. And you back it up with this diff. Except... there's nothing "towards the Jews" in there. In fact, it's kind of hard to figure out what exactly you're going on about since that comment is very long. There's 5+8=13 points there. I don't even know which one you're objecting to. It looks more like you're just making a random accusation (insinuation?) then slapping a random diff at the end. That's not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See #5 in that diff - out of the blue comes an accusation that Jews "racket" in property not their own, which is completely irrelevant to what he was asked in the corresponding section (#5) of the previous message, and he never actually replies to what he was asked. He did read it and he did "aim" for it - as evident by the reference to "communal property", which first appears there - but he didn't address the actual contradiction before repeating the quote in his next message. Now please, tell me more about misrepresentation! François Robere (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• WP:STABLE - As there is clearly WP:NOCONSENSUS to include Tatzref's recent additions (due to use of a highly fringe self-published source, use (or rather misuse) of non-English sources that are grossly misrepresented, and ommision of mainstream scholarship on the topic) - we should revert, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, back to the WP:STABLE version in existence prior to this bold modification.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  Grabowski, pages 192-195 - has a description on the theft and distribution of Jewish property under German occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  page 230 - interesting comparison to Thessaloniki (Greece) - "The case of Thessaloniki could not be compared to the magnitude of that of Poland, owing to the depth, pervasiveness, and violence of Polish antisemitism. An analogy is, however, valid, in so far as in both cases entire societies benefited from he takeover of Jewish property. A correlation to the new stratum that arose in postwar Poland as a result of this practice can be found in Thessaloniki as well, despite the absence of pogroms in the latter..Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per Icewhiz's. For more you may read my comments above, duly numbered and mostly unanswered by the other editor. Assuming they will so remain, I support restoring WP:STABLE and moving on from there on a source-by-source basis. François Robere (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP vio

Tatzref added the following comment in a recent edit: "Based on research into court records, Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes that... Based on no research, Michael Meng speculates that...". This unsubstantiated claim is a glaring violation of WP:BLP against Michael Meng, Associate Professor of History at UNC-Chapel Hill [39]. I've reverted the change. François Robere (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite a serious accusation vs. an author of a highly cited book (published 2011, cited 79 times) - perhaps one the most cited ones in the past decade on this topic. The author holds an academic post in Clemson - an academic research institution with a good reputation. Contrast this source with a self-published book (in English, Polish original (with rather ugly imagery on the cover) published by the very-very small (and new) The Facto - which as one can see in their publications - list on bookdepository - are generally not academic to say the least) - coupled with WP:OR and misrepresentations of non-English sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We generally don't say stuff like this. If we can't figure out what Meng used for his research, we just attribute it to him, and that's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Krzyżanowski

This edit, with the edit summary "why was Łukasz Krzyżanowski's quote removed? All points of view should be represented here" is unacceptable. For starters - WP:NOENG is Wikipedia policy - we have better English language sources available than this microhistory. Furthermore, this is a gross misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski to say that "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned", when the page actually reads:

1. Trudno powiedzieć, czy przedstawione tutaj trzy przypadki prób sądownego odzyskania mienia ruchomego należącego do polskich Zydów można uznać za typowe, czy byty one raczej wyjątkami. Sprawy dotyczące ruchomości niewątpliwie należą do rzadkości wśród dokumentacji sądów grodzkich zarówno w Radomiu, jak i Kaliszu. Przeważająca większość zachowanych akt dotyczy budynków i placów. Wydaje się prawdopodobne, że mienie ruchome polskich Żydów, inaczej lriż nieruchomości, było odzyskiwane CIeśli w ogóle) bez pośrednictwa państwa i sądów, przezbezpośrednie porozumienie się ocalalych zprzetrzymującymi terzeczy Polakami8o. Zasad,ne wydaje się również twierdzenie, iż większość należących do Żydów przedmiotów, które w czasie wojny znalazły się w polskich rękach, nigdy tych rąk nie opuściła i być może nawet do dziś są one przekazywane kolejnym pokoleniom jako pamiątki rodzinne. PeIniejsze opisanie losów żydowskiego mienia ruchomego w powojennej Polsce wymaga wykorzystania innych źródeł niż akta sądowe. Chcąc zglębić ten temat, należaloby zwróc\ć się ku dokumentom osobistym i relacjom.". Google translate: "It is difficult to say whether the three examples of attempts at judicial retrieval of movable property belonging to Polish Jews can be considered typical or rather exceptions. Cases regarding movables are undoubtedly a rarity among the documentation of municipal courts in both Radom and Kalisz. The vast majority of preserved files concern buildings and squares. It seems likely that movable property of Polish Jews, otherwise less real estate, was recovered if at all) without the mediation of the state and courts, by direct communication between survivors and Poles who refused the thesis. The principle also seems to claim that the majority of items belonging to Jews, which were in Polish hands during the war, never left these hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes. A more detailed description of the fate of Jewish movable property in post-war Poland requires the use of other sources than court files. If you want to explore this topic, you should turn to personal documents and relationships.".
2. "Nie sposób określić calkowitej liczby przypadków odzyskania mienia prywatnego przez Żydów tuż po drugiej wojnie światowej w Radomiu i Kaliszu. Na podstawie akt sądowych z obu miast można wnioskować, iż posiadanie, nie własność, stosunkowo dużej liczby nieruchomości zostało przywrócone ocalałym z Zagłady, którzy powrócili do miejsc swojego pochodzenia8l. Chcąc odzyskać majątki swoje lub swojej rodziny, Zydzi musieli stoczyć walkę z regulacjami ograniczającymi prawa osób pozbawionych majątku orazprzezwyciężyć wiele innych przeszkód. Ze wzgędu na biedę ocalałych, masową emigrację większości z nich z Polski orazbard,zo skomplikowaną sytuację, w jakiej po 1945 r. znalazło się wiele żydowskich nieruchomości, większość odzyskanych majątków była natychmiast odsprzedawana Polakom. Na szybkiej sprzedaży zależalo także członkom grup przestępczych zajmujących się nielegalnym przejmowaniem żydowskich nieruchomości. Przypadki restytucji majątków uznanych przez państwo za ,,opuszczolle" nie zmienialy więc ogólnego trendu przechodzenia wlasności żydowskiej w ręce nieżydowskie. Zjawisko to może być uznane za ostatni etap procesu przewłaszczenia, który rozpoczął się na ziemiach polskich w czasie okupacji niemieckiej i trwal jeszcze po wojnie. Zapoczątkowany przez Niemców i kontynuowany po wyzwoleniu transfer wlasności spotkał się z aprobatą wielu Polaków, którzy stali się posiadaczami mienia żydowskiego. Proces ten odpowiadał również powojennemu reżimowi komunistycznemu, ld6ry dążyI do utworzenia homogenicznego i monoetnicznego państwa82" Google translate: "It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin8. In order to reclaim their own or their family's assets, the Jews had to fight against regulations limiting the rights of persons deprived of property and to overcome many other obstacles. Because of the poverty of the survivors, the mass emigration of most of them from Poland and Warsaw, with the complicated situation in which many Jewish properties found their way after 1945, most of the recovered properties were immediately resold to Poles. The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate. The cases of restitution of estates declared by the state as "abandoned" did not change the general trend of Jewish ownership in non-Jewish hands, which may be considered the last stage of the expropriation process that began in the Polish territories during the German occupation and continued after the war. The transfer of ownership, initiated by the Germans and continued after the liberation, met the approval of many Poles who became the owners of Jewish property. This process was also in line with the post-war communist regime, which tended to create a homogeneous and mono-ethnic state82.

Such a misrepresentation of an academic work of scholarship - attributed on Wikipedia - is to the point of being a WP:BLP vio towards Krzyżanowski.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition, Krzyżanowski states in his conclusion in pages 606-607 in the next two paragraphs:

1. The nationalization of medium and large business. Krzyżanowski states that Jewish property was different in that it was deemed as "abandoned" and taken directly from the wartime actions of the Germans.
2. In some properties Poland approved the status-quo setup by the Nazi regime - concluding that - and lets quote thsi - "W ten sposób polskie państwo stalo się beneficjentem wymordowania milionów swoich żydowskich obywateIi, którym przed śmiercią odebrano caly ich majątek." - google translate - "In this way, the Polish state became the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death.
3. The Polish state actively sought to takeover a substantial portion of "abandoned" (quotes in original) property, and introduced legislation limiting restitution.
4. Krzyżanowski notes that while legislation didn't differentiate on ethnicity, the great destruction of the Jewish community created differences. He also notes the "huge scale of material consequences" that continue to persist until today.

Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also - I will note that Krzyżanowski, as many other reputable Polish scholars, has also published in English. Specifically Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. is a journal article, in English, covering Kalisz one of the two towns he wrote about in Polish in Klucze i kasa. Some quotes:

1. "In July 1946, the District Jewish Committee in Kalisz received a letter stating that the Jewish community must either leave the city by 25 August or ‘more will be done to them than was done in Kielce’.4" ... "However, one can clearly understand that Jewish returnees could feel threatened, especially considering that a few months earlier a similar letter issued to survivors in Warta, a town 40 kilometres away from Kalisz, was followed by the murder of two Jews who had ignored the ultimatum.42 Furthermore, Jewish survivors in Kalisz were conscious of the numerous murders, attacks and other hostile acts targeting Jews that were occurring in many locations....
2. Top of conclusion: "The existing archival material demonstrates that a group of Holocaust survivors exerted great effort in order to re-settle in Kalisz immediately after the war..."
3. Bottom of conclusion "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...." (ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa) - "These processes broke the survivors’ social networks and resulted in the disappearance of the Jewish community in post-war Kalisz and in many other Polish towns..

Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Two quick notes: 1) It wasn't actually removed - I've intended to cite him, but going through the mess of the thread above accidentally cited Skibińska instead [40]. I've now corrected that and cite both where intended [41]. 2) I assume good faith on the side of the restorer [42]; this blatant misrepresentation of the source was introduced to this discussion not by him, but by Tatzref. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: - I suggest you combine the unattributed fragment of Krzyżanowski (for which you've now corrected the citation), to the long attributed segment of Krzyżanowski in the same paragraph. Introducing BLP vios of this magnitude (which turn a scholar's work 180 degrees around) are beyond good faith, particularly when - the restorer was well aware that this was being challenged as being a misrepresentation - as should anyone editing the article (as evident in the edit summaries, and on the talk page). Krzyżanowski's conclusion from his 2018 paper that "difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property" was one of the factors (coupled with "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz") that caused Jews to leave the smaller towns (for large cities and/or out of Poland all together) may be worth incorporating. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - in your mass revert, you restored - "Overall, it is hard to estimate how many Jews got property back. Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that "a relatively large number of properties" were returned" - combined diff. This is a misrepresentation, to the point of being potentially defamatory to a well regarded scholar such as Krzyżanowski, and is not a reasonable summary of his conclusion (which for court records specifically is limited to Radom and Kalisz) in pages 605-607 - as quoted above. Please provide a rationale for this edit here. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"to the point of being potentially defamatory" - first off, cut out the hysterical hyperbole. Even if you disagree with it, it's not "defamatory". Stop being ridiculous. That kind of false rhetoric signals a lack of good faith in your approach to achieving consensus. It is also NOT a misrepresentation as he states this explicitly. Yes, he also notes other aspects of the phenomenon. And that can potentially be added - feel free to propose appropriate wording - but that's no excuse to remove this well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Presenting Krzyżanowski's conclusion in this manner is potentially defamatory to Krzyżanowski - as his conclusion does not support the text currently attributed to him.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Just the other day you claimed criticizing Ch. is a WP:BLP violation [43]. Why the change of heart on "hysterical hyperbole"?

BLP is intended for stuff that a) might ruin a person's life; b) might get Wikipedia (and by extension Wikimedia) involved in a libel case. Claiming a source said A when in fact they said B can be a BLP violation. François Robere (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The principle also seems to claim that the majority of items belonging to Jews, which were in Polish hands during the war, never left these hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes.

The majority of items belonging to Jews were taken by the German state and German people. A reader isn't informed about it. Similarly many items belonging to ethnic Poles never left German hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes. Portrait of a Young Man (Raphael), https://plus.gazetawroclawska.pl/polski-orzelek-zaginiony-podczas-ii-wojny-swiatowej-na-niemieckiej-aukcji/ar/c1-14143315

Many items belonging to Jews after several years of German occupation were worn out clothes and linen, sometimes rags, taken by extremaly poor people. The items don't exist any more.

Polish Communists obtained after the war items belonging to Poles, Jews or Germans. Some of the Communists were Jewish. https://www.empik.com/my-dzieci-komunistow-naszkowska-krystyna,p1222329247,ksiazka-p

House of my grandparents was plundered by Polish neighbours, like thousands of manors. The items are still family keepsakes in the neighbourhood. I bet that the problem isn't mentioned in this Wikipedia. Are Jewish items more important than non-Jewish ones?

Jews paid for food in ghettos and for help outside. Similarly Poles living in cities paid for food.

Valuable items were subject of trade, so any opinion about keepsakes is pure speculation.

Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

fight against regulations limiting the rights of persons deprived of property - the same rights worked for Jews and non-Jews. Some of the rights were written by Hilary Minc, who wasn't a Polish nationalist.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Skibińska

The other chapter misrepresented from Klucze i kasa is by Alina Skibińska. While this is self evident from reading the chapter in Polish (and heck - even from quotations of the chapter) - a simpler approach is possible here as Skibińska has given an interview on her post-Holocaust research in Szczebrzeszyn - in English - over here. Quoting from the interview:

1. "In the small towns where there were a few thousand Jews, there were hundreds of empty houses left after the war. Without Jewish inhabitants. It is estimated that 10% of Polish Jews survived the war. Out of these 10%, only a few decided to claim their rights and regain the houses. Many of the houses were taken over by the Polish state and individuals along the way, which nowadays we would describe as illegal, because the Jewish owners didn’t lose their rights. .... Also, there are cases that they not only took over the houses, but also took an active part in the earlier process of killing the owners. .... There are still places where people live in such houses and know about their past ...
2. "Let’s take Szczebrzeszyn, as I have conducted a thorough research there. Before the war more than 40% of inhabitants were Jewish. They lived in the very center of the town. Then such a visible social group “disappears”, as a matter of fact most of them were murdered on the spot. The houses were empty and very quickly other people moved in. After the war, they did not feel any obligation to move out, just because an old owner came back. To make it worse, Jews who managed to regain property in the courts, regained it together with the inhabitants. What were they supposed to do with them, when they refused to move out? They could go to court again, but it led to further tension and conflicts. What happens when in such a small town, where everyone know each another, suddenly a few dozens of people come back and want their property back?"
3. "It is obvious that the new inhabitants would prefer that the previous owners never come back, because they were facing either conflict and court or a need to pay for the house. It was often the case – a property regained in court was immediately sold to the inhabitants."
4. "Those Jews who decided to stay stayed in the same town but in different houses or flats. In Szczebrzeszyn, there was the case of Jankiel Grojser, who inherited two houses. He regained the houses and sold them. He stayed in Szczebrzeszyn until his death in 1974, but never had his own place again. I have wondered for a long time why he sold the houses and I reached conclusion that he had no choice, as the houses were already inhabited. Otherwise, he would face conflicts or even physical violence..

Skibińska's summmary of her research, in English, is quite different from contents attributed to her in the Wikipedia article. Skibińska places an emphasis on the murder and violence towards Jews who claimed properties - which intimidated and deterred heirs from even entering claims - "only a few decided to claim their rights". She stresses that even when Jews received a court ruling in their favor, this did not result in the eviction of the Polish residents who had illegally obtained the house - which coupled with the tangible possibility of violence left no choice but to sell. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It also bears mention that Skibińska authored a chapter (a bit of a misnomer - a 192 page long chapter....) in the 2018 Dalej jest noc on the Biłgoraj powiat which included Szczebrzeszyn during the occupation (Szczebrzeszyn being of significance since Zygmunt Klukowski lived there, and Skibińska wanted to know if his writings could be extrapolated to elsewhere). While 192 pages in Polish is a tad long (to the point that summary would be OR) - Skibińska gave this interview summarizing her research, which includes - " Jeśli chodzi o inne miasteczka w tym powiecie, to schemat się powtarza, było tak jak w Szczebrzeszynie, ogromne zaangażowanie miejscowych w wyłapywaniu Żydów w trakcie samych akcji, w grabieniu mienia – to się powtórzyło we wszystkich miastach." - (google translate): "As for other towns in this poviat, the pattern repeats itself, it was like in Szczebrzeszyn, the huge involvement of locals in catching Jews during the actions themselves, in the raking of property - it happened again in all cities. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

On #1: "One could even identify a normative order of sorts regulating access to plundered Jewish property. The governing rule was simple: those who were more intimately involved with dispossessing the Jews had a better claim on the goods than anyone else. Thus, when Helena Klimaszewska, from the village of Goniᾳdz, went to nearby RadziƗow to get an apartment for her in-laws—she knew there were vacancies there after the Jews had been killed—she was rebuffed by a certain Feliks Godlewski (she told the story during a deposition at his trial after the war) who reproached the claimants for not having been there when people were needed to kill the Jews, and only showing up later to ask for apartments. “You could have killed 10 Jews and you would have gotten a house,” she quoted him as saying at the time. Her mother-in-law protested that the family had made a contribution on that day as her grandson, Jozef Ekstowicz, was the one who had climbed on the barn where the Jews were assembled and doused its roof with gasoline." (Gross, Jan T., Fear, 2006)

On #3 (mentioned earlier, and part of it quoted in the article): "Irrespective of how personal disputes over bedding or furniture were resolved by the courts, it is telling that the few returning Jews had to use the courts to press such claims. On the other hand, we can also appreciate the sense of bad luck among the likes of Chrapczyńska (the woman unwilling to hand back two eiderdowns and four pillows in Ożarow). Why did “her” Jew have to come back from the dead while all the others, most of the others in any case, had disappeared and wouldn’t bother the neighbors who also stocked up on Jewish stuff? One would wish for a climate of compassion, especially among close acquaintances, toward the few returnees whose communities and families had just suffered an unspeakable calamity. But compassion was absent. Indeed, there was no social norm mandating the return of Jewish property, no detectable social pressure defining such behavior as the right thing to do, no informal social control mechanism imposing censure for doing otherwise. This is why Jews who dared to pursue the matter had to resort to the courts." (there)

François Robere (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

General level article

This is a general level article. All kinds of details and speculations and academic arguments belong in dedicated article on the subject, not here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly - we should follow academic sources, in English, published in reputable publishers, that treat Poland as a whole - e.g. Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj - as opposed to microhistories or non-academic writing self-published by SPLC designated individuals. Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I write something about this being a general level article. You respond with your tired, debunked, no-consesus and frankly absurd "interpretation" of WP:ENG. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No, actually Icewhiz is right. Half of the discussion in the above thread was about using "microhistories" - analyses of local accounts, local statistics etc. that attempt to draw conclusions for the entirety of Poland from a limited source pool (later it turned out the representation of those histories to us was, but to a handful of sentences, completely false). If you insist that it's a "general level article", then these shouldn't be used. As for WP:NOENG - what exactly is your interpretation of it? François Robere (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The crux of the issue here is whether “extremely few” properties were returned to Jews under the law on abandoned properties, as Michael Meng claims, or whether large numbers of properties were returned. A scholarly consensus has emerged among historians who have actually carried out in-depth research into court records of specific towns -- Krzysztof Urbański (Kielce), Grzegorz Miernik (Szydlowiec), Stanisław Meducki (Kielce), Adam Kopciowski (Zamosc & Wlodawa), Sebastian Piątkowski (Radom), Mariusz Bechta (Parczew), Alina Skibińska (Szczebrzeszyn), Łukasz Krzyżanowski (Radom & Kalisz) -- that “a relatively large number of properties” were returned to “relatively many Jews” in 1945-1948 throughout Poland. The conclusions of the latter group of historians are clear on this.

Alina Skibinska concludes: “The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of “abandoned property” seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, "that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it." (Klucze i kasa, p. 571). In Szczebrzeszyn, according to Skibinska’s examination of court records, at least one third of the properties were returned expeditiously.

Lukasz Krzyzanowski concludes: “It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of private property recovered by Jews in Radom and Kalisz shortly after the Second World War. On the basis of judicial files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin.” (Klucze i kasa, p. 605.)

Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.” (Z kroniki utraconego sąsiedztwa: Kielce, wrzesień 2000/From the Chronicle of the Lost Neighborhood: Kielce, September 2000, p. 202.)

On the other hand, Michael Meng and Anna Cichopek-Gajraj candidly admit they are not aware of the research on this matter and are merely guessing/speculating about the extent of property restitution based on suppositions--not hard facts. Cichopek-Gajraj: “I have no comprehensive statistics of how many houses and enterprises were returned to their rightful Jewish owners … these numbers must have been small.” (Beyond Violence, p. 86.) Meng: “It is impossible to guess how many Jews actually filed claims and of them how many then got their property back … But there is little doubt that the number was extremely small...” (p. 51-52.)

Clearly, the majority opinion is that many Jews successfully recovered properties, and that a large number of properties were recovered. As these historians also point out, almost all of these properties were quickly sold to Poles. That is the bottom line.Tatzref (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Tatzref (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Meng and Cichopek-Gajraj are published by reputable publishing houses and are making Poland-wide estimates based on their extensive research - as opposed to micro-histories that are making very local and very qualified (e.g. clearly qualifying fraud). As stated previously in a section above - you are grossly misrepresenting Krzyzanowski (in a microhistory on two medium towns) - as evident both in the Polish and in his later published English research - [Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. - "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...." (ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa). You are also grossly misrepresenting Skibinska (who is also writing on an extremely small town - 5000 residents) - who in Polish clearly qualifies her statement with "or other persons", elaborates on the widespread anti-Jewish violence (that deterred even placing claims, and forced Jews to sell "possession orders" to the invading tenants for pennies on the dollar) throughout the chapter. And again - this is clearly evident (beyond the Polish chapter as a whole) by Skibinska presenting her work in English - source - ". Many of the houses were taken over by the Polish state and individuals along the way, which nowadays we would describe as illegal, because the Jewish owners didn’t lose their rights. .... Also, there are cases that they not only took over the houses, but also took an active part in the earlier process of killing the owners. .... . To make it worse, Jews who managed to regain property in the courts, regained it together with the inhabitants. What were they supposed to do with them, when they refused to move out? They could go to court again, but it led to further tension and conflicts. ..... In Szczebrzeszyn, there was the case of Jankiel Grojser, who inherited two houses. He regained the houses and sold them. He stayed in Szczebrzeszyn until his death in 1974, but never had his own place again. I have wondered for a long time why he sold the houses and I reached conclusion that he had no choice, as the houses were already inhabited. Otherwise, he would face conflicts or even physical violence.".Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Only Russian Partition is mentioned-since 2009 this issue hasn't been addressed

As I mentioned already in 2009 we don't have a section on Prussian Partition [44] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that may be a better fit in History of the Jews in Germany - which already covers Jews receiving Prussian citizenship in 1812. Poland's borders obviously have changed quite a bit - e.g. I don't think we should discuss in this article Pinsk (in the Kresy) after 1945. The Polish partition in the Russian empire had some unique characteristics keeping it apart as a political/administrative entity (Congress Poland) - the Prussians folded it into their empire.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is biased

Please compare categories

Category:Antisemitism in Poland - hundreds of pages

Category:Antisemitism in Slovakia - 7 pages

Slovakia was idependent during WWII, it deported all its Jews to gas chambers. Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Slovakia is also much smaller... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hundreds of times smaller?Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to write about Slovakia if it bothers you. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Tensions and antisemitism

This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda office. Please stop.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

With the influence of the Endecja party growing - with the number of imprisoned Endecka politicians...Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Jews were often not identified as Polish nationals - please explain how the Jews identified themselves.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Matters improved for a time - 9 years of about 20 is for a time.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

SYNTh

These sentences:

"Hundreds of Jews were murdered in anti-communist violence.[236] The best-known case is the Kielce pogrom of 4 July 1946..."

constitute an improper WP:SYNTH. The Kielce pogrom had nothing to do with "anti-communist violence". It erupted on the basis of a blood libel. So you can't say that it is a "best-known case" of "anti-communist violence" as the two sentences suggest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that we're labelling the massacring of Jews as "anti-communist violence" - while some very nationalist sources use this language, the anti-Jewish violence is generally referred to as anti-Jewish and not anti-communist. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually the Engel source does discuss "anti-communist violence". But the whole point is that Kielce wasn't. Do you think David Engel is a "very nationalist" source? Really? Wow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Killing policemen or informants was "anti-communist violence". Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Engel refers to anti-Jewish violence. He mentions anti-communist feelings as one of many possible causes, but uses anti-Jewish throughout.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property

The majority of Jews survived the war abroad and they returned after the war, so they weren't exactly survivors of Holocaust. They were surviviors of war exactly like millions of Poles were. Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Jews who left Poland before the WWII started should not be called Holocaust survivors. But we need a source to discuss the demographics of surviving Polish-Jewish population. I think one is in the text, at least I've recall adding something on this few months ago. If anyone wants to continue this, numbers are needed so we can consider if this generalization is correct or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that's actually not a fair point. First off, since sources generally refer to them as Holocaust survivors. Sources might be doing so since while they fled (or were deported) in the early phases of WWII (1939-1941 - in and of itself Holocaust related)) - they often fled not so far away - often into Western USSR - and were affected by the subsequent German advance. The Holocaust occurred throughout German occupied Europe. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Generally the term "Holocaust survivor" does indeed include those individuals who managed to flee German occupied Poland and survived either in USSR or in Soviet occupied Poland ("Western USSR" lol!). The usage of the term in literature however is by no means uniform.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

In Western USSR I was referring not to the Kresy (whose classification here may be debated given the annexation to the USSR) - but to pre-1939 USSR (Ukraine, Belarus, parts of Russia) - in which there was widespread shooting of Jews (e.g. Babi Yar near Kiev), Maly Trostinets extermination camp near Minsk, internment in ghettos, and transport to extermination camps. Jews who managed to escape Poland (as opposed to those deported to Siberia) often did not escape far enough to leave the area that would become German-occupied Europe throughout which the Germans and their accomplices carried out the Holocaust. The survival rate outside of Poland was, however, generally higher due to local Polish particularities (e.g. see this piece by a USHMM historian).Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This piece, which does make a genuine attempt at balance, mentions neither survival rates nor any "Polish particularities" (sic) behind these. It's unclear what your purpose in linking this article is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Anything ever came out out of this? "Israeli Parliament is now considering a bill that would criminalize minimization of Polish collaboration in the Holocaust." Did this law pass or is still under debate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, quoting such extremely biased text is shooting in your own foot. It's a shame to be so dumb to write such trash and to quote such trash. The writer ignores German terror and Jewish collaboration (if we accuse the Blue police, why not the OD?). All Americans lack knowledge about Europe and the writer seems to be a perfect American ignorant. BTW - The Atlantic isn't academic.Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ghetto inmates are generally seen differently. The writer is a historian at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - and would seem rather qualified.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"seem rather qualified" - you don't dare to support her, you use "seem".Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Kielce - fathom.com

@Tatzref: - please provide a rationale why this source is reliable. After you do that, please provide quotations that support: " response to the Kielce atrocity was rapid", "sentenced to death on trumped up charges within 7 days;". Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, your bias is a big as Mount Everest. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't care to google an academic source, which takes 1 minute. https://www.academia.edu/29540235/Cold_War_History_The_Kielce_Pogrom_1946_and_the_Emergence_of_Communist_Power_in_Poland Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Even larger than K2? There is an abundance of sources on Kielce pogrom. Any quotations supporting the language and assertions here? Particularly "trumped up"?Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Generally people reject the truth about them, they need a therapy to accept it. See Freud. Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Are Jewish victims more important than ethnic Polish ones? The "case" would be revised in USA or Israel. Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please my edit carefully and don't misrep what I did. This is what I restored: "The Communist government's response to the Kielce atrocity was rapid. Special investigators were dispatched and military tribunals formed." This what I added: "within 7 days." So obviously the words "trumped up" are not mine. I would've used different words like "sham trials." The reliability of the source (again not mine) has been addressed. These facts are so well known to historians and beyond dispute that I'll simply set out what is found on the website of POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, which is produced by scholars and researchers -- and tell me if 5 days for a trial and 3 more days to execute 9 "randomly chosen" people is too slow to count as a "rapid" response, and whether this measures up to any remotely reasonable standard of due process:

https://sztetl.org.pl/en/towns/k/399-kielce/116-sites-of-martyrdom/46870-kielce-pogrom:

"Several dozen people were arrested in Kielce in the wake of the massacre, including policemen, soldiers of the Internal Security Corps, civilians and representatives of the local authorities. Twelve of them were hastily tried on 9 July 1946 – nine were sentenced to death and executed on 12 July 1946, and the remaining three were given long prison sentences."

Bibliography:

Antyżydowskie wydarzenia kieleckie 4 lipca 1996 roku. Dokumenty i materiały, eds. S. Meducki, Z. Wrona, vol. 1-2, Kielce 1992-1994.

Szaynok B., Pogrom Żydów w Kielcach 4 lipca 1946, Warsaw 1992.

Wokół pogromu kieleckiego, vol. 1, ed. Ł. Kamiński, J. Żaryn, Warsaw 2006.

Zaremba M., Wielka trwoga. Polska 1944-1947. Ludowa reakcja na kryzys, Kraków 2012.

Żyndul J., Kłamstwo krwi. Legenda mordu rytualnego na ziemiach polskich w XIX i XX wieku, Warsaw 2011.

https://www.polin.pl/pl/aktualnosci/2017/07/04/71-rocznica-pogromu-w-kielcach-4-lipca-1946:

"Po krwawych zajściach aresztowano kilkadziesiąt osób, w tym milicjantów, żołnierzy Korpusu Bezpieczeństwa Publicznego, cywilów i przedstawicieli władz lokalnych. Spośród nich dwanaście przypadkowo wybranych osób zostało pospiesznie osądzonych już 9 lipca 1946 r. – dziewięć skazano na karę śmierci, którą wykonano 12 lipca 1946 r., a trzy otrzymały wyrok długoletniego więzienia."

GOOGLE TRANSLATION: "After the bloody incidents, several dozen people were arrested, including militiamen, soldiers of the Public Security Corps, civilians and representatives of local authorities. Of these, twelve randomly chosen persons were hastily tried on July 9, 1946 - nine were sentenced to death on July 12, 1946, and three were sentenced to long-term imprisonment."Tatzref (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

So - they were not executed within 7 days (I count 8). Nor is trumped up charges supported. The cited source says "was initially decisive" - not "rapid". The communist authorties justice was certainly selective - they did not try all the perpertrators for murder - just a few selected people - their response was certainly far from comprehensive - or as the cited source says "Despite the authorities' inadequate response to the pogrom". And why is this source, misrepresented in your edit, even reliable?Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting me or the sources cited. As I pointed out already, the words "trumped up" are not mine, but could well be supported by the fact that the persons the authorities prosecuted were "randomly chosen" from among the crowd. The other source cited, historian Anita Prazmowska, is quite explicit: "The PPR's response to the events in Kielce was swift." Is there a difference between "rapid" and "swift"? See https://web.archive.org/web/20090307025436/http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session3.html Tatzref (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ryszard Śmietanka-Kruszelnicki, recognized as a leading historian on the Kielce pogrom, clarified the following in Wokół pogromu kieleckiego (Warsaw: IPN, 2006):

37 Jews and 3 Poles were killed;

the trial of 12 accused Poles started July 9 and ended July 11, with death sentences against 9 persons who were executed the following day (p. 42);

it appears that the 12 accused were selected randomly (p. 42);

both the charge and the justification for the sentence alleged a conspiracy by the anti-Communist underground, even though that charge was never proven (p. 42 & 45) – so calling the charges “trumped up” has a basis in fact. The person who entered this text knew their facts, the person who removed it didn’t.

The article can be found at: https://www.academia.edu/38542263/Smietanka-Kruszelnicki_R._2006_Pogrom_w_Kielcach_-_podziemie_w_roli_oskarzonego_in_Kami%C5%84ski_%C5%81._%C5%BBaryn_J._eds._Wok%C3%B3%C5%82_pogromu_kieleckiego_Warszawa_p._25-74.pdf

Tatzref (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Doean't support trumped up. Merely supports authorities were not close to comprehensive in trying all the members of the murderous mob (which was much larger than 12).Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention the Jews who were part of the "authorities"? A reader may believe that the "authorities" were Polish nationalists.Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"the Jews who were part of the "authorities"" - what pray tell are you suggesting precisely? Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please learn history of Poland to discuss it. Jakub Berman, Józef Różański,Roman Zambrowski, Hilary Minc. Adam Humer was a bystander of the Kielce pogrom.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of the people you mention weren't Jewish (nor quite bystanders), and others had little to do with Kiecle. I fail to see how mentioning random Jewish (and not Jewish) members of the communist party is relevant here. Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

weren't Jewish - wow!

They weren't members only, they ruled Poland together with Bolesław Bierut (Berman, Minc), controlled the terror system (Różański). Humer participated in the events.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines "trumped up" as "fraudulently concocted". The charge included the allegation that the accused were part of an anti-Communist underground conspiracy, which was bogus and never proven yet appeared in the reasons for verdict. It is apparent, therefore, that at least that aspect of the charge was fraudulently concocted, i.e. trumped up. Moreover, not everyone in the crowd was a murderer. Most were gawkers. At least one of them was shot by officers or someone else in the building before the rioting started. By selecting person to charge from among them randomly, there is a very high risk of being wrongfully accused. When you add this to the sham trial and lack of due process, it moves closer to a certainty. End of discussion.Tatzref (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:OR. Cited source (reliability of which I am uncertain) says "Despite the authorities' inadequate response to the pogrom". The more significant aspect here being that most of the Polish killers were not punished at all.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's paraphrased. Just like arguing over whether it was 7 or 8 days is a pointless distraction. It's entirely possible that there was an inadequate response to the pogrom AND that the people who were "punished" were "randomly chosen" innocent bystanders. It was Stalinism. Not exactly unheard of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"traditional religious Jew-hatred" ?

Ritual-murder beliefs are not part of the Christian religion, but rather a superstition. Pope Innocent IV took action against the blood libel already in 1247. According to Marcin Zaremba [45], Jewish organizations reclaimed Jewish children from Christian helpers, which may have created anti-Jewish beliefs. Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pretty weirdly (and very non-neutrally, not to mention non-precise - at the very least, I don't think that we find Jew-hatred in Judaism, for example...) worded phrase. Would need an inline cite and a quotation, IMHO. For now I concur we should remove it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the traditional nature of the post-war blood libel claims should not be removed - this is supported by cited mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"blood libel" is not "religious". The Papacy generally opposed them, although it had problems in enforcing its opposition. Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Papacy has never exclusively defined what beliefs might be related to Christianity. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Is "blood libel" part of Christianity? Sources, pleaseXx236 (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Jewish organizations reclaimed Jewish children from Christian helpers, which may have created anti-Jewish beliefs, your own words, mention Christianity in this context, so maybe you should ask yourself. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If Jewish organisation reclaimed children from helpers, it's rather obvious that it generated conflicts. It's not a religious problem, but human. I haven't invented the fact, it's decribed in Zaremba's book. Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And as you admit the pivotal difference between the groups of people in question is their religion. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No. The pivotal difference is between loving and offering your life for a child versus an organization. Generally adoptions are valid. Sometimes birth parents try to revert them, but I don't know any law allowing organisations to do it.

There existed a parallel problem - Polish children were adopted by German families, sometimes Nazis. Some of the Germanized children were returned to their teribly poor families, demoralized by the war. Other children weren't returned and some of them are unhappy about it.

Let the childrren speak: http://www.dzieciholocaustu.org.pl/szab51.php?s=index3.php Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Death punishment

Since October 15, 1941. https://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/kara-smierci-za-ukrywanie-zydow-wywiad-z-prof-andrzejem-zbikowskim Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Komisje Specjalne

After the Kielce pogrom Jews organized armed militia Komisje Specjalne, about 2500 members. The Komisje are described by Alina Cała. I don't have access to the original text. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=561576Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject has to be mentioned. If you don't, I'll do it myself using my poor English.Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Quotation request for "unproductive and parasite factors"

Please provide the original paragraph, translation and sources for "unproductive and parasite factors". The source ([46]) references a Hebrew-language PhD thesis for this. In any case, I don't think a PhD thesis research should be used for such claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The peer reviewed journal article reads ""The severe limitations placed on the possibility of reclaiming private property only further emphasized the extent to which the new legislation affected the status of Jewish property. In contrast to the pre-war law that allowed second-degree relatives the right to claim property, under the new, postwar regulations only the original owners or direct heirs could ask for restitution.22 In light the scale of the destruction of Polish Jewry, regaining Jewish family assets was to become an almost impossible task. Jewish leaders understood this problem very well and led the protests against the new legislation.23 Polish officials did not try to conceal that the change in the inheritance laws were aimed mainly at preventing the restitution of Jewish property.24 As the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945: ‘We will not permit some foreign Jews, for instance Argentinian Jews, to inherit property in Poland.’25 In internal discussions regarding the formulation of the new laws, some of the participants argued that their purpose was to prevent the concentration of too much wealth in the hand of ‘unproductive and parasite factors’ and to preclude the inheritance of property by ‘distant relatives in Argentina who engage in despicable jobs.’26". This is a secondary, peer reviewed paper in an academic journal. The request to verify a source's citations is without a policy basis - the peer reviewed journal verified this (journal articles may reference primary material - e.g. archives, speeches, and do their own research). I will note that similiar quotes appear in other sources - particularly quotes referencing Argentenian Jews (at times - calling them pimps) to inherit.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

For a controversial, red flag and likely undue quote like this, please cite the work cited in the journal, i.e. the PhD thesis. I would like to see what sources does it cite for that quote, of any. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing red flag in that quote. While we could cite the PhD thesis as a source (allowed per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - reputable academic institution) - a journal article in English is very much a preferred citation (both in general, and due to WP:NOENG - preference of English language sources) - there's really no reason to cite the PhD thesis. Furthermore I'll note that you are requesting here not a quotation (I think it is fairly safe to assume to quote was copied correctly from A to B) - but citations inside the citation (which could possibly lead us to a chase multiple level down - contents of the citation of the citation of the citation of the citation.....) - which is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Results of WP:OR (citation hunting) - thesis - The specific quote is from AAN, KRN 9, sesja 7, 3-6.5.1945, pp 240-241 (there is also a "despicable Argentinian" quote on page 249 in the session - a motivation which was subsequently repeated by the Polish Foreign minister in New York on October 1945). This is the protocol of the session of the State National Council from 3-6 May 1945. KRN = Krajowa Rada Narodowa, AAN = Archiwum Akt Nowych. The thesis discusses the May meeting (leading to the 1945 decree) in pages 238-240 (246-248 in the PDF). The protocols of the KRN should be easy to verify, though I am unsure they are available online in digitized form. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you suggest that the KRN was Polish? It was Soviet, with a small contribution of useful idiots.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll AGF that the quotations are correct, but it is indeed worth to discuss whether we can describe KRN as Polish government without any qualifiers to it being effectively a Soviet puppet government. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well - however you describe KRN - legislation/decrees (and nationalization) by KRN was accepted by subsequent Polish governments - the communist authorities (we can debate when they became "Polish" (1944-46? 1948? 1956? 1968-70? or perhaps not all per right-wing Polish historiography) ), and following 1989 the post-communist government (which retained property laws and judicial decisions of the communist regime - with some limited restitution possible). Since the legal framework was applied in succession (modifying/introducing reforms - as opposed to wholesale repudiation), this is less significant than it would've been otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945 - the Polish government was imposed to Polish people by the Allies. The other Polish government exited in London.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the definition of Jewish property? Nazi Nurimberger Law? Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

One bias is OK, any other is wrong

Stola, the director of the POLIN Museum, a biased person, is quoted, no other opinion is available. On emay believe that there is an anti-Semitic anti-reprivatisation conspiracy. What about Aleksander Kwaśniewski veto? Doesn't it deserve to be mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Stola is biased? How so? Sources? He is fairly widely cited (gscholar profile), publishing journal articles and books - in Polish and in English.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You bias is OK, any other bias is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of anti-reprivatisation - I personally found this speech in Washington DC (in English) interesting - [47] "giveway of ... 300 billion US dollars .... Not just the money, this is also an attempt to take over our country by certain groups that would be benefiting from this giveaway", as well as [48] - "Based on this precedent, where Jewish tribal law replaces international law"... However (going back to your comment on Stola), what I do not understand from your comments is in which direction Stola is allegedly biased and what sources support said alleged bias.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

RS please, not Washington speaches. As far as I know Washington isn't located in Poland. Is it our ambassador? Doesn't look like him .Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong structure

Current issues are discussed in Communist rule: 1945–1989.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Academic review of Krzyżanowski's book - "The lost chance"

http://dn-ihpan.edu.pl/images/DN2018-50-1/16_Kosinski.pdf Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Un-academic comments on law and politics

in some cases Poland approved - what is Poland here? Serious people write Communist government of Poland, the Communist party, Polish nationalists, courts in Poland but Poland? Xx236 (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Outside of Polish nationalist circles (supposedly, Polish airmen in the UK even plotted flying to bomb Buckingham palace and parliament, per this possibly unreliable source) - as of 1945 the majority of the international community (Soviets of course - but more notably the UK, France, the US, and of course the United Nations (Poland is considered one of the original 51 signers of Charter of the United Nations - even though they signed two months after everyone else) - considered the communist government of Poland to be Poland. We generally follow mainstream viewpoints. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, my comment was about unprecize language . What was Poland in the context? Do we say Isreal approved, US appproved or rather Israeli government did, US administration, US congress?Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Poland did but sometimes Nazi (not German, do you know any Germany different that the Nazi one? Poland had two governments after the war.) concentration camps. https://www.bbc.com/timelines/z86nfg8 Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. https://www.ushmm.org/learn/introduction-to-the-holocaust Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Chodakiewicz's edited volume "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? a SPS/RS or not?

Please discuss it not here but at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Golden_Harvest_or_Hearts_of_Gold? where hopefully new, and more neutral voices, will help us reach consensus on whether we can cite this work or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Volunteer Marek keeps restoring that book [49] despite its rejection at RSN? François Robere (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For starters, there is no "rejection at RSN". There's walls of text from our friend Icewhiz, but we already know his opinion and he's obviously party to this dispute. As are you.

So can someone explain why Francois Robere is, umm, "misrepresenting" what actually happened at RSN? I mean, it's kind of blatant, since it's very easy to click on the link and check for oneself, so what's the point of ths, umm, misrepresentation-ing?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

To quote Ealdgyth at RSN: "Taking everything together - this particular essay doesn't seem utterly unreliable but it's not exactly highly cited either - there should be better sources out there for such a contentious topic". François Robere (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is not actually the same as "rejected at RSN".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As I've already said several times, you want to add other sources, you're welcome to it. But don't try to use "there might exist better sources out there" as an excuse to remove this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to use this essay self-published by a SPLC-profiled individual. Furthermore, as stated in RSN by Ealdgyth - much better sources (which were present in the article prior to VM edit-warring them out), who have present things very differently, are available - the WP:FRINGE viewpoint presented in this book is WP:UNDUE regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Much better sources" here being Stola who already is in the article (and it may be worth expanding based on his sources, keeping in mind that this is a general level article not one dedicated to this issue). Also, this is NOT an "essay self-published by a SPLC-profiled individual" (sic) as has already been pointed out to you on several occasions. Can you please stop using false, hyperbolic, denigrating and quasi-insulting language directed at sources and authors who don't fit your POV? BLP applies to talk pages. If you're gonna call on Ealdgyth's comments for support, for example, you should also acknowledge that the same editor clearly stated the source was NOT self-published. So stop freakin' cherry picking and misrepresenting other editors' comments like you do with sources. How can anyone try and collaborate or trust you when you behave in such a manner?

(nevermind that this is neither an essay, nor is it self-published, nor is it by a "SPLC-profiled individual").Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(and it takes some real chutzpah for a guy who's been edit warring on this article for over a freakin' year and has managed to get it protected as a result multiple times, to accuse OTHER editors of "edit warring") Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If there are better sources, and there are, then it's effectively rejected. As for the press: "In general, I find that the publisher for Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold is definitely not a high level scholarly press." François Robere (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Which particular essays from the book are being cited this time? As noted at RSN, the book has essays by authors who are more reliable, and authors who are less reliable. I'd appreciate if instead of back and forth reverts people would try to at least reference the book chapters properly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Again asking why is this source used if it's so problematic, which is something we're all aware of. Some of you who support this inclusion have in the past fought repeatedly against including Grabowski (who's cited at least a couple of hundred times) and Gross (who's cited well over 2,000 times), but are now supporting this book that was written by a group of authors who, for the most part, are well outside mainstream academia (some of them are so outside of it that they can't even get published in English anymore); which was published by an "easy reading" publishing house and translated by Chodakiewicz's own minor "Leopold Press" (and apparently contains numerous spelling and translation errors); and which is so rarely cited that I can't even find on Google Scholar. It barely even passed WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so why push it? François Robere (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My two, erh, twenty cents here--

1) As a preface I am coming here in the interest of Wikipedia alone rather than any "national" goals -- but at the same time I will not say I am impartial and immune to emotional influences on my thinking. Most people with a soul have opinions about World War II events, especially when you have some family connection involved which I'm sure many if not most on this talk page do. Imho, I think most people here agree that either (a) blaming Poles for the Holocaust or (b) arguing that Poles were solely victims in World War II are fringe and extreme views that shouldn't be tolerated -- but perceive the other side as pushing one of the two.

2) RS or not, Chodakiewicz is obviously not ideal and should not be on the page. The Southern Poverty Law Center should say as much [[50]]. If he is viewed as acceptable for this page, it could very well end up being used as precedent for his other statements, such as the view that Obama was Muslim and/or is communist [[51]] (very oddly common accusation of two things that generally don't co-occur...). Given VM's typical stance on American politics, I really don't think rehabilitating Chodakiewicz is the motive here on "include Chodakiewicz" side, but that won't change the fact that it could very well end up contributing to that result come a couple years.

3) A book edited by him is murkier, but still not ideal. Making matters worse, it is itself a "polemic" against earlier scholarship -- meaning it is already deep in the controversy zone (given Chodakiewicz' erm... views across the board, the hole gets deeper -- as does the risk of precedent setting). One thing that could convince me not to immediately place a boldface oppose !vote is at least some evidence that these incorporated essay authors exercised independence in their views and didn't simply adhere to Chodakiewicz' on the parts that matter (i.e. those not so lovely episodes where Poles did not behave as the downtrodden but pure-hearted patriots you'd read about in primary school). --Calthinus (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I don't agree with most of what Chodakiewicz is saying about modern politics, and it is clear he represents a pretty biased view of the historical reality. At the same time, being biased is not uncommon. No evidence has been presented that he (or others who are seen as part of his 'camp', or what we could term modern Polish gov't supported camp) have engaged in any unethical scholarship, such as falsification of data or worse, Holocaust denial or such. Certainly, their research has an agenda of portraying Polish WWII activities and attitudes in a very positive light, but to what degree is it whitewashing, and to what is just countering the bias of those from the other end of the spectrum who are in turn accused of exaggerating negative aspects of those activities and attitudes (like Gross, Grabowski, etc.)? Who in turn are reacting to the other camp in a vicious spiral of biased scholarship? I find it hard to say which group is more biased, but I don't think that censoring one and not the other is a good answer, as long as there is no consensus among scholars that one group, or at least particular individuals, have engaged in unethical scholarship. Which is why I don't think we can exclude Chodakiewicz (or Grabowski, or others). They clearly disagree with one another, but we are not here to argue that one of those groups is 'right'. This is for future scholars to decide. As long as it is scholarly research, IMHO it should be used, as long as care is taken of undue weight and neutrality. When scholars disagree, Wikipedia should reflect this, and not become a partisan tube for only one group. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Evidence: WP:RS on historiography in the field: [Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, 1939-1941, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, page 85] - section title Locked in Ethno-Nationalist History: The Old-New School of History Writing and the Stereotype: the main representatives of the post-1989 historiography, characterized by prejudicial views and concepts about Jews and other minorities are the late Tomasz Srzembosz, Bogdan Musial and Marek J. Chodakiewicz. These historians belong to the school of (ethno)-nationalist history writing, in which the themes of martyrdom and victimhood of ethnic Poles vis-a-vis other groups play a key role in shaping their arguments and their interpretations.. Start next paragraph: "Chodakiewicz's works represent the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writings ..... In contemporary Polish historiography Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian who constantly uses conflict in the expanation of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland ..... close to ... the National Democracy's interpertation of anti-semitism in general. Reading Chodakiewicz, one could easily reach the conclusion that the Jews were themselves responsible for what happened to them: "They received the type of anti-Semitism they deserve" (Zydzi maja taki antysemityzm na jak zasluguja), as one of the interwar popular National Democratic saying claimed". So..... Yes, he is quite clearly placed in a very-very specific "school", and that furthermore that his is the most extreme form of writing within said "school". Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In terms of errors - Libionka, Dariusz. "The National Military Organization, the National Armed Forces and the Jews near Kraśnik: A Picture Corrected." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 79-121.[52] - Dariusz Libionka explores a rather severe error or falsehood in one of Chodakiewicz's early works (that actually convinced several scholars at the time - including Libionka) that according to Libionka: "Surprisingly, in the meantime Chodakiewicz secretly began to withdraw his theses.21 It would be useless to wonder whether it was an example of extreme ignorance or ill will and manipulation since, let us say it right away, the archival materials unambiguously settle the matter of our interest. The course of events in the Zamość fee tail (Ordynacja Zamojska) forest near the village of Rudki and a few other episodes in its vicinity is far more interesting than wondering why the technical standards were breached by the representatives of that milieu, who for years have been shocking readers with pseudo-methodological platitudes.". This is a full length journal article - some 44 pages - exploring both Chodakiewicz's writing on the subject (which are in extreme error or perhaps even manipulation per Libionka), and the events themselves in Rudki. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

But there is consensus, and the two groups aren't remotely comparable in this respect: one is hailed as novel and influential by scholars the world over; the other is on the fringes of the field and only accepted by a narrow circle of scholars, mostly in Poland and the Polish-Canadian community. Whether "unethical scholarship" has been done by anyone in either group is less important a criteria than you suggest - indeed, it would pose an incredibly low bar for inclusion - and is pretty rare anyways; what matters more are subtle biases like selection bias, thoroughness (or lack thereof), and innovation. Chodakiewicz's poor reputation lies not on blatant falsifications, but on repeatedly disregarding contradicting evidence and synthesizing the rest so it supports a specific narrative. François Robere (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'd like to challenge what I see as the functional definition of unethical scholarship here. Well Icewhiz has pointed out one case of plausible dishonesty on Chod~'s part, but if we give benefit of the doubt there, issues remain. An array of RS sources themselves attribute to him less than scholarly intentions and card stacking behaviors. What are these less than scholarly intentions that these well respected sources accuse him of? Not only whitewashing, but also defamation of entire ethnic groups. I don't think anyone on the "other" side stands accused of anything of that level. Grabowski is surely partisan in his views, yet he has not been accused of card stacking to defame an entire group -- and that is precisely a critical aspect of unethical scholarship that I would like our functional definition thereof to include.--Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add -- I'm generally sympathetic to the view of including all views on contentious topics. But that bill stops for me when we have a guy accused, to put it crudely, of cardstacking to support whatever demographic biases he happens to have, in this case "contextualizing" killings of a group of people with a minority of them happening to be bloody communists. Surely there are other, preferable, scholars out there who present a more mild view of Polish treatment of Jews 1944-1946, and are not surrounded by a cloud of ethnic-tinged controversy.--Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: While I share your sentiments, and I won't deny that one group here is generally able to publish in more mainstream and international venues than others, which is generally a good indication of who is fringe and who is not, I'll say that I am also deeply concerned about the impact of 'political correctness' on the issue. I.e., research into some topics, such as the zydokomuna, is often seen as unsavory and tainted, and people trying to study such topics often get labelled as extremists and such. Sometimes, justly. Sometimes, however, it is just because they go against the prevailing, correct 'groupthink'. And I personally also have some sympathy for the underdog, and scholars who may be trying to research issues that are generally considered 'unsafe' by others, be it porn, pseudoscience, or abuses of political correctness... Back on topic: I'd very much like to see better sources than Chodakiewicz, too. It is clear he has an agenda. But as long as he (or his 'colleagues') are not proven to be falsifying his data, I am just not seeing why we can reject their views simply because they are going against the 'politically correct mainstream' and therefore scoffed by the 'pc mainstream'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: -- the issue raised by Icewhiz leading to the withdrawal of at least one paper by Chodakiewicz is likely worth looking at further. Re the rest -- political correctness is running both ways as there is also the political correctness in Poland that effectively censors any discussion outside of very specific circles that would meaningfully challenge the narrative of Polish martyrdom whether the oppressor be Germans, Nazi Germans, Russians, Commie Russians, Swedes, or, yes... "Jews". (...:/...) In all honesty coming from a (Jewish) family with roots in Poland on one side which did include a few communists (and some right wing ultra-Zionists) back in the day, and knowing the history, yes I have to confess that I have to chuckle a bit when I hear my folk getting up in arms whenever someone points out that communists tended to be educated intelligentsia which is also byword for rather disproportionately Jewish (not tryna brag but if we're going to set aside political correctness, then let's be honest with ourselves on all fronts). Acknowledging these things -- that the connection of education and communism ultimately led to a scenario where a group consisting disproportionately though by no means exclusively of atheist Jews ended up very temporarily empowered over much more conservative Catholic Slavic peasants, until Slav communists be they Russian or Polish asserted ethnic dominance (which did not take long)... that's one thing. Chodakiewicz goes further than that though. He card stacks so as to portray the Jewish population as somehow inherently inclined to communism for some inherent reason other than basic socio-economics, social relations and education, smacking of widely discredited essentialism. And importantly, he's been called out for it by RS on multiple occasions. There are Russian "scholars" who say all sorts of imaginative things about Poland's historical role in the modern period. If they showed up here and I noticed it, I'd be saying the same things to people who wanted those to stay. --Calthinus (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting, through I don't know to what degree we can 'investigate' this beyond the sources presented.

Yes, I certainly agree that there is problematic political pressure in Poland (in the last few years) leading to POV issues like the ones you are describing (and that the work we discuss here fits squarely in that POV).

Chuckle indeed.

That would be problematic, but in all honesty I haven't seen that point in the writings of his I skimmed. At the very least, in this discussion, I thought we are talking about the issue of property, not zydokomuna (which I did bring up, yes).

And yes, you are right some scholars are much less credible then others. But what I want to refocus on is the issue of what is this source used for. Currently it is used for the following text: "Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their relatives (children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses and siblings), whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures. This simplified process was enacted primarily for the benefit of the Jews. Until unclaimed abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures". Is this really such a red-flag claim that this niche and biased, but not IMHO disreputable source cannot be used? Particularly if we were to remove the "This simplified process was enacted primarily for the benefit of the Jews." sentence which IMHO seems to be somewhat agenda-driven? Now, ideally we would simply find better sources and discard this as a fringe one, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As clearly pointed out by any mainstream source covering this - aside from the dates (which are present in the STABLE version of the article from 12 March - which uses mainstream sources) - this is extremely out of whack of any mainstream source covering this - e.g. Meng,[53], Cichopek-Gajraj,[54], Weizman,[55], or as @Ealdgyth: pointed out here Dariusz Stola in (2008). "The Polish Debate on the Holocaust and the Restitution of Property". In Martin Dean; Constantin Goschler; Philipp Ther (eds.). Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe. New York: Berghahn Books and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. pp. 240–258. This legislation was designed to expropriate large amounts of Jewish property (returning but a trifle) - and reclaiming property under it was far from "simple". Even when one got a court decree (after proving one was one's self, and that all one's competing heirs/owners were dead) - one got a piece of paper indicating "possession" of a property still inhabited by invaders - who were difficult to evict legally - and even if tried - such attempts were often met with the extralegal death of the heir or owner at the hands of the invading tenants. And no - a Polish judge, who has not published academically previously or since, writing in a book self-published (and filled with bizarre claims in other chapters) by a SPLC-profiled far-right activist - is not a reasonable source. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Should not be used: no apparent reputation for reliability or fact-checking for the publishing house, while the reputation of the volume's editors matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The discussion is over at WP:RSN, although thanks to walls of text, discussion derailing and obfuscation, essentially no outside editors have chimed in (except to point out that no outside editors are going to chime in because of the walls of text, discussion derailing and obfuscation).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• False statement - Ealdgyth commented - rather rejecting use of this source. And even if no one had commented - WP:ONUS for this self-published book with a whole chapter devoted to exploring "neo-Stalinism" - would not have eben met. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Does not hurt to post at both venues. On the walls of text, no doubt about it. This one [56] clocks in at 10,500 bytes. Personal attacks are a bonus, I assume. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Edit break

Are we finished with this? Consensus achieved? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the discussion was continued over at [57], where it belonged in the first place, and it does not look like there was consensus to remove. If anything, the other way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Marek, we already got back from RSN here. The RSN discussion is now quoted here. What is your problem? You have Icewhiz, K.e.coffman, Calthinus and myself objecting; Ealdgyth stating it should be superseded by better sources, like Stola; and only you and Piotr for - and I'm not even sure Piotr is still for it. François Robere (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously not true. The editors who think this source should be used are myself, Piotrus, Tatzref and MyMoloboaccount and I think Xx236 (although I kind of have trouble understanding what they're actually saying). Somehow you did the counting wrong. Calthinus appears to have a problem with Chodakiewicz himself, but not necessarily with OTHER authors, whom you are removing. So there is obviously no consensus to implement "your" version, which is highly skewed in that it presents cherry picked info and cherry picked authors. The other version includes much more detail, there's been no challenge as to the factual accuracy of the info (only "other authors focus on different parts"), has actual details rather than polemic sweeping generalizations and is WP:BALANCEed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Francois Robere, can you also explain why you are using alleged issues with MJC to remove OTHER authors from the article? For example in this edit in your edit summary you claim removing MJC as a justification. Yet you also remove several other authors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted to a previously worked-upon version that left out references to this book, as well as a popular news item that was out of place for historical data (at least without further information on the source, which we didn't receive). Is there anything else that's missing? François Robere (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a "previously worked-upon version", it's just a single users highly unbalanced and POV version that you and a couple others (Icewhiz, Kecoffman) have been trying to cram into the article, *despite* consensus and objections.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• The consensus seems pretty clear to me that the source should not be used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No, there is obviously no such consensus. Consensus doesn't magically materialize itself because you assert you have it. There's about an even split among the editors here with regard to this one source, which also doesn't excuse removing other sourced information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And quite frankly, since this is a very general level article the whole section is mostly UNDUE. The article is about a 1000+ year history, yet this particular section, on a very narrow issue and controversy, is given as much space as other sections which cover entire centuries. Of course this is because there's a current controversy regarding the issue, but per WP:NOTNEWS that's actually not a consideration in how we write the article. The section should be trimmed down to a couple sentences and most of the info belongs in other, more dedicated articles. Then we can argue about stuff there.

Now, I realize that as soon as I say that this section is UNDUE and too long, someone is going to jump in and under a pretense of "trimming" is going to remove just the parts they don't like and keep the parts they like, making the whole thing even more unbalanced. So let me be clear - the way to solve the UNDUE problem is NOT by POVing the section even more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's too long. I also don't think we need a separate property section from the violence section - the prior organization and length - e.g. 12 March - is appropriate length. There' probably other content that needs to be cut here. The Holocaust is too long. "Territories annexed by USSR (1939–41)" (part of Poland for 2 years) is way too long. The article in general is a bit over WP:SIZERULE at 112k prose.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that version is that the relevant description, although of appropriate length is hopelessly unbalanced and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So what do you propose, other than rejecting obvious consensus Re: MJC? François Robere (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For starters, can you drop the "obvious consensus" false narrative? What's obvious is that there is no such consensus. I'm not sure how we can proceed here when you keep on insisting on something that's blatantly false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, other than yourself I'm not quite sure who's for inclusion. François Robere (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I enumerated the editors above. 11:08 June 04. Why do I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again? With Nihil novi below that makes five or six for inclusion and three, maybe four against. Consensus is clearly leaning THE OTHER WAY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I lost track of this discussion. We are discussing the inclusion of what, now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I vote to keep valid information sourced from Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and other authors. Nihil novi (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Define "valid"? François Robere (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Note I've started an RfC on this.[58] François Robere (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz about the restitution

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-restitution-both-in-poland-and-israel-1.7250323?fbclid=IwAR1vNCbXzrBEnqnMMXq-b1NH085FQVQJKvan7V6KbWbaKI2TIq-40Dw2wmE Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Numbers of Jews in Poland since 1920

Why the number from the last census, which is the only legitimate data based on auto identification, is not used? Instead some estimation from the unknown source is presented. I propose to put the value from the census. Cautious (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Link? François Robere (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's "scummy" to focus on this article for POV

Either way you look at it, trying to place more blame on Poles who were victims of the Germans, or diminish the plight of the Jews, is a really unseemly motivation to have for ensuring the POV here be "correct". There is no reason to edit war over this article or, IMHO, to focus on the importance of its content. I'm not saying the editors now edit warring are definitely in one of those camps but even an appearance of that should be enough to consider looking for some other articles to battleground over. And is this fight seriously (partly) over how to mention Argentinian Jew pimping? All the more embarrassing for everyone involved. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That Poles were victims as well, does not mean we shouldn't present the Polish role in the Holocaust (which per mainstream historians was not insignificant) and post-war anti-Jewish violence and takeover of Jewish property. Both of these aspects are the topics of full-fledged academic studies, and are present in any serious history of the Jews in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We should remeber also that the main nationalisator was Hilary Minc, listed by the Jewish Historical. Institute. https://www.jhi.pl/psj/Minc_Hilary Do you want to tell that Poles dramed to loose everything? One of main criminals was Józef Berman.

Polish role was parallel to Jewish role. Judenrats cooperated (collaborated) isolating the Jews.

Tomasz Frydel described situation of Polish peasants. Eithe ryou are ignorant or biased to write about Polish role.

You have a role in transferring ressonsibility from Germans to Poles. It's Holocaust revisionism.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: And there you have it. François Robere (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Jakub Berman, not Jozef. And DIYE, yes, it is said to see people pushing fringe views. But these days, as too often, fringe views are popular, even in some mainstream media or scholarship calling itself such. Centrists aiming for compromise are, in turn, derided by both factions as traitors... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Which views are fringe? Icewhiz produces thousands of edits criticizing Poles as participants of the Holocaust and only few regarding German, Austrian, Romanian, Hungarian, ... responsibility. Is it neutral? I'm editing a number of WWII and Holocaust pages and I have never met the majority of you.

The Judenrats were created in 1939 and participated in creation of ghettos producing lists of Jews. This Wikipedia says that Germans created ghettos and only later Juderats were created, which is false.

The definition of The Holocaust (the lead) is biased, it doesn't include allies of Nazi Germany. If you don't know the subject, why do you discuss with me? Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Double payout?

From Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6.: "For example, in the annexed western territories, where the majority of Polish Jews ended up after the war, the government allocated “formerly German” property to new settlers making the recovery of their property elsewhere largely irrelevant." What does the law say about receiving compensation and then asking for it again? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"There was generally no property in former Germany, only "opłata wieczysta".Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What law are you asking about? Who supposedly received compensation and asked for it again, and when did they supposedly do this?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I am curious if there are any sources on whether people who are asking for compensation now are required to prove they did not already receive it in the aftermath of WWII? The quite I cited below seems to suggest, for example, that majority of Polish people, including Polish Jews, received compensation in the form of "formerly German" property already. So the argument about 'most Jews couldn't recover their wartime property", seen in the light of "but most received compensation in form of different property", is worth considering.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The majority of Jews in Recovered territories left Poland either shortly after the war or around 1968. I'm not sure if they owned anything there. Only now property is introduced. Perhaps workshops were owned.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Fraudulent property claims

Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.<ref>Paweł Machcewicz and Krzysztof Persak, eds. ''Wokół Jedwabnego'' (Warsaw: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej—Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, 2002) vol. 1, 379–387.</ref> This was one of the edits that we didn't keep as I argued above it is undue. But I'll note I found the claim repeated here: Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6. "Jewish claimants also occasionally abused the restitution process. "News travel to Krakow from smaller Jewish communities that Jaws started to sell houses which were not theirs"... "The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the "racket" of some Jews going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs...". I am still worried that mentions of such events would be UNDUE here, but since we also mentions details such as some other Jewish survivors facing problems due to Polish gangs, or government corruption etc., this appears to be about as relevant. Some survivors were murdered for their property, some tried their luck with the legal system with varying results, others however engaged in less savory activities. As Cichopek-Gajraj notes, greed was apparent on both sides of the conflict. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I've no problem having this discussion and adding this info if it's due, but let's please finish the previous discussion [59][60] before moving to this one. We can only conduct so many contentious discussions in parallel... François Robere (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "both sides of the conflict"? Poland's Jewry was decimated. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that puts this information in any kind of context. Also please be more careful with quotes. You are not distinguishing between quoting the author and quoting the author quoting someone. This makes your source seem much more definitive than it is. Also, unless you can source "greed" please strike.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Why "the Jews" and not just "jews"

Is there any particular reason we are using the definite article both in the title and the prose. It would seem that unless we are discussing specific groups that are recognizable in context we should just use "jews" in the prose and "Jews" in the title.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This 🠩 . François Robere (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is weird, but it seems this is a Wikipedia wide convention: History of the Jews in Germany, History of the Jews in Spain, History of the Jews in Greece, History of the Jews in England, History of the Jews in China, History of the Jews in Galveston, Texas, etc. On the other hand, History of Jews in Denver. No idea if this has ever been discussed or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Jews is always in uppercase — I find lowercase "jews" is immediately suspect. El_C 07:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Two issues - using an article and using a capital. AlmostFrancis is right on the first, El_C is right on the second. Should be just "Jews", as is "Christians", "Hindus" etc. François Robere (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

hostility...continued until the German invasion of Poland

Such opinion, based on one US source, is controversial. Polish Jews were aware of German danger and supported the Polish state and army. They were preparing to war together with non-Jews. They contributed to Fundusz Obrony Narodowej. https://sztetl.org.pl/pl/miejscowosci/l/691-lubartow/99-historia-spolecznosci/137597-historia-spolecznosci Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/3823/Tr%C4%99bacz_Zag%C5%82ada.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

1939 army numbers - Ringelblum

http://www.jhi.pl/blog/2017-09-07-zydzi-w-obronie-warszawy-we-wrzesniu-1939

I don't know the subject, the numbers here are partially different than in the page.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/bronil-polski-1939/ Gąsowski The Jews ... fought well.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Czesław Śliwa

Czesław Śliwa was a Holocaust survivor, who pretended to create an Austrian Consulate in Wrocław. There is a movie based on his case.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What are your sources and proposed text?AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Polish films about Jews should be described? Both Jewish filmmakers and Jews as subject of the films belong to the history.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Stefan Michnik

He should be probably mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Why should be be mentioned. Do you have a source that puts him in context of Jewish history in Poland. It would be easier if you added sources and proposed text.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a general level article. There's no reason to mention him. Same goes for a lot of other stuff though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So let's name the other stuff, discuss it and remove. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Upside down

The state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" campaign resulted in the removal of Jews from the Polish United Worker's Party Poland was ruled by the Party but you believe that the state removed Jews from the Party. It's absurd.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nationalisation and its victims

The biggest opressed group of nationalisation victims was ziemianstwo (gentry). They lost their manors and farms and were expelled from their counties. Rich Jews lost their businesses but weren't legally expelled.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source you want to use and a location to place this information in mind?AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are many books about the nationalisation and destruction of zimiaństwo as a class.

I mean that the nationalisation of Jewish posession should be described in the context of the whole nationalisation. Now the page suggests that Polish nationalists persecute Jews. There were Jews in the government and everyone was oppressed.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point. The section on nationalization should avoid an impression that Jews were the only group targeted, or even that they were the main group targeted. I don't think there's even a source that states that the Jews were the main group targeted and hurt by communist nationalization. A note that effect, i.e. that Jews were only a semi-accidental victim of policy that hurt many other groups much more, is in order. But sources, of course, are needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No-no, we're not going to reduce this issue to that. How Polish society and governments dealt (or refused to deal) with Jewish property is both more complex and much more significant than how you two just presented it, and we have plenty of sources to that effect. I've no problem stating the Communists nationalized properties for their own agenda, but we're not going to reduce Jewish properties to just that. If you want to make an addition do make it here so we may discuss it before it is made in the article. François Robere (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources, please. Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please prove that any Jewish organization opposed the nationalisation.Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure majority of property in Poland was non-Jewish.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Straw man. François Robere (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's context. Romani genocide is usually discussed with a reference to the (Jewish) Holocaust, and is situated within that broader topic. Sure, nationalization of Jewish properties was tied to the Holocaust, etc., but the goal of nationalization in Poland was not primarily to steal Jewish properties. That was just an accidental byproduct (which perhaps made a few antimsemites happy, but that again was incidental). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got the context wrong. Or rather - half wrong. For medium to large businesses - you are somewhat right (they were mostly nationalized, though there are some caveats here). For housing real estate in Warsaw you are half right - right in the sense that it was all nationalized, but that wrong in the sense that Poles got an apartment out of the common redivided city - whereas the heirs of Jewish victims (who fled Poland) - did not). For housing real estate elsewhere - you are dead wrong - it wasn't nationalized - just the "abandoned" Jewish (almost entirely Jewish) property was. Furthermore, in all 3 cases (medium-large business, Warsaw RE, RE elsewhere) - Jewish property was stolen and re-allocated during the Nazi occupation - and then passed into the Polish state - this Nazi theft is absent from most nationalized Polish property. Jewish property is generally, in mainstream academia (and news orgs), treated as a distinctly different topic than Polish nationalization. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Millions fled Poland or didn't return, Jews were a minority among them. Gentry families were robbed and expelled from their counties. Kresy Poles run away or were expelled. Owners of houses had to accept state defined rents, so they weren't able to maintain them. Owners of flats had to accept state imposed tenants of rooms. Peasants were forced to join cooperatives, some of them killed, thousands imprisoned. So who exactly were the lucky Poles? Political police officers? Communists living in state buildings with cantines and wardens? Army officers like Jaruzelski, who robbed a house. Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

News orgs don't get their story right too often in such intricate topics. As for academic sources, well, we need specifics. You may be right, or not, but TBH this is something to be discussed, with references, in nationalization in Poland article, not here. FYI, here's a source that discusses some of this (but I cannot get access to more than just few pages: [61]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So is antisemitism. Suggesting that because most properties were Polish antisemitism didn't play a role with those properties that were Jewish is a non sequitur, and hence a straw man. It's like stating the Romani were not massacred for being Romani, because the Nazis "generally" targeted minorities. Sure, nationalization of Jewish properties was tied to the Holocaust, etc.? This isn't an offhand fact here, it's the fact. Talking about context..? the goal of nationalization in Poland was not primarily to steal Jewish properties. That was just an accidental byproduct No, it wasn't. The goal (or one of the goals) of the 1945-1946 laws was to expropriate Jewish properties, and we already cite several sources on that. It combined with the larger agenda, but it was very much not incidental - it was intentional. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"The goal (or one of the goals) of the 1945-1946 laws was to expropriate Jewish properties". Who passed the alleged anti-Semitic laws? Hilary Minc? Please remind me Jewish protests against the nationalisation. Facts, please. Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Historically, how many Polish Jews spoke Polish?

A recent discussion prompted me to do some research. And here's what I found:

Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.

Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."

Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)

Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".

Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"

Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment ([62]).

But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well "

Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."

Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""

How to summarize this in this article, and where? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Kurek and Pogonowski are entirely unacceptable sources for this topic area. You are truly suggesting Kurek? She's known for being a "Holocaust revisionist or distorter"[63][64] Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

She is described as such... by news media with a clear agenda of their own. There is little difference between ToI or Tablet calling her anti-semitic, and Polish far-right media calling Gross or Grabowski anti-Polish. But I am happy to not cite them since we have better sources, unless you are suggesting that Davies or Dawidowicz and the rest are also controversial revisionists? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

ToI or Tablet (or the Associated Press for that matter - who also carried this) are not far-right media - they are mainstream publications. As is Gazeta Wyborcza which profiled Kurek extensively in 2006. There is a huge difference - Kurek is not an accepted scholar in any academic circle (it seems even the Polish government recognized the faux pas here - not that the Polish government's views are of great historical weight). I suggest you look up Kurek's views on fun and ghettos as well as comparing Jews to a pack of lions in relation to their young, as well as her publications (at times, self-publications) and citations thereof. Gross and Grabowski - on the other hand - while they may face some criticism by far-right circles in Poland (which generally carry very little weight in the academic community) - are award winning scholars and both are among the most cited scholars in the field. Gross's works have hundreds of citations each - you can't write a serious work on the period in Poland without citing him. We use mainstream sources - which Gross and Grabowski both are. If you are unable to differentiate between far-right media in Poland and mainstream scholars - well - we have a problem here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy listed NINE sources and for the two you CHOOSE to focus on, he explicitly noted they are controversial. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I pointed out two glaring issues - doesn't mean there isn't an issue with the other seven. Citing Kurek - in a self published book ([65] iUniverse) is utterly inappropriate - even on a talk page. This is beyond "somewhat controversial". The moment such a source is cited - really - this paints the entire discussion here. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It does no such thing. But feel free to keep pretending otherwise. Nine sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For this discussion sake, I am happy if we disregard Kurek. It is not clear to me why Pogonowski should be unreliable, through as a amateur historian with mixed reviews, I would agree he should not be a sole source for any potentially contentious claims, so we can ignore him as well. Now, can we go back to the topic at hand? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Pogonowski was a writer for the far-right Radio Maryja/Nasz Dziennik - widely reported to be antisemitic and linked to the rather fringe "closed church" - source. (The "closed church" or "radical traditional Catholicism" - being designated by the SPLC in the US). Anyone associated with the enterprise is highly suspect - this is a huge REDFLAG - particularly given his non-professional credentials. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said... I agree. So, discounting Kurek and Pogonowski, can you finally answer the question in the OP? Feel free to present more sources, btw. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain what this clear agenda is and which parts of the media have it? Also can you explain how it relates to Kurek and the Holocaust?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Which texts by Gross or Grabowski describe creation of ghettos or conflicts between rich and poor Jews inside the ghettos?

Many Jews spoke poor Polish and didn't know world outside shtetl. Is this opinion non-academic? Some writers with Jewish roots bemocked poor language. Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

which is bilingual

Is it obvious that it's Polish-Yiddish (not Hebrew)?Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Change dead URL:

https://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5727.htm

To working URL:

https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5727.htm

TY- -- GreenC 03:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

1RR DS

Will be in effect once the protection lapses. (And, yes, I realize Poland is in Central Europe, and yet, watch me go!) El_C 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Adalbert freeing "enslaved" Slav Christians from the evil Jewish merchants

Can we delete this? I really don't see why this needs highlighting, especially given the dubiousness of the alleged event involved? --Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Polish Jews needs an article

How about something constructive? Polish Jews is a redirect here, which is clearly a problem. We need a proper article that's not just history (see ex. Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Italian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Galician Jews - the last two btw may be relevant to this as subarticles...). I suggest we work on a draft here: Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Polish Jews, with the aim of a nice DYK, at least. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Translating some bits from the Polish article, which I assume had locals work on it (and shouldn't be as controversial as this one), could be a good start. François Robere (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

An IPN book

https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/ksiazki/62410,The-Holocaust-and-Polish-Jewish-Relations-Selected-Issues.html Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an unreliable source. It is published by the IPN, which does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To the contrary:

1. per Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22.: "After 2015 the IPN converted into an institution promoting revisionism in reference to Polish-Jewish relations. Previously open attitudes to research and teaching about the Holocaust were amended., it is has a reputation of promoting revisionism.
2. Furthermore per - Behr, Valentin. "Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland: a sociological approach to the narratives of communism." European Politics and Society 18.1 (2017): 81-95. - "The IPN became famous after heated controversies erupted over its activities, especially between 2005 and 2007, when PiS was in power. It has been at the centre of political disputes about Lech Walesa’s past... ). As a result of these contentious public debates, the IPN has been mainly referred to as a ‘Ministry of Memory’ (Stola, 2012) or a political institution at the centre of ‘memory games’ (Mink, 2013) in the scientific literature. - is is engaged in political propaganda games.
3. They operate under political direction - Mazzini, Mateusz. "A Three-Dimensional Model of Enlarging the Mnemonic Conflict: The Case of Poland Under Second Law and Justice Government." Slovo 31.1 (2018): 45-67. - "Hence PiS, immediately after assuming power in 2015, started to redefine the place of Lech Wałęsa in Polish collective memory. Educational materials produced by the IPN, including the already analysed ‘The Unconquered’ animation, erased the figure of Wałęsa from the most recent history of Poland. - erasing history per request.
4. Per - Hackmann, Jörg. "Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation: Politics of History as a Battlefield in Poland, 2015–18." Journal of Genocide Research 20.4 (2018): 587-606. - the "Holocaust law" states that "the “protection of the reputation of the Polish Republic and the Polish nation” 77 was added to the tasks of the IPN" - thus, by law, this institution is aimed at producing publications favorable to Poland. It is an organ in fulfilling PiS's official polityka historyczna ("historical policy") which per Hackman - "international scholarly assessment of the historical policy by PiS is widely negative and has been seen, for instance, in an “implicit alliance,” 96 with Russian memory politics.. In short - this is clearly not a reputable publisher.

Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiuz is fighting his war.

It's not a forum to discuss eg. Wałęsa. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but IPN is still considered a reliable (if biased, recently) source. If this wasn't discussed at WP:RSN you can bring it there, but, as long as we realize that yes, the IPN publications from the last few years will have a pro-Polish (but not anti-Jewish) bias (the 'Defending the good name of the Polish nation', yes), it's a reliable source. IPN does a lot of good historical research, but it's clear they'll publish about topics such as Rescue of Jews by the Poles rather than about postwar anti-Jewish violence in Poland. Having a bias is nothing new. Yad Vashem (a research institute established by the Israeli government...sounds similar?), likewise, will focus on researching and publishing on topics regaled to The Holocaust. We could argue that YV bias is nobler, but it doesn't change the fact that it too has an agenda. As long as IPN is not falsifying sources or such, and I don't think it was ever accused of that, it's not a bad source. None of the sources you cite give any indication it has problems with 'fact-checking and accuracy'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yad Vashem... likewise, will focus on researching and publishing on topics regaled [sic] to The Holocaust isn't "bias" or an agenda - it's a field. Your argument could just as well be used against CERN with physics.

it's clear [IPN will]] publish about topics such as Rescue of Jews by the Poles rather than about postwar anti-Jewish violence in Poland That, one the other hand, is bias. Why wouldn't the Institute of National Remembrance research that? Weren't Jews part of the nation and worthy of remembrance? And that's the difference between IPN and YV: YV publishes all across the field, regardless of the government's - or anyone else's - political position; IPN is obliged to satisfy someone. Is it independent enough to qualify as an RS per WP:BIASED? That's certainly arguable per the above sources.

Overall you make an excellent case for why IPN might be reliable, but certainly isn't balanced, and should be used with care and attribution as per WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. François Robere (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It should only be used with care and attribution when it comes to viewpoints that may be relevant to fringe and controversial claims. Just like any other source. And the bias of YV (and IPN) can be very nicely seen in the bio of Shmuel Krakowski, where IPN sources focus on his early life as the agent of Polish secret police, and YV conveniently omits that instead focusing on his later career as a historian. You need both sides to get the full story, otherwise you'll be just getting state propaganda. With best intentions behind it, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

So if an editor publishes here about anti-Jewish violence in Poland but doesn't write about Rescue of Jews by the Poles nor anti-Jewish violence outside Poland, it means that he is biased and that he makes some pages biased.

IPN is a big organisation, divided into many departments and local divisions. You assume that IPN is a German type organsation, which makes exactly what it's ordered to. The IPN is however a Polish organisation, which tries to do something but obtains something different.

IPN is influenced by its presidents. Leon Kieres supported fundamental book (two volumes) about Jedwabne crime. Janusz Kurtyka was integral and even his opponents respected him. He died in 2010. Łukasz Kamiński was liberal. Jarosław Szarek is a president since 2016, so probably some books were prepared before he came.

You idea about the IPN is very primitive - they are bad guys. Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yad Vashem is involved in a dirty conflict regarding Aleksander Ładoś. They misrepresent both his last name and position. Their opinion about 2018 Polish law was idiotic.

IPN is reliable. This has been discussed to death. Stop making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop telling people to "stop making shit up". François Robere (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. When they stop making shit up and derailing discussions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Academic name is Assertiveness#Broken rccord. Assertiveness#Criticism people were told to do some pretty obnoxious things in the name of assertiveness. Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Restitution of synagogues and cemetaries

English language

http://jewsinpoland.org/pl/node/31 Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

http://jewsinpoland.org/en/content/en/are-jewish-communal-funds-poland-being-mishandled-jan-jaben-eilon Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Many of the restututed estates are sold by Jewish organisations.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.pl/wiadomosci/kadisz-za-milion-dolarow/wyyhzrl Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.pl/opinie/kim-sa-nasi-przywodcy/7mvsl6x Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

http://jewsinpoland.org/pl/content/pl/kim-s%C4%85-przyw%C3%B3dcy-polskiej-gminy-%C5%BCydowskiej-pisze-nissan-tsur?fbclid=IwAR1b9sJSLVlHY9_lDZSQcDlEY20nkSWbH32wLCjXCnjnD-Ge5KKlx0k9_EE Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Tensions and antisemitism - Manipulation

With the influence of the Endecja party growing - when exactly was the influence growing? Endecja was dominated by Sanacja since 1926. ONR activists were imprisoned in Bereza Kartuska prison.

The paragraph starts with smaller towns but it describes universities situted in cities. Please learn to write. Ratio of Jewish students in 1937 is quoted, but ratio of Jews with university education isn't. There existed real problem of social advance of peasant children in former Russia, including Warsaw. The Jews lived in Poland among uneducated ethnic Poles. No social group accepts such situation. The governmnet of Poland failed to support children of peasants and workers.

Simon Wiesenthal studied in Prague. The majority of Polish youth didn't study.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Adalbert redux : ethnic cherrypicking should not be promoted by Wikipedia

This should not be restored to the article. POLIN might have it but it is cherrypicking that reinforces one of the most pernicious anti-Semitic canards around. Jews just like all other peoples in teh period had some involvement in slavery, but the canard ignores the participation of others and focuses disproportionately on the Jewish role to make it seem like Jews ever "controlled" the phenomenon. European medieval sources, typically ecclesiastic, are often insanely biased not only against Jews but also against the pagan Prussians (relevant for Adalbert of Prague), and are predictably also guilty of this sort of bigoted cherrypicking. Here's one RS [[66]] : Bohemia, as is wel-known, was one of the principal markets for the sale and purchase of Slav slaves... Poland was also drawn into the net of this international trade. Here too, as in other countries, the church protested not against the slave trade in general, but only against Jews who purchased Christian slaves. In the biography of St. Adalbert Wojtech... declined a post in Prague because ... he was prevented from ransoming Christian captives and slaves, which a [quotes in original] "Jewish trader had purchased for his accursed gold"... Judged by these reports (unilaterally gathered by church chroniclers, incidentally) it was permanently settled, but there were itinerant Jewish traders in Poland who participated, generally with Greeks and Arabs, in the slave trade.... The source also mentions Christian German rulers taxing "Jewish and other" slave trading meaning they condoned it. This is all dubious at best. Why are we featuring a picture depicting Jews as the enslavers of native Slav Christians when the situation was much more complicated, with slavers of all religions, and participation of native Christians in the market including the apparently hypocritical Prague authorities?--Calthinus (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Worse - we do not discuss this "incident" in the text of this article nor in Adalbert's article either... illustrations should illuminate things discussed in the text of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at the sorry situation on the administrators board about two editors and going through the difs, it led me to here. The image is WP:UNDUE. Toch, p. 181 [67] states in relation to Adelbert and the issues we are discussing: "These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.". Having the image here basically recycles anti-Semitic tropes of the past to say the least.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The photograph in question has been part of this article since at least 2012. It is directly related to the text, namely the activities of Jewish traders. The evidence of their involvement in the slave trade of Christian Poles is indisputable. According to the YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe: “The first information about Jewish merchants in Eastern Europe dates from about the tenth century. In this period, Jews took part in the slave trade between Central Asia, Khazaria, Byzantium, and Western Europe (in particular the Iberian Peninsula). Important stopping points on the trade routes included Prague, Kraków, and Kiev, towns in which Jewish colonies developed.” (http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Trade). There are numerous sources that deal with this matter such as Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History (Hippocrene, 1993), pp. 257-266; H.H. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A History of the Jewish People (Harvard University Press, 1976), pp. 394-398, where the photograph in question is reproduced as Plate 31; Joseph Adler, “The Origins of Polish Jewry,” Midstream (October 1994), pp. 26-28.

The photograph in question is part of a core exhibit at POLIN The Museum of the History of Polish Jews POLIN in Warsaw (https://culture.pl/en/article/a-virtual-visit-to-the-museum-of-the-history-of-polish-jews). The matter of Jewish traders is dealt with in an official publication of that Museum from 2014 titled Polin: 1000 Year History of Polish Jews, edited by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett & Antony Polonsky, both of whom are associated with that Museum and are hardly in the business of "recycling anti-Semitic tropes." Slaves are said to be the "main 'commodity' of this trade." (p. 57)

It is not true that the Catholic Church did not protest against the slave trade per se. According to historian Zofia Kowalska: “In the early Middle Ages the Jews kept a high profile in various branches of long-distance and overseas trade, in which slaves were, for at least three hundred years, the chief commodity. … The accounts of travellers (Ibn Kordabheh, Ibrahim ibn Yacub), passages in the works of other Arab and Jewish authors (Ibn Haukal, Ibrahim al Quarawi, Yehuda ben Meir ha-Kohen), documents issued by ecclesiastical and secular authorities, charters of municipal privileges and customs tariffs build up a massive body of evidence corroborating the involvement of the Jews in the slave trade. Their “goods” came mostly from the Slav nations; their trade routes led to and crossed in Eastern and Central Europe. Slaves of Slav origin would be taken westwards across the Frankish lands to Arab Spain and from there to other countries in the Mediterranean. The main centres of the slave trade were Prague (from the 10th century onwards); Magdeburg, Merseburg, Mainz and Koblenz in Germany; Verdun in northern France and a number of towns in southern France. In spite of the vociferous debates that the slave trade provoked in both secular and church circles, the Jews were undismayed and went on with their business.” Kowalska's article “Handel niewolnikami prowadzony przez Żydów w IX-XI wieku w Europie,” is found in Danuta Quirini-Popławskiej (ed.), Niewolnictwo i niewolnicy w Europie od starożytności po czasy nowożytne (Jagiellonian University, 1998), at pp. 81-92. The abstract set out above appeared there in English.Tatzref (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that St. Adalbert, the bishop of Prague, was banished because of his opposition to the slave trade--a trade in which only Christians were the slaves. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalbert_of_Prague)Tatzref (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's consolidate Calthinus' arguments: (1) the picture shows a dubious alleged event; (2) POLIN Museum is a controversial entity; (3) the restoration of the photo is an intentional provocation.

Picture of Adalbert freeing "enslaved" Slav Christians from the evil Jewish merchants[edit]

Can we delete this? I really don't see why this needs highlighting, especially given the dubiousness of the alleged event involved? --Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

14:56, 22 June 2019‎ Calthinus talk contribs‎ 227,025 bytes -171‎ →‎Early history: 966–1385: why on earth in the middle of arbitration are we featuring a questionable picture depicting Jews as slavers? No it being at POLIN, itself a controversial entity in the latest disputes, is not an excuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calthinus#Adalbert_and_ARBCOM

@François Robere: this looks like an intentional provocation from Tatzref. He needs to explain himself or my testimony may become less rosy.--Calthinus (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Tatzref (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is over a image regarding Adalbert and what it conveys. From a historians' point of view, as noted by Toch, such depictions do refer to the slave trade, but are not taken as evidence of Jewish involvement. As such having that particular image for this article is WP:UNDUE.Resnjari (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that for an image to be included, it should be discussed in the text first, or be clearly relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)