Talk:The Holocaust in Poland

Page views (90 days)

More informative version

I hope I haven't offended anyone or overstepped some bounds, but I find the version of the collaboration section that begins with the assessment by Connelly more informative. - - GI — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhettoInvestigator (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

I would like to submit the text below under “Individual collaboration”, second paragraph, to follow the last sentence ending with “…"structural collaboration" (see more below).[7]” Connelly’s criticism does not consider contextual factors, which are outlined below.

(Quote) The criticism of indifference is misplaced as it fails to consider a number of factual realities. A key disincentive was the Germans’ standing order that any form of assistance to Jews was routinely punishable by death. Because of severe German repression, Poles were in daily struggle for survival. As the Germans rounded up Jews for confinement in ghettos, they executed Poles to terrorize the populace, rounded up villagers for concentration camps, arrested and tortured locals to extract information on the resistance as well as locations of fugitive Jews and Polish rescuers, confiscated crops and livestock, and enforced near-starvation rations. Another factor was that many Poles, particularly in the countryside, did not have the capability or resources to regularly shelter and feed fugitive Jews. Also not considered are the rescue activities of Jews carried out by priests, nuns, and monks in more than one thousand Roman Catholic Church institutions throughout occupied Poland. Several dozen members of the Polish clergy were executed for this reason. The Polish Catholic clergy were the only Christian clergy who were systematically surveilled, persecuted, imprisoned, and murdered as a result of Hitler’s mass murder policies. Further overlooked is the Polish underground organization Żegota, which was the only government entity in the German-occupied countries established to rescue Jews. Żegota officials estimated that 40,000 to 50,000 Jews were aided by the organization. Żegota’s Irena Sendler and her team of Polish helpers are credited with safely smuggling 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw Ghetto. Also not considered is the servility of the Polish Jewish leadership. When the Germans attacked Poland in 1939, they immediately began forming Jewish Councils (Judenräte) to administer the ghettos in which Polish Jews were to reside. Historian Ewa Kurek points out that the Judenräte ceased all forms of contact with Polish authorities and negotiated the conditions of collaboration for Jewish governance of the ghettos. The Judenräte instructed the relocation of Jews from small towns to the ghettos in larger urban areas, told ghetto Jews they were being deported to work in German-designated areas in the East, and directed the Jewish Ghetto Police to forcibly round up Jews and load them onto the trains destined for the death camps. Historian Raul Hilberg contends that, for the most part, the Jews were not fooled by the Germans but rather by themselves. Political theorist Hannah Arendt has posed the compelling question of why the Jews did not resist and instead force the Germans do their own heinous work. (Unquote)

BialaPodlaska (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC) BialaPodlaska (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

For a start way too long.Slatersteven (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

For another, Paul and Kurek are iffy sources and Arendt's a bit outdated. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven states: “For a start way too long”. Please specify a text length that is not too long. Thanks.

Ealdgyth states: “For another, Paul and Kurek are iffy sources and Arendt's a bit outdated”. Please specify why Paul and Kurek are iffy. Please specify why Arendt’s 2006 source is a bit outdated. Thanks. BialaPodlaska (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Less, there is no set amount but this is far too long (also it was for a start) there is also the fact I am not sure this is neutrally worded. Nor )as far as I can tell) does it add anything we do not already say. Nor do I see why this has been resurrected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt died in 1975. Her Eichmann in Jerusalem was originally put out in 1963. That's why I said "dated". As for Paul and Kurek - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 242, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 243. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I take your point about “less”.

Regarding “neutral wording”, please let me know what you’re unsure about.

Regarding “adding to what is not said”, my second sentence pointed out the absence of contextual factors. As an example, the fourth sentence of the Wikipedia entry states that Connelly accuses the “Polish population” of indifference. This is a sweeping generalization that wrongly maligns the “same population” for the simple reason it ignores the contextual factors I described. Adding contextual factors provides the necessary, broader factual picture. In contrast to Connelly’s sweeping accusation, historian Arno J. Mayer points out the following in his 1990 work “Why Did The Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ In History”: “The local populations became indifferent to the torments of the Jews less because of any residual Judeophobia because they, too, were being terrorized and brutalized, even if to a lesser extent.” (p. 273).

It’s not clear what you mean by “being resurrected”. What’s being resurrected?

As for “a bit dated”, while Arendt’s work has an initial publication date of 1965, Raul Hilberg’s work, which I also cite as a source, has an initial publication date of 1961. Labeling the former as a bit dated but not the latter, which was published four years earlier, doesn’t appear to be logical.

In the case of “iffy”, the issue is straightforward, i.e., whether or not facts have been falsified or manipulated to align with an author’s point of view. Your first paragraph in Archive 242 is absent of empirical evidence that this is the case with Mark Paul. The same applies to your second paragraph. Others who disparaged Paul similarly present no evidence of iffiness. As for Kurek, Tatzref’s comments confirm that iffy is not applicable. You’ve made no comments on Mark Paul in Archive 243. The few comments made by others in this Archive present no evidence that he falsified or manipulated facts. Kurek is not mentioned in this Archive. As for Archive 241, this simply refers one to the previous Archives.

Regarding “iffy”, I would offer the following for your consideration. The last sentence in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia entry states: “According to Grabowski, the number of ‘Judenjagd’ victims could reach 200,000 in Poland alone; [217] Szymon Datner gave a lower estimate - 100,000 Jews who "fell prey to the Germans and their local helpers, or were murdered in various unexplained circumstances. [218]” The first part of this sentence presents Grabowski’s claim that up to 200,000 Jews “were killed or turned in by Poles”. In the second part of this sentence, Grabowski claims that historian Szymon Datner “estimates that 100,000 Jews fell prey to the Germans and their local helpers, or were murdered in various unexplained circumstances.” This is false. Szymon Datner, as recorded in the “Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Institute No. 75 (1970)”, stated the following “I estimated the number of surviving Jews – chiefly thanks to assistance provided by the Polish population – at approximately 100,000. It may be similarly estimated that another 100,000 Jewish victims were captured by the occupying authorities and murdered.” “The Times of Israel” published Grabowski’s falsehood on 8 February 2018. This example empirically confirms that, when it comes to assessing the reliability of a source, Grabowski by far surpasses the iffiness standard.

Section 6 of the larger Wikipedia entry is titled “Poles and the Jews” and the sub-entry in question is titled “Collaboration and opportunism”. Collaboration and opportunism of “Poles” is addressed but not that of “the Jews”. The latter is missing and needs to be included.

This sub-entry is largely flawed. Why is it a “semi-protected” component?

BialaPodlaska (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You first line editorialises and puts into Wikipedia's voice an opinion, and that is just for starters, you whole text is prolboamtic.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My first line presents fact, i.e., absence of factual context, rather than opinion. Factual context that explains why “activities that may be described as collaboration” took place among a “relatively small percentage of the Polish population” is missing. Connelly’s assertion that all such individuals were indifferent is incorrect.

Give me a little bit of time and I’ll specify why this sub-entry is problematic.

BialaPodlaska (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've rejected the request, as it relies on questionable sources (as pointed by Ealdgyth). You may reopen or refile it at your convenience, but please make sure your sources follow WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, below are the specifics I believe make this entry problematic. I submit that the entry’s general issue is that it presents single POVs. As a result, I’ve made every effort to provide fair and balanced significant views published by reliable sources so that an NPOV is achieved, which is a core Wikipedia requirement. I also believe there are some inaccuracies in the text and in some of the inline citations, which I’ve pointed out.

Please let me know which revisions you agree with and which revisions you disagree with. For those you disagree with, please specify why and, if you believe it violates a Wikipedia policy, please identify it.

Thanks much.

Extended content

The FIRST PARAGRAPH is problematic for three main reasons. The first is that the fourth sentence is poorly written. The second is that the fourth sentence presents a single POV. The third is that the fifth (last) sentence does not meet the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability. FIRST PARAGRAPH FIRST REASON: The fourth sentence is poorly written. Because it is the logical extension of the third sentence, which cites “a relatively small percentage of the Polish population”, the fourth sentence should also convey the notion of “a small percentage”. The phrase “the same population” does not do this. The phrase “Polish population” in the third sentence, coupled with the phrase “the same population” in the fourth sentence, could lead one to conclude that this applies to the entire or larger Polish population. For the purpose of clarity, the phrase “same population” should be replaced by the phrase “This small percentage”. The second part of the fourth sentence, i.e., “…however, can be accused of indifference to the Jewish plight”, appears to be a subjective assessment. Who is doing the accusing of “indifference”– Connelly or someone else? If it is Connelly, the word “accuse” needs to be shown in quotes and cited appropriately as required by Wikipedia. If it is not Connelly, this second part should be deleted and the fourth sentence should be rewritten as follows: “John Connelly attributes the actions of this small percentage of Poles to an indifference of the Jewish plight and calls such behavior ‘structural collaboration’”.[209] FIRST PARAGRAPH SECOND REASON: The fourth sentence as written presents the single POV of Connelly, i.e., a small percentage of Polish collaborators engaged in “structural collaboration”, which apparently means that they were indifferent to the Germans’ oppression of Polish Jews. For this part of the paragraph to be fair and proportionate, Wikipedia requires a second significant POV by a reliable source so that an overall NPOV is presented. That second POV should be inserted as a new fifth sentence and is as follows: “By contrast, historian Arno J. Mayer states the following: “The local populations became indifferent to the torments of the Jews less because of any residual Judeophobia because they, too, were being terrorized and brutalized, even if to a lesser extent.” This second POV should be added as a new fifth sentence to the paragraph. The supporting inline citation, which also needs to be included, is as follows: [Arno J. Mayer, “Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ In History”, 1990, p.273.] FIRST PARAGRAPH THIRD REASON: The fifth (last) sentence and its inline citation [212] do not meet the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability and should be deleted. As written, Grabowski claims that Datner claims that “fewer Poles murdered Jews…etc.”. If Datner made this claim, Grabowski would have to have examined the source in which Datner stated it. However, the inline citation [212] does not list the source in which Datner stated it. Instead, inline citation [212] lists Grabowski’s book “Hunt for the Jews” as the source. Wikipedia requires, without exception, all content to be verifiable and further requires sources to directly support the claims made. The source that directly supports Grabowski’s claim is the primary source, i.e., Datner. Citing Grabowski as the primary source is invalid. Consequently, this sentence and its inline citation should be removed. FIRST PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION: Based on the above explanations, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS. “The phenomenon of Polish collaboration was described by John Connelly and Leszek Gondek as marginal, when seen against the backdrop of European and world history.[208] Estimates of the number of individual Polish collaborators vary from as few as 7,000 to as many as several hundred thousand.[209][210][211] According to John Connelly “only a relatively small percentage of the Polish population engaged in activities that may be described as collaboration, when seen against the backdrop of European and world history.” Connelly attributes the actions of this small percentage of Poles to an indifference of the Jewish plight and calls such behavior ‘structural collaboration’[209] By contrast, historian Arno J. Mayer states the following: “The local populations became indifferent to the torments of the Jews less because of any residual Judeophobia because they, too, were being terrorized and brutalized, even if to a lesser extent.” [New Inline Citation - Arno J. Mayer, “Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ In History”, 1990, p. 273.]” The SECOND PARAGRAPH is problematic for six main reasons. The first is that the first sentence contains an invalid inline citation. The second is that the first and third sentences are poorly written and should be combined. The third is that the first and third sentences present a single POV. The fourth is that factual context for the Judenjagd is necessary to present an overall NPOV that accommodates the single POV of Grabowski’s claim. The fifth is that second sentence is extraneous. The sixth is that the third sentence does not meet the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability. SECOND PARAGRAPH FIRST REASON: In the first sentence, inline citation [214] is incomplete and does not comply with the Wikipedia requirement for citing individually authored chapters in books. Inline citation [214] apparently was intended to but does not cite Tomasz Frydel’s Chapter 10 in “Perpetrators and Perpetration of Mass Violence: Action, Motivations and Dynamics”, by Timothy Williams and Susanne Buckley-Zistel, eds. In addition, citing Frydel indicates he agrees with Grabowski’s claim, which is not the case. In contrast to Grabowski, Frydel does not claim that approximately 200,000 Jews escaped from the Germans and tried to hide among the Polish population. On page 187, Frydel merely presents a working assumption of others that 250,000 Jews escaped and notes that, according to Grabowski, 200,000 did not survive. Inline citation [214] was apparently inserted to indicate that another historian agrees with the 200,000 assertion. Because this is not the case, inline citation [214] should be deleted. SECOND PARAGRAPH SECOND REASON: The first sentence and third sentence are logically connected; however, they are poorly written and the information presented should be restructured and combined into a new first sentence as follows: “Jan Grabowski claims that, in German-occupied Poland, approximately 200,000 Jews escaped from the Germans and tried to hide among the rural Polish population. Of the 200,000 fugitive Jews, Grabowski claims about 80 percent, or 160,000, were turned in or killed by Poles who participated in the so-called Judenjagd (German: “Hunt for Jews”). [213]” SECOND PARAGRAPH THIRD REASON: The restructured and combined new first sentence presented in the Second Reason above presents a single POV. To be fair and proportionate, Wikipedia requires a second significant POV by a reliable source so that an overall NPOV is presented. To counterbalance the single POV in the new first sentence, the following sentences should directly follow the new first sentence. “By contrast, historian Gunnar Paulsson points out that Holocaust scholars disagree on the percentage of Jews who escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto, the most-studied one, let alone the percentage of Jews who escaped from all of the ghettos combined in German-occupied Poland. According to Paulsson, Raul Hilberg estimates that 5,000-6,000 escaped while Joseph Kermish, Israel Gutman, and others estimate approximately 25,000. [New inline Citation 214 - Gunnar S. Paulsson, “Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945”, 2003, p. 2.]” SECOND PARAGRAPH FOURTH REASON: To counterbalance the single POV of Grabowski’s claim in the new first sentence presented in the Second Reason above, contextual facts that accurately explain the structure and function of the German-mandated Judenjagd is necessary to enable the presentation of an overall NPOV. The following sentences provide the necessary specifics for the NPOV and should directly follow the two new sentences outlined in the THIRD REASON. “The ‘Judenjagd’, a term introduced by historian Christopher R. Browning, were German-conducted searches in the General Government in which village Poles were conscripted and compelled to participate. Tomasz Frydel explains that the occupying Germans established a village authority structure in which village heads were required to apprehend Polish laborers as well as report and deliver any Jews, Soviet prisoners of war, partisans, or strangers. [New Inline Citation 215 - Tomasz Frydel, "Judenjagd: Reassessing the Role of Ordinary Poles as Perpetrators in the Holocaust", in Timothy Williams and Susanne Buckley-Zistel, eds., Perpetrators and Perpetration of Mass Violence: Action, Motivations and Dynamics, London, Routledge, 2018, pp. 187–203.] This structure functioned as a surveillance system against all fugitives pursued by the Germans. The death penalty was enforced for anyone helping a fugitive Jew as well as for anyone failing to report and apprehend any fugitives. Fugitive Jews sheltered by Poles and captured by the Germans typically denounced their benefactors, whom the Germans then executed. Collectively, this created widespread communal fear that caused a desperate competition for survival and compelled village Poles to participate in the manhunts for fugitive Jews. Frydel also notes that, counterintuitively, Jews participated in these manhunts. New Inline Citation 215, p. 193.] He further points out that manhunts initiated by Poles acting independently of the village security system were the exception and occurred in specific circumstances. [New Inline Citation 215, p. 198.]” SECOND PARAGRAPH FIFTH REASON: The second sentence is extraneous and should be deleted together with its inline citations [215] and [216]. First, this sub-section addresses Polish collaboration with the Germans. In the case of Jedwabne, Jan Gross’s thesis in his book “Neighbors” is that village Poles acted alone in killing Jedwabne’s Jews while the Germans only watched and took photographs. Within the context of this subsection, Poles acting alone, as Gross claims, fails to qualify as collaboration. Moreover, there already are Wikipedia entries that address Jedwabne in detail. Second, because this sub-section addresses Polish collaboration with the Germans, Ukrainian collaboration with the Germans is extraneous and irrelevant. In inline citation [216], John-Paul Himka explains that the OUN was the principal collaborator. Additionally, Himka does not mention collaboration by Poles with the Germans. Moreover, Wikipedia already has a detailed entry about the 1941 Lviv pogrom. SECOND PARAGRAPH SIXTH REASON: The third (last) sentence does not meet the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability and should be deleted. As currently written, it claims that Szymon Datner stated that 100,000 Jews “fell prey to the Germans and their local helpers, or were murdered in various unexplained circumstances.” However, the incline citation [218] for this quotation attributed to Datner only cites Grabowski’s book “Hunt for Jews”. Rather than only cite Grabowski’s book, inline citation [218] should include the source Grabowski referenced in his book and which he claims is a Datner quotation. Moreover, Grabowski’s claim that Datner made this statement is contradicted by the statement Datner made in his own work “Zbrodnie Hitlerowskie Na Żydach Zbiegłych Z Gett” [Crimes of the Hitlerites on Jews That Had Fled the Ghettos], Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego [Bulletin of The Jewish Historical Institute] Lipiec-Wrzesien [July-September] 1970, Nr. 75, pages 9-29. In this Bulletin, Datner stated the following in Polish: “W jednej z prac [LAS SPRAWIEDLIWYCH] liczbe ocalalych Zydow oszacowalem, głównie dzięki pomocy ludności polskiej–na ok. 100 000 osób. Rownie orientacyjnie oceniamy, ze co najmniej drugie tyle ofiar zostalo wychwytanych przez organa okupacyjne i padlo ofiara zbrodni.” (p. 29). The English translation is: “In one of the works [THE FOREST OF THE RIGHTEOUS], I had assessed the number of surviving Jews, mainly thanks to the help of the Polish population–as around 100,000 persons. We also indicatively assess, that at least that many victims were seized by the organs of the occupation authorities and fell victim to crime.” (p. 29). Note that Datner makes no mention of “local helpers” or “murders in unexplained circumstances” cited in the third sentence. Again, this last sentence is clearly challengeable because of its lack of verifiability and should be deleted. SECOND PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION: Based on the above explanations, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS. “Jan Grabowski claims that, in German-occupied Poland, approximately 200,000 Jews escaped from the Germans and tried to hide among the rural Polish population. Of the 200,000 fugitive Jews, Grabowski claims about 80 percent, or 160,000, were turned in or killed by Poles who participated in the so-called Judenjagd (German: “Hunt for Jews”).[213] By contrast, historian Gunnar Paulsson points out that Holocaust scholars disagree on the percentage of Jews who escaped from the Warsaw Ghetto, the most-studied one, let alone the percentage of Jews who escaped from all of the ghettos combined in German-occupied Poland. According to Paulsson, Raul Hilberg estimates that 5,000-6,000 escaped while Joseph Kermish, Israel Gutman and others estimate approximately 25,000. [New inline Citation 214 - Gunnar S. Paulsson, “Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945”, 2003, p. 2.] The ‘Judenjagd’, a term introduced by historian Christopher R. Browning, were German-conducted searches in the General Government in which village Poles were largely conscripted and compelled to participate. Tomasz Frydel explains that the occupying Germans established a village authority structure in which village heads were required to apprehend Polish laborers as well as report and deliver any Jews, Soviet prisoners of war, partisans, or strangers. [New Inline Citation 215 - Tomasz Frydel, "Judenjagd: Reassessing the Role of Ordinary Poles as Perpetrators in the Holocaust", in Timothy Williams and Susanne Buckley-Zistel, eds., Perpetrators and Perpetration of Mass Violence: Action, Motivations and Dynamics, London, Routledge, 2018, pp. 187–203.] This structure functioned as a surveillance system against all fugitives pursued by the Germans. The death penalty was enforced for anyone helping a fugitive Jew as well as for anyone failing to report and apprehend any fugitives. Fugitive Jews sheltered by Poles and captured by the Germans typically denounced their benefactors, whom the Germans then executed. Collectively, this created widespread communal fear that caused a desperate competition for survival and compelled village Poles to participate in the manhunts for fugitive Jews. Frydel also notes that, counterintuitively, Jews participated in these manhunts. [New Inline Citation 215, p. 193.] He further points out that manhunts initiated by Poles acting independently of the village security system were the exception and occurred in specific circumstances. [New Inline Citation 215, p. 198.]” The THIRD PARAGRAPH is problematic for one main reason. THIRD PARAGRAPH MAIN REASON: The first sentence says that “Szmalcowniki – blackmailers – operated in Poland” but fails to note the fact that szmalcowniki consisted of Poles, Jews, Volksdeutsche, and Ukrainians. Because this distinction is not presented, the uninformed reader will likely assume that the term szmalcowniki applies to ethnic Poles. As a result, the first sentence indirectly conveys a single POV that needs to be counterbalanced with the facts so that an overall NPOV is presented. To achieve this, the first sentence needs to be revised slightly. Also, the word szmalcowniki is seldom capitalized in conventional sources and in this sentence, and in the last sentence, should remain so. In addition, two new sentences are needed to provide relevant, factual context. THIRD PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION: Based on the above explanation, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS. “Several thousand Szmalcowniki - blackmailers - operated in German-occupied Poland, most of whom operated in cities near the ghettos established by the Germans.[219] According to historian Tadeusz Piotrowski, szmalcowniki demanded money in exchange for not reporting on Jews in hiding and among them were Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, and Volksdeutsche. [New inline citation - Tadeusz Piotrowski, “Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947”, 1998, p. 86, p.316, footnote 170.] Szmalcowniki also blackmailed Poles who were sheltering Jews from the Germans. [219] The Polish Underground State strongly opposed this sort of collaboration, and threatened szmalcowniki with death; sentences were usually given and carried out by the Special Courts.[220]” The FOURTH PARAGRAPH is problematic for eight main reasons. The first is that the first part of the first sentence is redundant. The second is that the second part of the first sentence presents an invalid descriptor. The third is that the entire first sentence needs to be rewritten to achieve contextual accuracy. The fourth is that the second sentence is contextually incomplete and requires factual expansion. The fifth is that the second sentence is supported by an invalid inline citation. The sixth is that the third sentence is also supported by an invalid inline citation. The seventh is that the fourth sentence is contextually incomplete and requires factual expansion. The eighth is that fifth sentence is contextually incomplete and requires factual expansion. FOURTH PARAGRAPH FIRST REASON: This paragraph addresses the Blue Police and Baudienst; however, the first part of the first sentence begins with “In addition to peasantry and individual collaborators…” Because the second paragraph already addresses the “peasantry”, i.e., rural Poles, and “individual collaborators”, i.e., szmalcowniki, this first part of the first sentence is redundant and should be deleted. FOURTH PARAGRAPH SECOND REASON: The second part of the first sentence contains an invalid descriptor. The word “mobilized”, i.e., assembled and readied military troops and supplies for war, is incorrect and should be deleted. FOURTH PARAGRAPH THIRD REASON: Because the second part of the first sentence is contextually incomplete and requires factual expansion, the entire first sentence should be rewritten. The prewar police were ordered by the Germans to return to their prewar posts under threat of death or concentration camp internment and were forced into service. Moreover, the internal leadership of the Blue Police was gutted by the Germans, who comprised the higher ranks. To present factual historical context, the entire first sentence should be revised as follows: “The Germans conscripted the prewar Polish police, called the “Blue Police” (Policja Granatowa) because of their navy-blue uniform, and under threat of death or concentration camp internment, they were forced to fulfill German objectives while remaining under firm German command.” FOURTH PARAGRAPH FOURTH REASON: The second sentence is contextually incomplete and requires factual expansion. For factual accuracy, the second sentence should be revised as follows: “Although their primary task was to act as a regular police force dealing with criminal activities, the Germans also used them to combat smuggling, round up Polish civilians for forced labor in Germany, participate in German-led patrols for Jewish ghetto escapees, and support German actions against the Polish resistance. [210]” Additionally for factual context, the following two sentences should be added: “Historian Tadeusz Piotrowski points out that the Jewish Ghetto Police, in conjunction with the Polish Blue Police, also participated in German-conducted roundups of fugitive Jews for deportation to extermination camps, concentration camps, forced-labor camps, or execution. [New inline citation - Calel Perechodnik, “Dzień ostatni”, Karta (Warszawa) 9 (1992), pp. 39-55, in Tadeusz Piotrowski, “Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Polish Republic, 1918-1947”, 1998, p. 67.]” FOURTH PARAGRAPH FIFTH REASON: The second sentence is supported by an invalid inline citation [221], which should be removed for a number of reasons. First, the citation does not follow Wikipedia sourcing guidance for newspapers. Second, the newspaper article is clearly challengeable because of the lack of verifiability as required by Wikipedia. For example, the article’s lead photograph purportedly shows German and Blue Police in front of a building somewhere; however, no caption or citation is included to enable verification. Also, the article’s 23rd paragraph is the only place where Blue Police are mentioned. The article claims that Grabowski claims that Blue Police murdered Jews as they liquidated the ghettos. This implies the Blue Police liquidated all of the ghettos in German-occupied Poland, which is false. The Blue Police did not participate in the liquidation of the larger ghettos such as Warsaw, Łódź, Lwów, Wilno, Białystok, Lublin, Sosnowiec, Będzin, Kraków, Częstochowa, Lublin, Kielce, Piotrków Trybunalski, Radom, Grodno, and other cities. The liquidation of these ghettos was carried out by the Jewish Ghetto Police and Ukrainian and Baltic auxiliary forces. Moreover, the last sentence in the paragraph claims that Grabowski claims that Emanuel Ringelblum claims that “the ‘Blue’ police alone were responsible for ‘hundreds of thousands of Jewish deaths.’” This is false. In a 17 November 2016 paper he wrote for the USHMM, titled “The Polish Police: Collaboration in the Holocaust”, on page 17 Grabowski writes “Referring to the blood on the hands of the Polish policemen, Ringelblum was using a figure of speech, a metaphor.” Taken together, these reasons confirm inline citation [221] should be deleted. To provide balance and present an NPOV as required by Wikipedia, the following sentences should follow the two new sentences outlined in FOURTH REASON above: “In assessing the role of the Blue Police, Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg writes: ‘Of all the native police forces in occupied Eastern Europe, those of Poland were least involved in anti-Jewish actions…The Germans could not view them as collaborators, for in German eyes they were not even worthy of that role. They in turn could not join the Germans in major operations against Jews or Polish resisters, lest they be considered by traitors by virtually every Polish onlooker. Their task in the destruction of Jews was therefore limited. [New inline citation - Raul Hilberg, “Perpetrators Victims Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933-1945”, 1993, pp. 92-93.]” For further factual balance and NPOV appearance, Hilberg’s excerpt should be followed by the following sentence: “Some Blue Police worked for the Polish Underground, aided Jews, and are among Israel’s Righteous Among the Nations.” FOURTH PARAGRAPH SIXTH REASON: The third sentence is supported by an invalid inline citation [222]. The website URL cited, i.e., the website’s home page, does not provide the number of Polish Police in the General Government. If the website’s content includes “some 17,000 men”, the URL for the specific page on which that content appears should be cited. A reliable source that provides the peak number of Blue Police in the General Government should instead be used for the third sentence. Otherwise, the third sentence and inline citation [222] should be deleted. FOURTH PARAGRAPH SEVENTH REASON: The fourth sentence is contextually incomplete and requires factual expansion. The sentence introduces the Baudienst but does not indicate it was a forced-labor youth organization nor that the young Polish men who tried to elude service could be punished with death. This is similar to the text on the Blue Police, which excludes the fact that prewar police were conscripted and faced with the threat of death or concentration camp internment if they did not report for service. The only way the uninformed reader would even know the Baudienst was a forced-labor organization is by clicking the Baudienst hyperlink, which can’t be guaranteed. For factual accuracy, the fourth sentence should be revised as follows: “In several districts of the General Government, the Germans also created the Baudienst ("construction service"), a forced-labor organization of 18- to 23-year-olds subordinate to Germany’s Reich Labor Service.” Note that the 18-23 age range is specified on page 720 of inline citation [210]. FOURTH PARAGRAPH EIGHTH REASON: The first part of the fifth sentence misleads with false information. It claims that the Baudienst young men (junacy) helped round up Jews for “extermination”. This is false. Klaus-Peter Friedrich, in inline citation [210], page 721, says the junacy “took part in deportations” but there is no mention of “extermination” by either the Germans or junacy in this section of the document, which is the only place where the Baudienst are mentioned. Moreover, Klaus-Peter Friedrich, in inline citation [210], page 721, says the junacy consisted of 18- to 23-year-olds Poles and Ukrainians. This fact is missing in the fifth sentence and should be included. Also, the second part of the fifth sentence is misleading. In inline citation [210], page 721, Friedrich cites a specific event i.e., a German-led aktion against Jews interned in a “Jewish quarter” [German-established ghetto] of Tarnów. However, as written, the second part of the fifth sentence omits this fact and instead presents this aktion as a common Baudienst activity in the General Government. Friedrich writes that the junacy “closed off the Jewish quarter” [German-established ghetto] in Tarnów “in order to keep the inmates [ghetto Jews] from fleeing.” Friedrich also writes “sometimes the Poles had to search houses and apartments after their Jewish inhabitants had been deported.” However, as written, the second part of the fifth sentence conveys the impression that Jews were not interned in a German-established ghetto and were simply residing in their homes when the Baudienst suddenly descended upon them. FOURTH PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION: Based on the above explanations, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS. “The Germans conscripted the prewar Polish police, called the “Blue Police” (Polish: Policja Granatowa) because of their navy-blue uniform, and under threat of death or concentration camp internment, they were forced to fulfill German objectives while remaining under firm German command. Although their primary task was to act as a regular police force dealing with criminal activities, the Germans also used them to combat smuggling, round up Polish civilians for forced labor in Germany, participate in German-led patrols for Jewish ghetto escapees, and support German actions against the Polish resistance. [210] Historian Tadeusz Piotrowski points out that the Jewish Ghetto Police, in conjunction with the Polish Blue Police, also participated in German-conducted roundups of fugitive Jews for deportation to extermination camps, concentration camps, forced-labor camps, or execution. [New inline citation - Calel Perechodnik, “Dzień ostatni”, Karta (Warszawa) 9 (1992), pp. 39-55, in Tadeusz Piotrowski, “Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Polish Republic, 1918-1947”, 1998, p. 67.] In assessing the role of the Blue Police, Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg writes: “Of all the native police forces in occupied Eastern Europe, those of Poland were least involved in anti-Jewish actions…The Germans could not view them as collaborators, for in German eyes they were not even worthy of that role. They in turn could not join the Germans in major operations against Jews or Polish resisters, lest they be considered by traitors by virtually every Polish onlooker. Their task in the destruction of Jews was therefore limited. [New inline citation - Raul Hilberg, “Perpetrators Victims Bystanders: The Jewish Catastrophe 1933-1945”, 1993, pp. 92-93.] Some Blue Police worked for the Polish Underground, aided Jews, and are among Israel’s Righteous Among the Nations. In several districts of the General Government, the Germans also created the Baudienst ("construction service"), which was a forced-labor organization of 18- to 23-year-old Poles and Ukrainians subordinate to Germany’s Reich Labor Service. The young Baudienst workers (Polish: Junacy) were sometimes used by the Germans in aktions, i.e., German campaigns of violence directed against Jews and Poles. In one German-led aktion conducted against Jews confined by the Germans in the Jewish quarter of Tarnów, Baudienst workers closed off the area in order to prevent the inmates from fleeing and also participated in their deportations. In this same aktion, they were made to search houses and apartments after their Jewish occupants had been deported, collect their belongings, and drag out anyone who was hiding.[210]:721 By 1944, Baudienst strength had grown to some 45,000 servicemen.[223] The FIFTH PARAGRAPH is problematic for four main reasons. The first is that it that it consists of a single, run-on sentence. The second is that its description of the NSZ is incomplete. The third is that it presents a single POV. The fourth is that it makes an assertion unsupported by the facts. FIFTH PARAGRAPH FIRST REASON: The fifth paragraph consists of a single, needlessly long, run-on sentence. It should be rewritten in the form of a paragraph and consist of logically-connected sentences as presented below in the FIFTH PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION. FIFTH PARAGRAPH SECOND REASON: The fifth paragraph’s description of the NSZ is incomplete. An accurate description is presented in the FIFTH PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION below. FIFTH PARAGRAPH THIRD REASON: The fifth paragraph presents a single POV, i.e., the NSZ collaborated with the Germans, the NSZ killed “Jewish partisans”, and the NSZ killed “Jewish refugees”. To provide balance and present an NPOV as required by Wikipedia, the paragraph should be rewritten as presented in the FIFTH PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION below. FIFTH PARAGRAPH FOURTH REASON: The fifth paragraph makes an assertion unsupported by the facts. As written, the last two clauses of the fifth paragraph, i.e., “-- also collaborated with the Germans on several occasions, killing or giving away Jewish partisans to the German authorities and murdering Jewish refugees” claim the NSZ killed “Jewish partisans” and “Jewish refugees” because they collaborated with the Germans beforehand and acted on their demands. If any of the authors in the inline citations claimed this, it should be specifically cited. Otherwise, it should be rewritten as presented in the FIFTH PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION below. FIFTH PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION: Based on the above explanations, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REVISED AS FOLLOWS. “The Polish underground organization National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), which fought the Germans, Soviets, and Soviet-allied communist partisan forces such as the Gwardia Ludowa (GL) and Armia Ludowa (AL), has been accused of collaborating with the Germans and killing Jewish partisans [228]:149 and fugitive Jews.[227][228]:141[231] While some collaboration occurred in instances of a tactical cease fire, safe conduct, and prisoner swaps with the German military, there is no evidence the NSZ killed Jews on behalf of the Germans or ever gave an order that encouraged or commanded the killings of Jews because they were Jews. [New inline citation - Leszek Zebrowski, O Najnowszej Historii Polski 1939-1989, Szkice i Artykuly (On the Newest History of Poland 1939-1989, Essays and Articles), 2018, p.151]. The NSZ did, however, kill Jews as it fought Soviet-allied GL-AL units, a number of whom were Jews, as well as Jewish bandit bands formed by fugitive Jews. Both groups plundered, destroyed the properties of, and often murdered Poles while foraging for food and conducting Communist guerilla actions. [New inline citation - Narodowe Sily Zbrojny na Podlasiu, Mariusz Bechta i Leszek Zebrowski (eds.), (National Armed Forces in Podlasie), 1997. Wydawnictwo Żołnierzy Narodowych Zbrojnych (Publishing House of National Armed Soldiers), vol.2, p. 21.] Widely perceived as anti-Semitic [227][228][225]:371[229][230], the ranks of the NSZ included Jews and NSZ members also aided Jews during the German occupation. [New inline citation - Mariusz Bechta i Leszek Zebrowski (eds.), Narodowe Sily Zbrojny na Podlasiu (National Armed Forces in Podlasie), Wydawnictwo Żołnierzy Narodowych Zbrojnych (Publishing House of National Armed Soldiers,) 1997, vol.1, p.33; vol.2, p.267]. Additionally, Israel named some NSZ members as Righteous Among the Nations, such as Edward Kemnitz.

BialaPodlaska (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Again was too long with too much to digest for an edit request.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@BialaPodlaska: Read: the chances of somebody wanting to read the wall of texts above are very low. WP:BEBOLD and edit the article yourself, although given the controversies and vandalism in this topic area, we ask that you make a few hundred uncontroversial edits in other areas of the project, and don't get yourself blocked for few weeks. Then you should be able to edit this page yourself, and won't need any gatekeepers' permission. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven “Again too long” – As before, an arbitrary criterion with no reference to Wikipedia policy on length. “Too much to digest” – Arbitrary criterion with no reference to Wikipedia policy on what constitutes “too much to examine or evaluate”. All that’s needed is to compare the 5 Wikipedia paragraphs with their 5 rewritten counterparts shown in each “PARAGRAPH CONCLUSION”. In doing so, you’ll see that the 5 Wikipedia paragraphs present a single POV while the 5 rewritten counterparts present the NPOV required by Wikipedia. Kindly give that a try and let me know what you agree with and what you disagree with. BialaPodlaska (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:TPG#YES.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Troubling ethnic bias

The "Poles and the Jews" section covers both positive and negative behavior of Poles, while the only subsection of "National minorities' role in the Holocaust" is "German-inspired massacres". In other words, this article covers the entire gamut of (ethnic) Polish behavior while relegating other ethnic groups to the role of collaborators or worse. How can we fix this structural issue? (t · c) buidhe 11:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

True. Assuming the section is not representative of the state of the research on the subject, I suspect there's no solution other than to a) verify the existing sources; and b) enrich the section with more, and more diverse sources. François Robere (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

1935-37 growing antisemitism in pre-war Poland

Thank you Buidhe, for updating the article. One point I desire to underline. You added this sentence: quote - "Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war. Anti-Jewish violence occurred in more than 150 localities between 1935 and 1937." [1] Unless there are references that demonstrate a direct connection between pre-war (1935 to 1937) antisemitism in Poland and the Holocaust, I suggest removing this from the background section. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are many sources that make this connection, I cited a few of them. (t · c) buidhe 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Could you provide a quotation here from the best one, i.e. one that makes it clear this connection is not just our editorializing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

    Piotrus, Historical background information is *expected* on these articles. If this article were complete like The Holocaust in Slovakia#Background, it would also give full background information, i.e. how Jews first came to Poland, briefly state what their life situation was prior to the war. It's more than enough that Anna Cichopek as well as many others have cited it as background information to their works about the Holocaust in Poland. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: did I understand you correctly? Are you affirming that there are scholars (plural) that make a direct connection to pre-war Polish antisemitism and the reason why the Holocaust happened in Poland? If yes, could you quote references that directly connected Polish pre-war antisemitism to the Holocaust in Poland? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

the lack of sympathy for the occupiers among Polish victimizers of Jews suggests that the local offenders were pursuing their own agenda—namely, the despoliation and ethnic cleansing of the country's most hated minority. The key specificity of collaboration in Poland was thus its selectivity. Even as collaboration in crimes against ethnic Poles appeared sporadic and unen-thusiastic, crimes against ethnic Jews were remarkable for the zealous and unabashed way in which they were pursued. As hated as the German occu-piers were, the "Jewish question" was—to use the words of the famous Home Army soldier and spy Jan Karski—the "narrow bridge on which the Germans and a large part of Polish society willingly meet."[2] (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: so you claim that the quote you cited demonstrates that the Holocaust in Poland happened because of pre-war Polish antisemitism? Do I understand you correctly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, No, I said that it's impossible to understand the Holocaust in Poland without reference to events, trends, and patterns before 1939, and that the Holocaust in Poland is inextricably connected to these prior events, trends, and patterns. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. @Buidhe: I'll compose something for the opening of the background section soon (not sure if it is going to be today, I'm feeling weak today). I'll post it here before adding it to the main page. Okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Section POV tag

If an editor feels that some information is missing they should add it (provided sources exist) instead of tag shaming [3]. Not sure what "positive activities" are being referenced here. Without an explanation the tag is spurious. Volunteer Marek 06:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The explanation is provided just a few sections earlier. Are you seriously suggesting that none of the thousands of Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians and Germans recognized as Righteous Among the Nations carried out rescues in Poland? Wilm Hosenfeld and Anton Schmid are just two examples that spring to mind. (t · c) buidhe 09:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Then add that info. Volunteer Marek 16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinions in wikivoice

"Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." Whether it's "high" or low, "successful" or otherwise is an opinion; opinions in wikivoice violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Such opinions should be attributed and only included when it's DUE, also, consider if the opposite opinion is also a widely held one. For instance, Jan Grabowski estimated that a large number of Jews who tried to escape and survive in such a way were killed directly or indirectly due to actions of Poles. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Then attribute it. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point Buidhe is making is that the article has more than just this example, and that in general editors in the TA should be mindful of attribution. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Then it's up to them to come to the talk page and explain which statements they think need to be attributed. I can't read their mind. Volunteer Marek 18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

More importantly Buidhe, once again you made a series of controversial changes without bothering to discuss any of them, then when your edits were challanged you just did a blind revert and you used a false edit summary to justify that revert [4]. Your revert doesn't undo "restoration of content that fails sourcing requirements". It's just a straight up blind revert. One needs only to scroll down to the first few paragraphs to see that you've removed material sourced to academic and other reliable sources. You even removed Yad Vashem. Are you really saying that Yad Vashem is not a reliable source which doesn't meet sourcing requirements?

If your edits are challenged then you need to discuss it rather than immediately blind reverting. You need to use accurate edit summaries. You need to justify your reversions on talk. We've been through this before. Let's not do it again. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this have to do with the issue raised by the OP? If not, please open a new thread. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We're good here, thanks for keeping an eye out though. Volunteer Marek 18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Problems with VM's reverts

I will list all the problems:

1. VM removed information on prewar antisemitism, which reliable sources relate to the wartime events: "Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war. Anti-Jewish violence occurred in more than 150 localities between 1935 and 1937. Prior to the war, right-wing Polish politicians encouraged Jews to emigrate in order to reduce the number of Jews in Poland."
2. "An estimated 157,000 to 375,000 Polish Jews either fled into the Soviet Union or were deported eastward by the Soviet authorities." -> VM replaced with "Within months, Polish Jews in the Soviet zone who refused to swear allegiance were deported deep into the Soviet interior along with ethnic Poles. The number of deported Polish Jews is estimated at 200,000–230,000 men, women, and children." According to reliable sources, not all Jews were deported, some went voluntarily. Deportation of non-Jews is irrelevant to this article
3. "Both occupying powers were hostile to the existence of a sovereign Polish state and endorsed policies of genocide." Restored by VM. The problem here is that Soviet and Nazi hostility to Poland is already obvious (since it was invaded and occupied by them), allegations that Soviet Union pursued a policy of "genocide" against Poland are irrelevant and need a much stronger source than what is provided
4. (see map) -> violates MOS:SEEIMAGE
5. "Polish nationals account for the majority of rescuers with the title of Righteous Among the Nations, as honored by Yad Vashem."... I moved most of this paragraph into the rescue section, where it belongs. VM replaced it at the top of "Poles and the Jews" section.
6. Some Jews were denounced or killed by erstwhile rescuers. Motivations of rescuers differed; some were motivated by compassion and altruism while others did so for money or sex. -> Removed by VM without explanation
7. VM added content stating "and 150,000 [non-Jewish Poles died] due to Soviet repressions. -> Totally irrelevant
8. About a fifth of Poland's prewar population perished. Their deaths were the result of deliberate acts of war, mass murder, incarceration in concentration camps, forced labor, malnutrition, disease, kidnappings, and expulsions. -> Deliberately aggregating Jewish and non-Jewish deaths when they have already been given separately. The general German repressions (as opposed to repressions specifically for helping Jews) is not relevant, most of them were in concentration camps for other reasons, etc.
9. There were, however, many Poles who risked death to hide entire Jewish families or otherwise help Jews on compassionate grounds. Polish rescuers of Jews were sometimes exposed by those very Jews if the Jews were found by the Germans, resulting in the murder of entire helper networks in the General Government. The number of Jews hiding with gentile Poles, quoted by Żarski-Zajdler, was about 450,000. -> Unreliable sources, opinion stated as fact (It's not for us to decide if there were "many" or indeed "few" Polish rescuers).
10. Possibly a million gentile Poles aided their Jewish neighbors. Historian Richard C. Lukas gives an estimate as high as three million Polish helpers; an estimate similar to those cited by other authors. -> Most of the sources cited are unreliable for the topic (i.e. Smith and Furth appear to have no expertise studying the Holocaust in Poland) and there's no indication given that this is a minority, probably even FRINGE view. As stated indeed in the methodology section of Furth's paper, all these estimates rely on there being many, many more Polish rescuers than known to the historical record. Andrzej Żbikowski states, "Summing up this aspect of Polish historical writing—I might add that it continues, although it is none too popular—we may state that up to the year 2000 so-called Polish witnesses to the Holocaust were for most part perceived to be the Righteous, people fighting German terror tactics and willing to help those in danger. There were supposedly many, many more than noted in underground documents and postwar accounts."[5]
11. The paragraph implies that German repressions were the only reason for not helping Jews. Reliable sources, such as Żbikowski's chapter linked above, beg to differ. (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

In some cases I think your changes make sense, but not all of them.

" Deportation of non-Jews is irrelevant to this article"... "and 150,000 [non-Jewish Poles died] due to Soviet repressions. It's part of the wider context. Which you just argued is relevant.

• Why do you call this source unreliable? Ditto for others like Smith's work published by Edinburgh University Press. They all seem reliable to me. If there are issues with estimates, we should simply cite (and attribute) the ranges as given in various RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus, In the background section, maybe, but not in the section for Polish rescues of Jews. I just don't see any sources that tie Stalinist repressions with rescuing of Jews.

  As for numbers, there's no way that an estimate by someone who is not a historian and expert in Holocaust research is WP:DUE, or for that matter those like Lukas' from 30 years ago (!) when most research has been done quite recently. I don't support including Grabowski's estimate of the number of Jews killed by Poles either, because as far as I can tell the research doesn't exist to be able to accurately estimate these numbers—either the number of rescuers or the number of killers. This is the same approach that was taken in the Home Army article due to lack of data. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Buidhe, I'd suggest listing various estimates here, and discussing their reliability. Older estimates by amateurs can be discarded, but surely there are some newer and more reliable ones? Attribution tends to solve such issues, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am not knowledgeable about any recent estimates by credible historians. But one has to be clear about what is being estimated: "Oszacować można, natomiast jest pytanie, na ile te szacunki będą w tej chwili bliskie prawdy, były bardzo różne kategorie tej pomocy. Możemy mówić o osobach, które pomagały doraźnie, jednorazowo, nie ryzykowały swoim życiem, udzielając pomocy i tych nazywamy pomocnikami. Z kolei były osoby, których nazywamy ratownikami lub ratującymi, to ci, którzy udzielali długotrwałej pomocy, takiej, która rzeczywiście pomagała przetrwać długie miesiące."[6][7]

  Incidentally the IPN has documented 341 cases where Poles were killed for helping Jews:[8][9] (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Buidhe, Maybe this really should be discussed at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust? That article can contain a bigger discussion, as well as all the estimates (maybe in a table?) and then we could summarize it here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus, If you are aware of any recent estimates made in reputable sources, I'm happy to discuss them. However, I am not aware of any that would be due to mention in this article, and the reputable historians linked above discussing the issue are evasive when asked for exact numbers. I think it's better not to include any estimate than one that lacks historical consensus or is inherently speculative. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I suggest replacing the bullet points (*) with numbering (#) so we can clearly refer to specific points. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing quoted in #1 relates those statements to the topic of this article. This is a straightforward case of WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 02:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, including historical background information is not optional, but required for articles. We can't assume the reader knows anything about the topic. If you want to argue that historical background is SYNTH, take it up with MILHIST or at the NOR noticeboard. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But this isn't really historical background information. Historical back information would concern the nature of German occupation of Poland and the development of the Nazis' genocidal policies (which... for some reason you want to remove?). Anyway, you'd need sources which actually do make the connection. Volunteer Marek 04:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m having trouble understanding what your objection in #2 is. Is it that it says that Jews were deported along with non-Jews? Why exactly must this be removed? Are you questioning the source? Why? Your statement “not all Jews were deported” is irrelevant since the text doesn’t actually claim that all Jews were deported. This looks like you’re looking to substitute in your own original research in place of reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't respond to unfounded personal attacks. (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attack. If you want to discuss this issue, please address the objection. Volunteer Marek 04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Baselessly accusing another editor of original research is a personal attack. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's actually not. It's criticism of content. And it's not baseless since it really is original research. Let me note also that you haven't even bothered to reply to any of the questions I asked. WHICH part are you exactly objecting to? Volunteer Marek 20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding #6. Your first source doesn’t satisfy the sourcing requirement. Should I file an AE report? Volunteer Marek 03:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Please do. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't mean sourcing requirements. It's a unpublished thesis. Volunteer Marek 04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Take it up with Arbcom or RSN if you insist. It's a peer-reviewed piece of research supervised by the noteworthy historian Dagmar Herzog and published by University of Ottawa on their website. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m sure you’re aware that having a piece linked to on a website isn’t the same thing as “published” in a peer review journal. It just doesn’t meet sourcing requirements. I don’t actually have to “take it up” with anyone. It’s pretty straight forward and you really shouldn’t be pretending otherwise after you *just* filed an AE report on this very matter. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Which source is that? Ref 7 above is totally broken for me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And btw, who is "Furth"? You say negative things about them but I don't see any source named "Furth" here. Volunteer Marek 21:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Buidhe didn't attach diffs, but I'll take it for granted that diffs can be presented if needed.

1. We've had several discussions on this. This is relevant and well sourced background material.
2. Mentioning that some "fled" rather than "were deported" is important.
   1. Is the "swear allegiance" part sourced?
   2. We can state "(along with so-and-so ethnic Poles)"
   3. What are the numbers of refugees/deportees exactly?
3. I agree about the hostility of the regimes being obvious.
   1. The mention of a Soviet Polish genocide is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, so would ideally be attributed to several up-to-date sources. In addition, the attribution in source 6 to a reviewer rather than to Piotrowski directly is a borderline violation of the TA sourcing requirements.
4. Can you diff this?
5. This is again something we discussed a lot. The claim itself is true, but it has to be given in context, lest it gives the reader a false impression of Poles' willingness to help Jewish refugees. I agree that it belongs in the "Rescue and aid" subsection, and certainly not at the top of "Poles and Jews" section.
6. Again something we discussed a lot, and shouldn't be removed.
7. Belongs in Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), not here.
   1. Source 12 violates TASR.
8. Same as above, but can be mentioned as an aside.
9. Source 17 is an indirect reference to a dated source (published 1968), which was published by non-scholarly, state-controlled publisher of a Communist country. Source 18 was analysed in an ongoing AE case and was found lacking. This is problematic in terms of TASR, and needless to say I would've liked something stronger for a potentially inflammatory statement like that.
10. It's difficult to find a reliable estimate of the number of Poles who helped Jews, but I can find you any number of sources that will say that it was a small minority. Three million sounds WP:FRINGE-y, but one million could perhaps be cited given adequate sourcing.
11. Again something we discussed ad nauseum. There are plenty of sources that place a significant part of the risk on one's neighbours, who all too often were happy to "snitch" on a saver's exceptional initiative.

François Robere (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"We've had several discussions on this. This is relevant and well sourced background material." - Have we? Can you link them please? I looked back through Archives going back to Jan 2018 and didn't see anything. And if it's relevant than there should be no problem in presenting sources which actually link that to the topic of THIS article. Otherwise it's just WP:SYNTH

And really, first saying "I haven't actually looked at any of the sources" and then going on to stake out your position is completely backwards. You're basically saying "I made up my mind without looking at any evidence". You're suppose to do it the other way. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On #2 we can say that those some of those who were deported by the Soviets were the people who had fled to Soviet Union in the first place. That's not a problem. The issue is that we don't want to obfuscate or hide the fact of the deportations themselves and the reason for it (refusing to swear allegiance to USSR and/or give up Polish citizenship). Volunteer Marek 21:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On #3, this is well sourced. Once again, you're trying to substitute in original research for what sources say. Is it important? Yes. Is it obvious? I guess that depends on the reader. It might be obvious to some but not others. As far as genocide thing goes, pursuing genocidal policies is not the same as actually carrying out genocide. You might want to do something and change your mind or you might want to do something and be bad at it. This is fine. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It had to do with these edits [10][11], which were later mentioned in several places. Now that you mention it I see that the correction has been removed, and that the same unqualified claims are made in three other articles,[12][13][14] and qualified in one.[15] Indeed there's no problem finding sources on this: Cymet, D. Polish state antisemitism as a major factor leading to the Holocaust. 1999; Ben-Ami, Y.. The Irgun and the Destruction of European Jewry, in Braham, R. (ed.) Perspectives on the Holocaust. 1983; Kochanaski, H. The Eagle Unbowed. 2012...

I did look at the sources. What's the problem?

Can you source it, and is it related to the subject of the article?

Citing a review (tertiary source, usually low notability vs. the reviewed work, and not always itself peer-reviewed) is hardly applicable now. If you want, check Piotrowski and cite him directly, or better yet - cite Piotrowski and a couple more sources. What's OR here? François Robere (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I'm sorry, I'm not clear on this. What does some other dispute some where else over Irgun have to do with any of this? Volunteer Marek 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the same content. François Robere (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the BBC source since it wasn't needed anyway. Volunteer Marek 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is the BBC source problematic, the BBC are about as RS as you can get?Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

OK< the BBC might not pass as a "reputable institution" (As I assume it means academic), but I am unsure many of the others here fail, this. If the BBC fails, then so should all news outlets or media companies.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Generally, if the piece in a news or media outlet is written by a historian it's ok. Here the BBC piece is unattributed afaict. Normally it would be RS but with the stricter sourcing requirements ... I guess it's borderline. Either way, it's not even necessary. Volunteer Marek 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. The TASR (or TASE, if you prefer) take into account the venue, and popular media is out regardless of author. François Robere (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

All media companies that do not conduct peer review in the academic sense. François Robere (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest Volunteer Marek self-reverts. The edits were challenged on the basis as not meeting the Arbcom requirements; it's on VM to establish that the sources are appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:: fixing ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What Arbcom case?Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinged you above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I suggest you actually follow the developments here rather than, as the superficial nature of your comment suggests, just reflexively picking a side. That's not actually helpful in terms of resolving the disagreement. The sources which were challenged have been removed for the most part (there's one or two which can be discussed). They weren't even necessary anyway. Most of the removals had nothing to do with the sources. And no, the onus is not on me here, it's on the person who's trying to remove 23k bytes of long standing material with barely any explanation. Volunteer Marek 19:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, a good part of the problem with buidhe's removals are that they removed text sourced to clearly reliable sources like Yad Vashem and scholarly journals. So... you kind of have it backwards. Volunteer Marek 19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you keep your sass to yourself and try to focus on meaningful arguments. I haven't seen any diffs or sources that support your claims just yet, so I can hardly blame K.e.coffman for being unconvinced. François Robere (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Other necessary revisions

A greater focus on temporal progression, as used by many historians, might well elucidate the Holocaust as a process. Then we would not need separate sections for Poles and other ethnic groups, but simply indicate their roles within the main narrative, where it belongs.

1. Background
2. Ghettoization, Aryanization, forced labor
3. Deportation to extermination camps
4. Hunting down survivors, remaining German labor camps (i.e. Deblin–Irena)
5. Aftermath; including the August Decree trials, long-term effects on the Polish economy flight of most of the surviving Jews, etc.

The only featured article on the Holocaust in a particular country, The Holocaust in Slovakia, is structured in a mixture of temporal and thematic ways; there is no separate sections for collaboration and rescue, German and Slovak roles etc. rather these themes are discussed in a single narrative progression. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's always a problem with organizing things chronologically. You end up with a timeline not an article. Thematic organization, as we have now, is more suitable. Volunteer Marek 19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)