User:Gitz6666/sandbox

In 1961 Norberto Bobbio argued that the phrase "legal positivism" is used in used with three different meanings, referring to different and largely independent doctrines, which he called "positivism as a way of approaching the study of law" (methodological legal positivism), "positivism as a specific theory or conception of law" (theoretical legal positivism) and "positivism as a specific ideology of justice" (Ideological legal positivism).

^{"positivism as a specific theory or conception of law"}

^{'positivism as a way of approaching the study of law'}

distinguished between methodological, theoretical and ideological legal positivism.

"In 1961, the outstanding Italian legal philosopher Norberto Bobbio introduced an unsurpassed analysis of legal positivism (LP) [1]. In his view, the phrase “LP” is actually used in juristic literature with different meanings, referring to three different and logically independent doctrines (Bobbio 1961, part II; see also Bobbio 1965, 101 ff.) [2]."

Bobbio, Norberto (1966) [1961]. Il positivismo giuridico. Torino: Giappichelli.

Bobbio, Norberto (1965). Giusnaturalismo e positivismo giuridico. Milano: Comunità.

Bobbio, Norberto (2014) [1965]. Giusnaturalismo e positivismo giuridico (in Italian). Roma-Bari: Laterza. ISBN 978-88-581-1420-9.

"Methodological positivism. In the first place, LP is a methodological attitude, namely a value-free approach to law. The philosophy of (legal) science of LP circumscribes the object of (legal) science to the law as it actually is, excluding any inquiry about the law as it ought to be. Legal cognition is expository, not censorial, jurisprudence [1].

(ii) Theoretical positivism. In the second place, LP is a theory of law, namely the theory generally shared by 19th century jurists [1], which includes a number of substantive theses, such as the following:

(a) law is the set of commands enacted by a sovereign authority;

(b) the binding force of such commands is guaranteed by the threat of sanctions;

(c) law is a complete and consistent system, in such a way that no gaps and no normative conflicts exist;

(d) legal interpretation is a cognitive enterprise consisting in ascertaining the will of the legislative authority;

(e) the application of law is an eminently logical activity consisting in (ascertaining facts and) inferring individual prescriptions from general rules (“All thieves ought to be punished. X is a thief. Hence X is to be punished”).

Ideological positivism. In the third place, LP is an ideology, that is a normative stance according to which positive law ought to be obeyed – there is a (moral or political) obligation to obey the law. On the footsteps of Hobbes, justice is identified with positive law".

[1] Conceptually unsurpassed, in my view, although disputable from the historical point of view. See the criticisms of Chiassoni 2013a and 2016. See also Ruiz Manero 2015.

[2] Bobbio’s distinction was accepted and used by Grzegorczyk, Michaut, Troper (eds.) 1992, part 2, in a large anthology of positivistic authors.

Grzegorczyk, Ch., Michaut, F., Troper, M. (eds.), 1992, Le positivisme juridique, L.G.D.J., Paris

"In Giusnaturalismo e positivismo giuridico Bobbio distinguished three ways of understanding legal positivism—as an ideology, as a theory of law, and as an approach to the study of law—and declared that only in this last sense did he espouse legal positivism, as a value-neutral and scientific way to go about studying law. At the Pavia roundtable, however, he remarked that even in this last sense legal positivism was heading into crisis, a crisis he ascribed to the “wearing away of certain convictions that had made it possible to mark a clear distinction between law as it is and law as it ought to be, and so a separation between, on the one hand, de facto law—laid down once and for all, and preconstituted, so to speak, before the jurist observing it—and, on the other hand, an ideal, potential, or possible law that should rise atop positive law without thereby overshadowing it.” In light of these remarks, Bobbio closed his talk saying, “I must recognize that legal positivism is in crisis not only as an ideology and a theory, as I myself have already conceded, but also as an approach to the study of law” (Leoni 1967, 73; my translation)."

• Faralli, Carla (2016). "Legal Philosophy in Italy in the 20th Century". A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Volume 12. Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World. Tome 1: Language Areas. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1479-3. ISBN 978-94-007-1478-6.

""Methodological" positivism is a peculiar way to conceive of the function of legal knowledge and, at the same time, of the object of legal knowledge itself. The legal positivist is characterised by commitment to a value-free, scientific approach in studying actual law. From this important methodological tenet it thus follows that there is a sharp distinction between "actual" law and "ideal" "natural" law: between law as a fact and law as a value; a distinction which aims to point to the former as the proper (indeed only) object of legal knowledge. "Theoretical" positivism is in fact a cluster of theories about the nature of law, which are all somehow related to a "statalist" concep- tion of law. These theories include: an imperative theory of law, which the key concepts are the ones of sovereignty (in relation the foundation of the legal system) and command (in relation to the definition of norm); a theory of legal sources, in which statute law is the supreme source; a theory of the legal system, which supposed to be a coherent and comprehensive whole; and a theory legal interpretation, conceived of as a merely mechanical and logical enterprise. "Ideological" positivism is a theory about the obligation to obey the law, according to which existing laws (or established statutes, in so far as this theory incorporates the "theoretical" one) deserve moral compliance from the citizens; people, in other words, have a moral duty to obey positive law. This doctrine, which would be more correct to define as "moral positivism" or "ethical legalism", meets in two different versions. Firstly, a moderate one, according to which the very existence of legal regulations (apart from the actual content of single norms) satisfies important demands of order, social peace, certainty. Secondly, a more extreme version, which holds that the law is not merely regarded as a means to fulfil desirable values, but as a value in itself: positive law is, as such",

"If we look at ordinary usage the first approach to the notion of legal positivism seems to refer to what legal positivism is not: legal positivism is often defined as a doctrine that is in radical - and polemical - contradiction to natural law theories. Legal postivism, as opposed to natural law theories, assumes that "there is no other law but positive law": the existence or - more technically - the validity of law rests upon the mere fact of its being enacted by a historically determined human legislator (...): ius quia iussum"

"the existence of laws is not dependent on their satisfying any particular moral values of universal application to all legal systems; the existence of laws depends then upon their being established through decisions of human beings in society". N. MacCormick, "Law, Morality and Positivism", in N. MacCormick and 0. Weinberger, An Institutional Theory of Law. New Approaches to Legal Positivism (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986), pp. 127-144, at pp. 128-129.

Different ways to characterise positivistic conceptions are to be found in H. L. A. Hart, "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, in Harvard Law Review I (1958), pp. 593 ff.; and J. Raz, The Authority of Law. Essays on Law and Morality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), pp. 37-52

Sometimes the term 'positivist' is used in a pejorative sense to condemn a doctrine according to which the law is always clear (legal formalism) and, however unjust, must be strictly enforced by officials and obeyed by subjects (so-called 'ideological positivism'). When identified with legal formalism, legal positivism is opposed to legal realism. Legal positivism, understood as formalism, believes that in most cases the law provides definite guidance to its subjects and to judges; legal realists, on the other hand, often embrace rule scepticism, claiming that legal rules are indeterminate and do not constrain judicial discretion. However, both legal positivism and legal realism believe that law is a human construct. Moreover, most realists have adopted some version of the positivist doctrine of the separation of law and morality. According to Brian Leiter, the view that positivism and realism are incompatible positions is probably largely due to Hart's critique of legal realism, but American legal realists were "tacit legal positivists" who acknowledged that all law stems from authoritative sources such as statutes and precedents. Most legal realists denied the existence of natural law, had a scientific approach to the law based on the distinction between describing and evaluating the law, and denied the existence of an objective (moral or political) obligation to obey the law; they therefore qualified as legal positivists.

.

Scholars who oppose legal realism to legal positivism sometimes have Scandinavian legal realism in mind, particularly Olivecrona and Ross. Although Olivecrona was critical of legal positivism, which he identified with the voluntarist theory of legal norms held by nineteenth-century jurists, he shared methodological legal positivism and saw legal science as an empirical, value-free enterprise. Also Ross embraces methodological legal positivism and on that basis criticises Kelsen's concept of validity as binding force and Hart's notion of internal point of view.

1. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
2. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools

To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users

serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;

decide sui principali conflitti comportamentali che la comunità non è riuscita a risolvere in altro modo. Interviene solo nei conflitti che gli vengono sottoposti e per i quali altri metodi di risoluzione sono falliti;

 Done See [1] and [2]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia losing contributors

AE Apr 2022 (Elinruby/Azov Battalion)

AE Apr 2022 (Anonimu)

RSN May 2022 (re Denisova)

RSN May 2022 (rape as a weapon of war)

RfC May 2022 (TASS)

ANI June 2022 (Volunteer Marek and Gitz6666)

AE June 2022 (Mhorg)

RfC July 2022 (Missile attacks on Donetsk People's Republic)

AE July 2022 (Gitz)

AE July 2022 (Volunteer Marek)

RSN July 2022 (Denisova)

3RR Aug 2022 (Gitz reported by MVBW)

AE Aug 2022 (MVBW)

RfC Aug 2022 (military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack)

AE Sep 2022 (Jargo Nautilus)

RfC Oct 2022 (killings of suspected collaborators)

ANI Nov 2022 (Masebrock, Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, Elinruby re Torture in Ukraine)

AN Dec 2022 (Vita Zaverukha)

AfD Dec 2022 Vita Zaverukha

ORN Dec 2022 (Sexual violence)

NPOVN Dec 2022 (Sexual violence)

AE Jan 2023 (Michael60634)

BLPN Jan 2023 (Katchanovski)

ANI Jan 2023 (Boomerang for Gitz6666)

Russo-Ukraine correspondence (2022-2023)

T-ban lifted

Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations

User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust_in_occupied_Poland_arb_com_evidence

lists.wikimedia.org

increasing the temperature of the topic area as sanctionable behaviour

The Signpost, 19 June 2023: "English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia" + Talk

How to find images for your articles

The only guess I can make is that you are suggesting that Tagishsimon, myself and possibly Camelia (the third angle?) have somehow coordinated for some obscure, fishy purpose. If that's what you mean to say, you've just lost 1 euro. I've never interacted with Tagishsimon before and AFIK Camelia was not even aware of this conversation until 7 December.

Since Pequod didn't answer Tagishsimon's and my question, I'll do it myself.

Camelia.boban has been indefinitely blocked for the following comment, which I translated into English. I underlined the sentence that was interpreted as a personal attack:

"I didn't want Patafisik to open this discussion [on notification to WikiDonne of AfDs involving female BLP subjects] because I knew how it would turn out. But I must admit that I am glad that she opened it and I thank everyone who took part in it. Eventually, the discussion ended up being a 'truth-telling session'. I would summarise the various opinions expressed in this way: WikiDonne has the vocation and capacity to edit the existing articles and write new ones, but not to participate in AfDs and possibly to advocate for the articles to be kept, since one cannot rule out bias and WP:CANVASS would be intrinsic, given that it belongs to the nature of women to support each other and get hysterical when an article about a woman is deleted. This shows that for some editors WikiDonne – because of what it does, because of its name, because of its goals, because it is also a user group and an association – will always be an outsider on itwiki, 'an external project hosted by the domain'. And since WikiDonne does what all the others do within the Wikimedia movement (whose structure is ignored here, and of which itwiki itself is a constitutive element, being itwiki also a project hosted by others), I suppose you will make the same assessment of Women in Red, Wikimujeres, Les sans pagEs, etc. (in addition to the aforementioned WikiAfrica, which was named perhaps to broaden the view), 'entities that have their centre of gravity outside WP'. For me, this is where the discussion peacefully ends."

Immediately after this comment, Camelia was blocked for one week for personal attacks. The blocking admin explained that "The attack is indiscriminate on the entire community and the words you used were very harsh". A few days later another admin filed a utente problematico report (which is a community discussion on behaviour close to enwiki's AN/I) and Camelia was indefinitely blocked.

Camelia registered her account in 2007, founded WikiDonne user group in 2016 and was an active user, with around 45,000 edits on it.wiki and 20,000 on Commons. She had already been blocked two times for non-existing canvassing and personal attacks almost as serious as this one.

In my view, Camelia's block is the result of two concurrent causes. First, the extreme sensitivity and aggressiveness of it.wiki admins, who are mostly men. They feel personally attacked at the mere idea of being suspected of sexism. Second, the block stemmed from a genuine editorial conflict over the nature and purpose of WikiDonne. This was made clear by Civvi's comments in both the notification discussion and the utente problematico discussion. Her criticism was purely editorial and was enthusiastically received by all the male admins as final proof that they were right to be angry with Camelia. But there was no justification for turning a reasonable editorial disagreement into a dispute over behaviour.

What is the reliability of Libero (newspaper)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

• Option 2 or Option 3.
• Yesterday at Italy–Russia relations I stumbled upon the Italian diplomacy failed to provide valid support to resolve the crisis with Ukraine and failed to avoid aggression against Ukraine. I checked the source, which is a 2022 article by Libero quoting the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov about the shortcomings of Italian and Western diplomacy. I removed the content mentioning that "Libero is a biased and/or unreliable source, which should not be used for any kind of controversial or sensitive political assessment". I then noticed that Libero has never been the subject of community scrutiny at RS/N and that it is currently cited in 65 WP articles (mostly to support purely factual and not controversial content).

Libero is most famous for its headlines, e.g. "Islamic bastards" (following the November 2015 Paris attacks), "After misery, they bring disease" ("they" refers to migrants), "More potatoes, less mimosas" (on the International Women's Day, which in Italy is celebrated with mimosas; "potatoes" here means pussy), "Matteo Renzi and Maria Elena Boschi don't fuck" [3], and in 2019 also "Revenues and GDP decrease, but gays increase" [4]. The 2017 headline "Hot potato" (which in Italian also means "Hot pussy") earned the directors of Libero Vittorio Feltri and Pietro Senaldi a conviction for libel against the mayor of Rome Virginia Raggi [5].

While WP:HEADLINES provides us some protection against all this, IMHO these headlines are indicative of poor journalistic quality, which is confirmed by a series of convictions for libel and other journalistic shortcoming [6][7][8][9][10]

. E.g. in 2020 Pietro Senaldi and Libero got a conviction for libel against the National Association of Italian Partisans because of a couple of articles about "Today's partisans, without fascists but full of money" [11][12]. In 2019 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that "the Court agrees with the Government that the applicant [Libero's director Alessandro Sallusti in 2007] failed to observe the ethics of journalism by reporting information without first checking its veracity" (however, the criminal sanction imposed on Sallusti was deemed disproportionate by the Court) [13][14]. In 2003 the director Vittorio Feltri was reprimanded by the Journalists' professional body for having published shocking images of child pornography [15] and in 2007 the deputy director Renato Farina was expelled from the Journalists' professional body and sentenced to six months imprisonment for having published a fake dossier alleging that Romano Prodi (at the time President of the European Commission) had authorised CIA's extraordinary renditions in Europe [16].

As a writer, she made her debut in 1995 with Donne, nient’altro che donne. In 2014, her novel Una vita altrove was a finalist for the Rome Prize. A collection of short stories, Miraggi, published by Castelvecchi in 2018, was translated in French and published in Belgium in 2021. The 2022 novel In famiglia by La nave di Teseo won the Premium International Florence Seven Stars for fiction. In 2023 she published the novel, Un insolito trio.

Between 2022 and 2023 Basile wrote several articles for Il Fatto quotidiano under the pseudonym "Ipazia", some of which were criticised as pro-Russian. In one of them she blamed Ukraine for the worsening of Russia–Ukraine relations and accused the Ukrainian government of having "sent 250,000 young people to their death at the behest of NATO". Her views sparkled controversy in July 2023, when she disclosed her identity behind Ipazia. Following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, she commented on the situation on La7 television channel, taking a critical stance towards the Israeli government and the Western countries.

How about the following text? It uses two secondary RSs (New York Times Nov 2019 and ITV News Feb 2020) and one primary and non-independent source (letter in The Lancet, July 2020) making it clear that the latter is "correspondence". I think the letter in The Lancet falls under WP:PRIMARY (reputably published + statement of fact) and if we drop it we are left with no source about the campaing lasting until at the least July 2020. If you agree, I would insert it in Julian Assange#Imprisonment in the UK following the sentence "On 17 February 2020, Australian MPs Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen visited..."

Doctors for Assange
Between November 2019 and July 2020, concerns about Assange's health and the conditions of his detention were raised by members of the medical profession who signed petitions on his behalf. References

Nemo judex in causa sua (or nemo judex in sua causa) (which, in Latin, literally means "no-one is judge in his own cause") is a principle of Roman law natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. In many jurisdictions the rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".

This principle may also be called:

• nemo judex idoneus in propria causa est
• nemo judex in parte sua
• nemo judex in re sua
• nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
• in propria causa nemo judex

The legal effect of a breach of natural justice is normally to stop the proceedings and render any judgment invalid; it should be quashed or appealed, but may be remitted for a valid re-hearing.

History

The phrase is credited to Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century, but has also been attested as early as 1544. The principle also belongs to the Roman law tradition and is enshrined in the Corpus Juris Civilis (Code 3.5.1 and Digest 5.1.15-17): an imperial decree of 376 establishes that "No one shall decide his own case or interpret the law for himself" (neminem sibi esse iudicem vel ius sibi dicere debere) and theDigest reports that, according to Julians, "It is unfair for someone to be the judge of their own affairs" (iniquum est aliquem suae rei iudicem fieri).

From these Roman and canonical sources, the maxim found its way into modern times and can be found in Martin Luther's Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved of 1526 (Niemand sol sein selbs Richter seyn, "No one should be their own judge"), in Ulrich Zwingli's In Exodum of 1527 and in Jean Bodin's The Six Books of the Republic of 1576.

Edward Coke noted in the conclusions of the famous Bonham's Case (1610) that the College of Physicians could not be a judge in a case to which it is a party, and since then the rule against bias is credited as a rule of natural justice in the common law tradition as well as a principle of constitutionalism. This principle has been invoked by the United States Supreme Court in a number of cases and in different contexts, including the 1798 case Calder v. Bull ("a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause [would be] contrary to the great first principles of the social contract"

the 1974 case Arnett v. Kennedy ("we might start with a first principle: '[N]o man shall be a judge in his own cause.' Bonham's Case, 8 Co. 114a, 118a, 77 Eng. Rep. 646, 652 (1610)").

Global locks

See also: Wikipedia:Global actions and m:Global locks

Global blocking is a MediaWiki extension available to stewards to prevent cross-wiki disruption from an IP address or a range of IP addresses. When an IP address or range of IP addresses is globally blocked, they are prevented from editing any public Wikimedia wiki, except for Meta-Wiki, where globally blocked users may appeal the decision. (A global block is not the same as a global ban.) When a user's editing is prevented by a global block, the contents of MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked (formerly MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked) are shown as an error message (analogous to MediaWiki:Blockedtext for locally blocked users). Registered users cannot be globally blocked. The analogous action is global locking, which prevents anyone from logging into the account.

A current list of globally blocked IP addresses is available at Special:GlobalBlockList.

Unblocking and appeal

Local whitelisting — An IP address which is globally blocked can be unblocked locally (to edit the specific wiki concerned only), by any local administrator, at Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist. It is not possible to override global locks locally.

Appeal against a global block — Globally blocked IP addresses and globally locked users may appeal through the email queue to stewardswikimedia.org. Globally blocked IP addresses may also appeal through their meta talk page, if access to it has not been revoked.

de:Volkstum Volkstum

Volkstum is the nature or character of a people as it is expressed in its life and culture.[1] The term is used descriptively and normatively: On the one hand, it can designate the entire life expressions of a people or an ethnic minority as they are empirically perceptible. On the other hand, it can denote a folk spirit or folk character through which a group distinguishes itself from others, excludes or devalues them. The term was coined by German nationalists in the context of the wars of liberation as a contrast to the ideals of the French Revolution, universal human rights, and was a central concept of the völkisch movement. It was used by the National Socialists as a justification for their Volkstumspolitik to expel and exterminate the resident population in the conquered territories in East-Central and Eastern Europe.

Eighteenth century

While the kings and magnates of Poland tolerated the Jews as a useful source of revenues and services, the city burghers loathed them as competitors in trade and crafts. Exacerbated by the Church, hostility towards Jews was also widespread among peasants, especially when their lords had placed them under the supervision of Jewish bailiffs and leaseholders. Unlike in other European countries, in the Polish Commonwealth Jews were not regarded as an entirely foreign or illegitimate component of society; alongside an array of overlapping taxes, prohibitions, quotas and other burdens and humiliations, they were also granted certain privileges and warranties by the law of the land, to the point that they were "virtually one of the established estates of the realm". However, they were constantly exposed to the arbitrary exercise of power by the rulers and occasionally subjected to outright persecution.

Their status was the subject of political debate at the Great Sejm (1788–1792). Along with the usual themes of anti-Jewish press, there were also some tendencies in favour of greater integration of Jews into Polish society, which, however, never went so far as to consider the possibility of their emancipation, such as that recently decreed by the National Assembly in 1791 revolutionary France.. Scipione Piattoli spearheaded a plan for bold reforms to improve the condition of the Jews that ultimately failed in the face of strenuous opposition from the middle-class burgher estate.

Polish Jews in 18th century Poland were "overwhelmingly of a type and a class and a culture that, even as early as the end of the eighteenth century, had begun to diminish in parts at least of central Europe and in a marked and accelerating fashion in the west. They were at one and the same time in much poorer, meaner, and humiliating circumstances and, by virtue of their greater numbers and the fact that they lived, typically, in denser and more coherent communities than any in the west, much more distinctively and unselfconsciously a people apart than their brethren elsewhere (...) Not until well into the nineteenth century did substantial numbers—still a minority—speak Polish or Russian or German. Great numbers (not all) read and wrote Hebrew. Greater numbers still read, wrote, and, most important of all, spoke Yiddish, having carried this essentially German tongue to Poland (...). They were generally more observant of the niceties of Jewish ritual than were their brethren in the west, more respectful of their rabbis, more inward looking. They were, for these reasons, very much more obviously alien, a feature that was the more marked for their belonging almost exclusively to the lower economic orders".

They were at one and the same time in much poorer, meaner, and humiliating circumstances and, by virtue of their greater numbers and the fact that they lived, typically, in denser and more coherent communities than any in the west, much more distinctively and unselfconsciously a people apart than their brethren elsewhere.

Their status was the subject of political debate in the Grand Sejm. Alongside the usual themes of the anti-Jewish press, there were also some tendencies in favour of greater integration of the Jews into Polish society, which, however, never went so far as to consider the possibility of their emancipation, such as that recently deliberated in revolutionary France.

Along with the themes of anti-Jewish press, there were also some tendencies in favour of greater integration of the Jews into Polish society, which, however, never went so far as to consider the possibility of their emancipation, which had recently been decided upon by revolutionary France.

Unlike in other European countries, in Poland Jews were not regarded as an entirely foreign or illegitimate component of society; alongside a series of overlapping taxes, prohibitions, quotas and other burdens and humiliations, the Jews were also granted certain formally recognised privileges by the law of the land, to the point that they were "virtually one of the established estates of the realm". However, they were constantly exposed to the arbitrary exercise of power by the rulers and occasionally subjected to outright persecution.

Morgenthau Report The purpose of the mission was to investigate "alleged Polish pogroms" and the "treatment of the Jewish people" in Poland. The Mission identified eight major incidents in the years 1918–1919, and estimated the number of victims at between 200 and 300 Jews, including the Lwów pogrom (1918)

Vital, David (2001). A people apart: A political history of the Jews in Europe, 1789-1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-169762-3. OCLC 801846856.

Paulsson, Steven (2005). "Poland (1918-1989)". In Levy, Richard S. (ed.). Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 553–556. ISBN 1-85109-444-X. OCLC 60777788.

• Paulsson, Steven (2005). "Poland since 1989". In Levy, Richard S. (ed.). Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. p. 557. ISBN 1-85109-444-X. OCLC 60777788.

• Bartoszewski, Władysław T., ed. (2004). Poles and Jews: perceptions and misperceptions. Polin. Studies in Polish Jewry, vol. 4. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. ISBN 978-1-909821-55-2. OCLC 761405337.
• Blobaum, Robert (2005). Antisemitism and its opponents in modern Poland. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8969-5. OCLC 57557379.
• Cala, Alina (2018). Jew. The Eternal Enemy? The History of Antisemitism in Poland. Polish Studies. Transdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 22. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-653-06331-8. OCLC 1080486354.
• Engel, David (1998). "Patterns Of Anti-Jewish Violence In Poland, 1944-1946". Yad Vashem Studies. 26: 43–85.
• Grabowski, Jan (2013). Hunt for the Jews: betrayal and murder in German-occupied Poland. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-01087-2. OCLC 868951735.
• Hagen, William W. (1996). "Before the "Final Solution": Toward a Comparative Analysis of Political Anti-Semitism in Interwar Germany and Poland". The Journal of Modern History. 68 (2): 351–381. JSTOR 2124667. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
• Hundert, Gershon David (1997-10-01). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum". Journal of Jewish Studies. 48 (2): 335–348. doi:10.18647/2003/jjs-1997. ISSN 0022-2097.
• Hundert, Gershon David, ed. (1997). Jews in early modern Poland. Polin. Studies in Polish Jewry, vol. 10. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. ISBN 978-1-909821-61-3. OCLC 646957619.
• Polonsky, Antony (2012). The Jews in Poland and Russia, vol. III, 1914 to 2008. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. ISBN 978-1-874774-64-8. OCLC 149092612.
• Polonsky, Antony; Węgrzynek, Hanna; Żbikowski, Andrzej, eds. (2018). New directions in the history of the Jews in the Polish lands. Academic Studies Press and by the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews. ISBN 83-949149-0-X. OCLC 1005199886.
• Schatz, Jaff (1991). The generation : the rise and fall of the Jewish communists of Poland. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-07136-0. OCLC 22984393.
• Schneider, Anna Sommer (2013). "The Catholic Church, Radio Maryja, and the Question of Antisemitism in Poland". Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00878-7. JSTOR j.ctt16gzbgz.13. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
• Zimmerman, Joshua D., ed. (2003). Contested memories: Poles and Jews during the Holocaust and its aftermath. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3538-7. OCLC 54961680.
• Zimmerman, Joshua D. (2015). The Polish underground and the Jews, 1939-1945. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-31841-6. OCLC 910935082.

Andrzej Żbikowski writes that Chodakiewicz, along with Jan Żaryn, leads the "nationalist/national democratic camp" of Polish historians, affiliated with Fronda and Glaukopis, "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the [nationalist] Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)." Chodakiewicz's writing, according to Żbikowski, is characterized by selective usage of examples, justification of Poles' negative attitudes towards Jews during the war, and a lack of empathy with Jewish victims.

The first news about the Auschwitz camp began to reach London through the Polish Underground State from late 1940. In September 1941, Churchill was informed of German radio intercepts gibing figures on the number of deaths at Auschwitz. From May 1942, the camp was modified to include a site where Jews were brought from all over Europe specifically for extermination, and the Underground leaders in Poland were made aware of this by August 1942 at the latest. In June 1942 the Polish government-in-exile in London had already reported to Western public opinion that Hitler in Poland had begun to realise his plans to annihilate the Jews of Europe, which was followed by simillar statements to the press by the British minister of information, Brendan Bracken, in July 1942. In September 1942 the principal paper of the Home Army, Biuletyn Informacyjny, published an article about Auschwitz specifically, in which the activities of the death camp were described in detail, including the information that over 1,000 Jews a day were being killed in the newly installed gas chambers. Finally, the news that Jews were being killed on a mass scale in Auschwitz reached the West in November 1942, when it was published in the New York Times, soon followed by the United Nations declaration on the "bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination" of the Jews pursued by Nazi Germany, in

On 17 December 1942, Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations

In March 1943, General Rowecki, commander of the Home Army, informed the Allies in London that about 640,000 people had alreadt been killed in Auschwitz alone, including 66,000 ethnic Poles and 540,000 Jews from various European countries.

The "Background" and "Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau" sections are way too long. I think we should replece them with something shorter. I'm working on such a text. My remarks on the existing text:

1. First paragraph starting with The Polish government-in-exile in London first reported crimes in the Auschwitz complex to the western public in 1941. Depending on how one defines "crimes", this is either wrong or misleading. The Polish government-in-exile first reported to Western public opinion that Hitler in Poland had begun to exterminate the Jews in June 1942; information about Auschwitz extermination camp were published in the Home Army's Biuletyn in September 1942. The paragraph is entirely based on generically quoted primary sources.
2. All the following paragraphs seem at first well sourced and well written, but they don't deal with Auschwitz at all - Auschwitz is not even mentioned. If not duplicated, this content could be moved to Karski's reports, I guess, unless other editors have better ideas.
3. The section "Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau" is overly-detailed for the purposes of this article. It should either be merged with Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Camp_resistance,_flow_of_information or made a self-standing article Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Re this edit summary [17], I encountered some difficulties in adding Melzer's content to the pertinent section Between antisemitism and support for Zionism and Jewish state in Palestine. Since the very title, the section presents an opposition between, on the one side, antisemitism and, on the other, support for Zionism and Jewish state. I haven't yet finished reviewing the sources, but with regard to support for Jewish emigration to Palestine, Melzer makes it very clear that this policy was a consequence of antisemitism rather than an expression of friendship for the Jewish people (note that this possibly false opposition between antisemitism and support for Zionism might also affect and unbalance the lead). Anyway, without removing text and sources that I had not yet checked I couldn't include much of Melzer's content, apart from this replacement. It seems to me that the section on antisemitism in interwar Poland would benefit from some structure, which it currently lacks, e.g. according to the following outline:

1. Description of antisemitism. Melzer has a chapter on the economic campaign against the Jews, one on anti-Jewish violence, one on agitation and violence in the universities, and one on the Kosher-slaughtering ban. We could also provide some chronological ordering to this part and explain that a turning point were the political changes after Pilsudski's death. Some content and sources are already included in the article; more can be found in Racism in Poland#Jewish people. One or two sentences should suffice.
2. Causes of raising antisemitism. Here we could rely on Polonsky and other sources; I haven't yet found any scholarly mention to a correlation between raising antisemitism and Jewish migration flaws from Russia, which was the "core thesis" of the section. A delicate issue is whether Polish interwar antisemitism was merely an expression of wider European trends or whether there was something peculiar to it. The lead seems to expose the first theory (. Antisemitism was a growing problem throughout Europe in those years) and we also had some unsupported text on this in the body, which I removed (here). However, the source now quoted in the lead to support this claim (Hagen 1996) actually argues that there was something peculiar to the "new" German and Polish antisemitism of the 1930s: verbatim, in no other lands of modem Europe did the Jewish question in politics attain a more fateful significance than in Germany and Poland (the reason, he argues, were the economic appetites of the Christian middle classes, which basically wanted to kill them all and take their stuff, as they were "eager to reap the rewards of capitalist modernization")

The "pervasive anti-Semitic atmosphere" that followed Piłsudski's death in 1935 prompted the government to promote the mass emigration of Jews from the country, but to no avail: the British government refused to lift immigration restrictions to Palestine and identify alternative destination.

In 1939 at the start of World War II, Poland was partitioned between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (see Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact). One-fifth of the Polish population perished during World War II; the 3,000,000 Polish Jews murdered in The Holocaust, who constituted 90% of Polish Jewry, made up half of all Poles killed during the war. Although the Holocaust occurred largely in German-occupied Poland, it was orchestrated by the Nazis. Collaboration by individual Poles has been described as sporadic, although the topic has been a subject of renewed scholarly interest. Examples of Polish attitudes to German atrocities varied widely, from actively risking death in order to save Jewish lives, and passive refusal to inform on them, to indifference, blackmail, and in extreme cases, participation in pogroms such as the Jedwabne pogrom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarkeep49&diff=prev&oldid=1137397638&diffmode=source

Special:Diff/1137397638

[18]

prova2