Jump to content

Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

The Holocaust

Current uses of the term "holocaust" stray from its original meaning. The word "holocaust" comes from the Ancient Greek ὁλόκαυστος (holokaustos), from ὅλος (holos, "whole") and καυστός (kaustos, "burnt"). The word "holocaust" originally designated "an offering, the whole of which is burned", or "burnt offering". It subsequently came to mean "complete destruction of people or animals by fire", and "great or widespread destruction".

The Wikipedia "holocaust" disambiguation page lists 9 genocides that have been called "holocausts". To these might be added Poland's Holocaust, from the title of Tadeusz Piotrowski's 1997 book describing the World War II murder of 2.77 million ethnic Poles by the Germans and their allies.

I therefore propose to change this article's section heading, "The Holocaust", to "Jewish holocaust".

Nihil novi (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you find the Ancient Greek meaning of "holocaust" offensive, "holocaust" can be replaced by the more unequivocal term "Shoah" (Hebrew for "Catastrophe"). Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The etymology is not offensive and is based on the cremation of bodies. Some of the comparisons following the etymology are (and misrepresent Piotrowski's book).Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got me confused. What "was not only Jews"? Nihil novi (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
""Jewish holocaust"", I think that is what caused me to think you were only talking about Jewish victims.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Slatersteven: My understanding is that in academic sources the Holocaust label is used exclusively for the Jewish victims, and the lede of the main article at The Holocaust seems to follow this definition as well. I think this needs to be explained, like any other term where the definition in academic scholarship is substantially different from how a term is commonly used.Seraphim System (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not exclusively nowadays, as the wiki article makes clear. But no issue with making the change explicit.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I see now in the infobox we do have a mention of "broader definitions", though even the "broadest definition" doesn't include Catholics. Richard Rhodes wrote that Hitler intended "not merely to occupy Poland but also to destroy it" and that "things would happen which would not be to the taste of the generals" meaning the destruction of the intelligentsia ("in particular the priesthood" by the SS).Seraphim System (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Porajmos against the Roma has long been considered part of the Holocaust (dating back many years). Poles are not, at least not in mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Right, there is a difference between how academic sources have dealt with this and what it means in plain speech — normal people don't make distinctions like this — I've read the sources and they rest on intent to destroy arguments. We can't just assume that readers are aware of those kinds of details, so the articles need to make it clear. I find that currently they obscure the issue further. As we discussed at Talk:Eugen Kogon, it would be best to standardize this across articles by consensus because it continues to be an issue on multiple articles - it wouldn't be an article specific RfC though, it would have to be something like WP:WESTBANK — I don't even know where I would propose that.Seraphim System (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please just bear in mind that the Germans were as intent on genociding the Polish people as they were on genociding the Jews. So, please, no denial of the Polish holocaust! Nihil novi (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

While the Nazis did commit crimes against Poles (and against other nations), the above stmt is patently incorrect - representing a FRINGE view - and is quite offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Which part is "incorrect"? Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The entire first sentence, and terminology in the second sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well it depends on how you define "pole" Out of Poland's 50,000 Gypsies upwards to 35,000 may have been murdered.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
For being Roma. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, the Nazis did indeed include Poles in Holocaust and planned for their complete extermination around 1955, there is nothing controversial or offensive in stating this basic historical fact.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion to be had. Nazi Germany's intention when initiating the Holocaust are well known, as are its victims. Millions of Poles were murdered, and many were sent to extermination camps as part of the merciless ethnic cleansing conducted in the occupied lands, but there was no policy of systematic extermination directed at ethnic Poles as there was for some other groups - namely Jews, Roma, homosexuals, public intellectuals and artists of all dispositions, and the infirm. It may have come to that at a later time - it would probably have come to that at a later time, if there were any Poles left for them to murder - but at that time the Nazies haven't yet had a Wannsee Conference for the Poles. This suggestion to break down the acts to different ethnicities, each "its own victim", is part of the "memory war" some people are engaged in, and an attempt to draw fire away from the subjects of this article: People who, despite or because of the disaster, collaborated with the Nazi forces and enabled their atrocities. Last week we saw a denialist writer offered as a source by an unscrupulous editor; this is another step down the same descent. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop the soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
As always, Slatersteven, you fail to notice those who "soapbox" in plain sight (that's the OP who's "soapbox", wrapped in a name change, is still a "soapbox"), and succeed in pinpointing everyone else. Well done! François Robere (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Frankly - The suggestion to use Ewa Kurek (Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint), Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward) as a source, other questionable sources, and now this outright offensive suggestion to qualify The Holocaust (suggesting some sort of equivalence with a supposed "Polish holocaust") - is beyond the pale. There are limits to what should be acceptable on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is not the forum for such debates.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The OP might be wrong, but. nevertheless, stop the soapboxing. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding "public intellectuals" — these were Catholic politicians and clergy — they were targeted, even if "ethnic Poles" as were not targeted as a group on the basis of their ethnicity. The distinction to call it AB-Aktion is entrenched in WP:RS but the suggestion that average people or new editors should be expected to be aware of this because it is well-known veers on the absurd — most people have never heard of AB-Aktion and will not know about the important distinction that the murder of Jews is called "Holocaust" but the murder of clergy is called "AB-Aktion". Average readers and most editors who are new to the subject have only heard the term "Holocaust" believing it refers to people who were persecuted by Nazis, including Jews — a guideline here explaining why this is incorrect would be helpful. Seraphim System (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you misread what I wrote. It's exactly because they were targeted that it's incorrect to say their persecution wasn't part of what we [now] call "the Holocaust". The "AB-Aktion", "Operation Reinhardt" and countless other events were all part of the same arc. François Robere (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
In the context of the article, this section is about the inaction of Poles during the murder of Jews — it's not discussing Polish inaction to Aktion, etc. (I don't think that would make much sense...) — the current content of the section seem to note some differences in historiography and perceptions, but isn't there some way to make the terminology clear for someone who doesn't have any background knowledge about this? (Also, the section already uses the term Jewish Holocaust) Seraphim System (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The term is used in two senses: First, to refer to the set of circumstances, events and operations that took place as part of the Nazi genocidal agenda; and second, to refer to the results of these events - the near eradication of entire people. In the latter sense, there was a Jewish Holocaust, in the former - the Holocaust. I think most readers intuitively understand this usage. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert or anything, but a quick search on Google turned up:

  • In an act of cold-blooded genocide, the so-called AB-Aktion. (OUP)
  • "So long as Poles saw themselves as Poles there was German intent towards their 'denationalization'. This, as we have noted, from a Lemkinan perspective already implied a form of genocide—with or without actual physical annihilation...almost any act of resistance would be treated as a pretext for mass killing: witness, as we already have, the AB-Aktion (second OUP book)

This section in the article is discussing various scholarly statements about the perceived indifference of Pales to the murder of Jews — discussion of the use of the word Holocaust to describe other genocides and whether that is FRINGE has rather confused the discussion, I'm afraid, and must be distinguished from separate claims made during this discussion that there was no genocide against the Poles as a nation. We haven't excluded ethnic Poles from the Holocaust infobox on the main article (I wasn't involved but consider that some indication of community consensus) — and I'm skeptical about doing it here simply because it would be more convenient to do so. But I'm not really sure how to clarify this further. Maybe a footnote? Seraphim System (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Very well, but how does this relate to collaboration (which is the subject of the article - the AB-Aktion (in addition to having its own article) is not an example of collaboration, but of Nazi war crimes)? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The second OUP source is discussing collaboration.Seraphim System (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The "The Holocaust" section speaks of ethnic Poles having shown "indifference" to the fate of the Jews or of having "taken a wait-and-see attitude". I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop: What would these authors have liked the ethnic Poles to have done? Rise up against the Germans? The Poles were busy enough trying to survive themselves, amid random street round-ups and organized eradications of Polish intellectuals and leaders. And many Poles did try to help Jews, at risk to their own lives. By the way, what ever happened to the estimate of up to 50,000 Poles having been murdered by the Germans for doing just that? And what happened to the postwar Israeli estimate of 7,000 Polish collaborators? Nihil novi (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The alleged Israeli estimate is of very dubious provenance (and is in any case out of date) and uses an unclear methodology (it also lists fairly low numbers for other countries - e.g. Ukraine).Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
We can have that discussion on my talk page, if you want, lest we enrage the ethics committee for having it here. François Robere (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on whether a source support a categorical statement

RFC now moot, other sources have been found which do support the statement. Fish+Karate 11:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • The statement "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland such efforts failed" is immediately followed by a single reference, to News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination (1940).
  • The source says the following: "When the Germans invaded Poland, they suggested that Estreicher should form a puppet government. They naturally met with no success in making this proposal...".
  • The source makes a claim in the singular ("he refused"), while the article makes a claim in the plural ("such attempts failed").

Is the source enough to establish the claim? (yes / no) 00:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTE TO EDITORS

At this point the wording in the article that was the subject of this RfC was changed and several additional reference sources added to back up the text.--E-960 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. A generalized claim needs to be supported by a generalizing source. François Robere (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. It is unclear whether there was a serious German attempt (or if this was a low level local half-hearted try) - so failed would be over stating this. The source itself is POVish (as may be see with the "naturally met with no success" language). Comparative statements regarding the situation in other countries should be done based on sources covering WWII as a whole - from a comparative cross-national stance - and not POVish sources covering this specific subject (which may perhaps be utilized for sourcing what happened in Poland - but not what happened outside of Poland). As might be seen in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty some of the claims / POVish stmts these sources make regarding exceptionalism in German-occupied Poland (vs. other occupied countries) are outright wrong and have been refuted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Icewhiz: That's a good point, and I think most sources agree on this. In some places, particularly, Poland, Germans did very little effort to create such a state. The emphasis should be on the fact that, as sources agree, Poland was one of the few places there was no 'quisling' government. Why is not relevant for this sentence, through something to be discussed in detail in a dedicated paragraph. It should be made clear that one of the main reasons for lack of such government was the fact that Germans were not interested in it in the first place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Piotrus:It is somewhat correctly addressed already in the 5th sentence (I think you missed that Piotr)
      • Nazi racial policies and German plans for the conquered Polish territories, on the one hand, and Polish anti-German attitudes on the other, militated against any Polish-German political collaboration. Further German efforts in that direction were precluded after April 1940, when Hitler banned negotiations concerning any degree of Polish autonomy It could be added that Hitler lost interests in creating a puppet state after 1940.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Piotrus: To clarify - I agree that indeed Poland was one the few places (and possibly the only major (e.g. German occupation of the Channel Islands#Administration did not have a Quisling) such country (depending on how you define collaborating (Denmark, Holland, the non-Vichy half of france etc.)) without a collaborating ("Quisling") gvmt - and that that should be stated (I object to "failed").Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This RfC is not properly created and should be cancelled. First off, who initiated it, since there is no signature? Also, there are THREE reference sources attached to this statement, not just the ONE that's listed in the RfC description. Are you challenging all three, or just one of them, so you can justify the removal of the text or the reference itself? What is the end objective of the RfC? because it's not clearly stated. --E-960 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The other two were only added after the RFC was created [2][3]. The "end objective" is to clarify the use of this source. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC statement might have been more neutrally and adequately worded (i.e. referring to a general "Is it acceptable to say that the 'Germans failed to establish a puppet state'?"), but there is no requirement that the RfC statement be signed. In fact, in cases like this, where the article is clearly subject to lots of conflict, I would personally recommend avoid it so as to keep the statement a bit more neutral. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. On top of that, there are plenty of sources already given in the prior discussions, and I understand François Robere (individual filing this RfC) is well aware of that. "failure"_to_establish_a_puppet_state,_part_II It appears that FR started the same matter all over again (3rd time actually) to have text adjusted exactly the way he desires.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment. As you're well aware, that discussion ended without consensus on this particular phrasing. But this RFC isn't about that - it's about this source. Is it, or is it not out of place? François Robere (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No While it is true that no collaboration government was formed, it is unclear (from the sources presented in the previous discussions, I and II) whether this was a result of the Nazis trying and failing or the Nazis not actively pursuing this objective - even more unclear given that not all sources seem to agree and that various editors seem to be able to spin (often, the same) sources to both sides of the argument. Therefore, concluding that the Germans "failed", in wiki-voice, would be either WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYNTH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2018‎
    • Comment. The problem is that this survey is misleading, because there are other sources citied there not just this one, and it comes across as if the initiator of this RfC wanted to remove the statement just by discrediting only one of the sources provided. --E-960 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You're reading too much into it. I repeatedly flagged that particular source, but at least two of the other editors (Bella, Marek [4][5], and possibly even yourself) removed those flags repeatedly. Seeing that there's no discussing or even tagging that source despite its obvious shortcomings, I decided to bring it to an RfC. François Robere (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
In response to the above: I think the text currently in the article (which does not take position, but merely mentions the facts as they are given in the sources, which goes exactly per what is described in WP:WikiVoice) is perfectly acceptable in its current state. Agree that the survey is misleading and non-neutral, both for the reasons you give and for the reasons I have also given above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Connelly discusses the pre-war negotiations, which are covered in the Background section, not the Political collaboration section (here's what other sources say). Regardless, the RfC is about News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination (1940), which doesn't make that statement. François Robere (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Connely makes a statement (quoting from memory) that the German occupation of Poland was especially harsh because the Poles refused to collaborate. In any case, when peer-reviewed sources exist that say the same thing, I don't see a point in holding an RfC about a potentially inadequate source. Just use a better source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: I tagged that source as inadequate several times, but it was repeatedly untagged by some of the other editors involved here, who defended that statement and weren't willing to budge on it; an RfC was the only option left. As for Connelly - his views, like many of his contemporaries, are more complex than simply stating that there "was" or "wasn't" collaboration, and at any rate he makes no statement germane to this RfC. François Robere (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not quite following. The RfC is about a statement Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland such efforts failed. IIRC, Connely makes a statement that Germans failed to install a successful collaborationist government because Poles refused to collaborate, or something to this effect. These two statements seem pretty close to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The RfC is first and foremost about a source; the statement was modified, as I understand it, to reflect the fact that whether or not they "failed" is contested, with some sources explicitly stating the opposite [6]. The distinction I make here with regards to Connelly is of "before" and "after" the beginning of the war: Connelly discusses the pre-war negotiations, which are covered in the Background section, not the Political collaboration section. The first part of the story isn't contested; the second part is more complicated, and saw various parties making various suggestions and contacts, starting in Sept. 1939 and going all the way to 1941 and early 1942; here the Germans typically rebuffed any suggestions of collaboration. Does this clarify the issue and the RfC? François Robere (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not "false wording". As stated several times above, at the time the RFC was opened that was the only source attached to that statement. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Not as currently phrased nor using present sources. That collaboration was relatively minimal seems generally agreed, but phrasing implies that Poles - almost alone of occupied countries - heroically declined to compromise, whereas there is little indication that the occupying power ever seriously sought, expected or wanted 'accommodation' with the Poles and that their plans for much of Eastern Europe - inc Poland - aimed at complete subjugation and destruction of 'the nation', from day one. Better sources, putting a more nuanced picture seem called for. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

But that's not what the RFC is about. The RFC is about this source. If this source isn't enough to establish the claim, and you need to instruct the reader to "take a better look", then you failed as an editor.
There are loads of citations, just look into the history of the talk page and article itself. Are you starting the whole dispute again "failure"_to_establish_a_puppet_state,_part_II or you are kidding me?GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm asking a simple question: A statement is immediately followed by a source. Does that source establish that statement? François Robere (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it" (WP:INCITE). If this "bit of material" isn't supported by the specific source, then either one shouldn't be there. François Robere (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A question, do the sources say "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments"? Hell what countries outside Europe did the Nazis occupy?Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What Nazis? Did you mean Nazi Germany?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course.... Now why not answer the question.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a controversial claim. Many good references should be easy to find (ex. [7], [8] or [9]). Really, what's the purpose of this RfC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And at least one of those does not say that this was common in other occupied countries. SO can you provide the quote that I am missing?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
[10]: "Poland remains a country without a Quisling and, in all of Nazi-controlled Europe, the place least likely to assist the German war effort... " Anyway, if someone really has a problem with qualifiers "most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments", well, we can just list them; see the second column in German-occupied Europe: Slovak Republic, Vichy France, Quisling regime, Hellenic State (1941–1944) , Government of National Salvation or the list at List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states#Germany. The cases of Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark are interesting, too. Wikipedia sources seem confused on whether Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands were occupied and under direct administration, allied with Germany or puppet states, the related articles/sections are a mess, but in the end those are smaller countries. Geographically and demographically, most of Nazi-occupied Europe was ruled by Nazi-friendly collaboratinist puppet states. See the map here: File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. Another way of looking at this, is which parts of Europe did not produce collaborative governments (because for various regions they remained under military occupation only?): Poland, USSR, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Outside USSR, the three Nordic countries had some level of government collaboration (Denarmk had its entire government, the two others, at least some semblance of political activity and autonomy). On the other hand, France, Finland, Norway, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria were either German allies or collaborating puppet states. The RfCed sentence seems correct, through I agree it would be nice to find a more clear and direct quote. PS. [11]: "Practically the only countries under German occupation that did not have a Quisling government were Poland and Holland." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
How more direct it can be?
  • The Contemporary Review, Volumes 160-161 - A. Strahan
But all the German attempts to build up a Polish government have failed. In the first months after the conquest, the Nazis approached many people in order to persuade them to form a government on the Hacha model, but nobody accepted. This total refusal of collaboration has led Hitler to a change of policy. As long as he hoped to get some Poles to work with him the non- annexed part of Poland was officially called "Polnischer Reststaat"GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing it, care to highlight where it says this worked on most occupied countries? Odd given we have better sourcing for this claim made before this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC).
Slatersteven, what is the point of your arguments, in most cases your statements come across as if you really have NO IDEA about the subject matter, and just visit the page to argue and be disruptive by creating confusion during discussions. You don't need a source for every word in the article. It's common knowledge that in most occupied countries there was a collaborationist government like in Vichy France, Quisling regime, Reichskommissariat Niederlande, Denmark, Independent State of Croatia, Slovakia, Hellenic State, Finland and so on. You challenge facts that are really obvious and non-controversial, just to pick a fight on the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Like Czechoslovakia you mean? It is far more complex then that, many countries simply ceased to exist, and were replaced by smaller (and totally new) entities. Others (like Lithuanian) had a government that only lasted a very brief period. Others (like Denmark) were not official occupied but were called allied (a fiction to be sure, but it helps to muddy the waters). Others (like Finland) were never in fact occupied at all and were purely allied nations (who had their own beef with Russia). Still others (like the Reichskommissariat Niederlande) were in fact Germans (or in this case Austrian headed German authorities, not Quisling regimes, like the General government). In fact very few followed the Norway model. Which is why I wanted that claim sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
?? Czechoslovakia... uh, it did not exist during WWII and does not exists now. Thanks for proving my point that your aim is only to create confusion with un-ending red herring arguments. --E-960 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia existed prior to WWII and if not for "peace in our times" might have been the start of it. Even the Vichy example you give above (which is a favorite of some - possibly since it is the best known - but actually is not such a good example) - was only in half of France (and that - for 2 years until Nov 1942) - the other half was under German military administration in occupied France during World War II - should we say that "Zone occupee" was one of the few countries/areas without a collaborationist government?Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, seriously, why are you latching on to exceptions, was only part of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Finland, Greece, etc. partly under a collaborationist government. So, this is your tactic you find an exemption and want to throw the baby with the bath water. --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
A, yes I only mentioned Czechoslovakia, thus proving your point. B, Yes that is my point (that the issue is not obvious and rather complex, and did exist after WW2 as well as before it). The issue of collaborationist governments is not as black and white as some of you claim. Many would argue that Vicey was not France, and thus France (as a nation) did not have a collaborationist movement, the same has been used by many in other nations. The arguments may often be silly and nationalistic, they are still there. Thus it is best if we source any claim that might be challenged.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
And there are people who claim the earth was flat. So, on that topic as well, you're like... "sound legit". We can't say the earth is round cause there are folk who think it's flat. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not the same, this is not an irrefutable fact backed by science, it is an opinion that many historians have contested, hell even one of your examples is flat out wrong. So you wonder why when such mistakes occur I asked for sourcing, rather then OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, Slatersteven, perhaps topic such as British–German cohabitation of Nazi-occupied Channel Islands, British Free Corps and Edward VIII they could use additional scrutiny as well.--E-960 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not about those articles, or whether I edit them. So care to answer how Holland had a collaborationist regime?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that "some" or "many" German-occupied countries had collaborationist governments? Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said before E-960's intervention I now accept that the claim has a source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, under the Reichskommissariat Niederlande, a cabinet position under the Reichskommissar, of the Leader of the Dutch People Anton Mussert. Kind of what the Germans wanted to use Wincenty Witos for, but unlike Mussert, Witos did not agree to collaborate. --E-960 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read what I have said above? Why are you still arguing this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Any objection, then, to some such text as the following?
"Unlike the situation in many German-occupied European countries which had collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland there was no puppet government."
Nihil novi (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
No, we now have sources that say it..Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editorializing

User:E-960 restored the whole "Grabowski is unprofessional" segement (see below). I tagged it, but the tag was removed [12]:

Extended content

Subsequently, Grabowski acknowledged that his estimate was not the result of original research, but was based on referencing works of other historians, most notably Szymon Datner, and as reported by the Polish newspaper wPolityce: "Grabowski admitted that the number of 250,000 fugitives from the ghettos is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's works. Grabowski simply took into account the maximum number of escapes from the ghetto suggested by Datner, but he rejected his estimates of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski—if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion only 50,000 people) from the number of fugitives, you will get 200,000. Grabowski, therefore, stated that this was the number of Jews murdered by Poles." [1][2] Also, in a March 2018 interview with the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, Grabowski said he had never claimed that all 200,000 Jews had been killed "personally" by Poles, but that some Poles were co-responsible for the deaths through collaboration, even if the Jews were killed by the Germans.[3].

The problem here is the general sense of doubt arising from the text:

  • "acknowledged" and "admitted", rather than "clarified" or "explained"
  • "not the result of original research, but..." (does it have to be?)
  • "based solely on his estimates" (which, as an expert, he's qualified to make)
  • "selective treatment of Datner's works" (?)

And that's just the first two sentences. That's not neutral text. If it's based just on the newspaper, then that's an unqualified source to cast doubt on a historian's research methods; and if it doesn't, then it's OR. François Robere (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is presented out of context (that some Polish right-wing publicists said Grabowski said something he hadn't said - Gazeta Wyborcza was asking him to set the record straight) - and is unneeded. The wPolityce piece is even worse - this is a right-wing internet portal (not a newspaper - they do have a weekend paper - but this is the site) - and is not wPolityce saying something (which would be FRINGE and not an academic source in any event) - but rather wPolityce reporting on the Facebook posts of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland - which is certainly not a source for history or BLP content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
These are both reliable sources, Gazeta Wyborcza and wPolityce are like the two biggest papers in Poland one on the right and the other on the left. As for some of the bullet points regarding Grabowski, expert or not, his work CAN be scrutinized by other academics and writers and journalists, and as in the case of Grabowski, there is no original research involved, only the equivalent of academic copy/past... a rather questionable and lazy way of doing anything, just to make a "new" shocking claim in a book to sell more copies. As with any profession, there is such a thing as questionable and poor quality research. --E-960 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
wPolityce is reporting on a series Facebook posts by a Polish ambassador - that's not an academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And, you have a US President and everyone else using Twitter to announce policy, that's 21st century. Btw, this was a Polish ambassador not Joe-schmo on FB, so the ambassador probably was briefed on the matter, and he raised a legitimate point that Grabowski did not use first hand sources, only an analysis of other historians' works. That's a big thing to point out, and very legitimate in this case. --E-960 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
All of what you've just written is either WP:FORUM or editorializing in its own right. The fact of the matter is you have a diplomat, a journalist, and a Wikipedia editor giving their opinions on something neither is qualified to opine on. This isn't an appropriate counter-balance to the nearly 200 professional historians who wrote in his support. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The bottom line is that Grabowski's work is of poor quality, and the academics who support him are not infallible themselves. The basic facts around Grabowski don't add up, all of a sudden 70 years after the war, he "discovers" new facts — not based on going to to first hand sources, but doing arithmetic based on other historians' works. It's like writing a book about Brazil, by either going to Brazil and writing about it, or going on-line geting a bunch of facts, then make your own interpretations and write a book. That kind of "expert academic" research is BS nothing more. Just an excuse to publish a book and sell copies by making new and shocking claims. At this day and age "academia" is nothing more than just another avenue to make money. --E-960 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The bottom line is that your opinion is WP:OR, contradicted by actual reception of this work in peer reviewed journals. Clearly this work has faced some push back from elements in Polish society, but overall reception has been quite positive - reviews and a major prize in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the bottom line is that the two sources are RELIABLE, so instead of trying to remove them, why don't you find text which supports Grabowski instead of trying to 'tag' or 'delete' everything that makes you unhappy. Btw, it not hard to get 'good' reviews when you are preaching to the quire. --E-960 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Gazeta Wyborcza is reliable, but says nothing new - Grabowski merely repeated in 2018 what he wrote and said in multiple interviews. wPolityce is not a RS - but even if it were - it is merely reporting on a Facebook post by the ambassador - so we could say the ambassador posted that on Facebook. The Facebook post itself is not a RS - it is UNDUE to include the opinion of a functuonary - but if included it has to be attributed to him - note this was discussed at RSN.19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, if wPolityce is not a reliable source than what is, is there an international committee that determines what media outlet is "reliable" and which one is "not reliable", basically anything right of centre-left is radical and not reliable in today's liberal standards. Because wPolityce has a national audience, makes money form advertisers and newsstand sales, the writers have worked in the past in other national news outlets (credentials). So, it's not a blog edited in someone's basement, and it has a conservative side, just like CNN is liberal and FOX News conservative. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If your point was that that site is as reliable as Fox News, then it's not a very good point to make - it's highly contested [13]. Also, I think you're missing what Icewhiz says: The first source states nothing already stated before; the second is actually the ambassador, not the paper, and the ambassador is not an RS in his own right. So, again, you're left with very little in terms of the reliability of those claims. François Robere (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So, you can say wPolityce quoted the ambassador and his analysis of the work, in any case, it's legitimate to include in the article. --E-960 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And since when is the Polish ambassador an authority (i.e. reliable source) in the field of Holocaust history??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep the analysis of the source itself to Icewhiz, who's more familiar with it. If it did pass RS, the change of tone would still be required, as well as the length of the text covering it (WP:DUE). Again, none of it is actually criticism by an RS on the subject. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't you know that Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel, and The Jerusalem Post, which we cite in some Wikipedia articles, are all peer-reviewed, scholarly, unbiased reliable sources, in contrast to these Polish non-peer-reviewed, unscholarly, biased, nationalist, wrong-wing, non-English-language non-reliable-source publications? Nihil novi (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Many internet web portals (and some newspapers) do not pass RSN. See WP:DAILYMAIL.Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
On the RS spectrum of WSJ / Fox News / Breitbart / WND - wPolityce would probably fall around Breitbart which we generally reject as a source (beyond the actual issue that what is reported is a copy of Facebook posts by a diplomat).Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of WP:FORUM and editorializing, that's not true and you're not backing up your assertion in any way. It's definitely not like Breitbart. Fox News? Maybe. Or maybe even more mainstream than that. So yeah, like it or not, by Wikipedia's standards, it's a reliable source, though I wouldn't use it myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No information source or authority tells the truth all the time, or lies all the time. Part of our job is to critically weigh the evidence. Nihil novi (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH is not a goal. WP:BALASP of WP:RS is.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
But this isn't the point. When we cite them in this context, we usually cite either an interview with a scholar, or the scholar itself (eg. Daniel Baltman, who occasionally writes in Haaretz). We don't Cite a journalist who has no particular expertise criticising a scholar who has expertise. François Robere (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh yea? So some journalist Ofer Aderet from Haaretz you cited should be removed as a reference then. [14]GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You didn't read the article, did you? It includes an interview with Grabowski, commentary by Timothy Snyder, quotes from the book and observations of Polish media response. François Robere (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
wpolityce is perfectly reliable source,I see no reason to remove it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not when we are discussing serious criticism of academic work. A newspaper which has an interview with someone on an academic subject is reliable insofar that the interviewee is a reliable source. As established above, Grabowski is, the Polish ambassador isn't. WP:DEADHORSE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
And insofar as the journalist does not distort what the "reliable source" says, as apparently a lady journalist at Haaretz distorted what Jan Grabowski told her, thereby spreading the rumor about "200,000" Jews killed by Poles. Nihil novi (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Grabowski said "directly or indirectly" - and from the sources above, it is not the journalists who quote him that distorted that into "200k killed [directly] by Poles" - rather, it's the (yes, mostly Polish, but nevermind) critics. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a male, not a female, at Haaretz - and Haaretz reported Grabowski's claim quite accurately - saying "directly and indirectly". It would seem that some fringe Polish-language publications reported second hand on what Grabowski said to Haaretz - in an inaccurate manner - that reflects on use of those sources - not on Haaretz or Grabowski.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
What the heck does "directly and indirectly" mean exactly?? This kind of vague language is endemic of Grabowski and other "academics" who write about the Holocaust and Poland. Someone can interpret it as Poles personally killed almost 200,000 Jews, or that close to 200,000 Jews died as a result of Polish collaboration. That's why the Gazeta Wyborcza source is useful because it clarifies the original "directly and indirectly" meaning. --E-960 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Indirectly quite obviously (if you read the interview beyond the headline, or are familiar with the subject matter) means handing over the Jews to someone else (the Nazies, usually) who then killed them.
  • As for the ambassador.... An ambassador representing a political party with some unaccepted (per most scholars) views on the role of Poles in WWII (Two Senior Polish Ministers Deny Poles' Involvement in Massacres of Jews) is not a WP:RS. It is actually quite a WP:QS. There are some great Polish sources out there. However, we shouldn't place UNDUE emphasis on Polish views - the Holocaust, WWII, and Polish involvement have been studied extensively world wide - and we should reflect the worldwide balance on the subject. Governmental views on history (particularly at the ambassadorial level - but this would be also true at the presedential level) - carry very little weight - they should not be present in historical articles in Wikipedia (unless analyzed widely in a secondary manner - as such views are PRIMARY from a non-RS), but perhaps in the articles on the government or people making such stmts - while clearly representing the academic consensus on the matter the government official is referring to.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not "quite obvious" when someone is new to the subject, so stop assuming everyone is well versed in this topic, so that you can use contextual shortcuts to address complicated statements. Also, the ambassador Dr. Jakub Kumoch, has a background in academia as a political scientist and worked for three research institutes. Btw, don't for a second think that just cause some historian like Grabowski or anyone else for that matter is a "scholar" that they do not carry a political or an ideological affiliation and remain neutral. --E-960 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)}}

Icewhiz, NO CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED DO NOT DELETE THE STATEMENTS OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO ADMINS FOR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND VANDALISM. --E-960 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is on you to include. We also already discussed this in RSN - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - the content you added was a BLP vio, as well, as it misrepresented the source to say that Grabowski said something when in fact it was the ambassador saying things (on Facebook) about Grabowski - which per the RSN dicussion should (if included at all) be attributed to the ambassador.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Listen Icewhiz, the last time I check in the above discussion there are 5 editors who agree that Gazeta Wyborcza reference is reliable Nihil novi, MyMoloboaccount, GizzyCatBella, 198.84.253.202 and me (against 2, you and FR). So, I don't know how the heck you have the nerve to assume that you can reasonably delete that statement, and as for the wPolityce text, the discussion is 4 to 3 in favor of keeping. So what you just did is vandalism. --E-960 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I restored it, please let me know if I did it corectly.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Btw, the original text form wPolityce (which was removed earlier) is not what I used — that text if you compare, analyzed the number of escapes form the Ghettos and how Grabowski arrived at that number (which was a bit out of place), while this new text focuses on the overall approach of Grabowski instead of focusing on just one part. You can see the difference if you just look at the two texts—very different. --E-960 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The Gazeta Wyborcza statement is still missing after being deleted, even though the consensus is that it's a reliable source. --E-960 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You can add me to the count of 5, so 6 to 1, that Gazeta Wyborcza is reliable - I stated so above. That is not the question at all - it is reliable, definitely for an interview of Grabowski (and much more, being a rather leading Polish newspaper) - it is simply not needed, as it has Grabowski repeating exactly the same stmt he has been saying/writing for years. The Facebook post of the Polish ambassador (reported by wpolityce - which is not a RS - but attributed anyway to the ambassador's facebook) - is a separate matter. At the minimum it must, per policy, be attributed to the ambassador. It is also UNDUE for inclusion, the ambassador not being an expert in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The question posed here is if GW is reliable, not if it's needed (most editors understand it as such). As for wPolityce, I don't mind if the text states that this reference was made by the current Polish ambassador and political scientist Dr. Jakub Kumoch. He might not be a WWII expert, but he is an academic, and political science and history are related — so we are not talking about a microbiologist talking about history. --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually that's not the question. If the interview itself merely repeates what he already said earlier, then there's no need for it; if you use that interview to editorialize and imply that he's somehow inconsistent or unreliable, then that's a violation of any number of policies. What exactly does the piece say? François Robere (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Most editors agree that the source is reliable, thus it can be part of the article, and those editors did not say it reliable but let's remove it. --E-960 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That a source is reliable (has anyone said otherwise for GW? I guess we would have to consider in newer reporting possible holocaust law censorship), is a neccesary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion, as we have several other policies as well as common sense and editor discretion. In this case, repeating that Grabowski said this again in 2018 to GW has little purpose - there is no need to list every media outlet in which he said this (and there are quite a few - in English and in Polish). Had this been an article about Media appearances by Grabowski it might be relevant. In this article - not.Icewhiz (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I do suggest constructively that if you want to use the "not personally" language - that you tack this on to one sentence (with a , perhaps in between) discussing his 200,000 estimate, and based on a multitude of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's essential information that seems to be very relevant having Grabowski here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, this statement is very relevant. These are Grabowski's own words directly from the newspaper interview: "Nigdy nie mówiłem o 200 tys. Żydów zamordowanych własnoręcznie przez Polaków". It says, just what is in the article now. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@E-960: Here is why, whether reliable source or not, that text does not go in the article.
In the preceding sentence, Grabowski is quoted as saying "200,000 Jews 'were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles'". This is, as demonstrated above, rather clear and says exactly what it needs to say. The following sentence (the one you absolutely wish to be kept) is, per above, presented out of context, because "some Polish right-wing publicists said Grabowski said something he hadn't said - Gazeta Wyborcza was asking him to set the record straight". We can keep the reference, but there is no reason to have another sentence to discuss this when it is already clearly explained that the 200k number refers to both "directly or indirectly". Having the sentence also brings an element of doubt (by having the reader ask: did he contradict himself?) which is both false (there is no doubt - this is what Grabowski has always said, period.) and only serves to further the "Grabowski is unprofessional" OR-criticism. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, I will repeat most editors agree that the source is reliable, thus it can be part of the article, and those editors did NOT say it's reliable but it should be removed. Also, if you look at the top, this discussion was never about what you are now advocating. Thus, the final word is that the MAJORITY of editors agree with the 'Gazeta Wyborcza' text and it was affirmed by this edit [15], so this issue is resloved. --E-960 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you read English? FR above says "If the interview itself merely repeates what he already said earlier, then there's no need for it". Icewhiz says "That a source is reliable is a neccesary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion, as we have several other policies as well as common sense and editor discretion. In this case, repeating that Grabowski said this again in 2018 to GW has little purpose". This discussion is about that section, and anyway I'm not going to further fragment this discussion by creating another section when this same issue has been discussed above. As for "majority", of the 6 editors who participated in this section, 3 (Me, FR, Icewhiz) are against keeping the sentence, 2 (You, Bella) are for, and 1 (Nihil Novi) hasn't stated his opinion directly. Assuming Nihil Novi sides with you, that would still be 50-50. And since you wanted to include the sentence but the proposal has not gained consensus (or even a majority, but consensus is not a vote and it is usually stronger than a simple majority), then it can be removed. The nearest thing to a consensus/compromise I can find is Icewhiz proposing to "if you want to use the "not personally" language - that you tack this on to one sentence (with a , perhaps in between) discussing his 200,000 estimate, and based on a multitude of sources." I would support this if it can be worked out, but the current sentence (which is out of context and has plenty of other issues) cannot stay. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • No this text and citation is useful because it clarifies an ambiguous statement. Perfect example of it is when an Israeli mayor said referencing Grabowski's work: "Polish farmers killed 200,000 Jews during the war".[16] But, in that interview with Gazeta Wyborcza, Grabowski clarified that he did not mean to imply that all 200,000 Jews were killed personally by Poles. So, now it's clear why you are so heck-bent on removing the GW text, and to answer your sarcastic question, I can read and also understand motives. --E-960 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Most of the world sees little difference between handing someone over, knowing he will be killed (and possibly rewarded for doing so) - and killing by one's own hand.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
So,out of those alleged 200,000 how many were captured or denounced by the "Jewish Gestapo" did Grabowski even bother to take that fact into consideration? Oh, another uncomfortable question. Just blame those victims on the Poles as well. That's why Grabowski's work has serious issues and shows clear bias towards Poles, and that why such statements as GW and needed. --E-960 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we keep thus focused in the article please?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Jewish Gestapo specialized in tracking people outside the Ghettos.[17] The number of victims is running into thousands (Jews and Poles helping them). 200 thousands of Grabowski minus the above thousands?
After all, Grabowski came up with the 200.000 number subtracting the figure of escapees with the number of survivors. See? Grabowski's work has serious issues as per comment above. That's why his own explanation what he meant is crucial to have it in the article.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
And, tell me, do you happen to be an academic who specializes in this topic area, and who published this in an academic journal? Obviously not, so whether you like it, or not or even whether you think you are right is irrelevant - we need serious sources, not newspapers (which are not known to always be exact, nor are representative of academic research) or Wikipedians (who are really not reliable)... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What part of the fact that this discussion is done to you not get? Because François Robere in this edit [18] used a compromise solution, and the Edit Summary states (→‎The Holocaust: Per talk). So, just cause you don't like the outcome does not mean we'll just start every thing from the beginning, cause you're throwing a hissy fit. --E-960 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Be nice. Their argument is valid. They probably didn't notice that edit, and that's okay. Notify them civilly at that's it. François Robere (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kołodziejski, Konrad (1 March 2018). "A new number from Jan Grabowski. Who came up with 40,000 Holocaust survivors?" [Padła kolejna liczba Jana Grabowskiego. Kto wymyślił 40 tysięcy ocalonych z Holokaustu?]. wPolityce.pl.
  2. ^ Kumoch, Jakub; Tomaszewska, Weronika (2 March 2018). "Where did the number of 40,000 Holocaust survivors come from? Poland's ambassador to Switzerland unmasks Jan Grabowski: He cites secondary sources that fit his thesis" [Skąd liczba 40 tys. ocalonych z Holokaustu? Ambasador RP w Szwajcarii demaskuje Jana Grabowskiego: Powołuje się na źródła wtórne pasujące do jego tezy]. wPolityce.pl. Fratria.
  3. ^ http://wyborcza.pl/alehistoria/7,121681,23154070,prof-jan-grabowski-pomagalismy-niemcom-zabijac-zydow.html

1 million estimated collaborators attributed by Friedrich Klaus-Peter to Madajczyk=failed verification

Friedrich cites Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitikin Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: Annaherungen-Zblizenia (Dusseldorf, 1996), p. 146 as source for his claim about million collaborators.

There is no information about collaborators by Madajczyk on page 146. Page 146 is about Polish Solidarity movement in article by Grzegorz Leszczynski. As such I will remove this information and suggest strongly reviewing any information given by Friedrich Klaus. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it best if we just don't give any number in the lead. Now stop focusing on details and try reaching consensus on more controversial matters. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You may tag it, but not remove it. We've had worse sources kept here by other editors, and I don't see a reason to except this one. I'd like to see the source, if you happen to have it in PDF form. François Robere (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it will be removed since it presents a strong claim based on source that doesn't contain this information.We can't keep information that has been objectively proven false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You didn't prove it false, you merely didn't find it. Friedrich is not known for factual errors. I want another verification, or to see the source myself. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You didn't prove it false, you merely didn't find it.I checked page 146, different author, different subject. I am pretty sure that this is the definition of not being there.It falls on to you to find such information, not me.Until you find it, the false claim is out.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You already said that earlier and was wrong. I want either the source, or another verification. As I said earlier: We've kept around claims that are even less substantiated because some editors insisted on it (eg. the non-existent "Israeli War Crimes Commission", or the poorly-sourced "baiting" claim); Friedrich is not known for factual errors and there's no reason not give him the benefit of the doubt. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
François Robere, are you not able to check the Madajczyk reference yourself? Nihil novi (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not have the book on hand, and it will take time procuring. In the meanwhile, there's no reason not to tag the claim instead of removing it. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

François has a point, at this time it has only failed verification. If after bit of time no corroboration is produced then we can remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If someone can provide the text or a link to it, I'll be glad to review it and translate any pertinent passages. Nihil novi (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Above is not a problem, I will upload a scan of table of contents showing clearly that page 146 is by different author on different subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There,page 141 to 152 is an article about Solidarity by Grzegorz Leszczynski[19]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

English translation of the table-of-contents item: "'Solidarity': The trade union in the role of political modifier of authorities" [by] Grzegorz Leszczyński, [pp.] 141[-152]".
So, François Robere, it seems that Friedrich Klaus-Peter, who you say above "is not known for factual errors", is in error here.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
And is there a Madajczyk text anywhere in there? This store offers the book with one. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it has not failed verification, a table of contents is not a complete list of everything in a chapter. Yes the fact it is about Solidarity is not a good sign. But it is also not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree (WP:COMMONSENSE) with Slatersteven, it is very possible that there is a (passing?) mention of Friedrich on page 146 without the number being the main subject discussed in the 'Solidarity' section. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking more about a page error, because the books is supposed to have an article by Madajczyk. I've asked for a library to acquire it, I expect a reply in a couple of weeks. François Robere (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I have read the book and there is nothing about Friedrich on page 146, and nothing about 1 million collaborators in article by Madajczyk as far as I could read.
I also don't recollect seeing that claim in the book, so no, until it is proven to be in the book, this claim is out.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You won't be the one to make that decision, Bella. MyMoloboaccount, are you in possession of the right edition? He cited a particular one. François Robere (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Since we have people claiming they have read the source and it is wrong: to avoid any doubts, please scan / photograph the page from the correct edition (also the edition first page) and link it here from an image host. I think this is the only way to dispel the doubts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I want more than that: If it's a page error, but the article is in the book (as the contents here suggest), we need that article. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I have uploaded some images from German version that is used[20]. The table of contents lists the same pages , there is nothing about 1 million collaborators on page 146 and I couldn'f find such information in Madajczyk's article. Obviously I am not going to scan 30 or so pages, if François Robere wants he can find the book himself and present us with precise information, I couldn't find it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct - the claim of "1 million" is out. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this in good faith. However, the scan itself has multiple problems - the top of the page is unreadable/missing and we can't see the page number - is this indeed p. 146 or not? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfinished business

There are a number of issues about this article which were opened on the Talk page several weeks ago (see Archive 4, for example) and have been left unfinished, presumably diverted by the flame wars and WP:ARBEE restrictions that have ensued. I'll start with what I said at the time was the most important issue, because it can help bring about article stability. This is to open with a 'definition of terms' section, covering the scope of the article. Even The Holocaust has a 'Terminology and definition' section. Let's get back to that now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What is it you want it to say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The real question would seem to be, What does the article want to say? What is its actual subject? Are all the editors talking about the same thing? What is "collaboration", in this context?
Nihil novi (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, firstly, an explanation about why 'collaboration' and 'antisemitism' are two different words, and to what extent they mean different things. One explanation comes from Saul Friedländer who speaks of a paradox specific to occupied Poland: “Precisely because Polish anti-Semitism was not tainted by any trace of collaboration with the Germans, it could prosper — not only in the street but also in the underground press, in political parties, and in the armed forces.”[1] For Friedländer, one can be an antisemite (even a murderous one) while not being a collaborator; he appears to be generalizing that Poles did not collaborate, even though many were antisemites, including murderous ones. Friedländer's position calls into question the very rationale for this article. By contrast, other sources may well define any killing of Jews during the Holocaust as collaboration - in which case, we must include those sources in this proposed section too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: For good form, when adding references to a talk page discussion, you should use {{reftalk}} to make sure the references appear in the vicinity of where you cite them (not much difference in this particular case, since the discussion was at the bottom anyway, but...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/killers-of-jews-or-saviors-of-jews/
The section does have a statement referencing historian John Connelly who addresses exactly the issue you are raising, regarding the two view points on 'collaboration' and 'anti-Jewish sentiment'. At this point, I actually do think that this issue was addressed and resolved. In the end, this is an article on collaboration, and to overly concentrate on anti-semitism creates un-due weight. --E-960 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Jews stood up to the German army in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - from the quoted article. False - the desctruction of the Ghetto was a police action. Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Cultural collaboration - the underground was very strict regarding culture. A number of journalists were killed or almost killed as collaborators. Actors weren't allowed to work. Such collaboration was defined and punished, but not mentioned here. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
True. There was even a saying, "Tylko świnie siedzą w kinie" ("Only swine go to the movies"). The collaborating actor Igo Sym was executed by the Polish underground.
Please add a section on cultural collaboration. Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
A source, please??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Collaboration by individual artists or journalists would just fall under the section of Individual Collaboration, no need to create another category. --E-960 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The civilian underground defined rules for actors and journalists, not for individuals. Both groups influenced the society and were punished.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Academic book about the GG

https://www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/rezbuecher-24802 Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Particularly interesting, the following (section of a) paragraph is particularly on topic and could be summarized and inserted into the article:

The Germans made the Holocaust happen, but Winstone notes that Jewish suffering and deaths increased because of common attitudes among locals that did not see the Jews as part of their own. While he argues that only a minority of gentiles actively persecuted the Jews, he also makes clear that only a minority actively assisted the Jews. Winstone also downplays claims regarding the purported Polish lack of agency in saving Jews in occupied Poland (pp. 181–184). As he observes, the propensity not to help was due more to human nature rather than national predilections, but the result was no less deadly: “The Holocaust was made possible at every stage by moral choices” (p. 186).

198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Too much, at this point the article already addresses this very topic with statements from historians John Connelly and Klaus-Peter Friedrich, to add yet another paragraph creates issues of un-due weight, because equating "passivity" with collaboration is not an universal view held by scholars. But, if a sentence includes balanced key points summarizing all four sentences above then maybe. --E-960 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

198.84.253.202 - the majority of Polish Jews did not see themselves as Polish. Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Xx236: Source, please? And, even with a source, how is this even relevant to the above material? @E-960: Obviously, yes, the information should be summarized, as I suggested. I was just listing it so that we have something to start with. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
You quote biased description of GG and you don't see my answer to be relevant. Strange.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
So? I fail to see the relevance of that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I gave it a try, and included a sentence summarizing Winstone's remarks as noted above. --E-960 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I still fail to see the relevance, what does it matter if they did not see themselves as Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The self-isolation of Jews influenced Poles. There existed almost no family relation between the two groups and frequently existed economical conflict.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
And this is your opinion or can you give us a source for it? It still lacks pertinence - we do not need to justify why the Poles (mostly) didn't help: such a statement, in addition to being likely WP:OR, would be highly controversial and saying it in WP:WikiVoice would be a very bad idea neutrality-wise, and this article already has enough POV problems as is. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: The sentence as currently in the article lacks the second part of the sentence in the source, which says "he also makes clear that only a minority actively assisted the Jews". This needs to be included too, so as not to misrepresent the source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

198.84.253.202, you can add the second part, if you feel that it's worth mentioning, I don't see an issue. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Except I can't add anything, because of this. The issue is remaining neutral and accurately representing the source. The text also too closely paraphrases the source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, will add the full statement, reasonable enough. --E-960 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is about Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Please explain the connection betwen it and only a minority actively assisted the Jews.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Xx236: Please explain the connection between "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" and "Many Christian Poles, at high risk to themselves and their relatives, succeeded in protecting Jews from the Germans. " Wait, actually, you don't need to, because it is painfully obvious that the opposite of collaboration is resistance, and when treating of collaboration in a large geographical area, it would be unbalanced not to mention that there was resistance of some kind. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Remove "Poland was the first and one of the greatest victims of World War II." since it clearly fails MOS:FIRST and is also a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, giving an unattributed POV statement in the first sentence of the article (which already suffers enough POV problems as it is). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a bombastic line that comes across as egregious point-of-view editing more consistent with a political speech than an encyclopedia. A far greater percentage of the Roma and Sinti ethnicity than Poles were murdered by the Germans, and some data shoes greater percentage of Belorussians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians killed; in terms of total numbers, there were multiples more Chinese and Indonesians killed. Meanwhile the whole notion of who was a "first" victim is absurd: the Austrians have even had a go.

This said, instead of simply cutting, the line ought to be replaced with better language and moved lower down the lede. This would be to clarify the historians' consensus - and in spite of the potentially misleading title of the article here - that Poland was not a collaborative power such as Vichy France and did not have collaborative units such as the Croatian SS. I also insist that there's a requirement here for a brief differentiation between collaboration and other forms of wartime conduct, for example:

Historians such as Saul Friedländer reserve the term "collaboration" strictly for the institutional contribution to the German war effort by military units and political power, neither of which which was made by Poland.

This may also assist article stability in that it should help editors to stop arguing at cross-purposes.

The contribution of some Polish individuals to the Holocaust is sometimes referred to as collaboration in popular discourse, and I am looking for a reference that puts this fact in a nutshell, to use alongside the Friedländer line. Assistance in my search would be most welcome.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that a nuanced description is appropriate further down in the lead. However, this article isn't per se about the victims of Nazi atrocities in Poland (there is already an article about that, i.e. the one linked in the spurious sentence above).
The quote I gave in the preceeding section would be sufficient for giving a nuanced and accurate statement about collaboration (or rather, the [minimal] amount of Poles who collaborated) - but it makes no mention of collaboration, and given the standard set for describing people as "collaborators" in a previous RfC (and given that the possible synthesis there was less objectionable [since actually supported by sources which do directly mention collaboration and whose main topic is collaboration]), it might be insufficient. Somebody with access to the book could check whether the book itself makes a direct mention of collaboration in this context - in that case there could be no possible objection to including material sourced from the book. Nevertheless, it is still a great source for putting things into perspective and giving a neutral tone to the article.
Disagree that the title is misleading - there was indeed collaboration (to some extent, minimal yes, but still) in German-occupied Poland and this article's primary role is to describe it (again, no matter how minimal it is, so long the subject is notable and covered in reliable sources, and it clearly is).
Giving a statement on the conflicting definitions of collaboration would be helpful, yes. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
One could add that the word 'victim' connotes passivity, which makes its use inaccurate here because Poland was the only fully mobilized Allied belligerent fighting against Nazi Germany in the first six months of the war, and even by the war's end was the fourth biggest Allied contributor to the European theater, and the biggest in terms of service personnel per head of population. It's a matter of POV whether Poland was one of the greatest victims of Germany or one of the biggest contributors to the fight against Germany. So yes, let's reword the whole lede. If you could write a draft in italics below, I'll respond.-Chumchum7 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: With or without a source, the sentence is POV and fails MOS:FIRST. @Chumchum7: If you wish you can go and boldly remove the offending sentence (since there was never consensus to include in the first place) [something which I would have done first place had I not been victim of a WP:ABF report of vandalism [21]. ] I'll follow up on the lead shortly, I have more pressing matters as of right now. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a highly POVish stmt - and contested by other sources (regarding the "firstness") - it depends on how you count. This is the sort of style that would fit in a hagiography, not Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Also agree, this statement is more suited for an article on Poland's WWII casualties, but here (though related) it's not ideal to start the page with. --E-960 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done Clearly not NPOV statement removed by Icewhiz. There is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS to include this statement which was unsourced when added and does not reflect the body text as MOS:LEAD expects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

a prerequisite for higher education ?

What is higher education? Certainly not universities or colleges, because ethnic Poles weren't allowed to study. Xx236 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_7&oldid=849189274"