Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Should Grabowski be removed ?

Currently the article focuses on the politicized claims by Grabowski which fall under recentism. There are plenty of researchers focusing on this era,often much more established(for example Madajczyk) and Grabowski is known for his emotionally engaged language combined with political statements. As such I don't believe he is the most relevant authort to this article. He made several claims disputed by historians. I suggest removing him due to recentism. We can can leave a sentence that there were some disputed claims about numbers with wikilink to article about to him. A whole paragraph to Grabowski seems over the top.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's estimate dates back to 2011 or so, and besides being widely covered by major NEWSORGs, was published in an academic setting and is cited by others. His works has been generally well received by historians in English language peer-reviewed journals - while disputed by the likes of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland (which is UNDUE even to mention). IDONTLIKE, but editors, is not grounds for removing an academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I second that. It's been discussed more then once. Grabowski is clearly RS and highly respected in the international scene.

As for the "whole paragraph" - it's the same dynamic we saw in the past with parts of the "Poland" section in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (which I'm sure you're unaware of, but you will now): a short text (in this case a single sentence that I restored after it was removed by an IP editor) is being inflated by one editor with (supposedly) contradicting claims, then another comes up and (rightfully) says "the whole thing is too long", but instead of removing just the irrelevant parts suggests removing the entire paragraph. Let's just remove the OR instead, okay? François Robere (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if you had highly contentious and provocative statements that are disputed you will need to add sources explanations in order to balance the extreme POV added to the article by inclusion of such fringe statements.The best solution is to remove Grabowski in my view, and replace him with more long standing established neutral researchers that aren't engaged in political debates, like Madajczyk.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski reflects the mainstream view in academia, he is far from fringe.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been through this several times. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Sources", yes; a whole paragraph explaining the thinking of those sources, no. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Already extensively under discussion at Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian), where it has been established that Grabowski's research is indeed accepted by many and criticized by some. There is, however, no controversy that his 200 000 number includes both direct and indirect kills, since that is clearly what he says himself and what is repeated by multiple sources (and is already the first sentence of the section on him). However, if we look at what is currently in this article, it clearly does not reflect that, being a pure and simple criticism of Grabowski based on a few articles.

Thus, I propose: 1. keeping Grabowski 2. linking to his article (which, although it suffers issues on it's own, does have more in-depth coverage) 3. drastically reducing the text spent discussing Grabowski - 2 or at most 3 sentences would be sufficient. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)}}

Proposal:

Extended content

According to historian Jan Grabowski in his 2013 book "Hunt for the Jews", 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles". The book was awarded the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize. However, the book sparked a controversy in Poland and the estimate has been criticized, notably by fellow historians and by the Polish League Against Defamation. In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and a large group of international Holocaust scholars published statements in defense of Grabowski. References

Replace current text about Grabowski with the above, which covers the controversy without being excessively detailed. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Added letter of support by international scholars, per below (+added another source about it to include secondary sources - the primary source is interesting since it's the actual text of the letter, and we are not interpreting it anyway). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it takes the fringe views as granted without explaining how they were shown to be incorrect and how Grabowski has confirmed that Germans actually killed a number of these people. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's view has been established as not being fringe (and, no, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient). Detailed criticism is already in Grabowski's article, and writing too much text on it in this article would be WP:UNDUE. The statement by Grabowski is not taken as granted, it's clearly written that "the book sparked a controversy in Poland and the estimate has been criticized, notably by fellow historians and by the Polish League Against Defamation." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd to call the BBC and AP as promoting fringe views. One should note that this has become the official position of The Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw estimates that 180,000 to 200,000 Jews were killed at the hands of Poles or because they were denounced to the Germans by Poles during the war.. In most of the world, this estimate is accepted as the current state of the research.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Even if the Center makes this estimates. Which actually, I can't find where they supposedly do so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How isn't it odd? Have they done so before? Are they not RS in their own right?François Robere (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

IP editor's phrasing is acceptable with minor linguistic changes, and possible inclusion of this. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I support the retention of Grabowski with the same rationale that I supported the retention of Chodakiewicz https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/831218731 Chumchum7 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please note Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba in which the use of wPolityce reporting on a facebook post on historical research by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland for sourcing in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

https://wpolityce.pl/historia/381722-teraz-juz-200-tysiecy-kto-da-wiecej-pogon-za-jak-najwiekszym-horrorem Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Who offers most" Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Assuming it was a reliable source (and that status is probably contentious, nevermind), what does it say? Just linking a source (in addition, a foreign language one) isn't enough - could you please explain for us non-polish speaker's what it is about? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an another critics of the 200 000 story. Grabowski has misinformed Israeli journalist.Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's another critic of the 200 000 story, then it brings nothing new, is not in a academic peer-reviewed source, and we already discussed this over and over again - the only thing Grabowski said about the number is "200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles" (emphasis mine). This is clear enough for most English speakers. Of course, if you weren't sure, he clarifies "that Poles were responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of 'the majority of these people', even if 'part of them were killed by the Germans'" Old story, already discussed, do you have anything regarding the proposal on how Grabowski should be presented (above, between the collapse tags) in the article or are we going to play the game of criticizing the number, yet again? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No - it yet more coverage by wpolityce (A fringey outlet) of Jakub Kumoch, the Polish ambassador to Switzerland (so - not an expert in the field), making comments on Grabowski's research. See RSN discussion here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And, regarding the part I just reinstated, it is not OR, rather, quoting directly from the CBC source, "In a display of solidarity, however, scores of pre-eminent international Holocaust scholars on Monday penned a letter to the chancellor of the University of Ottawa defending Grabowski as a scholar of 'impeccable personal and professional integrity.'" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The wpolityce article is midly interesting, because it attributes the 200k number to this article in Times of Isreal: [1], where the author indeed gives it, but sources it not to Grabowski but to Szymon Datner. It then discusses the problem that nobody was able to find this fact in Datner's works, and less reliably, implies that Grabowski misinformed the journalist, misciting Datner. All in all, I'd just say it makes this particular article not reliable to be quoted, since its accuracy is disputed. But since we don't quote it, I don't think this is an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

wpolityce is WP:FRINGEy. There is a whole bunch of these types of stories - you have a claim made in English (or Hebrew) - and then more fringey outlets attack the allegedly claim made, often mistranslating/mis-citing along the way (e.g. turning 200,000 directly and indirectly (which appears in this form or similar (e.g. responsible for) in any reasonable coverage) to 200,000 directly murdered by Polses) - and then you have reactions to these reactions in the same type of outlets.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That 200,000 number

Since it is one of the most controversial issues here, we should cite this properly. Yet, after MONTHS of discussing, not to mention edit warring, this is still not done. The reference given is "Grabowski, Jan (2013). Hunt for the Jews : betrayal and murder in German-occupied Poland. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253010742. OCLC 868951735.", with NO PAGE NUMBER. Page number must be given, as should be a full sentence quotation for this controversial piece of info. My search of the book shows this number of present on page 4. Here's the context from pages 3-4 [2]:

Historians agree today that close to 10 percent of the 2.5 million Polish Jews who survived until the summer of 1942 tried to escape extermination. Given the numbers above, one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000 - and this in Poland alone.

A few sentences above, Grabowski writes

...another 100,000 Jews fell prey to the Germans or their local helpers, or were murdered in various unexplained circumstances.

Unless I am missing some other numbers, reading this section does not imply, in anyway way, that "Poles were responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of the majority of these people, even if part of them were killed by the Germans". But more to the point, it seems our current sentence "According to historian Jan Grabowski in his 2013 book "Hunt for the Jews", 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles"" is plain incorrect. It seems that later, some media sources misinterpreted his number and started this entire controversy, but there is nothing in Grabowski's books to support such a claim. At this point I am thinking this entire paragraph should be removed - this may belong on the page about the book, but as it is a claim that seems not to be supported by any historian (including Grabowski), just by confused media, it is, well, unreliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well answered, I agree.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:A5EB:57FA:75DC:5968 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Nihil novi (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The estimate appears in the book, as you say. The quote appears in an interview he gave with Haaretz, and was originally cited here as such. François Robere (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The estimate first appeared in English (I think) in the 2013 book (citing previous work by the Holocaust center - I think this appears in a Polish language book from 2011 (not Judenjagd) that Grabowski edited). Grabowski has since repeated this estimate several times (notably - in that interview to Haaretz) - and has stood behind it as his own. He is also widely cited - both in media accounts (a simple 200,000+Grabowski in gnews shows this) as well as in an academic setting. The estimate should remain - it is one of the most repeated estimates out there, and attribution of it is quite clear (e.g. Haaretz). I suspect the Hebrew version of hunt (released 2016 - which is what Haaretz is covering) has an expanded explanation. Note that the Polish Center for Holocaust Research (with which Grabowski is affilated) has stood behind a similar estimate - which is also widely cited - "The Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw estimates that 180,000 to 200,000 Jews were killed at the hands of Poles or because they were denounced to the Germans by Poles during the war.".[3]. I think that if you check their Polish language publications (including the new 2018 one, as well as the 2011 ZARYS KRAJOBRAZU: Wieś polska wobec zagłady Żydów 1942-1945[4]) - you'll see this backed up there as well, but my Polish language skills aren't up for the task for me to do this quickly. The estimate itself - whether cited to Grabowski or to PCHR should remain.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The fuller quote in the hunt for the Jews book, is from page 172 (which is not part of the google books preview) - but is quoted elsewhere - As we know today, very few managed to survive under the German occupation that lasted until 1945. In the summer of 1942, despite years of hunger, epidemics, and terror, some 2.5 million Polish Jews were still alive. Assuming that around 10 percent of the Jewish population of the liquidated ghettos tried to flee the deportations, one can argue that 250,000 people made an active attempt to save themselves from the policies of extermination. Of that number […] less than 50,000 survived the war. The question is whether the 200,000 future victims of the Judenjagd lacked a chance from the very beginning’ (Grabowski, 2013, p. 172). Janicka, Elżbieta. "Latający Cyrk im. Kazimierza Wielkiego przedstawia:„Najwęższy dom świata–wydarzenie na skalę globu”. Rekonstrukcja historyczna w 70. rocznicę Akcji Reinhardt." Studia Litteraria et Historica 2 (2013).. So - that is the fuller quote we should use, and not what he wrote on page 3-4 in the introduction.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That quote still does not support the claim that in this book Grabowski talks about 200k Jews killed by Poles. The fact that this was discussed (minsterpreted) by media, etc. is relevant to either this book's article or Grabowski, but I am not not seeing it as relevant here. For the relevant estimates, we cite reliable, scholarly works. Not media controversy-related ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski never said "Poles killed" (some Polish media outlets may have said that) - he either said "responsible for" (in perhaps more words) or "killed directly and indirectly". The latest source (well, ignoring the 2018 book in Polish I do not have at the moment) - is the Haaretz coverage and interview in 2017 in which he said exactly what he meant by the estimate. As for being relevant - this is the mostly widely quoted estimate for Polish responsibility" - it is obviously relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't think the newspaper interview cuts it as a source for this article, not for controversial claims. I am not saying that Haaretz interview is unreliable, I am just saying that any newspaper interview is just not good enough here. (Also, consider there are plenty of news - interviews, opinion pieces, etc. - that have opposing views, and if we allow Grabowski's number to stay based on newspaper, we will open floodgates to a lot of increasingly problematic content). Until someone can find an academic-level source for 200k, I say it should be removed from here. I mean, to report it previously we should rewrite this paragraph to start with "A claim about 200k was incorrectly attributed to Grabowski's book. It has generated significant media controversy. In a interview, Grabowski's has clarified this as .... " But I really don't think this is the best way of going about it, particularly as we don't seem to have very good sources for how this media circus started, and it is IMHO a waste of time to try to analyze it further. Bottom line, we have no academic source for 200k, so it does not belong here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We have an academic level source - Hunt for the Jews : betrayal and murder in German-occupied Poland - which clearly states 200,000 Jews as victims of Judenjagd (in which Poles, collaborating with the Germans, played a large part - per the same source). What we may have to do - is rephrase the content to fit the academic source instead of using how it is widely quoted (in newspapers and in academic work by others) - though I will note that an academic author commenting on his own work (e.g. Grabowski in Haaretz) is not necessarily a bad source - but we can stick to what is in Hunt - or alternatively use academic citations of it - e.g. this one (on page 268) or this one .Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We have to be very careful not to misinterpret the sources. 200k for Judenjagd is fine, but the degree of Polish complicity in this is pretty much impossible to qualify. The first source gives the estimates as "tens of thousands of ethnic Jews... betrayed or killed by Poles", an estimate that is a factor lower than Grabowski's (who is cited there, too). The second source also does not lend itself to this conclusion, it states that "in Judenjagds, allegedly out of reach of German authority, ethnic Poles had a larger say in the fate of the 200,000 fugitive Jews who did not survive". Trying to use either of those sources to justify a claim "Poles killed 200,000 Jews" is stretching them past the point of being thin. And let's face it, the "directly or indirectly" phrase is murky and I dislike it - not disimilar to the absolute qualifiers issue we discussed elsewhere (and remember the "Railwayman as collaborators RfC"?). I think in the end we may just have a shorter sentence saying that "Just like the definition of collaboration can be stretched to include virtually the entire populace, there are larger estimates for the number of Poles who 'indirectly' were responsible for killing the Jews". (Cite something here, followed by the section that discusses the impassivity / lack of action issue). To be frank, I do agree that the entire Polish society was indirectly responsible for the Jewish deaths, because each survivor is a person who could'have rushed a German and taken a bullet for a Jew. Of course, same responsibility is IMHO shared by the entire world... slippery slope indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Howabout something along theses lines (rough phrasing) - During 1942-1945 the German administration organized Judenjagd (Jew hunts) operations to find Jews hiding in the countryside. It is estimated that up to 200,000 Jews were caught and killed in the Judenjagd operations. Polish villagers, Baudienst, and police participated in Judenjagd and denounced hiding Jews to the German authorities.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tentatively, seems on the right track (two issues: not just villagers, and not just Poles - presumably, German forces also took part in this...). Needs sources, o/c. I suggest this particular wording can be fleshed out on the still way too short Judenjagd page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The character of tendentious editing continues;

Armia Krajowa and it's soldiers are now killers and hunters of Jews in hiding [5]

From this:

• In some areas of eastern Poland, AK units skirmished with the communist People's Army (Armia Ludowa) (AL), which was a Polish partisan militia that included detachments of Jewish partisans

We have now this:

• Jews were not only not accepted in AK ranks but a number of AK detachments were actively engaged in hunting down and murdering Jews.

Which suggests that AK was looking for Jews and killing Jews for simply being Jewish, just like the Germans did. There you go. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:52C:705E:CD91:A71 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's literally what the source says, Bella. That's the exact quote from Bauer. The only reason it said anything else is because you changed it [6][7], just as you did with the "Holy Cross Brigade" [8]. You also added a statement about Jewish partisans killing Poles (which is both unfounded and has nothing to do with "collaboration"), presumably because the discussion on AK didn't tilt in your favor [9]. This is a particularly odd change, as it's both completely out of the context given in the source, and non sequitur from the preceding sentence. Well, this time I re-added the sources along with extensive quotes, so you can't distort any of it. François Robere (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a contested opinion so maybe attribute the claim, rather then put it in Wikipedia voice?Slatersteven (talk)

I originally added it as a quote with an attribution to Bauer, but it was deleted. I see no problem with either that or an "according to". François Robere (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you're talking of "tendentious editing"? [10] François Robere (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

POV - Collaboration and the resistance

François Robere, I'm not sure why do you continue with this POV pushing crusade, in your latest series of edits you removed the brief paragraph, which included reference sources that mentioned that the Home Army skirmished with the communist People's Army (which has Jewish partisans). Then you go in, and write a huge amount of text on how the Home Army was anti-semitic and kidnaped Jewish partisans. Sorry, but that's bias wording... did they kidnap Jewish partisans or were those individuals that were taken prisoner during firefights (very questionable interoperation of events), also you have referenced statement that say the Home Army accepted Jews into the rank. Yet, you try to cover all that up and spam the section with your own POV instead. --E-960 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems properly sourced. Hardly an exceptional claim or POVish - actually seems quite mainstream.[11][12] Britannica says as much As many as 400,000 people were active in the Armia Krajowa (AK; “Home Army”), the largest underground resistance group in Poland. In many instances the group saved Jewish lives, but a strong current of anti-Semitism also ran throughout the AK, resulting in violence against Jewish partisans. In certain areas the AK posed a greater threat to Jewish partisans than the Nazis, as the AK’s familiarity with the local terrain and populace put their units in a better position to track down Jews..[13]. Jewish units aligning with the Soviets was pretty much a chicken and the egg situation - as for the most part they were not accepted by the AK leaving them with very few options.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree calling it vandalism is a stretch, this is just a content dispute (and such an accusation must go against the spirit of civility when so unfounded). Maybe include the claim by Cooper as a attributed claim "according to cooper, " ect.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Slatersteven) and Icewhiz... Pls, consider this fact, the fighting between the Home Army and Polish Communist partisans (which included Jews) is not related to collaboration with Nazi Germany, this is a separate political issue, does not matter if there are reference sources or not. Every time user François Robere starts to make edits he blurs the line between topics. Sorry, this is not an collaboration issue. --E-960 (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Did the Home Army plan these skirmishes with the Germans, against the communists People's Army, if your answer is NO, then why is this discussed at length in this section?? This is not collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is if an RS makes the link ("The collaboration of the NSZ with the Germans is confirmed by documents kept in German archives."). And there is no need to shout, we can all read.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the sources and/or the discussion before reverting? François Robere (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The NSZ was allowed to withdraw to Czechoslovakia and received logistical help form the Germans to avoid capture by the Red Army, not to fight Jewish partisans, two different things. Unless you can provide text that specifically says the Germans asked the NSZ to fight with Jewish partisans. If the NSZ fought with communist partisans on their own because of political differences then it's a separate political fight not collaboration with Nazi Germany and not part of this article. --E-960 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources are attached as part of the text. François Robere (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok if so, can you include the statement text from the reference source here on the talk page, for folk to see and decide. I think that would be the appropriate approach given the attention this article received in the last couple of weeks, instead of mass changes to a section. --E-960 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The question of whether killing Jews, who escaped form the Holocuast in an independent manner (so - co-alignment) from the Germans is "collaboration" is an interesting one. However do we want (which is where this line of thinking will lead to) another article in this topic area?Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If these Jews were a para-military organization fighting alongside with communist Polish partisans, than they are combatants, and this fight was over the future political system in Poland after the war and the NSZ did not go after them just because they were Jewish. To remove that aspect and just focus on the Jewishness of the fighters is very, very bias and one sided. --E-960 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If and if and if... Y'all need to have a slower trigger finger. Read before you revert. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

When I say "attached" I don't mean "cited", I mean "quoted". The texts are literally quoted inside reference templates. You can see it in the text itself (though that doesn't always display properly), or in the Wikicode:

The Polish right-wing [[National Armed Forces]] (''Narodowe Siły Zbrojne'', or ''NSZ'') did not accept Jews, and from time to time attacked or kidnapped [[Jewish partisans]].{{r|Cooper 2000|p=149|q=The NSZ did not accept Jews into its ranks, and units of the NSZ were constantly on the lookout for Jews hiding in the forests. The NSZ was also responsible for the killing in Warsaw of two officers of the High Command of the AK – Jerzy Makowiecki and Professor Ludwik Widerszal – both of Jewish origin. On 14 July 1944, two other members of the Bureau of Information and Propaganda of the High Command of the Home Army – Professor Marceli Handelsman and a well-known writer, Halina Krahelska – were abducted from their offices by the NSZ and delivered to the Germans.}}

François Robere (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, your wording is SO SO bias, what's up with this 'kidnapped'... if they fight, and some Jewish partisans got captured, then they are just prisoners not kidnap victims. They are combatants after all, besides fighting between two militias with different political views is not collaboration with the Germans. --E-960 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The source says "abducted". As you can clearly see just four lines up. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As for Jerzy Makowiecki and Professor Ludwik Widerszal, if you have a source pls share the text here on talk page, that would be that would be legitimate, and I would include that. But to call taking of prisoners after a fight kidnapping is bias. --E-960 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on here for a minute, I just looked at the Wikipedia articles of these four people and it does not say they were targeted simply because they were Jewish (there were other things at play here), also regarding to Marceli Handelsman and Halina Krahelska it says they were arrested by the Gestapo and not NSZ. So, what are these sources you are trying to reference here? Either way, if you have a source I'll say that this reference is legitimate. --E-960 (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources are already quoted in the reverted revision in the manner explained below (section, section source). Is this sufficient?

Regarding Handelsman and Krahelska - one article says he was arrested by the Gestapo, but isn't cited; the other just says "the Germans", which leaves the NSZ option open. François Robere (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, so here is my question regarding your POV, in your third paragraph you write about the Home Army and say that they did not consider Jews and they were anti-semitic, but in the second paragraph you say that the NSZ killed/arrested 4 Jews who were members of the Home Army. And you write all that in the Wikipedia narrator voice, as if these sources of your were undisputed. Do you see that this is POV pushing. Especially in regards to the Home Army, because in the first paragraph it says they accepted Jews into the ranks, and your own source say the 4 Jews killed were members of the Home Army. In any case, I find your edits very, very questionable and one-sided. --E-960 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a necessary contradiction there. What the sources state is that the AK had a "deep anti-semitic current" (I can't recall at the moment exactly which source said that), and that in general it did not accept Jews. However, given that the AK was a collection of groups (including parts of the NSZ), there were obviously exceptions; Cesarani & Kavanaugh state the High Command, where the four worked (acc. to Cooper), was one.

Whatever you may feel, I've given three independent, reliable sources that state the same, so there's no reason not to use the "Wikipedia voice". If you think other sources are worth mentioning, add them and change the tone; but the edit in whole is justified, and should be restored. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

But that is still not collaboration with Germany—the topic of this article. What you are pushing is off-topic.

Nihil novi (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also think this is off topic and not related to COLLABORATION with Nazi Germany. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The the NSZ giving away Jewish partisans to the Germans isn't "collaboration"? François Robere (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and until we finish this discussion, would you self revert so the section at least reflect RS rather than OR? Surely you agree "off-topic but substantiated" is better than "tendentious and OR". François Robere (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Two historians Żebrowski and Żbikowski believe that somebody from NSZ nationalist circles denounced Handelsman but don't know who the informer was. Historians Chodakiewicz and Bojemski likewise say that the NSZ's accusations of this indictment of Handelsman are wrong and there is no evidence of this, which matches the testimonies of former NSZ soldier Stanisław Żochowski. But you claim in your recent mass changes that NZS obducted and delivered Handelsman to the Gestapo, which is not true. Why do you do things like this François Robere?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4410:C331:45:B937 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There are serious POV issues with using Chodakiewicz - particularly when not published in a peer reviewed setting, see [14][15][16][17]. This review of one his recent works - [18] - which contains the following In fact, there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies....all Chodakiewicz is certain of is that the conspiracy runs deep is quite astounding.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are making allegations that sources of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz are unreliable Icewhiz? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:FCC4:B1EF:764C:F85 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And described as (in a RS) as "the most extreme spectrum in ... contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing"[19]. RSness of Chodakiewicz depends on venue (independent publishing - e.g. his website or a speech vs. a peer reviewed journal for instance) and in any case quite clearly WP:BIASED - to be used with great care.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Any specific citations you'd like to put forth? François Robere (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Extraordinary and questionable modifications regularly and in bulk injected into this article by François Robere should be not only discussed first but also backed by extraordinary sources. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B83E:C628:C9BC:99BD (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What's extraordinary about it, and which of the four RS (including two world renowned researchers and an encyclopedia) do you suggest isn't enough? François Robere (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well? François Robere (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How does all this square with the information on "National Armed Forces and Jews" in the "National Armed Forces" (NSZ) article? Nihil novi (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Anything specific? I don't usually compare with the specific articles when I have a good source introducing a new claim. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Familiarize yourselves with the {{r}} template

The {{r}} template allows you to quote a named source throughout the text:

{{r|source name|p=page number|q=quote from source}}

For example, the Wikicode:

This interaction had deep historical roots.{{r|Browning 2004|p=1|q=Christians and Jews had lived in an adversarial relationship since the first century of the common era, when the early followers of Jesus failed to persuade significant numbers of their fellow Jews that he was the Messiah.}}

Will be rendered as:

This interaction had deep historical roots.^72:1

And the quote will appear when hovering with the mouse cursor over the page number (in this case "1", but this is just a demo). Sometimes the quote doesn't display correctly, but it's still part of the template and still appears in the source.

François Robere (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's awful and makes sources invisible to read. I will certainly not use it, and I hope others won't either as it makes the article unreadable and messy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Messy? How? It's quicker, nicer and more concise then <ref> tags, and it allows citing multiple pages (or multiple quotes) that all link to the same ref. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It is slower, makes the text completely distorted and unreadable, hides sources making them difficult to find and is not precise. I will definitely never use it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

O-kay... François Robere (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above that it is a awful template that makes the citations look like crap. It's not even clear what those little numbers next to the citation are. Page numbers? It also makes the style inconsistent for no good reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of this change? It looks the same in the text:

Poland's German minority.^[1]

And produces a footnote in a familiar format, which should link to the main reference:

1. ^ Kaczmarek (2008), p. 166

François Robere (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Strong opinions and little knowledge=article glaring with painful to read errors

As someone who studied the subject at uni and read the scholarly publications on this, this article is very painful to read due to numerous errors. Anyone who studied history will see them at first glance, and unfortunately they concern basic concepts. I am really far too busy to re-write the whole article,but here are some examples of errors:

• the lack of dividing betweeen General Gouvernment and annexed territories. I mentioned this before, but it seems either people didn't notice, or the point didn't came across as important. Every scholarly publication on this period and events will divide GG and annexed territories, as the situation in both areas was radically different as were methods Germans used and types of collaboration.
• Blue Police only operated in General Gouvernment not in whole occupied Poland, and was a token force compared to main security forces deployed by Nazi Germany, which in GG counted somewhere around 500,000(not including administrative officials sent by Germany, which adds another 400,000 people or so)
• the General Government tried to recruit 12,000 Polish volunteers The General Gouvernment couldn't, it was a special administrative region by Nazi Germany which made the decisions.On its own GG didn't have its own government.
• The second biggest resistance organization, the National Armed Forces. That's wrong. The second biggest resistance group in Poland were Bataliony Chlopskie which counted 160,000 people, NSZ by highest estimates had around 75,000.
• The article really misses a section on how collaboration was hunted down and judicially punished by underground state in Poland, it was a very organized and vigilent process that is always covered in extensive books on the subject.
• Not in the article, but on this discussion page people are claiming AK refused Jewish members. Not only did AK had numerous Jewish members, who were awarded state orders in recognition of their service post war, but it even had Jewish partisan unit.

I have parts of Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce by Madajczyk, and I should be able to check them for more information to add to the article, once I get some free time. At the moment, the article is honestly very badly written, with mish-mash of various facts, often inserted without context and without any structure or background that would explain the issue as researched by scholars. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: the NSZ - Just yesterday I read a source saying just that in connection with the partial merger of the NSZ with the AK, which left the "Holy Cross" brigade out. I can't find it at the moment, but it was stated.

Re: AK - if it's per RS, don't list it as an editors oversight. François Robere (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You can find numerous claims that can be sourced but are wrong, for example Yaffa Eliach claimed that Home Army planned "Final Solution of Jews" starting with her family, but it's hardly true or correct, or would be appropriate to add to any article besides one about herself.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Another one
• The NSZ did not accept Jews into its ranks Several can be named without any problems at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why we discuss them. In this case there are several RS, and their opinions can't be easily discounted as irrelevant.

Piotrowski describes them as "rare", and the one he does quote expressed surprise that he's one of them: "I was probably the only Jew in the ranks of the NSZ!" (Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, p. 97). Feel free to change the text from to reflect that. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You'll find more Jewish National Armed Forces members listed here.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does that negate the other evidence? François Robere (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the connection between Jewish members of NSZ and "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland"?Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an obtuse way of showing the NSZ did not collaborate with the Nazies. François Robere (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Hening"

Piotrowski mentions a Gestapo collaborator called Hening. Anyone has a first name? François Robere (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis in section on Jewish collaborators

A particular claim in said section that is supported by two dubious sources, has now been bolstered by an RS. The RS does not mention the case in point ("baiting"), only the dangerous circumstances surrounding helping Jews. It's inclusion there is, therefore, WP:Synthesis. François Robere (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak (historian) - can anyone create his page in English, below is the translation from Polish Wikipedia plus link

I'll give it a try. Nihil novi (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done: "Leszek Pietrzak". Nihil novi (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish to inform any editors who may wish to have access to the "Leszek Pietrzak" article that it may not be available for consultation much longer. It has been nominated for deletion at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leszek_Pietrzak.

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note (in regards to use of Pietrzak as a source) is that his main corpus of work (since ~2012) is - list with book jacket description here - a series of soft-covered "Zakazana historia" books ("Forbidden History") which are self-described as books covering "taboo" or self-censored (often mentioning Orwell in the process) history topics - which by their description are quite WP:FRINGE. Needless to say - these are not cited by anyone else.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak (born 1967) - Polish historian, archivist, publicist.[20] He obtained the Ph.D. degree in the humanities in the field of history at the Catholic University of Lublin. He worked ar the Lublin branch of the Institute of National Remembrance. In the years 1991-2000 he was an investigator at the Office for State Protection, in 2006-2008 he was a member of the Verification Commission of the Military Information Services, and in 2008-2010 worked in the National Security Bureau. Currently, he is an academic lecturer. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Leszek Pietrzak's work rejected [21] immediately and if yes why? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I note his Wiki article is largely self referential, with only a couple (maybe, he seems to hold down a lot of random jobs) third party sources (which may not be RS). IN fact (by our standards) that article (and most of the claim about his work and credentials) are unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I understand from what you are saying his work (such as listed below) has no credentials and it can't be used as a source, correct?

• The first year: the creation and operation of the public security apparatus in the Lublin region (July 1944 - June 1945). 2004 (selection and development)
• Anti-communist armed underground in the Puławy Inspectorate from 1944-1956. 2011
• Forbidden history. 2011 (co-author Jan Piński, Rafał Przedmojski)
• Why did Lech Kaczyński have to die? 2012
• Secrets of economics and politics. 2014
• Special services 1. 2015 (co-author Jan Piński, Antoni Wręga)
• Historical propaganda of the Russian Federation towards Poland 2004-2011. 2015
• Seeking the perpetrators of evil. 2016 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying that I am not sure, anyone can get a book published (if they are willing to pay).Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also can you provide a few link to actually show any of this exists, I cannot find the first couple over at google books, or indeed via any search I can think of.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• [22]Anti-communist armed underground in the Puławy inspectorate (1944-1956) Publisher, Oficyna Wydawnicza Volumen, 2011, ISBN 8372330158, 9788372330154, Length 450 pages 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying (yet) he's not a RS. However - it is rather clear he is not a strong source or a recognized expert. His citation count on scholar is low. Looking at plwiki - it looks like he's done a mix of intelligence / history / journalism throughout his career (and that he is presently a journalist in Radio Maryja). I don't think he would pass WP:NPROF on notability - his grounds for notability would probably be as WP:JOURNALIST (as it does seem he comments on various things (e.g. international affairs) in the Polish media). Would be iffy for an enwiki page - and very iffy as a source for WWII history (depends where the work was published - an academic publisher or self-published. Peer reviewed journal, etc.) - if you throw in that these are WP:NOENG (and there are plenty of English sources of a higher caliber) - I don't think this is a source we should be rushing to include..Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I removed it (and, reluctantly, restored it to avoid breaking 1RR), for one glaringly obvious reason: You're making a WP:FRINGE claim, and you had better back it up by something better than a news article. You've previously accused me of tendentious editing and removed a claim as "exceptional", despite it being well sourced and not at all exceptional (above); I expect that you'll hold yourself to the same level of evidence as you held me, and find no less than four RS to substantiate your claim. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well at least we know he has had works published.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So can we use him as a source? If not, on what grounds? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You already have the grounds, you have addressed one minor issue. There are other issues. To make it easy.

Is he a notable historian?

Is he an expert in the Holocaust?

Is he an expert on WW2?

Is he an expert on the Nazis?

In fact what is his area of expertise?

Why is he an exceptional source?

These are all areas of concearn.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok... is Mitch Braff [23], the founder and Executive Director of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation (JPEF) [24] used by François Robere to introduce this claim:[25] In certain areas, the AK posed a greater threat to Jewish partisans than the Nazis, as the AK’s familiarity with the local terrain and populace put their units in a better position to track down Jews. a:

A notable historian?

An expert in the Holocaust?

An expert on WW2?

An expert on the Nazis?

What is his area of expertise?

Why is he an exceptional source?

2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Start up a new thread, this is about your source, not anyone esles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should I start a new thread if this one is directly associated with the issue of accepting one source but not another? My question is why Mitch Braff [26] is to be recognized as a source, and Leszek Pietrzak [27] is not. Could you address my question? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not an exceptional claim (in fact - one can find several) - and it has the blessing of Britannica's editorial team which we generally consider as a WP:RS (it is a tertiary source, however that might not be a bad thing here for general tone).Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So you are rejecting to use Leszek Pietrzak [28] as a source because his work is not credible, Am I reading you correctly? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to put nit like that, or we could put it like this. If this is a widely known fact you cold find a much better source for the claim, the fact no major historian seems to have made it makes it too dubious for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't wish to put it like that. I'm asking and would like to have a clear answer "yes" or "not". Are you rejecting him as a source? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 - you seem to equate RSness with the identity of the author. Had Pietrzak published his work in a reputable peer reviewed journal (preferably in English), and was cited by others - it would've been entirely different than a magazine article. Conversely - Mitch Braff in a blog or magazine article - would be different than in Britannica - I'm saying it is acceptable mostly since it is on Britannica - ignoring the named author there. Pietrzak in a magazine article - is not a source we should be using.Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For this claim yes, he is not a good enough source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Mitch Braff - (JPEF)

Is Mitch Braff [29], the founder and Executive Director of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation (JPEF) [30] [31] adequate to be used as a source? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Depends on where he was published, but as has been explained Britanica is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The RSness of Britanica dominated Braff or JPEF - had this come from JPEF's site (or publishing, or in an interview) - without Britanica editorial oversight it would have a separate matter. We usually do not look at authorship within Britanica (AFAIK) - unless there is some major red flag.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. So despite the fact that Mitch Braff [32] is not a historian but his article has been published on Britannica website, it makes it acceptable to use as a reference? So I can reference anybody who was allowed to write an article for Britannica? Correct? Please answer yes or not.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not say that, read what I wrote.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is what you wrote :"Depends on where he was published, but as has been explained Britanica is" ----> how am I suppose to understand that?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Britannica is an RS, That is it end of story. So not he is not automatically RS, but what THEY publish (I.E Britannica) is an RS. Is this really that hard to understand?.Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are saying that anybody who is published on Britannica website is RS and is acceptable to be used as a reference. Looks that I understood you accurately in the first place. So again, anybody who is published on Britannica website is RS and is acceptable to be used by me as a reference. Yes or not?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the articel is (by virtue of being published by Britannica), the person is not. It is not the person who is RS, it is Britannica.Slatersteven (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So as long as an individual, (not a notable historian, not an expert in the Holocaust, not an expert on WW2, not an expert on the Nazis, etc.) is published on Britannica website, it makes his publication RS, and I can use that publication as a reference. Correct?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If published on the Britannica encyclopedia (which may be online - but not every portion of the website) - we would generally view as reliable - there may be exceptions (e.g. if Britannica would (I presume never) publish an article authored by Irving - I don't think it would hold up in RSN. There may be issues with authors with signficant red flags - but generally - 99% of the content on their encyclopedia would be seen as generally reliable). Note that this is a WP:TERTIARY source (which actually is good for assessing DUE weight).Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Who decides who is that unacceptable %1 and what is a "red flag" again? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4460:EE4A:3693:3CDD (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

He is a perfect source. He accuses the Home Army but admits that Bielski brothers fought the HA according to Soviet policy. Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek

So this has been reverted now [33] with a comment: quote ---> "an amazon book search is not a tuitable soruce"[34]

• Is the following a source?

Three million Christian Poles had also lost their lives. Non-Jewish Poles were warned that any aid or shelter they provided to the Jews would be punished by an automatic sentence of death. Only in Poland did the Germans carry out their threat to kill entire families caught helping the Jews.[35] 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This was your sourced link [[36]], it was not to the site you have now chosen to link to. As I said, an amazon book search is not a valid cite. As to your new link, it does not mention anything about entire families being executed. In fact it seems to be about some catholic missionary order saving a few Jewish girls. This is very problematic, have you in fact actually read this source?Slatersteven (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

Below full quote from the source [37] (click on "more" after "a systematic killing of")

• For the first two years of the German occupation of Poland in World War II, Hitler's policy was to suppress all potential Polish resistance by indiscriminate killing and deportations. Although the Jewish population was forced to wear the Star of David and to move into ghettos, it generally escaped the worst of the terror meted out to the Christian Poles. After the attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, however, a systematic killing of the Polish Jews began; and by the end of the war, three million Polish Jews had perished at the hands of the Germans.
• Three million Christian Poles had also lost their lives. Non-Jewish Poles were warned that any aid or shelter they provided to the Jews would be punished by an automatic sentence of death. Only in Poland did the Germans carry out their threat to kill entire families caught helping the Jews. A partial post-war record lists 704 names of Poles executed for helping Jews. Over 4,500 Polish names appear on the roll at Yad Vashem of Righteous Gentiles who saved Jews - by far the largest national group to be so honored. Defying German orders, and risking their lives, thousands of Poles did save Jewish lives. Among the most effective of these rescuers were the female Catholic religious orders. Polish nuns, in nearly 200 religious institutions, including schools and orphanages, saved over 1200 Jewish children. These children arrived at the convents and orphanages in many different ways; some were brought by desperate relatives, family friends, or members of the underground; others were found wandering the streets; still others were abandoned at doorsteps. When taking in these children, the nuns had to weight the risk to themselves and the other children - to decide that the lives of the children were worth their own.

Is the above a satisfactory source? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of tendentious, extraordinary claims... "Although the Jewish population was forced to wear the Star of David and to move into ghettos, it generally escaped the worst of the terror"? You realize ghettos were tiny, crammed, disease-ridden, food-deprived places, where people died in the thousands, right? The answer to "how low can this discussion get" has been answered: just a step away from "well, the Jews were literally vaporized, but the Poles... think about what they had to go through!" Would you be looking to establish that claim next? François Robere (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you are making allegations that the above source is unreliable FR? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh.... Where shall we start with this source? Let's begin with the publisher - Hippocrene Books - which specializes in folklore and ethnic cookbooks (such as Best of Polish Cooking) - so, not quite the publisher of academic texts. Moving on, while she does have a PhD from the Catholic University of Lublin, she is not particularly well published nor cited (note - there is a better published microbiologist with the same name - plwiki entry - so if you go scholar - you need to filter out all the life sciences hits) - nor does it seem does she hold a significant academic post (as of 2006 - wyborcza article on her views on "Jews having fun in the ghetto" - she held a lecturing position in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" (which seems to mainly do weekend studies - per the city website). Moving a bit onwards, it seems she has quite interesting views about Jews - and it seems she has been called out on it by Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint) - not only the Jewish community, but it would seem also Polish government officials (yup - the current government). AP leads off with One, Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II when describing her, and notes a response by the Polish government "Andrzej Pawluszek, an adviser to Poland's prime minister, said Wednesday that the award was never a government initiative, but authorities acted to stop an event that would have been divisive.". per Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward - "“Deeper research” reveals that Kurek says Jewish perfidy is intrinsic to Jewish law and communal organization." (not so deep research - you might see this in the video of her speaking above (which I found prior to this article - containing - “Jews behave like a [herd] of lions in a threatening situation,” Kurek says in a YouTube video. “Lions are said to throw the weakest ones to death, to save the rest. And this is the norm among Jews. We Christians, since the beginning of … time, we have one principle: In the situation of a threat, the strong protect the vulnerable. If someone tells you about a Judeo-Christian civilization, then there is no such thing because this [Judaic] law excludes our civilization.”. Some have noted some subtle aspects to her discourse “Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”.

To make a long matter short, no, this is not a suitable source. It might be worthwhile to enter the content I quoted above, which as received SIGCOV due to notoriety, in some other Wikipedia articles or possibly create a Holocaust negationism in Poland (or revisionism?) article (it seems, per coverage in RS, that there is quite a bit of this - this isn't quite denial, but rather viewing Poles as greater victims than Jews (e.g. - "they had autonomy in the ghetto" argument which is repeated by a few of them), viewing Jews as complicit with the Nazis (against Jews and Poles) and Soviets (against Poles), and viewing the Polish role in a highly favorable light in a manner inconsistent with the literature in the field - I think I've seen a few RSes cover this phenomena in a secondary manner (and not on a per-author basis) - this doesn't quite fit in Holocaust denial - as this doesn't deny the Holocaust (in fact, Poles are presented as saviors of Jews from the Holocaust in these narratives, and in general these narrative tally Nazi crimes against Poles and others).Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So you are declaring Icewhiz that this book "Your life is worth mine" of Ewa Kurek with first few pages of introduction written by Jan Karski[38] is not a suitable source and almost fits criteria of the Holocaust denial? Please confirm if I understood you correctly. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4460:EE4A:3693:3CDD (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly not a suitable source. I did not say this was Holocaust denial (though I did quote Holocaust scholar Berel Lang who saw this as a subtle form as such) - I actually said I think this doesn't fit the definition (as it quite clearly recognizes that the Holocaust happened).Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4460:EE4A:3693:3CDD (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Summarising - Karski didn't have any idea about the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Who was a greater victim? It depends when. Polish leaders (including Jews) and Polish underground members (rather ethnic Poles) were massacred in 1939 and in Spring 1940, when moratality in ghettos was limited. Later the Jews starved and were murdered, so they became greater victims. Don't you know it, Icewhiz?Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The source above seems perfectly reasonable Reliable Source that we can use to back up information. Once I need to remind others here, that Wikipedia isn't restricted to peer-reviewed publications. If some editors believe this isn't a reliable source, there is an appropriate page where they can voice their concerns.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't restricted, but when it's a highly controversial subject and there's a choice between academics and non-academics, academics take precedence. Furthermore, the fact this source has been criticized by another, more reliable source, and described as almost fitting the criteria of "Holocaust denial" is pretty convincing that it isn't a mainstream view - per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't report fringe views which appear only in one publication (and that the publisher specializes in something completely different is telling, too). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, this should go to WP:RSN where more neutral editors will be able to express themselves on the issue. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Judenrat

Any ghetto had its Judenrat, so maybe Judenrats? Now one may believe in existence of a central Judenrat.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I previously used Judenräte, but User:E-960 reverted those edits. François Robere (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather minor issue... but, thanks for the ping. --E-960 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have inserted a ce template, since this seems pretty much non-contentious, and the correct German plural is Judenräte. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

100 executed

In two first mass executions it was less than 100 Poles for one German.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bochnia 52 (+2) for two Germans.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wawer 107 (7 survived the execution) for two Germans.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

1 million estimated collaborators attributed by Friedrich Klaus-Peter to Madajczyk-I found Madajczyk's estimate and it says something completely different

Estimates regarding the number of Polish collaborators vary from several thousand to about a million is sourced Friedrich Klaus Peter, who attributes the claim to Madajczyk. However to the extent of my knowledge Madajczyk never stated this. The figures of collaborators given by Madajczyk are 5% in General Gouvernment and at 25% those who actively resisted occupation in resistance groups(C.Madajczyk, Kann man in Polen 1939-1945 von Kollaborationsprechen , in Okkupation und Kollaboration 1938-1945. Beitrage zu Konzepten und Praxis der Kollaboration in der deutschen Okkupationspolitik) W.Rohr. Berlin, Heidelberg 1994, page 140).

Based on this I suggest removing the dubious claim and Klaus Peter and replacing it with direct information by Madajczyk. Furthermore I will try to obtain the direct text he attributes the numbers to, if it is indeed wrongly attributed, the reliability of Klaus Peter is in serious doubt and possibly his claims will need to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't what Friedrich cites. Friedrich cites Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitikin Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: Annaherungen-Zblizenia (Dusseldorf, 1996), p. 146 François Robere (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty

@Piotrus: you restored the following bit of text - [39], which contains - "Poland was the only German-occupied European country where the death penalty was imposed as punishment." (this is poorly crafted in itself as it is probably trying to say the missing "for helping Jews"). I have an allergy for absolute statements (as well as recalling that Nazi cruelty was quite widespread), and even though this seems to be repeated by various (mainly) Polish sources dating a bit back, it is not hard to refute:

1. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia - [40] The death penalty will be enforced against any persons in Serbia who are found to be hiding Jews or financing or assisting them, it is reported in the Serbian newspaper, Novo Vreme, reaching here today.. Some coverage [41], [42], [43].
2. Germans (not personally sure about this one): [44].
3. Netherlands - [45] In the Netherlands for instance, although there was no mandatory death penalty for helping Jews, the authorities executed 1,100 helpers of Jews for their activities (Oliner and Oliner, 1988: 37).
4. over here - . Jews found refuge more readily in the more sympathetic countries of Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Albania than in Poland, where the death penalty for helping a Jew was more severely enforced by the Nazis.
5. assuming OK for what they are citing - Although the deathpenalty was also found on the books in other jurisdictions such as Norway and the Czech Protectorate,there too it was rarely used. See Nechama Tec, When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jewsin Nazi-Occupied Poland(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) 215–16; Zajączkowski, Martyrs ofCharity,Part One, 111–18, 284–86, 294, 295. Such laxity was virtually unheard of in occupied Poland,where the death penalty was meted out with utmost rigour. Several Norwegian resistance fighters wereexecuted for helping Jews to escape to Sweden, and a number of others imprisoned. See Mordecai Paldiel,The Path of the Righteous: Gentile Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust(Hoboken, New Jersey: KTAVPublishing House; New York: The Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers, 1993), 366. Several dozenindividuals in the Czech Protectorate were charged by Nazi special courts and sentenced to death. See LiviaRothkirchen, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust(Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, and Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2005), 218–27, 303–304. A small number of rescuers were also put todeath in other occupied countries such as Lithuania and the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. SeeAlfonsas Eidintas, Jews, Lithuanians and the Holocaust(Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2003), 326–27; YitzhakArad, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union(Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; Jerusalem: YadVashem, 2009), 428, 438.

It seems to me that the correct assessment wouldn't be that Poland was the "only" country in this regard. It is perhaps correct that this was applied more often or more severely in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A very interesting find, it's always nice to find another myth to be dispelled, and I share your dislike for absolute qualifiers. Through I would think, per some of the sources you found, that this penalty was indeed enforced there more severely. You may be interested in the relatively recent article on German repressions against Poles who helped Jews (this article is nearly an orphan, so it may be good to link it from various relevant topics). Anyway, I would certainly support changing the absolute qualifier to 'most severely enforced' or such, with the last reference you found.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll need a better ref (or chase down the refs in some of these) - this was more than enough for a refutation (e.g. the Serbia refs above are strong in refuting "only" - but not sufficient for "more severely in Poland") - but not enough to source comparisons (e.g. "most severely enforced") - even though I agree it is most probably (99%) correct.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, continued

Marek has done this reversal. He again made no attempt to engage with any of my arguments, instead claiming "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", then reverting the entire changeset with no further explanation - the definition of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". The onus is on you to contradict my claims. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not an argument. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Volunteer Marek, for restoring this article's "Political collaboration" section, which had been blanked out by an editor on the misguided suggestion of one other editor. Nihil novi (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're thanking the wrong guy - he merely undid the tagging. Any comment on that? Or the sourcing? Or anything factual? François Robere (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, your little blanking arrows are easily overlooked.

Thank you, both E-960 and Volunteer Marek, for restoring the "Political collaboration" section and for removing the inappropriate in-text editorial comments.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The section is clearly disputed - and VM went beyond removing the tag - he also resorted his preferred version (with the "failed" language) which seems against consensus here. @François Robere: - Opening the RfC was a good idea.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tag

User:E-960 again arbitrarily untagged a source [46]. This is the English Wikipedia and I need no justification for asking for a tranlsation of a Polish source. Either provide one, restore the tag or remove the source. François Robere (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure at some point included a Hebrew language source back when this debate was on the Collaboration with Axis Powers article.So, it's not such a big deal. Also, now-days since there is Google translate, there are many articles which have foreign references. Btw, this statement is rater uncontroversial and there is a second source attached. --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• What you are doing here is a classic example of Red herring, questioning very uncontroversial and undisputed statements. Like that there was no collaborationist government in Poland. Perhaps next you will demand quotes and extra sources to back up statements in other articles, like that the US entered WWII after Perl Harbor. Btw, this is not the only source attached. --E-960 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

More drama and disruption by FR as per [47]? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your source? [48] François Robere (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced that claim. Can you "diff"?

Whatever your objections may be, it's still my right to ask for a translation. Do provide one, or restore the tag. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, as requested statement in the source regarding the creation of a planned collaborationist governmet: Chapter-Situation in the General Government "The intention of the German collaborationist cabinet was to govern the Polish Protectorate covering the territories of the General Government after recognition of its borders.

Wait, it's about the GG and the German rule? That's not what the article cites it for. François Robere (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This reference is related to this statement "The Germans had initially contemplated the creation of a collaborationist Polish cabinet to administer, as a protectorate, the German-occupied Polish territories that Nazi Germany did not annex outright into the Third Reich" and it fist in correctly. --E-960 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"German collaborationist cabinet" ≠ "Polish cabinet"; and "intention" implies "existance", and none existed. Are these translation flukes? François Robere (talk)

'German collaborationist cabinet' and 'collaborationist Polish cabinet' refers to the same thing a cabinet staffed with Poles who collaborated with Germans — more to do with semantics. --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What page was it, by the way? The citation didn't say. François Robere (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10