François Robere (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 643: | Line 643: | ||
At least two units of the NSZ operated with the approval or cooperation of the Germans:{{r|Cooper 2000|p=149}} The "[[Holy Cross Mountains Brigade]]" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944.<ref name="Publicznej 2007">{{cite book|author=Instytut Pamięci Narodowej--Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu. Biuro Edukacji Publicznej|title=Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U4gjAQAAIAAJ|year=2007|publisher=Instytut|page=73}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=LPYnAQAAIAAJ&q=brygada+swietokrzyska |title=The Polish Studies Newsletter|last=Wozniak|first=Albion|date=2003|publisher=Albin Wozniak|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=QHk7HAAACAAJ |title=Brygada Świętokrzyska NSZ|last=Żebrowski|first=Leszek|date=1994|publisher=Gazeta Handlowa|language=pl}}</ref> It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the [[Holýšov]] concentration camp.<ref name="Korbonski 1981">{{Cite book| publisher = Hippocrene Books| isbn = 978-0-88254-517-2| last = Korbonski| first = Stefan| title = The polish underground state: a guide to the underground 1939 - 1945| location = New York| date = 1981| p = 7}}</ref> Another unit known for collaboration [[Hubert Jura]]'s unit, also known as ''[[Tom's Organization]]'', that operated in the [[Radom]] district.}} |
At least two units of the NSZ operated with the approval or cooperation of the Germans:{{r|Cooper 2000|p=149}} The "[[Holy Cross Mountains Brigade]]" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944.<ref name="Publicznej 2007">{{cite book|author=Instytut Pamięci Narodowej--Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu. Biuro Edukacji Publicznej|title=Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U4gjAQAAIAAJ|year=2007|publisher=Instytut|page=73}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=LPYnAQAAIAAJ&q=brygada+swietokrzyska |title=The Polish Studies Newsletter|last=Wozniak|first=Albion|date=2003|publisher=Albin Wozniak|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=QHk7HAAACAAJ |title=Brygada Świętokrzyska NSZ|last=Żebrowski|first=Leszek|date=1994|publisher=Gazeta Handlowa|language=pl}}</ref> It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the [[Holýšov]] concentration camp.<ref name="Korbonski 1981">{{Cite book| publisher = Hippocrene Books| isbn = 978-0-88254-517-2| last = Korbonski| first = Stefan| title = The polish underground state: a guide to the underground 1939 - 1945| location = New York| date = 1981| p = 7}}</ref> Another unit known for collaboration [[Hubert Jura]]'s unit, also known as ''[[Tom's Organization]]'', that operated in the [[Radom]] district.}} |
||
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
[[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:After reading the revised text I'm still very concerned that it contains [[WP:UNDUE]] weight and POV [[WP:PUSH]]. Please notice that François Robere still wants to change the focus of the text from the NSZ being 'anti-communist' to 'anti-semitic', all the sources say that first and foremost the NSZ was anti-communist '''(attacking other Polish left-wing organizations and partizans, and this is where we have some evidence of limited collaboration)'''. However, the sources vary whether NSZ held uniformed anti-semitic views and even to what real extent). What's most troubling is that in this new text François Robere diminishes the 'anti-communist' policy of the NSZ and simply characterizes it as an excuse to attack Jews, as stated here: ''"Its approach towards Jews drew on both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism."'' Again, NSZ attacked Polish communist organizations, Polish peasants who supported communist partizans, and Armial Ludowa (Polish communist partizans) - some Polish Jews who shared those political view were part of these groups. To disprove the claims that NSZ went after Jews just because they were Jews only, we have examples of NSZ having Jewish members who also held anti-communist views and NSZ liberating Jews from a German concentration camp in Slovakia. --[[User:E-960|E-960]] ([[User talk:E-960|talk]]) 17:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
<hr> |
<hr> |
Revision as of 17:21, 16 June 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Current consensus
NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
1. The scope of this article is "collaboration in German-occupied Poland, irrespective of who was collaborating" (1)(3)
2. Polish railway personnel should not be described as collaborators (2)
RfC: Reliable sources
Are the Polish's ambassador Facebook posts, as reported by wPolityce (pl), a reliable source? 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment
- Reporting on Twitter and/or Facebook comments is standard practice in mainstream news, as seen in this example here: [1] --E-960 (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment to the comment: the issue is not that the comments were on social media. Generally, even though mainstream news report on such comments, the comments themselves usually fail to be a reliable source on anything but what they say (i.e. they are a primary source), per WP:FACEBOOK. Also, we must give due weight to differing viewpoints. The opinion of the Polish ambassador might be worth mention since it is after all from the Polish government. However, it also has a lot of issues since it comes from a politician (who might have all sorts of reason to slightly "modify" the truth to fit his agenda - but its not like somebody ever did that..., right?). Also, we are using a self-published statement on Facebook (WP:SOCIALMEDIA) to support a controversial claim - the Polish media might have covered it since it is from a locally important political figure, but WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies and we have no obligation (or really, good reason) to give anything more than a passing mention, since the comments were not published in a reliable, academic-level journal or book (which is where Grabowski published his estimate...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- No Per previous discussion in the "Editorializing" section. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Wpolityce [2] newspaper is an entirely reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Polish ambassador Dr. Jakub Kumoch [3] is a political scientist.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. While Wpolityce (which I think would fail RSN generally) would probably be reliable enough for the existence of the Facebook posts (which can be verified on Facebook as well) - the Facebook posts by a non expert political person (with a phd in pol science and experience in politics and communication) are not a RS for WWII history in general. We also have a censorship/legal issue since these posts were made after the 2018 law limiting discourse on Polish Holocaust complicity - though that is overshadowed here by this being a non-expert, on Facebook, which is UNDUE and is not a RS for anything beyond their non-notable opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. The wPolityce news online portal is reliable, with it's weekly news&opinion magazine available in all newsstands nationwide, generating profits through advertising and sales, it's staff has credentials working previously for other mainstream news media outlets such as Newsweek Polska, Rzeczpospolita, TVP Wiadomośc, etc. it also hosts interviews with conservative mainstream academics and politicians (including ministers, ambassadors and professors). To argue that this is a "fringe" outlet (like some blog done out of a basement) is misleading. Also, Dr. Jakub Kumoch's statements (who is the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, and an academic before taking over the role of ambassador), are reliable, and can be used to highlight criticism of Grabowski's research. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- How much of it is also true for the Daily Mail? François Robere (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- A manipulative statement made only to perpetuate the perception that wPolityce is some kind of a tabloid. But, yes in today's media environment anything that's conservative is labelled as fringe, tabloid or fake news. --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. There's a host of reliable conservative-leaning outlets [4]. François Robere (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hahaha... funny, that chart has CBS as neutral, in one CBS Evening News broadcast they started out the program with news that President Trump got in a Tweet exchange with Rosie O'donnel... again, see here: [5]. So you see, reporting on Facebook or Tweets is common practice in "mainstream' news. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- You've been off-topic on this for a while. The question isn't the reporting itself, but the "who" and the "what" of the claims. Trump wasn't reported as an RS on O'Donnell, and were he not who he is he wouldn't have been reported at all. François Robere (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hahaha... funny, that chart has CBS as neutral, in one CBS Evening News broadcast they started out the program with news that President Trump got in a Tweet exchange with Rosie O'donnel... again, see here: [5]. So you see, reporting on Facebook or Tweets is common practice in "mainstream' news. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. There's a host of reliable conservative-leaning outlets [4]. François Robere (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- A manipulative statement made only to perpetuate the perception that wPolityce is some kind of a tabloid. But, yes in today's media environment anything that's conservative is labelled as fringe, tabloid or fake news. --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- How much of it is also true for the Daily Mail? François Robere (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- yes & no. The facebook posts are not RS for facts (he is not an expert inn the filed), the report of them is RS for the fact he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- He is an academic (political science) and was involved in topics related to WWII, here is an interview with PolskieRadio regarding another Holocaust related topic [6]. Also, here is an article in [Rzeczpospolita]] one of the oldest and most established news papers in Poland, which notes Dr. Jakub Kumoch's comments, and also states about Grabowski "Grabowski also has difficulty in proving in his journalistic statements that every Jew who had earlier escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." [7] --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- "academic" does not mean "expert is all fields". Is he a recognized expert on WW2 (oh and writing about WW2 does not make you an expert of the holocaust, as I think David Irving might be able to demonstrate)Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- We're focusing too much on the internet portal wPolityce. What is relevant is whether the facebook (or random saying otherwise) sayings of a Polish diplomat are relevant. Frankly - even if these was a reknowned holocaust scholar making a facebook post (not peer reviewed) we should be having a discussion on whether to include. In this case we have a nobody in ww2 history making a facebook post - it is not a RS for anything beyond the ambassador's opinion, and the ambassador's opinion as a nobody in the field - is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- CBS Nightly News reported as the first story of the program on President Trump's Tweet to Rosie O'Donnell, see here [8] this is a legitimate mainstream practice. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Lest we get sidetracked yet again - Kumoch is not Trump. Kumoch has no credentials in historical research, and holds a mid-level diplomatic post. Had he published this as an oped in some mainstream newspaper - it still would not merit inclusion, as the ambassador's opinions on the Polish role in the Holocaust are irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- We're focusing too much on the internet portal wPolityce. What is relevant is whether the facebook (or random saying otherwise) sayings of a Polish diplomat are relevant. Frankly - even if these was a reknowned holocaust scholar making a facebook post (not peer reviewed) we should be having a discussion on whether to include. In this case we have a nobody in ww2 history making a facebook post - it is not a RS for anything beyond the ambassador's opinion, and the ambassador's opinion as a nobody in the field - is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- "academic" does not mean "expert is all fields". Is he a recognized expert on WW2 (oh and writing about WW2 does not make you an expert of the holocaust, as I think David Irving might be able to demonstrate)Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- He is an academic (political science) and was involved in topics related to WWII, here is an interview with PolskieRadio regarding another Holocaust related topic [6]. Also, here is an article in [Rzeczpospolita]] one of the oldest and most established news papers in Poland, which notes Dr. Jakub Kumoch's comments, and also states about Grabowski "Grabowski also has difficulty in proving in his journalistic statements that every Jew who had earlier escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." [7] --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Wpolityce is a reliable source of information and statements of the ambassador are reliable in regards to his position as a notable representative of Polish government in context of debating of Grabowski's exaggerated allegations(which frankly shouldn't be on this page, but this is a seperate matter).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- No (do not include): a WP:UNDUE opinion by a political appointee and not an expert on the collaboration during WW2 or the Holocaust. Given the high profile of the book, surely expert opinions published in peer-reviewed publications are available. My suggestion would be to use them instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do not include: The RS question is a bit of a red-herring, the first source probably generally is RS, whilst Wpolityce is probably RS that a Facebook post was made by the Ambassador. However in so far as these are criticisms of historical methodology and content, better sources should exist from historians published in one of the two relevant topic areas (WWII Poland or Holocaust). I am persuaded by the arguments of Icewhiz and K.e.coffman that inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Pincrete (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. an ambassadorship is a formal government post, statements made by an official have a degree of credibility attached to them--91.90.182.130 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — 91.90.182.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- They have a degree of credibility attached to them as a governmental opinion. However, it is only "a degree of credibility" and it largely depends on a lot of other factors (i.e., it is not an automatic pass). Furthermore, being in a government does not make a person who says something an expert on the matter (or even a reliable source - politicans are sometimes not really honest, especially when it caters to their voter base) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, because the speaker is not an authoritative source. Sentiments like "Wpolityce newspaper is an entirely reliable source by Wikipedia's standards" are irrelevant, and fundamentally misunderstand our core content policies. There is no such thing as source that is categorically reliable for everything. Newspapers are presumptively reliable for secondary-source material of a journalistic nature, nothing more. Many things published in newspapers are not secondary but primary, and are not reliable for anything other than "the person who wrote this piece expressed this particular view" (WP:ABOUTSELF) (editorials, op-eds, opinion columns, subjective book reviews, advertisements, humor pieces, and various other things found in newspapers – even some feature articles, if they are highly personal investigative journalism pieces with a slant and which cannot be fact-checked beyond what the author wrote). Some newspaper material is also tertiary, e.g. sidebar tables of regurgitated statistics – we would not cite those, but the original source(s) of the stats. The ambassador's posts are a primary source, not secondary. The newspaper can confirm that they were made (as can Facebook itself, so whether they exist was never in question, ergo we need no newspaper source for them – it's a redundant cite). The paper cannot confirm the veracity of their message, the correctness of the ambassador's assertions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- There's nothing in the ambassador's position as such that makes it particularly reliable in the context of historical research. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba where uninvolved editors (there are involved comments in the end) thought this was reliable only for the ambassador's opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- RS for what?. Also if you are sourcing a report of the posts, it is that source (not the posts) that would be the RS (or not) not the thing they report on.Slatersteven (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Technically this should be at RSN, it might get more feedback.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I will also point out that notability and reliability are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Jewish Baiting Techniques
Should the text inserted by this diff be present in the article? Previous discussion in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Baiting? Non-RS and Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 1#"Baiting". Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- No, and revdel per WP:RD2. This was initially in the article sourced to fringe far-right blogs (and possibly misrepresenting those). Sourcing was updated to 4 different refs, which are:
- IPN (a political lustration and memory policy government agency) - index of incidents. Borderline as RS, very low impact factor. The cited document itself describes a single incident in Paulinow (which involved an alleged Jew, and not "Jewish collaborationist groups") and does not make the generalization in the article.
- Kierylak - a museum guide's web post (museum endorsement uncertain, credentials of guide uncertain as well). Borderline as RS, and certainly no impact factor. The post itself describes the same single incident in Paulinow and does not make the generalization in the article.
- Prekerowa - Published in a Polish journal in 1997, two citations since. Very low impact factor. The article itself describes the same single incident in Paulinow and does not make the generalization in the article.
- Mędykowski - describes Gestapo agents' operations in Warsaw. The text does not make the generalization ascribed to it, nor does it describe an incident that supports the text.
- Thus, the text itself is OR - as no source supports the sweeping generalization. Use of these obscure documents is UNDUE in any event - this is a widely studied topic, and if this is what the an extensive search for sources drug up (to replace the far right BLOGs) - it is clearly UNDUE. Finally, the sweeping generalization, based on OR, towards "Jewish collaborationist groups" (as opposed, to say the German Gestapo) based a single possible incident (which did not seem to involve a Jewish group) - is grossly offensive - Blood libel in Wikipedia's voice that should be WP:RD2ed.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- User Icewhiz, pls stop with the mischaracterizations of reference sources (they can be viewed on this talk page, below this discussion), and making questionable statements such as this: "involved an ALLEGED Jew", it's not an allegation, but a fact that the agent-provocateur in this case was Jewish — his name was Szymel Helman. Also, the term "Jewish collaborationist groups" is not "grossly offensive" as you state it, but a fact; here are two of such groups Żagiew and Group 13, where the Jewish agents working for the Gestapo were volunteers. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why user Icewhiz took down my comment to his statement and moved it to a lower section, yet he himself critiques other voters directly underneath their votes. Pls keep this comment where I initially placed it. Thank you.--E-960 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is unclear to me, per my possibly faulty reading, whether this was someone who said he was Szymel Helman (something the villagers attested to) or whether there was an actual identification of this individual beyond that. Hence, I am using alleged Jew (as the agent certainly presented himself as such). Futhermore, this particular Helman, again per my possibly faulty reading, is alleged to be a Gestapo agent but not part of Jewish group.Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- One thing for sure, we know that some Jewish agents (whether working in a group or individually) used various entrapment methods against both Poles and Jews; the Paulinów incident, the Hotel Polski affair, and the fake resistance movement set up by Józef Hammer. So, as user GizzyCatBella suggest we can revise the wording to re-state that such groups used various entrapment methods against Poles and Jews, and provide the three examples. That would be a valid COMPROMISE solution to this issue. --E-960 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- User Icewhiz, pls stop with the mischaracterizations of reference sources (they can be viewed on this talk page, below this discussion), and making questionable statements such as this: "involved an ALLEGED Jew", it's not an allegation, but a fact that the agent-provocateur in this case was Jewish — his name was Szymel Helman. Also, the term "Jewish collaborationist groups" is not "grossly offensive" as you state it, but a fact; here are two of such groups Żagiew and Group 13, where the Jewish agents working for the Gestapo were volunteers. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- YES, for now at least, the original discussion was only initiated the day before this RfC, I'm afraid that user Icewhiz is trying to take advantage of WP:FORUMSHOP, and trying to just remove the text, instead of allowing other editors to find additional reference sources which may be back up the statement. Also, we do have 4 references now, which list individual examples of this particular tactic: [1][2][3][4]. --E-960 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's been up for two months. How much more do you need? We're getting into WP:SPECULATION territory. François Robere (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not sure if the 'baiting technique' is a correct (best) translation, and Icehwiz makes a valid point about generalization, but the general facts are not disputed. Some Jewish agents, working for the Germans, did indeed try to entrap Poles willing to help the Jews. While it was likely a very small scale pheromone, a single sentence mentioning this, among many other examples of collaboration, seems totally justified. We could rewrite the sentence to be specific ('A technique used in Paulinow involved Germans using Jewish collaborators to...'). All the sources cited seem reliable, written either by historians, and/or published on pages of reliable institutions. I don't see why this would cause any significant debate, outside possibly being politically incorrect ('but Fooian nationality was the victims and never did anything wrong!' - WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). Again, I'd oppose making a big deal out of it (WP:UNDUE), but the one sentence currently present seems totally fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- No None of the sources say (as far as I can tell) this was organised or operated by Jewish groups (they all say it was a Gestapo operation). Also whilst they do say there was more then one of this type of operation they are all individuals shopping (with the exception of one incident) individuals (and as far as I can tell those looking for help, not those giving it, again with one exception). Thus the text does not match up with what the sources are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. While I have no doubt things like that did happen, the suggestion that it was a common MO of Jewish collaborators is not supported by RS, and as such is in violation of WP:NOR. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes I see no controversy here. These techniques are described by very reliable and high profile academic sources.I don't see any particular reason why this information should be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, if the content of the addition is true.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC))
- Yes, references are clearly confirming that tactics being used, but personally, I would reword the sentence a little, just the way it was before May 26th Icewhiz ’s removal of it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- No As the moment - there is a single alleged incident that is somewhat reffed - and from which they are making a broad generalization. The source is from a blog post by a blogger that wrote about "Jewish Nazism"... not reliable by any standards.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but augment with more complete information on the agent-provocateur methods used by the Jewish Gestapo to ferret out fellow Jews who were in hiding, and the Poles who rescued Jews being hunted by the Germans. Nihil novi (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but with a brief, precise statement of the evidence. Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, or "why the hell not?". Despite Icewhiz's mental gymnastics and false assertions in his !vote, it's very well sourced. I mean, seriously the objection is that one of the sources is a Polish academic journal. This is part of a now well established pattern where Icewhiz tries to remove any Polish sources from articles on Polish history. This is a ridiculous and frankly offensive argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz doesn't object to that source - he just says that the source does not support that statement (by not making the generalization. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about his #3 not his #4 (which is a separate issue).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I mentioned the low citation count of Prekerowa in regards to UNDUE. This source also does not support the generalization. It is (with minor variations - farm, additional stuff going on in the farm)) an example perhaps (there is an issue of Jew vs. Jewish group, and identification issues) of the generalization - but it does not make the generalization.Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about his #3 not his #4 (which is a separate issue).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz doesn't object to that source - he just says that the source does not support that statement (by not making the generalization. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
No, unless a reliable, academic source which directly supports this generalization and does more than describe single incidents can be found. Otherwise, the generalization is WP:SYNTH.For the specific sentence targeted by the RfC, No, but an amended sentence (after review of presented sources) which properly describes the events would be acceptable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)- No, only very poor sources appear to even begin to support the generalisation - but including the generalisation appears from discussion above, to be what some editors insist on, regardless of the low number and quality of sources. That there may have been individual incidents appears to be generally agreed, but no evidence of a pattern - as stated in the disputed text - is offered in the discussion. The generalisation is a fairly extraordinary claim and much better sources - which actually support the claim - are needed. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pincrete, I'm not sure if some of the generaliztions result form an unconscious bias against Polish sources, or just not being familiar with the institutions, how can we say that Treblinka Muzeum is a "poor source", yet I see United States Holocaust Memorial Museum webside references all over Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- My understanding of the discussion above is that this is not the museum, but an individual guide - I've been a museum guide, and believe me no expertise in the field is required. I also understand that the guide refers to an incident - not a widespread, common phenomenon - which is what the disputed text states. At one point in the above discussion you try to argue that if it worked for the Gestapo once, they are bound to have repeated it - that is so WP:SYNTHy that I was left speechless. If this was anything like a common phenomen, we would reasonably expect numerous historians to have documented precisely how widespread the phenomenon was - they haven't AFAI can see. Poland, and the Poles suffered greatly under Nazi occupation, no one disputes that, but that does not mean that we lower our sourcing standards to justify fairly extraordinary claims. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pincrete, but what about the other two sources, IPN and PAN, both are academic institutions, operating under government charters (who in this case only stated the facts of the even, the IPN text even has citations of other academics). It seems that in the Anglo-Saxon world the only way you are considered a "quality source" is if you write a book, and get an interview in NYT and do a segment on CNN - so basically if you have a good publicist he'll get your research to be noticed, everything else is unreliable, because it's obscure. --E-960 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- My understanding of the discussion above is that this is not the museum, but an individual guide - I've been a museum guide, and believe me no expertise in the field is required. I also understand that the guide refers to an incident - not a widespread, common phenomenon - which is what the disputed text states. At one point in the above discussion you try to argue that if it worked for the Gestapo once, they are bound to have repeated it - that is so WP:SYNTHy that I was left speechless. If this was anything like a common phenomen, we would reasonably expect numerous historians to have documented precisely how widespread the phenomenon was - they haven't AFAI can see. Poland, and the Poles suffered greatly under Nazi occupation, no one disputes that, but that does not mean that we lower our sourcing standards to justify fairly extraordinary claims. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pincrete, I'm not sure if some of the generaliztions result form an unconscious bias against Polish sources, or just not being familiar with the institutions, how can we say that Treblinka Muzeum is a "poor source", yet I see United States Holocaust Memorial Museum webside references all over Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended Discussion
- NOTE: What user Icewhiz is doing by setting up this RfC is WP:FORUMSHOP. In the preceding discussion (above), which was only set up by user Icewhiz at 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC) the day before this RfC, a couple of editors asked for time to find additional sources and work on translations because there are already reference source citations in the article which document individual examples of "baiting" but do not provide a description of the scale — here are the 4 current references which document individual cases (including translated text): [5][6][7][8] So, instead of WAITING on the results, user Icewhiz is trying to game the process by setting up a RfC, hoping that he can attract enough votes to REMOVE the text before any new references are found. --E-960 (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Or someone who identified himself as such. What is grossly offensive here is not "Jewish collaborationist groups" (though that is a minor misrepresentation of the primarily criminal enterprises headed by Gancwajch) - but ORish assignment of an alleged wide spread technique based on a single incident, with an alleged Jew, which the sources themselves do not ascribe to any group. Assigning collective responsibility to Jewish groups for widespread murder of families - based on a single incident with an alleged Jew - that is the definition of offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, so what you are saying is that the Germans only employed Jewish collaborators to carry out this tactic, just this one time, (just this once), and never again. Any reasonable person would doubt such a conclusion, in fact because INFILTRATION of the primary task of such groups, posing as escaped Jews was the only way to get access. Also, you removed the text on Józef Hammer-Baczewski [10] who worked for the Abwehr, and set up a fake resistance group to lure unsuspecting polish resistance fighters. There you removed the text by claiming that Józef Hammer-Baczewski was "not a Jew during Abwehr service", what does that even mean "DURING Abwehr service" was he Jewish before, but just not during? --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- A single source says Hammer-Baczewski came from a family with Jewish roots, other treat his background as unknown. This does not make this very long-term Abwehr agent (possibly back to WWI) Jewish.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- As for "time to find references" - that is an admission this text is based on OR and/or extreme fringe sources that are unusable as sources (some of which were present in the article until yesterday) - content is added to Wikipedia based on sources, not the other way around. Nothing precludes adding a properly sourced text (in an encyclopedic tone as opposed to a hagiography of victimhood) at a later date. Furthermore, this was discussed two months ago - in a discussion where the consensus was to take remove this unless it was taken to RSN (being based on fringe BLOGs). It seems this text made its way back into the article despite that discussion, based on the same blogs, and without taking it to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, so what you are saying is that the Germans only employed Jewish collaborators to carry out this tactic, just this one time, (just this once), and never again. Any reasonable person would doubt such a conclusion, in fact because INFILTRATION of the primary task of such groups, posing as escaped Jews was the only way to get access. Also, you removed the text on Józef Hammer-Baczewski [10] who worked for the Abwehr, and set up a fake resistance group to lure unsuspecting polish resistance fighters. There you removed the text by claiming that Józef Hammer-Baczewski was "not a Jew during Abwehr service", what does that even mean "DURING Abwehr service" was he Jewish before, but just not during? --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Or someone who identified himself as such. What is grossly offensive here is not "Jewish collaborationist groups" (though that is a minor misrepresentation of the primarily criminal enterprises headed by Gancwajch) - but ORish assignment of an alleged wide spread technique based on a single incident, with an alleged Jew, which the sources themselves do not ascribe to any group. Assigning collective responsibility to Jewish groups for widespread murder of families - based on a single incident with an alleged Jew - that is the definition of offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What “fringe BLOGs” are you talking about Icewhiz? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- this one for instance - which was in the article until yesterday. You might see coverage of this fellow here: [11], [12], [13].Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please... you just provided articles about "this guy" that show he is an pro-life advocate, and has a conservative political view point. Wow, you are right he is extreme "far-right". Btw, this reference was removed because it was a BLOG not becasue the author is a pro-lifer... seriously!! --E-960 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- This was a blog. His views on feminists are quite illuminating- Jan Bodakowski dla Frondy: Feminizm - nowy sztandar skrajnej lewicy - comparing feminists (the banner of leftism extremism) with the Bolsheviks who were responsible for the death of millions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you present few unchallenged pieces of evidence (not left-wing press reporting on his pro-life stand) that this historian is “fringe” and should not be accepted as a credible source? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you present evidence that he is a historian? I do see RS coverage of him as a blogger, with some treatment in research level literature - e.g. [9] for more extreme statements made on blogs - in this particular case comments on "Jewish Nazism". It does seem that the "Jewish Nazism" piece (and similar items) is (rather scantily) referenced in some scholarly publications, however it is done as an example of a manifestation of such views and not as a reference to a scholarly publication.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz you seem to be misreading the source given, do you dare to translate this source here? Word by word, the whole thing please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you present evidence that he is a historian? I do see RS coverage of him as a blogger, with some treatment in research level literature - e.g. [9] for more extreme statements made on blogs - in this particular case comments on "Jewish Nazism". It does seem that the "Jewish Nazism" piece (and similar items) is (rather scantily) referenced in some scholarly publications, however it is done as an example of a manifestation of such views and not as a reference to a scholarly publication.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you present few unchallenged pieces of evidence (not left-wing press reporting on his pro-life stand) that this historian is “fringe” and should not be accepted as a credible source? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- This was a blog. His views on feminists are quite illuminating- Jan Bodakowski dla Frondy: Feminizm - nowy sztandar skrajnej lewicy - comparing feminists (the banner of leftism extremism) with the Bolsheviks who were responsible for the death of millions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please... you just provided articles about "this guy" that show he is an pro-life advocate, and has a conservative political view point. Wow, you are right he is extreme "far-right". Btw, this reference was removed because it was a BLOG not becasue the author is a pro-lifer... seriously!! --E-960 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest this text
The gestapo used entrapment techniques such as sending agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for (or offer) help; if they agreed, they were reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews.
This reflects what the sources actually says, and does not try to imply that a one of incident was a standard operation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: - the "executed the entire family" is not supported by the references given (or any of the rest of the generalization - as we have sources detailing a single incident - not covering Gestapo techniques in general). At the current level of sourcing - this is WP:UNDUE - and there is not particular reason to single out the Jews - The Gestapo operated plenty of non-Jewish agents for entrapment - are we going to break down gestapo agents by ethnicity?Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it is 14 people in fact. Moreover this is the section about Jews, so it seems valid to discuss the actions by Jewish collaborators. Now if this was a tactic (and it seems it was) also used by Polish collaborators hen we can also have that as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:, I’m sorry, German Gestapo didn’t send Żagiew or “13th” agents “out". These organizations were sponsored by the Gestapo but operated separately, they had its own agents, firearms, dwellings and jail system inside the Ghetto. These characters were also crooked to the bone (they even ran a brothel in the Ghetto, yes!) No, your proposal would not reflect the exact accuracy of the matters. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which of the sources mention them, as none of the provided text seems to, in the context of the text we are debating.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I provided sources earlier, but they were removed. You could study on Żagiew and “13th" on your own if you have the energy for it. The only challenge in your case is that most of the material will be in Polish. I’ll dedicate more time to the matter later, too busy right now. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- You could provide the translation you know, you can clearly write English?Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I provided sources earlier, but they were removed. You could study on Żagiew and “13th" on your own if you have the energy for it. The only challenge in your case is that most of the material will be in Polish. I’ll dedicate more time to the matter later, too busy right now. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, I think this is a right step forward, but your proposal would suggest this was done by Gestapo, while sources state this was a technique used by Jewish collaborators(who according to sources often had significant autonomy, sometimes surprisingly so, I guess there are nueances here that come from our generalization of Second World War. I can also add that according to Mędykowski Gestapo sometimes protected its Jewish agents, while SS was interested in killing them, there was conflict between these two organizations, but I digress.)
I suggest the following: The Jewish collaborators used entrapment and provocation techniques such as sending agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for (or offer) help; if they agreed, they were reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- All the sources we have say it was one used by Gestapo agents. Your text implies this was done on the orders of Jews, no source that we have given a text of so far has ever said that. Also as far as I can see there was only one instance of them possing as escapees. Every other instance if them posing as the underground to trap escapees.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- I will also note that " who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews" - is WP:SYNTH in this context.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Both Prekerowa and Medykowski mention this is a general technique, and not an isolated incidents--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
- Do they Prekerowa seems to be talking about one incident, as far as I can tell Medykowski seems to be talking about multiple individual incidents, as well as this one, again can you please provide the quotes where they say this was used more then once?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Report from the Cracow Home Army (number 15; 23 January 1944; AAN-AL. Archiwum Akt Nowych, Government Delegation)
- Do they Prekerowa seems to be talking about one incident, as far as I can tell Medykowski seems to be talking about multiple individual incidents, as well as this one, again can you please provide the quotes where they say this was used more then once?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Both Prekerowa and Medykowski mention this is a general technique, and not an isolated incidents--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
- I will also note that " who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews" - is WP:SYNTH in this context.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Our Cracow cell has been completely broken ... The arrests are the result of several months of systematic Gestapo work. The provocateurs were organized by the Jewish Gestapo confidant Diamant and his people’'” GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Err who was arrested, what work did Diamant and his people do?, also who is the Diamant, I can find no reference to him. In fact this is a primary source anyway. This says (and no one has disagreed) that the Gestapo employed Jewish agents. The dispute is the modus operandi. The dispute is over whether or not more then one family was entrapped in this way (assuming this was the methods used).Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ahh found him, he was not the head of a Jewish organisation, but was the heard of about 30 Jewish informers working for the Gestapo (Department No. 3). There is (as far as I can find) not evidence they were a formal unit or organisation. Also (as far as I can tell) they operated against the Jewish underground, not Poles. But the main point is they do not appear to have used entrapment (as far as I can tell) so much as infiltration of the Ghetto underground in Krakow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- So what it does not support "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups'", it was not a formally organised group, any more then any other department (and we are still lacking a source this was a standard tactic by formal Jewish groups). "the household was reported to the Germans", and we still only have one instance of this being done (in fact it does not even say they sought help from Poles, and I am jot sure any of the presented sources do). "as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family", again we only have one instance of something close to this (and it actually does not seem to be talking about a family, but a group of people form one village).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- "it was not a formally organised group" <--- hmmm, somehow this part must've been missed: "The provocateurs were organized by"
- Note that the single example, attested to in rather low impact sources, is not about a "Jewish group" either.Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- By which you mean to say it's rarely cited, if at all. Correct? François Robere (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. 2 cites per scholar.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Did I miss something and "impact factor" (which is a fairly recent metric and one which is mostly particular to English speaking countries (did someone say SYSTEMIC BIAS?) somehow became a mark of reliability? Nahhhh... it's just Icewhiz and Francois Robere inventing new ridiculous excuses to remove sources they don't like again, per usual.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Also, how do you get "single example"? There's at least two - Prekerowa (and Kierylak) references an incident from 1943, Medykowski another one from 1942. The second one even makes it clear that this is just an example and that there were other instances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Medykowski references "regular" Żagiew/Group 13 agents. He does not mention entire families. He does not mention requesting help (it mention purchasing illegal services). This does not support -
One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help; if they agreed to, the household was reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews
. It does support (in this case) Jewish agents (not quite presented as ghetto escapees) trying to purchase false documents, and then turning in their contacts. What is lacking here in terms of WP:V is the generalization that the sentence in the article is presently making.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)- Ok, so if I understand you correctly, the examples cited by Medykowski do not refer specifically to Zagiew/13 and "organized groups" or to the execution of families, right? That's true enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Having caught up with some of the reading (both discussion here and sources) it seems that the Medykowski reference is talking about an organized group or at least an association of around 30 Gestapo agents in Krakow (so obviously not Zagiew/13) who mostly targeted hiding Jews, members of both Jewish and Polish Resistance, people (possibly both Polish and Jewish) who were trying to help Jews escape to Hungary, as well as Poles who forged documents, in addition to using their position as Gestapo collaborators to settle personal scores or enrich themselves by getting others sent to the camps. In addition to operating as a group in cooperation with Gestapo, some of them, particularly the two women noted in the quotes below, sometimes operated on their own initiative. And they did use "provocateur" tactics of pretending to be from the resistance or similar, though not necessarily the tactic of pretending to be ghetto escapees (at least I have't come across that being explicitly mentioned). I mean, these kind of "provocateur" tactics were SOP for Gestapo agents. So yes, this source is related in general (and the stories behind it are fascinating) but not specifically to this text.
- A source which is probably more related directly to this text would be Jonas Turkow's C'était ainsi: 1939-1943, la vie dans le ghetto de Varsovie but I can only find quotes from it and it's in French, but it does appear to discuss the activities of Leon Skosowski and others which are in line with what the text says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Medykowski references "regular" Żagiew/Group 13 agents. He does not mention entire families. He does not mention requesting help (it mention purchasing illegal services). This does not support -
- Yes. 2 cites per scholar.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- By which you mean to say it's rarely cited, if at all. Correct? François Robere (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Analysis and suggestion
The statement the RfC is about is this:
One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help; if they agreed to, the household was reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews.
Neither the existence of Jewish collaborationist groups, nor the Nazis' violence towards "helpers" are in dispute (although the details and exact phrasing of the above are not necessarily accurate), nor is the employment of entrapment ("baiting") by colloaborationist groups of all colors, as well as their Gestapo and police operators. We'll focus on the following:
One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help
This text suggests that:
- These groups targeted Poles as part of their usual modus operandi
- That they had multiple tactics for entrapping the Poles they targeted
- They alone used those tactics
We have no RS to support either of these statements. What do we have? This statement was first entered into the article over two months ago, backed by a blog called "Salon24" and an article at the finance magazine "money.pl" [14]. Only this past week were these sources finally get replaced with four new sources, who by and large do not support the generalization (not to say accusation) made in the text.
My suggestion is this: Scrap the text and start over, this time in a way that doesn't look like it tries to implicate Jews in what was probably a widespread phenomenon. Does anyone here really think Jewish collaborators sat through he night thinking how to incriminate Polish families? Does anyone really think collaborators of all colors did not incriminate their own when the Gestapo asked them to? Does anyone doubt the Gestapo did do all of that and more to stop, deter and punish resistors? Scrap the text and start over. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh. Come on, quit playing.
- 1 Of course they targeted Poles, who else were they suppose to target in order to arrest Poles? This is a absurd objection.
- 2 This is your own personal inference which is not actually implied by the text. If it's such a huge deal we can change it from "One of" to "One". Done.
- 3 What? How the hell do you get that from the text? And what does it mean? This objection makes no sense and pretty much betrays that the purpose of these objections is not to improve the article via substantive and constructive critique but to simply remove some text according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
- Try harder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Drop the attitude, Marek.
- Who targeted Poles? Which groups? Who led them? Who were their members? Who were their contacts? You're speculating about something you have no proof of whatsoever. The only groups we do know of - the only ones we have enough RS on to have included in the article - operated within ghettos, against Jews - they didn't roam the countryside looking for Polish families to entrap.
- Of course it is implied by the text - it literally says "one of the... groups' baiting techniques" - meaning there were several.
- Well, the text ascribes it to "Jewish collaborationist groups", not "collaborationist groups" in general. If it wasn't "uniquely Jewish", then why frame it as such? Why not present it as a "general purpose" collaborationist tactic?
- François Robere (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Drop the attitude, Marek.
- You're doing it again. Constantly changing topics and questions as a way of deflecting and destroying productive discussion. Who targeted Poles? That wasn't your previous objection. Your previous objection was that the text claimed the Poles were targeted. Now you're trying to change what your objection is after I've pointed out how absurd your original statement was. But hey, I can answer this too:
- Who targeted Poles? A group of about 30 agents working with Gestapo, whose members included Diament, Appel, Puretz and Brandsetter.
- Who led them? Well, they all worked for Gestapo. The commanding officer for the group was Rudolf Korner. Diament appeared to be senior in this group, although Brandsetter was involved with Korner and that gave her considerable power.
- Who were their members? Already listed above.
- Who were their contacts? What does this even mean and why is it relevant? You're inventing arbitrary criteria.
- So no, I'm NOT speculating. And yes, there is "proof" (in terms of source material). And no, this group did NOT operate within the ghetto. It operated mostly outside of it and targeted both Poles and Jews. Same was true for Zagiew/13 in Warsaw.
- And this group was indeed uniquely Jewish. As was Zagiew/13 in Warsaw.
- All of this is pretty straight forward and has already been said. So once again I find myself in a position where I have this very strong feeling that I'm not in a discussion with someone acting in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't change the subject. If you claim to have knowledge of a group, then you ought to know things like "who leads it" or "who are its members". If you know none of those things (and remember we're talking historical, not current events), then your claim of "knowing of a group" is questionable. Also, notice your previous answer ("of course they targeted Poles, who else were they suppose to target in order to arrest Poles?") is an example of circular reasoning.
- Regardless of whether all of them were part of a single group (and from what I'm seeing the author doesn't make that claim), it's still just one group, mentioned in one source (an "isolated study", per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It's hardly enough to establish what the text claims. François Robere (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- "If you claim to have knowledge of a group, then you ought to know things like "who leads it" or "who are its members". If you know none of those things " - listen fellah, I already answered these questions repeatedly and you could have answered them yourself if you had actually bothered looking at the quote from the source already provided. This is exactly the kind of behavior that derails these discussions. That and inventing absurd requirements like "isolated study", whatever the hey that's suppose to mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you had kept your temper in check, you would've been much better at this. The flow of the above is as follows:
"they" targeted Poles
->Who targeted Poles?
->You're... changing topics and questions
->I didn't change the subject. If you claim to have knowledge of a group...
etc. etc.- As I said, "isolated study" is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. François Robere (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making passive-aggressive personal attacks and taunts such as "If you had kept your temper in check, you would've been much better at this". You've been warned about this kind of behavior before. And it is yet another way which derails productive discussions.
- And no, that was not the flow of discussion:
- Initially you objected to the assertion that groups which tried to get Poles arrested ... targeted Poles.
- Then I pointed out the absurdity of such an objection.
- So then you changed it from "whom did they target", to "who did the targeting". Hence me pointing out that you changed the nature of the objection, which you did. Nonetheless I answered your new objection.
- You then asserted that you did not change the objection and proceeded to completely ignore the fact that your new objection had already been answered, more than once.
- And here, rather than admitting that this objection has been answered you instead resort to sophomoric personal attacks about my temper (not sure how you can have knowledge of what my temper actually is).
- And this isn't an "isolated study", but nice try.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't a taunt, it was a comment on how you got lost in the flow of the discussion for no reason except your temper. If you weren't so busy looking for bad faith and making tasteless comments towards others ("Sigh. Come on, quit playing... Try harder" and so on) these discussions might've actually been amicable. Instead we're again at an impasse, as you're so preoccupied with reading things into what I wrote that you're not reading what I actually wrote. That's unfortunate, but not unexpected ([15]). François Robere (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- It was a taunt and a PERSONAL ATTACK. Look, it's simple - quit making snide comments about your perceptions of my "temper". Whether here or at some ANI discussion (what does that have to do with anything?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't a taunt, it was a comment on how you got lost in the flow of the discussion for no reason except your temper. If you weren't so busy looking for bad faith and making tasteless comments towards others ("Sigh. Come on, quit playing... Try harder" and so on) these discussions might've actually been amicable. Instead we're again at an impasse, as you're so preoccupied with reading things into what I wrote that you're not reading what I actually wrote. That's unfortunate, but not unexpected ([15]). François Robere (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- "If you claim to have knowledge of a group, then you ought to know things like "who leads it" or "who are its members". If you know none of those things " - listen fellah, I already answered these questions repeatedly and you could have answered them yourself if you had actually bothered looking at the quote from the source already provided. This is exactly the kind of behavior that derails these discussions. That and inventing absurd requirements like "isolated study", whatever the hey that's suppose to mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@E-960:@Pincrete: continued from the discussion in the survey above.
Let's look at what the sources say, shall we? Prekerowa (as quoted) says "The gravest provocation involving Jews took place in 1943, some 100 km east of Warsaw; a Jewish Gestapo agent posing as a fugitive was given, or promised, help by 14 inhabitants of the village of Paulinów." No direct evidence that this was a systematic trend: at best, it is very subtly implied in the first part of the sentence, but using this source to support the claim in the article would be WP:SYNTH since the author doesn't state it directly.
Kierlyak isn't much better. Ignoring the reliability problem, "[In a] large-scale German operation... use was made of provocation." does not support saying "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help;", because: a) it does not ascribe this tactic to "Jewish collaborationist groups", but rather to a "German operation". Assuming that the Jews who were involved in the operation were part of a larger collaborationist group is blatant WP:OR. b) it does not support this being a recurring pattern. The text only says that "[as part of a larger] German operation [...] use was made of provocation". As far as we know, this could have happened only once, and any claim that this was a general pattern is WP:SYNTH.
Next, if I trust Google translate, Medykowski doesn't say this tactic was used to target ordinary Polish families. Rather, "It happened, however, that provocations were arranged to arrest people having contacts with the underground, mediating the production of false documents or dealing with human smuggling and illegal trade." Again, a) the tactic is not attributed to a "Jewish collaborationist group", but to the Gestapo itself! b) Apparently, the text doesn't make the direct link that the agent was posing as a ghetto escapee (though such a conclusion would not be totally illocigal, but it would remain WP:SYNTH. Quoting the rest, from Google translate again, (segments in brackets [] corrected for grammar): "For example, in 1942, to Elżbieta Jasińska, who had contacts with the conspiracy, came Marta Puretz, asking for the creation of a Kennkarte. Jasińska agreed to get her this document for PLN 2,000. Puretz was to report to her in two days. However, when she came to her at the appointed time, the Gestapo came under the house, Jasińska was arrested and then deported to Auschwitz. When later Jasińska's brother-in-law met Marta Puretz on the street without the armband, he ordered her to arrest her. However, [when she was] at the police station [on] Franciszkańska [street] identified herself with the document of a Gestapo collaborator and was released."
Finally, and trusting Google still, the IPN document does not make the above generalisation either, and it again says that the tactic originated from Germans, "The Germans were very active in combating all forms of violation of occupational rights, often using provocation." This is the nearest thing to supporting the disputed text, but again since most of the "Jewish collaboration" is described as coming from individuals, to be acceptable, the text would need to read: "Use of provocateurs, agents posing as Jews and seeking help from Polish inhabitants, was one tactic used by the Germans to combat resistance." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please see my comment above. I agree that the Medykowski source discusses a different but similar phenomenon from that described in the relevant text - that of Gestapo using Jewish collaborators to target Polish and Jewish underground and Jews who were attempting to escape to Hungary (the two were obviously connected since you needed the former to do the latter). I think the best way to deal with it is to have a separate sentence about this Krakow-based group and its activities, while we figure out the best way to deal with the "one of the tactics" sentence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which would be UNDUE and also ORish (though an improvement) - as we're making the extension from a set of described incidents to some sort of tactic (in this case Germans using Jews) - without a source actually saying this - over several years and millions of people one could find an example of almost anything (If I find a few examples of a Jewish gestapo agent raping a Polish women - does that become a tactic too?). Germans also used Polish and other non-Jewish agents.... As for how we got here - we started with this sentence sourced to a far-right blog on salon24 - and then when that was challenged - some effort was made to find any source possible mentioning Jewish+agent+gestapo (and we ended up with 3 marginal sources describing Paulinów, and Medykowski describing something else) - and sticking this set of references onto the previous BLOG sourced (and copied) text. This isn't how we develop articles - we're supposed to WP:BALASP per the sources available, not start out with a fringe narrative and attempt to stick onto it any marginal source we can find.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- It would be neither. It would not be UNDUE because this is an article ... about collaboration. And it wouldn't be OR because we have sources which state this explicitly. We have source which calls it a "tactic". And no, the Medykowski and IPN sources are not "marginal". And just because a "far-right blog" once wrote about it, doesn't mean that there isn't a reliable academic literature on the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
As for how we got here - we started with this sentence sourced to a far-right blog on salon24 - and then when that was challenged - some effort was made to find any source possible mentioning Jewish+agent+gestapo (and we ended up with 3 marginal sources... and sticking this set of references onto the previous BLOG sourced (and copied) text. This isn't how we develop articles - we're supposed to WP:BALASP per the sources available, not start out with a fringe narrative and attempt to stick onto it any marginal source we can find.
: That's an important observation, Icewhiz, and one that marks a pattern: We've seen it with the previous RfC discussion, on RSN and AfD - contentious, poorly-sourced or synthed statements, who their proponents hold as authoritative and insist should be kept for weeks or months; until an RfC ensues, whereupon they (often) quickly capitulate and start a hasty search for better sources to support the same problematic statements. This violates any number of policies (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DGF), and isn't how an encyclopedia should be written. François Robere (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)- Are you referring to me specifically? If so, I'm going to ask you to strike that completely false assertion. And the purpose of this false attack appears to be to distract from the fact that the current text, whatever it was at some point sourced to, is currently sourced to reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, Rejestr faktów represji na obywatelach polskich za pomocą ludności żydowskiej w okresie II wojny światowej, 2014, pp. 347-50. Retrieved 2018-05-26.
- ^ Joanna Kierylak, Treblinka Museum, "12 sprawiedliwych z Paulinowa", 2013, retrieved 2018-05-25. "Akcja niemiecka, zakrojona na szeroką skalę... Posłużono się tu prowokacją. Rozpoznania dokonali prowokatorzy. Byli nimi Żydzi, jeden z Warszawy, drugi ze Sterdyni – Szymel Helman. Prowokator z Warszawy dołączył do ukrywających się Żydów, podając się za Żyda francuskiego, zbiegłego z transportu przesiedleńców wiezionych do Treblinki." ("[In a] large-scale German operation... use was made of provocation. The scouting-out was done by agent-provocateurs. They were Jews, here one from Warsaw, the other from Sterdyń—Szymel Helman. The agent-provocateur from Warsaw joined some Jews who were in hiding, giving himself out to be a French Jew who had escaped from a transport of deportees who were being sent to Treblinka.")
- ^ Teresa Prekerowa, Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences, "Who Helped Jews during the Holocaust in Poland", Acta Poloniae Historica, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, vol. 76, p. 166. "The gravest provocation involving Jews took place in 1943, some 100 km east of Warsaw; a Jewish Gestapo agent posing as a fugitive was given, or promised, help by 14 inhabitants of the village of Paulinów." Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1997 [?!]
- ^ Witold W. Mędykowski, "Przeciw swoim: Wzorce kolaboracji żydowskiej w Krakowie i okolicy", Zagłada Żydów - Studia i materiały, Rocznik naukowy Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów IFiS PAN, no. 2 (2006), p. 206. "Zdarzało się jednak, że urządzano prowokacje, by aresztować osoby mające kontakty z podziemiem, pośredniczące przy wyrobie fałszywych dokumentów czy zajmujące się przemytem ludzi i nielegalnym handlem. Na przykład w 1942 roku do Elżbiety Jasińskiej, mającej kontakty z konspiracją, przyszła Marta Puretz, prosząc o wyrobienie kenkarty. Jasińska zgodziła się wyrobić jej ten dokument za 2000 zł. Puretz miała zgłosić się do niej za dwa dni. Kiedy jednak przyszła do niej w umówionym czasie, pod dom zajechało Gestapo, Jasińska została aresztowana, a następnie wywieziona do Auschwitz. Gdy później szwagier Jasińskiej spotkał Martę Puretz na ulicy bez opaski, kazał ją aresztować. Ona jednak na komisariacie policji przy ul. Franciszkańskiej wylegitymowała się dokumentem współpracownika Gestapo i została wypuszczona na wolność. Zagroziła szwagrowi Jasińskiej, że jeśli wejdzie jej w drogę, wsypie go... Podobnie działała Stefania Brandstätter."
- ^ Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, Rejestr faktów represji na obywatelach polskich za pomocą ludności żydowskiej w okresie II wojny światowej, 2014, pp. 347-50. Retrieved 2018-05-26.
- ^ Joanna Kierylak, Treblinka Museum, "12 sprawiedliwych z Paulinowa", 2013, retrieved 2018-05-25. "Akcja niemiecka, zakrojona na szeroką skalę... Posłużono się tu prowokacją. Rozpoznania dokonali prowokatorzy. Byli nimi Żydzi, jeden z Warszawy, drugi ze Sterdyni – Szymel Helman. Prowokator z Warszawy dołączył do ukrywających się Żydów, podając się za Żyda francuskiego, zbiegłego z transportu przesiedleńców wiezionych do Treblinki." ("[In a] large-scale German operation... use was made of provocation. The scouting-out was done by agent-provocateurs. They were Jews, here one from Warsaw, the other from Sterdyń—Szymel Helman. The agent-provocateur from Warsaw joined some Jews who were in hiding, giving himself out to be a French Jew who had escaped from a transport of deportees who were being sent to Treblinka.")
- ^ Teresa Prekerowa, Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences, "Who Helped Jews during the Holocaust in Poland", Acta Poloniae Historica, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, vol. 76, p. 166. "The gravest provocation involving Jews took place in 1943, some 100 km east of Warsaw; a Jewish Gestapo agent posing as a fugitive was given, or promised, help by 14 inhabitants of the village of Paulinów." Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1997 [?!]
- ^ Witold W. Mędykowski, "Przeciw swoim: Wzorce kolaboracji żydowskiej w Krakowie i okolicy", Zagłada Żydów - Studia i materiały, Rocznik naukowy Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów IFiS PAN, no. 2 (2006), p. 206. "Zdarzało się jednak, że urządzano prowokacje, by aresztować osoby mające kontakty z podziemiem, pośredniczące przy wyrobie fałszywych dokumentów czy zajmujące się przemytem ludzi i nielegalnym handlem. Na przykład w 1942 roku do Elżbiety Jasińskiej, mającej kontakty z konspiracją, przyszła Marta Puretz, prosząc o wyrobienie kenkarty. Jasińska zgodziła się wyrobić jej ten dokument za 2000 zł. Puretz miała zgłosić się do niej za dwa dni. Kiedy jednak przyszła do niej w umówionym czasie, pod dom zajechało Gestapo, Jasińska została aresztowana, a następnie wywieziona do Auschwitz. Gdy później szwagier Jasińskiej spotkał Martę Puretz na ulicy bez opaski, kazał ją aresztować. Ona jednak na komisariacie policji przy ul. Franciszkańskiej wylegitymowała się dokumentem współpracownika Gestapo i została wypuszczona na wolność. Zagroziła szwagrowi Jasińskiej, że jeśli wejdzie jej w drogę, wsypie go... Podobnie działała Stefania Brandstätter."
- ^ Uprzedzenia w Polsce (Prejudice in Poland), edited by Anna Stefaniak, Michał Bilewicz, Mikołaj Winiewski, page 52
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)
Perhaps the text needs to be re-worded
Perhaps the statement under the RfC discussion should be re-worded so it does not specifically refer to "collaborationist groups", in this source "Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal" located here: [16] there are many examples of individual Jewish agent provocateurs, and simple snitches. It is also very well referenced in the foot notes. Here are some examples, but the paper cites numerous others:
Historian Elżbieta Rączy identified a number of cases in the Rzeszów region where Jews apprehended by the Germans or Jewish agents provocateurs—as in the case of a group of Jewish prisoners from the Pustków labour camp sent into the countryside to search out Jews in hiding—betrayed fellow Jews and their Polish benefactors.
A Jewish partisan group led by Edmund Łukawiecki, which operated in the forests north of Lubaczów (Puszcza Solska), executed a young Jewish woman who had betrayed at least one family of Jews in hiding and tried to infiltrate the partisan group.
A Jew from Wołomin named Rubin, who was captured by the Germans after joining up with a band of fugitive Soviet soldiers, betrayed numerous farmers who helped the Soviet partisans in that area. As a result, more than a score of Poles were executed in the villages of Brzóza and Zarzetka near Łochów. Some of the Polish victims were beaten and shot by Rubin himself.
In a few cases Jews were killed before they could bring ruination to their benefactors and their families. After his capture in Polichna near Brzozówka, a Jew by the name of Icek Wagman identified various peasants who had sheltered him. A sergeant at the police station killed Wagman before the arrival of the German gendarmes. Another Polish policeman reacted similarly when a weary Jew appeared at an outpost near Tarnów and incriminated many Poles who had assisted him. The Jew was executed before the return of the German commander. After the war, the Polish policeman was sentenced to death for his misdeed.
In the end it is also very important to know who unleashed this hell, the Germans, and who played everyone:
The Germans played a large part in encouraging and exploiting friction between the conquered peoples, and pitting them against each other. In November 1939 in Łódź, the Germans conscripted some Jews to help destroy the Kościuszko monument in Wolności Square. The Germans then set fire to two synagogues and blamed the Poles for burning them down in retaliation for the destruction of the Kościuszko monument by the Jews. (The Germans, of course, were actually responsible for the destruction of the monument.) In the spring of 1941, the Germans ordered the Jews to demolish the Catholic church in Sanniki. They took photographs of this and used the incident to foment anger among the Poles against the Jews
The impact of German propaganda on Jewish attitudes is not widely acknowledged, however, it was significant. According to one Jewish survivor, “We also did not think about why they [the Germans] wanted to kill us. We knew that we were like rats. Their propaganda not only influenced the Gentiles, it also influenced us Jews. It took away from us our human dignity.”28 The German-sponsored Polish language press claimed that the closure of ghetto in Warsaw “was the wish of the majority of inhabitants of Warsaw.” Jews played into this strategy by spreading anti-Polish propaganda, going so far as to claim that the Poles were inciting the Germans.
Not surprisingly, as Emanuel Ringelblum notes in his wartime journal, hatred towards Polish Christians grew in the Warsaw ghetto because, incredible as it may seem, it was widely believed that the Poles were responsible for the economic restrictions that befell the Jews.
--E-960 (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This WP:SPS by Mark Paul has been described in RS (very briefly) as an anti Jewish tract and as propagating a myth. It is not an appropriate source. This attempt to draw generalizations about Jews at large from poorly attested incidents (in some cases, from the words of those who killed Jews and attempted to justify their actions) - is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a self-published book, this is just a PDF document which summarizes other RELIABLE sources (it does not bring forth "new claims" or "research", in any case every one of the examples is heavily sourced, by reliable main stream books and works. In other words, we can just cite those individual references in the article. --E-960 (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is a highly inappropriate self published document. You actually suggested above to blame Jews of collaboration based on the say so of Polish murderers, who were collaboraters serving in the blue police, who attempted post war (prior to their conviction) to claim they killed the Jews to defend Poles. Aha. If this is an example of anything (with a better source) - it is an example of something else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then go and find those RS yourself. There's plenty of space for introducing biases by merely "summarizing" RS sources, as you well know. François Robere (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, here is one; Simon Lavee (Łukawiecki), Jewish Hit Squad: The Łukawiecki Partisans Unit of the Polish Armia Krajowa, 1941–1944 (Jerusalem and Springfield, New Jersey: Gefen, 2015), 3–18. [17] --E-960 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hardly mainstream - held by four libraries world wide. And from Google Books, it appears that two of the subject's sons object to the portrayal. And from the author's description on Google Books - he's an attorney - does he have any qualifications as a historian? Nor is the book cited in Google Scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, here is one; Simon Lavee (Łukawiecki), Jewish Hit Squad: The Łukawiecki Partisans Unit of the Polish Armia Krajowa, 1941–1944 (Jerusalem and Springfield, New Jersey: Gefen, 2015), 3–18. [17] --E-960 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Then go and find those RS yourself. There's plenty of space for introducing biases by merely "summarizing" RS sources, as you well know. François Robere (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is a highly inappropriate self published document. You actually suggested above to blame Jews of collaboration based on the say so of Polish murderers, who were collaboraters serving in the blue police, who attempted post war (prior to their conviction) to claim they killed the Jews to defend Poles. Aha. If this is an example of anything (with a better source) - it is an example of something else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a self-published book, this is just a PDF document which summarizes other RELIABLE sources (it does not bring forth "new claims" or "research", in any case every one of the examples is heavily sourced, by reliable main stream books and works. In other words, we can just cite those individual references in the article. --E-960 (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Whether RS or not, this still fails to support the generalization in the RfC, i.e. the use of "Jewish collaborationist groups" for such "agents provocateurs" missions, given that it again discusses individual cases... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, you are doing mental gymnastics trying to discredit the source, just looking at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I'm not seeing criterial such as 'number of libraries' or 'Google Scholar'. --E-960 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- please do not ascribe motivations to other editors. One way to identify if a work is mainstream is how many libraries hold it as well as how many other scholars cite it. The authors qualifications also have a bearing on how mainstream a work is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, as that can be manipulated by sending copies to libraries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: While one can, perhaps, easily (at some cost, and assuming the libraries are amendable to cataloging anything - and many aren't, as they do not want the overhead of on-going mgmt of the book and want to maintain their own reputation) - inflate library holdings by sending out freebies...... It is difficult to manipulate libraries so that they will not hold a book (what would you do? start a smear campaign via e-mail? Go to each library and steal the books?) - so while wide holdings might not be a sufficient indicator of notability/reliability, very scant holdings of a book is a pretty big red flag regarding reliability and undueness.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll also note that Google Scholar IS a citation index, which are mentioned in WP:IRS as an important part of identifying reliable sources. The lack of citations to a work in Google Scholar, combined with the lack of qualifications of the author and the lack of holdings in libraries does indeed make a work less than mainstream. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- [18]. So yes books do get banned from some libraries.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll also note that Google Scholar IS a citation index, which are mentioned in WP:IRS as an important part of identifying reliable sources. The lack of citations to a work in Google Scholar, combined with the lack of qualifications of the author and the lack of holdings in libraries does indeed make a work less than mainstream. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: While one can, perhaps, easily (at some cost, and assuming the libraries are amendable to cataloging anything - and many aren't, as they do not want the overhead of on-going mgmt of the book and want to maintain their own reputation) - inflate library holdings by sending out freebies...... It is difficult to manipulate libraries so that they will not hold a book (what would you do? start a smear campaign via e-mail? Go to each library and steal the books?) - so while wide holdings might not be a sufficient indicator of notability/reliability, very scant holdings of a book is a pretty big red flag regarding reliability and undueness.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, as that can be manipulated by sending copies to libraries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- please do not ascribe motivations to other editors. One way to identify if a work is mainstream is how many libraries hold it as well as how many other scholars cite it. The authors qualifications also have a bearing on how mainstream a work is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, you are doing mental gymnastics trying to discredit the source, just looking at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I'm not seeing criterial such as 'number of libraries' or 'Google Scholar'. --E-960 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you understand that library count and Google Scholar, are not determining factors if a source is reliable per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the only thing you managed to confirm is that the book is not widely circulated, it does not mean, though, that it is an unreliable source. This is so pathetic, at this point you basically hold to the view that if Google does not have it, it does not exist, so Google is now the decider what people will see and consider real or not. --E-960 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop with the ascribing of motivations and thoughts to other editors. I've asked you before, please stop. Note that I did not say a word about reliable. My point was that a lack of library holdings and a lack of other scholars citing a work makes it likely that the work is not mainstream in the scholarship. I do not agree that what I was pointing out was "that if Google does not have it, it does not exist, so Google is now the decider what people will see and consider real or not". That's not what I said or meant and it is not helpful to the conversation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Should we switch the reference format to use Template:sfn instead??
Since there are a lot of books/academic publications cited, and Template:sfn is really much cleaner and more readable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- As you know I use {{r}} myself. I've been advised on the template's TP that {{sfn}} is somewhat fragile, but if the citations are checked after insertion there's no reason not to use it. François Robere (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Winstone on fear
User:E-960 made this change. Here's some context:
Extended content
|
---|
(Winstone (2014), pp. 183-184) |
François Robere (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- François Robere, ok, I made the change, but the suggestion to include this statement was made by Xx236, and minor adjustments were recommend by 198.84.253.202. So, this statement was hardly my own initiative, but rather one of the few examples of compromise. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Noted. It's still problematic, as it seems - again - like synthesis for the sake of apologetics, rather than a straightforward summary of Winstone. François Robere (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG, so this statement was done through consensus, yet you just took it down in one swipe, let's not return to the bad habit of deleting entire sections of text. --E-960 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- That someone failed to notice - is not an excuse for text that grossly misrepresents the sources - and our text at the moment clearly misrepresents Winstone. I'll note that we probably should add content from Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz - which seems quite relevant and is a widely cited book (over 350 citations by scholar).Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just stop with the overblown statements of disapproval, this is really coming across as a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The text simply says that most Poles did not help or on the other hand did not persecute Jew. That's exactly what Winstone says. Also, this statement was re-edited by other editors who think it still accurate enough, so we are not going to just remove text when user FR or you decide that you don't like it — you're not going to re-challenge every statement in the article, every several days, until you get your way and it's removed. It's obvious that this is what you are doing. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, this is coming across as "none of you read the source and you're quoting it based on a review." The text has a complex position which, I might add, I very much agree with: That the issue at hand is not one of nationality, but of individuals' choice. As such, quoting it as if it acquits Poles as a nation of antisemitism and its ilk is not only WP:SYNTH - it's deceptive. François Robere (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please, you challenge every statement in this article (even if the text was added through consensus), and if you fail to get your way, you just re-start the discussion a few days later, this is a clear case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it and WP:FORUMSHOP. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just stop with the overblown statements of disapproval, this is really coming across as a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The text simply says that most Poles did not help or on the other hand did not persecute Jew. That's exactly what Winstone says. Also, this statement was re-edited by other editors who think it still accurate enough, so we are not going to just remove text when user FR or you decide that you don't like it — you're not going to re-challenge every statement in the article, every several days, until you get your way and it's removed. It's obvious that this is what you are doing. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- That someone failed to notice - is not an excuse for text that grossly misrepresents the sources - and our text at the moment clearly misrepresents Winstone. I'll note that we probably should add content from Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz - which seems quite relevant and is a widely cited book (over 350 citations by scholar).Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG, so this statement was done through consensus, yet you just took it down in one swipe, let's not return to the bad habit of deleting entire sections of text. --E-960 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Noted. It's still problematic, as it seems - again - like synthesis for the sake of apologetics, rather than a straightforward summary of Winstone. François Robere (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's go with this, sentence by sentence. Taking what is presently in the article:
Historian Martin Winstone writes that only a minority of Poles actually took part in persecuting or helping the Jews.
This is directly supported by the first sentence directly from Winstone, who says "It may therefore reasonably be said that only a minority actively helped Jews, just as a minority actively persecuted them." Next:
Winstone also downplays claims regarding the purported Polish lack of resolve in saving Jews in German-occupied Poland, noting that the tendency not to help was due more to natural human wariness rather than to ethnocentrism.
Again, this is supported by the original text from Winstone, who says "As in every other country, the response of the largest part of society was indifference with varying degrees of sympathy, ambivalence or enmity. It is undoubtedly true that a major inhibition to greater help was fear." and "It should be repeated that such a conclusion is not a judgement on Poles (or Ukrainians) but, sadly, on human nature. This was a pattern repeated across the continent. That responses were sometimes more extreme in the GG than in most other territories may primarily be seen as reflection of the fact that it was the central killing ground. Indeed, it could be argued that making judgements about national character – positive or negative – may not be the wisest lesson to draw from the Holocaust."
In short, Winstone says that the vast majority of Poles were indifferent (neither collaborating nor resisting) to what was happening (something which can be explained mostly by fear, i.e. as quoted "a major inhibition to greater help was fear."), and that this isn't caused by ethnocentric tendencies (i.e. as quoted "such a conclusion is not a judgement on Poles (or Ukrainians)") but by human nature - which, surprise, also happens to be exactly what is said in the article... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion (Winstone)
- I agree, this statement is quite accurate to what the entire text by Winstone says, and you made a couple of minor adjustments such as removing the word "blatant" and I think that's fine, in order to make the text more neutral. --E-960 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're doing a very narrow reading of a broad text. That chapter covers a variety of behaviors, including some of the worst that were exhibited in Poland during those times. He doesn't "downplay" anything, least of all anti-Semitism; nor does he say anything about "weariness". What he does do is claim this shouldn't be used for generalizations of the kind this very text tries to do, and that all of this should be judged on the individual's level: He describes both Polish, German and Ukrainian people who took part in either saving or destroying lives, and even gives an almost ambivalent description of Hans Frank. "The Holocaust was made possible at every stage by moral choices" - it's a complex message, and one that directly contradicts the subtext of what you're trying to include - that people do not bear responsibility for their choices. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- No. The text here says "whole nationalities do not bear responsibility for the choices of individuals" and that is exactly what it says. Saying it is "caused by human nature" does not excuse it. As for what the source says and what is in the article, we have a secondary source (i.e. the review) analyzing what is written - per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". Winstone's book is a secondary source about the events it describes, but a primary source for what is written in it. Since we disagree on what it says exactly, we should trust the review of the book more than our gut feelings about what we think Winstone is saying, especially since the reading it makes is more reliable than the interpretation random wikipedians can make - by relying on the review, we avoid possible POV problems while making sure that the text represents the source accurately... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I find that the content, as added, does not quite match the spirit of Winstone's text. He does not "downplay" the responsibility. If he "downplays" anything, it's perhaps the effect of the death penalty for aiding Jews on the Polish population. In another thread, I pointed out a source that says that the death penalty was a common form of punishment under the German rule across Eastern Europe, for many forms of active or passive resistance, including aiding the Jews. Winstone says: "However, there were many crimes which carried the death penalty in the General Government. (...) Yet ‘they [Polish citizens] kept right on [resisting]. Why was it that only helping Jews scared them?’". Winstone provides a nuanced discussion of what has occurred, without excusing or vilifying. I think this is missing in the content that I see in the diff at the top of the thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again, not all Poles helped Jews and not all Poles worked for the Resistance, most were on the sideline (scared to help and scared to fight). I would say the current statement in article is fair, however this discussion is a type of WP:FORUMSHOP initiated by user François Robere. If you notice his comments in the initial discussion he did not object to the wording, now in bulk he is questioning several statements at once. We are not going to re-open every discussion because of the Wikipedia:I just don't like it now argument, when the same editor keeps challenging multiple statement and when they don't get their way in a discussion, than a week or two later they just re-open the debate. --E-960 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I commented on whether the text in the diff matched the source. To me, it did not. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again, not all Poles helped Jews and not all Poles worked for the Resistance, most were on the sideline (scared to help and scared to fight). I would say the current statement in article is fair, however this discussion is a type of WP:FORUMSHOP initiated by user François Robere. If you notice his comments in the initial discussion he did not object to the wording, now in bulk he is questioning several statements at once. We are not going to re-open every discussion because of the Wikipedia:I just don't like it now argument, when the same editor keeps challenging multiple statement and when they don't get their way in a discussion, than a week or two later they just re-open the debate. --E-960 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Is this more acceptable or is it worse? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- 198.84.253.202, E-960 You both admit this is a statement about human nature, then why are you proposing it for this article rather than for non-nationality-specific Collaboration with the Axis Powers or the Holocaust? François Robere (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the newly proposed text by 198.84.253.202 is quite acceptable, and at this point should resolve any more objections. --E-960 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @François Robere: I fail to see how an author who directly discusses the subject matter (collaboration with the Nazis in Poland, even giving Poland-specific examples) is not relevant to this article. Winstone also serves as a useful comparison with other countries - after all, Nazi occupation/the Holocaust wasn't limited to just Poland... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't say he's not relevant, I said your attempt to draw this particular conclusion from that particular text is misguided, and doesn't actually reflect what he wrote (what K.e.coffman calls "the spirit of the text"). François Robere (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- François Robere, "It may therefore reasonably be said that only a minority actively helped Jews, just as a minority actively persecuted them." this is the first sentence of the text which you provided above, and this is what's in the article now "Historian Martin Winstone writes that only a minority of Poles actually took part in persecuting or helping the Jews.". I think that it is pretty accurate, and same goes for the the other sentences, they capture the "spirit" of the text quite well. --E-960 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- That sentence alone isn't contended. If you want to quote just that for "statistical purposes", shall we say, be my guest. The rest is a different matter. François Robere (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that you did not even bother to specify what part of the original statement you have an issue with, you keep moving the goal posts on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize if I wasn't clear. The two statements were added in the same revision, and I assumed you wanted them both. François Robere (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean "I assumed you wanted them both"? Again, I was not the editor that proposed this source and text, just added it per other's suggestion. In any case, I'm assuming you are now fine with the neutrality changes that the IP 198.84.253.202 made earlier in relation to you comment, if you were able to notice them. However, you still did not say, what part of the original statement you had an issue with, which is very questionable in light of the current AE discussion on arguing against reference sources. --E-960 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize if I wasn't clear. The two statements were added in the same revision, and I assumed you wanted them both. François Robere (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that you did not even bother to specify what part of the original statement you have an issue with, you keep moving the goal posts on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- That sentence alone isn't contended. If you want to quote just that for "statistical purposes", shall we say, be my guest. The rest is a different matter. François Robere (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- François Robere, "It may therefore reasonably be said that only a minority actively helped Jews, just as a minority actively persecuted them." this is the first sentence of the text which you provided above, and this is what's in the article now "Historian Martin Winstone writes that only a minority of Poles actually took part in persecuting or helping the Jews.". I think that it is pretty accurate, and same goes for the the other sentences, they capture the "spirit" of the text quite well. --E-960 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't say he's not relevant, I said your attempt to draw this particular conclusion from that particular text is misguided, and doesn't actually reflect what he wrote (what K.e.coffman calls "the spirit of the text"). François Robere (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but I didn't know that, did I? Again, the problem was with the flattening of a complex "global" message to suit a narrow, ethnic narrative. It's more than just an arithmetic composition of words - "remove that word, add this one". The IP's suggestion is an improvement over the previous statement, but still isn't a good summary of the text. Nevertheless, it's good enough that we can keep it for the meanwhile, seeing as we have more pressing concerns resulting from the policy changes the AE case will bring. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- At this point the revised text captures the full statement by Winstone quite well. I don't see a need to keep revisiting the issue. --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again, not really. The relevant segment is several paragraphs long, and I didn't quote all of them. A proper summary of that segment must give an idea of the complexity of behavior and motives that he describes, which this fails to do. But again, as the biased subtext is gone, we can keep it for the time being. François Robere (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, you just deleted the entire text without gaining a consensus of any kind, or even stating on the talk page what your issue was with this text, now you can't even point to a particular passage or passages you have a problem with. This type of editing behavior is very questionable, and again comes across as WP:FORUMSHOP and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The statement was added through consensus, it has a valid source, and per you request was adjusted, at this point since you can't articulate any further issues other then just voicing you dislike. This matter in practical terms is resolved. --E-960 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Drop the drama, and stop making accusations. It's two sentences, not a "whole text". If I think this needs to be rephrased, I'll rephrase it. In the meanwhile, I suggest you get a copy of the book - arguing as you do based on a review is ridiculous. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- First, you just deleted the entire text without gaining a consensus of any kind, or even stating on the talk page what your issue was with this text, now you can't even point to a particular passage or passages you have a problem with. This type of editing behavior is very questionable, and again comes across as WP:FORUMSHOP and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The statement was added through consensus, it has a valid source, and per you request was adjusted, at this point since you can't articulate any further issues other then just voicing you dislike. This matter in practical terms is resolved. --E-960 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again, not really. The relevant segment is several paragraphs long, and I didn't quote all of them. A proper summary of that segment must give an idea of the complexity of behavior and motives that he describes, which this fails to do. But again, as the biased subtext is gone, we can keep it for the time being. François Robere (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- At this point the revised text captures the full statement by Winstone quite well. I don't see a need to keep revisiting the issue. --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- This page is about the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. It's not about non-helping Jews.
- If non-helping Jews is collaboration, so we need Collaboration in the USA and Collaboration in the UK, because the both nations did little during the first years of WWII.
- Xx236 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- That section is about the Holocaust. It would be a flagrant one-sided, unbalanced section if we didn't mention the "general indifference by the population" or that "only very few actually collaborated in the Holocaust" or, similarly, that "only very few actually tried helping". The article subject being "collaboration" doesn't mean that we must talk only of collaboration, especially when that would introduce (additional) POV issues. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- How many non Jewish Poles died during the Holocaust IP? Do you know? If not check. So, who is responsible for not aiding these people? Those Poles who were “generally indifference” and somehow survived? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, there is a passage in Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces [19] (pages 44-45), which perhaps should be included in the Holocaust section, to provide more depth on the controversial view that Poles lacked resolve in helping Jews because of alleged ethnocentrism that excluded Jews, this text is related to Poland and states: "...the traditional home of diaspora Jews [Poland] had to be compromised with with allegations of widespread Polish anti-semitism". This is a controversial statement, but it does provide an additional layer of perspective on this very complex topic — the publishing house is McFarland & Company.--E-960 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: I fail to see how this is relevant to the Holocaust: Poles died. Germans (yes, the evil bad guys too) died. French, Italians, English, Americans, etc... died. That is the story of World War II, and it is most surely not specific to Poland... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- How many non Jewish Poles died during the Holocaust IP? Do you know? If not check. So, who is responsible for not aiding these people? Those Poles who were “generally indifference” and somehow survived? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- That section is about the Holocaust. It would be a flagrant one-sided, unbalanced section if we didn't mention the "general indifference by the population" or that "only very few actually collaborated in the Holocaust" or, similarly, that "only very few actually tried helping". The article subject being "collaboration" doesn't mean that we must talk only of collaboration, especially when that would introduce (additional) POV issues. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@198.84.253.202: How do you read that quote? What does it convey from your perspective? François Robere (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Winstone still doesn't refer to anybody in particular. "The Germans were not the only danger", yes, but he doesn't precisely say what the "other dangers" are. Given the continued talk page fuss this has caused (this section and "François_Robere_misrepresenting_sources,_again"), we better just not mention that Winstone suggests anybody (because he doesn't, or if he does it's in an extremely subtle way and us writing it in the article would be WP:SYNTH). Solves the problem, once and for all (hopefully?). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Enforcement again
There is another thread over at WP:AE, shall we at least wait for that to conclude before making anymore changes?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Grabowski (again)
This is what Grabowski said: (quote)
- "I never talked about 200,000 Jews murdered by Poles themselves...I said that according to my estimates, Poles might be responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of most of these people - and this is an important distinction.”
Not this
- ”In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths by collaboration, even if the killing was done by the Germans"
So you might want to either self-revert, adjust text to reflect what he actually said or just leave the quote itself (probably the best option).GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Both those mean the same thing. I understand English might not be your first language (neither is it for me), but its not a valid reason to claim that some text which is already repetitive enough lacks clarity. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- They don’t mean the same thing. I’ll explain why but please self revert first so we stick to the rule. We’ll find the compromise. Thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Clarifying, "I said that according to my estimates, Poles might be responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of most of these people" vs "In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths by collaboration" - that means exactly the same thing, just worded differently. There was also no consensus for your change. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Also, there is no ground for self-reversal, since I validly challenged your edit (by reverting), see top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, this is not how I understand the rule imposed, but whatever, I’m here not to pick up the fight but make something good. So do you want to just leave the quote to make it simple or not? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I am against adding an additional quote since it repeats (maybe with a very tiny variant [read: insignificant hair-splitting]) material which is already (and even, already repeated!) in the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- They don’t mean the same thing. I’ll explain why but please self revert first so we stick to the rule. We’ll find the compromise. Thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, then this is what he said in other words:
- In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles might be responsible for these deaths, even if the Germans made the actual killings.
Not this:
- In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths by collaboration, even if the killing was done by the German.
MIGHT, “might be responsible” not “were responsible” do you see the difference? Also where do you see the word COLLABORATION in his quote? It is not insignificant hair-splitting. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's hair splitting, the difference in meaning is so minor its negligible - the only part which differs in exact meaning is "might be responsible for these deaths" vs. "were co-responsible for the deaths by collaborations", but that again is so similar its not worth making a fuss over it - I have slightly adjusted the article in consequence. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, this works halfway so it is a compromise. DONE GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- They are the same. And both are unneeded, as we do not actually cover the distortion of his words in some Polish outlets - which is why he was asked the question (as is clear in the question asked). The bigger issue is that we still have criticism of this estimate sourced to a Facebook post of a Polish ambassador - which a shckingly poor source, UNDUE, and highly POVISH - and was edit warred into the article without consensus (as seen in RSN and talk).Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion at WP:AE seems rather clear that we will from now on require academic sources... Also, the above RfC (which was undertaken because of those facebook posts) will solve that issue too. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is the ruling reg. only academic sources already in place? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not quite, because the discussion isn't closed yet. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is the ruling reg. only academic sources already in place? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- As per Icewhiz. Let it go. François Robere (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion at WP:AE seems rather clear that we will from now on require academic sources... Also, the above RfC (which was undertaken because of those facebook posts) will solve that issue too. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- They are the same. And both are unneeded, as we do not actually cover the distortion of his words in some Polish outlets - which is why he was asked the question (as is clear in the question asked). The bigger issue is that we still have criticism of this estimate sourced to a Facebook post of a Polish ambassador - which a shckingly poor source, UNDUE, and highly POVISH - and was edit warred into the article without consensus (as seen in RSN and talk).Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
NSZ and Jews
Back to this change: Does anyone have any objections, and if so - what? The main points are as follow:
- Restore Cooper as a source (Cooper was faculty at the Contemporary Europe Research Centre at the University of Melbourne; book held by ~300 libraries), without the quotations.
- Restore the text to the previous revision, such that it reflects what the source says rather than falsely claim NSZ only attacked communists partisans.
- Remove the Bauer reference - that belongs in the previous paragraph, and will be restored in a later change.
Before:
The National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ) from time to time attacked or took prisoner Jewish partisans who were part of the communist People's Army (Armia Ludowa, or AL), a Polish partisan militia that included Jewish detachments.[1] A single NSZ unit, the "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade", numbering 800-1,500 fighters, ceased operations against the Germans for a few months in 1944, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German consent, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp,[2] saving several hundred Jewish women.[3] The NSZ did not have a uniform view about Jews, and though generally considered antisemitic and involved in killing and handing over Jews, it also incorporated Jewish fighters, including ones in higher command positions. Some NSZ members and units rescued Jews and postwar received Righteous Among the Nations awards.[4]: 96-97
After:
The Polish right-wing National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), widely perceived as anti-Semitic, did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews.[4]: 96-97 It did not admit Jews[5]: 149 except in rare cases,[4]: 96 and from time to time killed or kidnapped Jewish partisans of other organization.[5]: 149 The NSZ operated with the approval and occasional cooperation of the Germans.[5]: 149 The "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944.[6][7][8] It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp.[2]
The source:
Cooper, Leo (2000). In the shadow of the Polish eagle : the Poles, the Holocaust, and beyond. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. p. 138. ISBN 9780333992623. OCLC 313430363.
François Robere (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Formatting discussion (versions above in blockquotes, refs, quotation) - resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Support After version. Cooper is a good source - an academic in the field who was published by Palgrave and seems to be in agreement with other sources on the subject of the NSZ. I would omit the liberation of the rather small Holýšov concentration camp three days prior to V-E day.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Do Not Support After version First off, not related to collaboration but to fighting between two para-military organizations. Also, this new version is just another attempt in Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing by François Robere, this is an article about collaboration not anti-semitism. But, I noticed that as with most of your edits François Robere, you are determined to highlight that particular issue. So, you move the term 'anti-semitism' to the front of the paragraph. Btw, this text just sounds dumb: NSZ was 'anti-semmitic' but it "did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews", that's an oxymoron, and proves you are just trying to push POV. Also, you keep using the word 'kidnapped' when referring to Jewish partisans (again not related to collaboration), but do you understand that in a war you take opposing combatants as prisoners, and kidnap civilians. Yet you are perpetuating this victimization POV that people who were in a para-military organization were kidnaped, this is bias and inaccurate wording. --E-960 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- To address your concerns:
- Regardless of motive, handing off resistance fighters to the Germans authorities is by all definitions "collaboration".
- The NSZ shared certain ideological lines with the Nazi authorities, which played a part in its choice of targets and partners. This in its own right is worth noting
- An aspect of that is its of Jews for anti-Semitic reasons - which is part of what this article is about, and again worth noting.
- How would you rather start the paragraph?
- The exact phrase is "widely perceived as anti-Semitic", resolving your suggested oxymoron. Also, if you read the sources you'll see that while the organization did not have a coherent policy, its operators' common beliefs were often anti-Semitic. Many right-wing parties today exhibit the same phenomenon, where the platform isn't outright anti-Semitic, but the members and leadership are.
- Generally speaking, combatants on the front lines are "taken prisoner", while support personnel at the rear are "kidnapped". This is similar to the use of "killed" vs. "assassinated" (and in the case of civilians - "murdered").
- François Robere (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- To address your concerns:
Again, with the WP:SYNTHESIS, when you said above: "handing off resistance fighters to the Germans authorities is by all definitions collaboration", but it says "resistance fighters" not "Jewish resistance fighter" if they were fighters form a Communists paramilitary groups you can't assume automatically that it had to be Jews, that's classic WP:SYNTHESIS. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also, where in your reference is there a distinction between as you state above "combatants on the front lines" and "support personnel at the rear" again, I don't believe the source draws that distinctions, so again you're not presenting the reference correctly. --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source states that they were Jewish, and the precise word it uses is "abducted". François Robere (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah ok, so now you say that the source actually uses the word "abducted" not "kidnapped". Perhaps just using a neutral terms such as "captured" would have been the best option. In any case, this just confirms to me and other editors, that your approach is not neutral, and as I stated before the current text is fine the way it is now — the changes you propose just come across as POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- And what's the difference..?
- Right. So instead of sanitizing what the source says by using a "neutral" term, let's just go with what the source says. Okay? François Robere (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah ok, so now you say that the source actually uses the word "abducted" not "kidnapped". Perhaps just using a neutral terms such as "captured" would have been the best option. In any case, this just confirms to me and other editors, that your approach is not neutral, and as I stated before the current text is fine the way it is now — the changes you propose just come across as POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source states that they were Jewish, and the precise word it uses is "abducted". François Robere (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, simply no need to change the text as you propose. Also, as noted in the below discussion, there is already WP:UNDUE weight regarding Jewish partizans, since NSZ was explicitly anti-Communist, not anti-Jewish, and killed both Polish and Jewish partizans who were in the AL, or Poles and Jews who supported left-wing causes. You just want to insert a specific POV, which exclusively focuses on Jews, removing the full context of what NSZ did. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- So when Cooper or Zimmerman say the NSZ was anti-Semitic and targeted Jews as such, they are wrong? François Robere (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- No - while there is some useful information in there, there's also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and in many cases what the sources say is being exaggerate by the Wikipedia editor - Francois Robere - himself. The text does not faithfully represent the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- What in particular is OR, and how would you rephrase it? François Robere (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is "except in rare cases" in Piotrowski's book? Jerzy Makowiecki and Ludwik Widerszal weren't "Jewish partisans" as the text falsely claims. "with approval and occasional cooperation" is not the same thing as "tacit approval" (Cooper also doesn't actually list any examples of actual cooperation, or what exactly does "cooperation" mean in this context). Do the sources actually say that the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade "decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944" and do they explain what this "cooperation" involved? That's just some of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- And oh yeah, why are you removing info about the liberation of Jewish women from the concentration camp and the fact that some NSZ members were recognized as Righteous Among Nations? It appears sourced, so this just looks like gratuitous POV pushing (basically the same consistent WP:AGENDA that has characterized your edits from the beginning - add anything negative about Poles, remove anything positive about Poles) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Piotrowski refers to the "(rare) reports that place Jews in NSZ units". He then quotes Feliks Pisarewski-Parry, a Jewish fighter of the NSZ as "shocked" to discover the unit he joined belonged to the NSZ, saying "I was probably the only Jew in the ranks of the NSZ and for that reason rescued by the NSZ!" (p. 96).
- The exact phrase used by Cooper regarding Makowiecki and Widerszal is "of Jewish origin". Zimmerman mentions the two, heads of the AK "Jewish Affairs Bureau", were Jewish (p. 123).
- As mentioned below (though possibly I wasn't clear enough), Cooper quotes from letters exchanged by an NSZ commander and German officers coordinating their operations. (p. 151 onwards).
- Cooper describes the "Holy Cross" affair as "with German approval and under German protection".
- The question on Holýšov shouldn't be directed at me, as it's not my suggestion.
- The "Righteous Among the Nations" is an issue that's pertinent to the entire article. Piotrowski gives a single example of an NSZ operator receiving RAN acknowledgment (Captain Edward Kemnitz), which some editor then used to acquit the entire NSZ (speaking of WP:AGENDA...). That's inappropriate. François Robere (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Parry says also that 50% of partisans didn't know ideology of their organisation.Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bauer, Yehuda (1989). "Jewish Resistance and Passivity in the Face of the Holocaust". Unanswered questions: Nazi Germany and the genocide of the Jews (1st American ed ed.). New York: Schocken Books. pp. 235–251. ISBN 978-0-8052-4051-1.
{{cite book}}
:|edition=
has extra text (help); Unknown parameter|editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Korbonski, Stefan (1981). The polish underground state: a guide to the underground 1939 - 1945. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-88254-517-2.
- ^ Jerzy Jaxa-Maderski, Na dwa fronty: szkice z walk Brygady Świętokrzyskiej NSZ, Wydawnictwo Retro, 1995, p. 19.
- ^ a b c Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1998). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947. McFarland. ISBN 9780786403714.
- ^ a b c Cooper, Leo (2000). In the shadow of the Polish eagle : the Poles, the Holocaust, and beyond. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. p. 138. ISBN 9780333992623. OCLC 313430363.
- ^ Instytut Pamięci Narodowej--Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu. Biuro Edukacji Publicznej (2007). Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej. Instytut. p. 73.
- ^ Wozniak, Albion (2003). The Polish Studies Newsletter. Albin Wozniak.
- ^ Żebrowski, Leszek (1994). Brygada Świętokrzyska NSZ (in Polish). Gazeta Handlowa.
Remove reference to NSZ and Jews entirely
I would recommend that the reference to NSZ and Jews found in the "Collaboration and resistance" section should be removed entirely from the article, because it does not relate to collaboration, but is an example of hostility between two opposing paramilitary groups. Again, no evidence that this behavior was related to collaboration, and the references presented by François Robere do not equate this with collaboration — this is a clear example of WP:SYNTHESIS. --E-960 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- See notes above. Also see this in the source:
There was in fact a silent understanding [between the Germans and the NSZ] that as long as the NSZ did not engage in any acts of sabotage against the Germans, it would be allowed to operate against Jewish partisans
. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)- It is quite clear the NSZ collaborated with the Nazies in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask for additional sources on this, the very term "silent understanding" is extremely controversial, if it was silent how do we know about it - sounds like speculation. Every one of your explanations, yield more questions unfortunately. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cherry picked quotes and sources again. Why not use other sources such as these[20],[21], [22] that dispute straight Antisemitic motivation of NSZ actions as motivated solely by antisemitism? Of course, my sources are "fringe," not scholarly, "far-right" or everything else you'll trow at it, right? No, these sources are as good as yours. Let me tell you something, NSZ did not collaborate with the Germans in WW2. On occasion, they were allowed to operate more freely only when the Germans decided on it. NSZ was not only anti-Nazi but also anti-commusit and anti-soviet, so they clashed with communist partisans, and some of these partisans happen to be Jewish. NZS was "so anti-semitic" that they liberated the concentration camp freeing all the Jewish woman there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- A Yad Vashem bulletin from 1956 would be primary, and one can not tell much from the snippet. Your second source, Chodakiewicz, is a fellow covered by the SPLC and who sees Jdueo-Communism not as a slur but a historical reality - well outside the consensus of most scholars. The third source is somewhat partisan, but does not support what you are asserting above.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Piotrowski is already cited. While he's not as critical of the NSZ, he does make it clear that Jews were rare there and that the understanding at the time was that the NSZ was anti-Semitic. He suggests more evidence is needed before making a final judgement, but given that his book is now 20 years old, one can assume it's not entirely up-to-date on that. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- He explicitly used the term "cooperation" in several places. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cherry picked quotes and sources again. Why not use other sources such as these[20],[21], [22] that dispute straight Antisemitic motivation of NSZ actions as motivated solely by antisemitism? Of course, my sources are "fringe," not scholarly, "far-right" or everything else you'll trow at it, right? No, these sources are as good as yours. Let me tell you something, NSZ did not collaborate with the Germans in WW2. On occasion, they were allowed to operate more freely only when the Germans decided on it. NSZ was not only anti-Nazi but also anti-commusit and anti-soviet, so they clashed with communist partisans, and some of these partisans happen to be Jewish. NZS was "so anti-semitic" that they liberated the concentration camp freeing all the Jewish woman there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask for additional sources on this, the very term "silent understanding" is extremely controversial, if it was silent how do we know about it - sounds like speculation. Every one of your explanations, yield more questions unfortunately. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is quite clear the NSZ collaborated with the Nazies in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jews were accepted by Soviet partisan troops, it's certainly not a slur. Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- If NSZ is anti-Semitic should be discussed in another place. This page is about the collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Many academic sources explicitly state collaboration - [23][24][25][26][27] - specifically, the Germans were happy to let the NSZ be as it was killing communists and Jews, and the higher echelons of the NSZ coordinated with the Germans to that effect (coordinating movements, attacks, etc.). So - the anti-Jewish and anti-communist stance of the NSZ was a principal factor in its collaboration with the Nazis.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, those sources confirm the main premise that the NSZ fought the Polish communist AL (and some of the members were Jewish partizans), along with other left-wing organizations, even peasants. Here are some of the statements:
- ...NSZ was directing it's guns not at the Germans, but at the members of the Polish communist underground — the People's Guard (AL)."
- ...NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists in the killing of Jews and in battling against our own [Polish] left-wing underground forces... NSZ with hostility for the numerous cases of its repressive actions against the peasantry.
- ...NSZ killed 26 Jewish partizans.
- It [NSZ] was an implacable enemy of the AL, as it had decided that it's main enemy were the Russians and the Polish communists.
So, basically the text skews what NSZ was about, by focusing exclusively on the Jews. While in reality, the NSZ fought against the left-wing/communists (that should be the main focus), and killed both left-wing/communist Poles and Jews. But currently, that section text just links NSZ to the killing of Jews removed from the full context, and that's clearly WP:UNDUE weight. No where does it say they were explicitly anti-Jewish, just anti-Communist and killed everyone that was a communist. You could just as well skew the text and say NSZ was anti-peasant. --E-960 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it does. Zimmerman is very clear on the NSZ being antisemitic and targeting Jews, and the problems it caused for AK leadership when the two partially merged in 1944 (p. 371 onwards), and Williamson seems to make a distinction between the different groups that the NSZ targeted, including Jewish partisans.
- Are you objecting to the inclusion of a "Jewish" part, or to the absence of a "communist" part? I've no objection to adding material on the latter. François Robere (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Nota bene, the Germans also "silently approved" or "tacitly" or whatever, when the Communist AL killed Jews or Home Army members. I mean, OF COURSE the Germans "silently approved" of any kind of infighting among Poles, so what? Hell, the AL and Gestapo collaborated in capturing the Krakow archives of the AK which led to the capture and death of a number of anti-Nazi resistance fighters. That right there is actual collaboration not imagined one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cooper quotes letters exchanged between the Germans and an NSZ commander in the Radom district as an example of explicit collaboration (p. 151). François Robere (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how that relates to anything I wrote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- And also you're incorrect. Those aren't "letters exchanged between the Germans and an NSZ commander in the Radom district". Cooper refers to internal German documents (i.e. Germans writing Germans) and then, weirdly, does a little segue to some statements made by a guy from Hubert Jura's (Tom) unit. Now, actually Hubert Jura was a straight up Gestapo agent who infiltrated NSZ and lots of these incidents of "collaboration" can pretty much be traced to him. He had his own little group at first and only later did he contact NSZ. If I remember correctly several underground organizations had a death warrant for him (including some of the factions within NSZ or its splinter organizations). So yeah, that guy was a straight up collaborator or an agent of the Gestapo. And yeah, he was responsible for murders, including those of Jews (although in the particular case discussed in Cooper that was in fact a unit of the communist Armia Ludowa which had previously murdered some NSZ members, so it was more tit-for-tat stuff). However, to what extent Jura can be associated or said to be representative of the NSZ is debatable. Some units of the NSZ .... "late in the war", in particular the HCM Brigade, made use of his contacts with the Germans to get the hell out of Poland before the Soviets got there. They also turned on him (maybe - depends who you talk to). But this is a different aspect than all of NSZ.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how that relates to anything I wrote
You suggested this was "imaginary" collaboration; well, Cooper gives evidence of very real one.Those aren't "letters exchanged between the Germans and an NSZ commander in the Radom district".
At least two of the letters quoted there are by Jura himself.does a little segue to some statements made by a guy from Hubert Jura's (Tom) unit
Where? From what I see there are only Jura's letters and those by two SS commanders (a letter and an agreement, to be exact).Hubert Jura was a straight up Gestapo agent who infiltrated NSZ
RS?to what extent Jura can be associated or said to be representative of the NSZ is debatable
Cooper gives him as a particularly notable example of a general phenomena, of which he gives other examples as well. François Robere (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)- Oops, you're right, I was reading pg 149. For Jura, see for example [28]. He was a Gestapo agent most likely already in 1942, if not earlier. He was most certainly NOT a "notable example of a general phenomena". Most anti-German fighters were not actually German agents. If you want to include something in the article about Jura as an example of collaboration (straight up treason actually) then that's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- You can argue all you want with Cooper - he puts it as "a notable example of".
- From what I'm seeing, your source uses the word "collaborator" (kolaborant) as well.
- So, what do you suggest we do with everything else about NSZ being anti-Semitic and targeting Jews? François Robere (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oops, you're right, I was reading pg 149. For Jura, see for example [28]. He was a Gestapo agent most likely already in 1942, if not earlier. He was most certainly NOT a "notable example of a general phenomena". Most anti-German fighters were not actually German agents. If you want to include something in the article about Jura as an example of collaboration (straight up treason actually) then that's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Zimmerman does not say they were explicitly anti-Jewish — just that NSZ killed some Jews, but that statement follows the earlier text, which bluntly says that NSZ was anti-communist, and killed Poles, Polish peasants, and Jews (basically any individuals who were left-wing). You're just proof texting, and ignoring all the other statements, which say that NSZ was anti-communist above all else, and everyone they suspected of being communist Pole or Jew got killed. Really, they were so anti-Jewish that they liberated a concentration camp and freed Jews who were held captive there. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
From Zimmerman:
Despite its new affiliation with theHome Army, Szymon Rudnicki has found that the part of the NSZ that swore allegiance to the Home Army and Polish government-in-exile retained entirely its antisemitic platform. That position was demonstrated in December 1943 when the NSZ’s organ printed an editorial under the title “Why Join Our Organization?” The reason, it stated, was to conduct a struggle against both the open (Germans) and hidden (Jews) enemies of the Polish people. Eventually, however, the communists came to be defined as the principal enemy.
...
The incorporation of the NSZ into the Home Army alarmed the Jews as well as the Polish Underground’s center and left factions. The London government also expressed concern about the effect this merger would have on the Home Army’s image.
...
Komorowski dispatched a report to London four days later on the state of the Home Army and its standing in Polish society. Here, Komorowski acknowledged that the NSZ’s incorporation had created a stir in underground circles. In particular, he wrote, leaders of the Peasant Party “are expressing reservations about NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists, in the killing of Jews, and in battles against our leftwing underground forces in some cases.”
...
Meanwhile, the Home Army commander received intelligence that the NSZ units had hunted down and murdered Jews... Referring to the area around Kielce, Gen. Komorowski continued in the following manner: “In the areas of Włoszczowa, Pińczów and Stopnica, low-level commanders of the NSZ collaborated with the Germans in the liquidation of Jews. The NSZ continues to mount attacks on the PPR and on leftwing Poles everywhere.”
So it's very clear that they targeted both left-wing and Jewish underground operatives, as well as Jewish civilians. François Robere (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Winstone, which we discussed in another article, also states that the NSZ, like other right-wing parties, "failed to abandon anti-Semitism"; and that they occasionally targeted Jews. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
E-960, I've been having much the same questions about the National Armed Forces (NSZ) and the Jews. I have to agree with you: the references to the NSZ and Jews should be removed entirely from this article's "Collaboration and resistance" section.
Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know the subject, but allegedly "Aniela Steinsbergowa and Julian Tuwim... z wdzięczności za pomoc podczas okupacji, ratowali życie sądzonym w procesach działaczom NSZ" ("in gratitude for help received during the occupation of Poland, worked to save the lives of NSZ members brought up before Polish courts"). Tuwim lived abroad, so his family helped.
- So it was not only Kemnitz... Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Parry says also that 50% of partisans didn't know the ideology of their organisations. Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Polish right-wing nationalist politician Jan Mosdorf perished at Auschwitz for helping Jews. Aren't you biased, dear editors? Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Three or four months ago in this current Poles-and-Jews marathon, we were presented with a complaint that the Home Army had never accepted Jews into its ranks, despite prominent examples to the contrary such as Marek Edelman, the last commander of the 1943 Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who later fought as part of the Home Army in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. Now we are finding Jews in all sorts of Polish underground armies, including the Home Army, the National Armed Forces, and the communist Armia Ludowa.
Can't we accept that life, in war or peace, is complex; and that, during World War II, not all Poles were crypto-Nazis, not all Germans were serial murderers, and not all Jews were perfect examples of innocent rectitude?
May we look forward to an end, within the present century, to this marathon of mutual recriminations leading nowhere?
Please let's try to accelerate this process of mud-dredging and -slinging and white-washing, so that we may get on with our lives. Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- What you suggest, Nihil novi, requires that everyone are ready to accept the historical evidence. In this very thread we see editors insisting that we drop 4+ good sources with whom they disagree, for no reason other than the fact they disagree. If every time this happens people react aggressively instead of taking the sources in, that will take much longer than anyone wants. François Robere (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Holocaust was designed and implemented in Berlin by higly educated German and Austrian people. Some of the editors of this and similar pages don't contribute to 99% of Holocaust pages. They prefer to re-educate some Polish people - why don't you re-educate German or Austrian people? Are you aware that the majority of Polish criminals you critize were poor and uneducated people, many of them illiterate? Many of them were punished after the war, many German Nazis weren't. Some activists in Poland teach Jewish history including Polish crimes. Errors committed by Gross and Grabowski (200,000) help to continue anti-Semiitic conspiracy theories. Noone is able to claim 200,000 victims without criminal intent, think many.
- Recently Dariusz Libionka [29] has rejected the 200,000 story spread here by a highly motivated editor. Libionka quotes a number of crimes committed by ethnic Poles. He is a co-author of "Dalej jest noc". An example - a blue policeman killed a number of Jews. At the same time he hosted a Jew at his home. The history is simple for teenagers playing "World of Tanks".
- Yad Vashem had informed during many years that Polish police was active in Lodz. When a Polish politician protested, he was attacked as an anti-Semite. Now the Yad Vashem admitted the error. If every time this happens people react aggressively instead of taking the sources in, that will take much longer than anyone wants. - exactly.
- If Jewish survivors criticize Poles, they are reliable. If Polish survivors criticize Jews (I don't mean the Holocaust) they are anti-Semites. A historian who quoted such accounts lost his post.
Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Joshua Zimmerman says Part of the new tendency of historiography is a conscious attempt to stay clear of the old school of condemnation and apologetics. Instead, the new scholarship is committed to dispassionate, scholarly inquiry that stays close to the sources. Are you sure you correecltly understand his book? Or rather you pick cherries to prove that Poles were animals (comparing to whom? - the Danish King wearing a yellow star?). Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- At this point I'm seeing that there are several editors who would support the removal of this passage, any more input from folks on this item? --E-960 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. We have 4+ RS supporting those statements, and I've seen no reason- or policy-based argument presented again their inclusion. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Uhmm, at this point there are about 4 editors who in varying degrees agree that this is WP:UNDUE, and RS has nothing to do with that. --E-960 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- None of which actually says why. If you can't explain why those 4+ RS are "undue", then it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think it was clearly explained that the WP:UNDUE weight comes form the fact that the NSZ was anti-communist, not-anti Jewish. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. We have multiple sources explicitly saying it was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews, and you have your opinion, and that's not enough for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think it was clearly explained that the WP:UNDUE weight comes form the fact that the NSZ was anti-communist, not-anti Jewish. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- None of which actually says why. If you can't explain why those 4+ RS are "undue", then it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Uhmm, at this point there are about 4 editors who in varying degrees agree that this is WP:UNDUE, and RS has nothing to do with that. --E-960 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. We have 4+ RS supporting those statements, and I've seen no reason- or policy-based argument presented again their inclusion. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- At this point I'm seeing that there are several editors who would support the removal of this passage, any more input from folks on this item? --E-960 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Widespread collaboration with the Nazis to hunt Jews and communists... The underlying motivation itself being anti-communist (and antisemitic) matters little for this still being cooeperation with the Nazi regime.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- More than that: The two aren't mutually exclusive - they're complementary, given contemporaneous stereotypes of Jews. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
E-960, GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek: Are any of you still of the position that the sources cited/quoted above do not state that the NSZ was anti-Semitic, and that at least on two occasions (Holy Cross brig. and Radom area) collaborated with the Germans? François Robere (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Like the sources that user Icewhiz, provided and I quoted — they outright say that NSZ was anti-communists, and but they do not say that they were explicitly anti-semitic, also, I'm not the only editor who thinks that fighting with AL (and/or Jewish detachments) is not an issue of collaboration, also I think user VM, pointed out that those who collaborated within the NSZ were actual individual collaborates, but not the entire organization. --E-960 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- "anti-communist" does not preclude "antisemitic". So if a source says they were antisemitic, you need a source explicitly saying they were not. Just not saying anything about it is not a rebuttal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- And what about the sources I provided and quoted, that do state that?
those who collaborated within the NSZ were actual individual collaborates, but not the entire organization.
Yet we have two cases of collaboration that involved a commander and his unit, and a brigade. François Robere (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)- No, NSZ did not aim at "killing Jews." (We are going in circles here people.) GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most WP:RS on the matter disagree. So do orders from NSZ central command, see for instance:
an order from the NSZ central command to district commanders, dated March 25, 1945, recommended certain elements of the population for "swift execution: 1. German and Soviet spies (working for the NKVD); 2. the more capable among those working for the Polish Workers [Communist] Party and PKWN workers who have declared their [party] membership; 3. all Jews and Jewesses; 4. all those who hid Jews during the German occupation...."69 In other words, where only those Poles who had committed certain clearly defined acts were to be attacked, all Jews were to be set upon, no matter what evidence they had given of communist sympathies.
. Engel, David. "Patterns of Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland 1944–1946." Yad Vashem Studies 26.1998 (1998): 43-86..Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most WP:RS on the matter disagree. So do orders from NSZ central command, see for instance:
- No, NSZ did not aim at "killing Jews." (We are going in circles here people.) GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- This page is about Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Poland wasn't German-occupied in March 1945. Please discuss the subject in the NSZ page.Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- The alleged NSZ order is probably unknown to any pro- nor anti-NSZ historian. It was published by Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin. If such order exited some NSZ soldiers would have been executed by the Communists directly quoting it. Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
, August 8, 1945. OK lets make this easy.
Quote for them being antisemitic
Quote one source here saying explicitly they were antisemitic.
The radical right rejected this unification, split from NOW, and formed the NSZ* the vehemently anti-semitic wing of the nationalist movement
. Poles and Jews: Perceptions and Misperceptions, Antony Polonsky, Wladyslaw T. Bartoszewski.Despite its new affilation with the Home Army, Szymon Rudnicki has found that the part of the NSZ that swore allegiance to the Home Army and Polish government-in-exile retained entirely its antisemitic platform
. The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, By Joshua D. Zimmerman, page 371.the nationalist, strongly anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic right-wing NSZ
- The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland, Jeff Schatz.On the far political right stood the NSZ (Narodowe Sily Zbrojne, or National Armed Forces). Fanatically anti-Communist and often rabidly anti-Semitic, the NSZ numbered perhaps 25,000 men.
The History of Poland, By Mieczysław B. Biskupski.
- And not a problem to find quite a few more.Icewhiz (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- One would have been enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Even if SOME of the NSZ members held anti-semetic views, how is that connected with collaboration, that's classic SYNTHESIS. Was the NSZ even remotely like the Ukrainian Galician-SS, or some of the units in the Baltics? No, but that does not stop you form trying to label them as open collaborators. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of the above sources seem to apply the label to the organization as a whole and not just to "some individuals". As such, there is no misinterpretation whatsoever: the sources are plainly saying that "the NSZ was anti-semitic", with 3 of the 4 sources above supporting that statement directly and the fourth qualifying it as "often [but not always?- irrelevant since this is again only 1 out of 4 sources]". Per WP:RS, we are obliged to write that into the article, even if some persons don't like it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- And the red herring that "this is about anti-semitism, not collaboration" is utterly refuted, since of course that paragraph is directly talking of the attitude of the group towards Jews (and it's complicity in the murder of some of them). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of the above sources seem to apply the label to the organization as a whole and not just to "some individuals". As such, there is no misinterpretation whatsoever: the sources are plainly saying that "the NSZ was anti-semitic", with 3 of the 4 sources above supporting that statement directly and the fourth qualifying it as "often [but not always?- irrelevant since this is again only 1 out of 4 sources]". Per WP:RS, we are obliged to write that into the article, even if some persons don't like it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Even if SOME of the NSZ members held anti-semetic views, how is that connected with collaboration, that's classic SYNTHESIS. Was the NSZ even remotely like the Ukrainian Galician-SS, or some of the units in the Baltics? No, but that does not stop you form trying to label them as open collaborators. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- One would have been enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree this is not a red herring, there are sources that say that NSZ was anitsemitic but there are sources saying that this was NOT a uniformed view or policy, they are in the article and listed above. Also, which one of those sources says that NSZ outright collaborated with Germans to attack Jewish partizans specifically? There are references that they fought with communist partizans and some were Jews, and that's undue weight, pls review previous comments how NSZ attacked other Polish leftwing groups, peasents, etc. This had very little with collaboration, but political fighting. Also, pls see user VolunteerMarek's comments on this, he did a lot to explain what this alleged 'collaboration' really was. E-960 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Now that we've established that they were antisemitic (per rather strong sourcing), we can also establish, the more relevant issue to this article, that they (part of the time) collaborated with the Germans -
the Nazi collaborators who killed escaping Jewish rebels and Holocaust survivors came from the Polish "blue police" and the NSZ.
Philo-Semitic and Anti-Jewish Attitudes in Post-Holocaust Poland, Edwin Mellen Press, Marion Mushkat.Jura also got German passes and petrol in order to facilitate the mechanised movement of NSZ forces around the Kielce region. The local Gestapo chief, Paul Fuchs, was a keen advocate of cooperation with NSZ...
. The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-45, Alexander Perry Biddiscombe.the 850-strong Brigade began, with German approval and under German protection, the trek westward through Silesia to Czechoslovakia. ... The collaboration of the NSZ with the Germans is confirmed by documents kept in German archives.
In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond, L. Cooper, Palgrave macmillan.- The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, page 372, Joshua D. Zimmerman
A document sent to London by the Polish military underground (AK) in June 1944, stated that, "the lower-ranking commanders of NSZ are collaborating with the Germans in liquidating Jews" (p. 490) and leftists
. Unequal victims: Poles and Jews during World War Two, Israel Gutman, Shmuel Krakowski.
Certainly the NSZ did not always collaborate - but at various times and places it did.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shmuel Krakowski was a Communist political officer, who participated in political terror against Polish nationalists. It doesn't make him a neutral academician.
- That an AK officer wrote something in 1944 it doesn't mean we accept it literally in 2018.
- Yes, we know, the terrible brigade which liberated Jewish women from a Nazi camp. Do you mean it was better to be arrested by the Communists in Poland than to liberate the Jews being collaborators? Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Communist political officers aren't respected. An example of Krakowski's academy - [30] Gęsiówka inmates liberated themselves. Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Still unclear, only two of those sources make a very short passing reference to Jews, in other words they are rather vague on the circumstances (I mean, what the heck was a 'rebel' Jew?). Also, on several of those sources user VolunteerMarek explained that it was not NSZ collaborating but specific individuals inside. Finally, this is a case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS since NSZ attacked leftwing organizations (even peasents), somehow I don't see them being presented as anti-peasent, but in this case Jews are singled out and set apart, omiting their political affiliation, this is a classic example of systemic bias.E-960 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Certainly some editors (and non-editors) have their opinions on this Polish faction. However, WP:RSes are rather clear regarding both their general attitude to Jews and in relation to collaboration, at times, with the Germans (at various times and places).Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Quotes like this are not as clear as editors here want them to be — I think the issue here is one of matching the tone of the article to the sources and most of the sources I have seen have chosen their words like like Mordecai Paldiel here, and I don't think FR's current proposal adequately summarizes the key points discussed in these sources:
- Certainly some editors (and non-editors) have their opinions on this Polish faction. However, WP:RSes are rather clear regarding both their general attitude to Jews and in relation to collaboration, at times, with the Germans (at various times and places).Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Still unclear, only two of those sources make a very short passing reference to Jews, in other words they are rather vague on the circumstances (I mean, what the heck was a 'rebel' Jew?). Also, on several of those sources user VolunteerMarek explained that it was not NSZ collaborating but specific individuals inside. Finally, this is a case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS since NSZ attacked leftwing organizations (even peasents), somehow I don't see them being presented as anti-peasent, but in this case Jews are singled out and set apart, omiting their political affiliation, this is a classic example of systemic bias.E-960 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There were also various Polish partisan groups (such as the NSZ) who viewed the Jews in the forests as pro-Soviet elements, and therefore they were open to attacks and elimination.[1]
This latter group criticized what it regarded as the excessively conciliatory stance of the Home Army toward the Soviet Union and the Red Army, proclaiming openly the doctrine of “two enemies”—Nazi Germany and the USSR. In the later stages of the war, the NSZ command took the view that the Nazis were less of a danger than the Soviets and supported a strategy of not confronting the Germans and withdrawing their forces westward...[2]
Thus even the ethnic Poles who were members of the Central Committee of the PPR were sometimes portrayed as puppets in the hands of Jews, with no power over decision making.[3]
Seraphim System (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Quote for them not being antisemitic
Quote one source here saying explicitly they were not antisemitic.
Lets see what we come up with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the controversy is over whether they were "generally anti-semitic". At least not as far as I'm concerned. The leadership most certainly was. Out in the field there was some variance (people who wanted to fight Germans often joined whatever group was operating in their area, ideological considerations were secondary). The dispute here is over something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- A source to back that claim would be equally valid.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's a different issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, two different issues. But, to ansewer the question, pls see Poland's Holocaust by Tadeusz Piotrowski cited in the section already, it says that NSZ did not have an uniformed policy and that they even managed to rescue Jews. E-960 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- It does not say explicitly they were not antisemitic, and it refers to one incident. So I ask again. Is there a source that actually says (rather the an ed interpreting it as saying) they were not antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source does say explicitly that there was no uniform policy, specifically mentioning "more radical members" who were motivated by racism. The source dated to 1998 says it is too soon for a final judgment on whether NSZ was an anti-semitic organization, referencing some primary source material which had only become recently available. This 2004 book discusses apologism [31] - Chodakiewicz disputes it, though he likely needs attribution as a source. I haven't been following this debate very carefully, but this should be summarized rather than censored - the appearance of censorship is really more damaging to intellectual legitimacy or credibility than just about anything else. Objectively speaking, there is obviously a dispute here.Seraphim System (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Page 95 say that there was a strong antisemitic element within its ranks. And it does not really say out right there was no antisemitic policy just that it is "it is still not clear that, apart from its extreme factions, the NZW sought to eliminate Jews" (page 96). It in fact just says there was no uniform (note uniform not official) policy. Thus I am nor sure it does dispute that they were overall antisemitic, just not universally so (much like the NAZI party in fact).Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source does say explicitly that there was no uniform policy, specifically mentioning "more radical members" who were motivated by racism. The source dated to 1998 says it is too soon for a final judgment on whether NSZ was an anti-semitic organization, referencing some primary source material which had only become recently available. This 2004 book discusses apologism [31] - Chodakiewicz disputes it, though he likely needs attribution as a source. I haven't been following this debate very carefully, but this should be summarized rather than censored - the appearance of censorship is really more damaging to intellectual legitimacy or credibility than just about anything else. Objectively speaking, there is obviously a dispute here.Seraphim System (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- It does not say explicitly they were not antisemitic, and it refers to one incident. So I ask again. Is there a source that actually says (rather the an ed interpreting it as saying) they were not antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, two different issues. But, to ansewer the question, pls see Poland's Holocaust by Tadeusz Piotrowski cited in the section already, it says that NSZ did not have an uniformed policy and that they even managed to rescue Jews. E-960 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's a different issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
So not one source denying the claim. I think either the debate should stop now and the article includes the claim they were antisemitic, or DS sanctions should kick in.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven As per Krystyna Kersten - killing Jews as Jews was not in NSZ program.[32]. However, Jewish communist partisans were killed by NSZ, so Polish communists from Gwardia Ludowa for example.[33] So if NSZ killed both Jewish and Polish communist partisans can we say that NSZ was anti-Semitic and anti-Polish?GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did ask for a quote, not all of us can read Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is part of the problem Slatersteven. Don't get me wrong, but I observed slightly limited knowledge of the subject among not Polish speaking editors, mostly because they rely on English language sources that are very few. The majority of sources, however, are in the Polish language, which is expected since the subject matter is about Polish history and mostly Polish historians are committed to this work. I'll translate more as we go along but to summarise it. The NSZ was not "killing Jews" because they were Jewish. They attacked Jewish partisans and killed Jews presumed of being communist collaborators. They did the same to the Polish communists. It did not matter much to them if you were Jewish, Polish, Russian, etc. but if you were supporting communism and its structures. NSZ was anti-communist. [34] GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did ask for a quote, not all of us can read Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The following?
The Polish right-wing National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), widely perceived as anti-Semitic, did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews.[4]: 96-97 It did not admit Jews[5]: 149 except in rare cases,[4]: 96 and from time to time killed or kidnapped Jewish partisans of other organization.[5]: 149 The NSZ operated with the approval and occasional cooperation of the Germans.[5]: 149 The "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944.[6][7][8] It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp.[9] Some historians, such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, dispute the claim the NSZ was anti-Semitic.{{ref}}
François Robere (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with the first two sentences. The rest, no. And in fact that is what the dispute is about. In particular, this claim "The NSZ operated with the approval and occasional cooperation of the Germans" as a general statement is nonsense. Yes, they were generally anti-semitic. No, they did not collaborate with the Germans.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- François Robere, again with this POV pushing, the current paragraph in the article is ok, but you are determined to make 'anti-semitism' the main focus, while the current article list NSZ as primarily 'anti-communist' also there is a reference to them capturing Jewish partizans. I don't agree to your suggested change, and there are several other editors who do not agree as well. Your own sources listed above confirm that NSZ was primarily anti-communists (you want to remove that part) and some members were anti-semitic (but that's the second item on the list, however you want to make it the only one). --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Here are some of the quick quotes form above, just to refresh that point:
- "Fanatically anti-Communist."
- "NSZ was directing it's guns not at the Germans, but at the members of the Polish communist underground — the People's Guard (AL)."
- "NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists..."
- "It was an implacable enemy of the AL, as it had decided that it's main enemy were the Russians and the Polish communists."
So user FR want to remove the MAIN point about the NSZ, and just focus on the second point that SOME (not all) members where anti-semitic. --E-960 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Fanatically anti-Communist and often rabidly anti-Semitic". Misses the point. Them being anti-communist does not in any way, shape or form prevent them from being anti-semitic too (actually, as history shows, many groups (including, notably, the Nazis) shared those two hatreds). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Do E-960's comments above count as "casting aspersions", WP:INCIVILITY or misrepresentation of sources? As you can see from the discussion above, we've thoroughly discussed both the current version and my change, as well as what the various sources say. The last comments before the users's WP:IDONTLIKEIT were summaries by Slatersteven and Seraphim System. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I support FR's version in general, however we should either omit Chodakiewicz or state clearly "historian and far-right activist Chodakiewicz". In some of his writings such attribution might not be needed, but in this particular case he is modern day National Movement (Poland) activist and the modern politics are not disconnected from the ww2 politics.[35]Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, Icewhiz, we're not going to violate BLP just to placate your POV. And you really have some nerve attacking Chodakiewicz AGAIN, after you dishonestly tried to smear him on his own article by misrepresenting sources and using non-reliable anti-semitic far right sources yourself. Back off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calling Chodakiewicz a far-right activist - is backed up sources - Newsweek above (and others are available, he's been covered by the SPLC a couple of times - and they are experts in this field), and is not a BLP violation. I do find it peculiar this repeated attempt to inject such decidedly UNDUE fringey views by Chodakiewicz into articles - but if we are to insert his views on past national movement, we should mention relevant context - his activity in the modern day national movement. And no - this is not attack - this is a clearly sourced WP:SPADE situation, and Chodakiewicz himself is quite public about it (speaking in political rallies, political writings) - and using Chodakiewicz's own writings in far right outlets in his article is a different situation - ABOUTSELF. If Chodakiewicz is the only source disagreeing - it is probably UNDUE to even mention this, as much of his work is heavily criticized and not very cited by others - but if we do mention, his modern day political position of
"We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!”
is required for NPOV, as otherwise we are presenting this as mainstream opposition.[36] Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)- "using Chodakiewicz's own writings in far right outlets in his article is a different situation - ABOUTSELF". Please. Stop. Lying. That's not what you did. YOU used an anti-semitic far-right publication that was ABOUT Chodakiewicz, not his "own writing". This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, you even acknowledged that you understood this distinction over at WP:AE, hence you are perfectly aware that what you are saying is false, yet you persist in repeatedly making this false statement. That indeed is a BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I acknowledged misciting 1 of 4 citations at the end of paragraph, the other 3 being copies of Chodakiewicz's own article (the 4th was mostly a quotefarm of the original, with some commentary which ahould not have been cited). As for use in this article in regards to the NSZ and Chodakiewicz - Chodakiewicz's far right political activity is well sourced and relevant.[37].Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're pushing it on those civility requirements, Marek. Tone it down. François Robere (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- "using Chodakiewicz's own writings in far right outlets in his article is a different situation - ABOUTSELF". Please. Stop. Lying. That's not what you did. YOU used an anti-semitic far-right publication that was ABOUT Chodakiewicz, not his "own writing". This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, you even acknowledged that you understood this distinction over at WP:AE, hence you are perfectly aware that what you are saying is false, yet you persist in repeatedly making this false statement. That indeed is a BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calling Chodakiewicz a far-right activist - is backed up sources - Newsweek above (and others are available, he's been covered by the SPLC a couple of times - and they are experts in this field), and is not a BLP violation. I do find it peculiar this repeated attempt to inject such decidedly UNDUE fringey views by Chodakiewicz into articles - but if we are to insert his views on past national movement, we should mention relevant context - his activity in the modern day national movement. And no - this is not attack - this is a clearly sourced WP:SPADE situation, and Chodakiewicz himself is quite public about it (speaking in political rallies, political writings) - and using Chodakiewicz's own writings in far right outlets in his article is a different situation - ABOUTSELF. If Chodakiewicz is the only source disagreeing - it is probably UNDUE to even mention this, as much of his work is heavily criticized and not very cited by others - but if we do mention, his modern day political position of
- No, Icewhiz, we're not going to violate BLP just to placate your POV. And you really have some nerve attacking Chodakiewicz AGAIN, after you dishonestly tried to smear him on his own article by misrepresenting sources and using non-reliable anti-semitic far right sources yourself. Back off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- 198.84.253.202, pls notice how FR's version does not have "anti-Communist" in it. Also, below is the current text in the article, notice what's missing form FR's version, he does not just want to add a passage about anti-semitism, he wants to remove a lot of other information. That's why the old issue with FR and POV PUSHING keep coming up.
- Current text in article:
- The anti-communist National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ) from time to time attacked or took prisoner Jewish partisans who were part of the communist People’s Army (Armia Ludowa, or AL), a Polish partisan militia that included Jewish detachments. A single NSZ unit, the "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade", numbering 800-1,500 fighters, ceased operations against the Germans for a few months in 1944, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German consent, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp,[51] liberating several hundred Jewish women. The NSZ did not have a uniform view about Jews, and though generally considered antisemitic and involved in killing and handing over Jews, it also incorporated Jewish fighters, including ones in higher command positions. Some NSZ members and units rescued Jews and postwar received Righteous Among the Nations awards
- Text book example of POV PUSHING remove bunch of other facts about a topic, make the paragraph all about anti-semitism and nothing else. --E-960 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're making a whole fuss for just two words (which are already implied, anyway, by "right-wing" - the far-right (in Germany, Italy, etc..) is most often associated with anti-communism). The two words can be added if you really think they're relevant (though again, this could be off topic), but that doesn't discredit the whole statement. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also, pls notice how other editors in this prolonged discussion did not agree with François Robere's proposition, such as Volunteer Marek, Xx236 and GizzyCatBella, so I'm not sure how François Robere can claim consensus. --E-960 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand - what are you objecting to now? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also, pls notice how other editors in this prolonged discussion did not agree with François Robere's proposition, such as Volunteer Marek, Xx236 and GizzyCatBella, so I'm not sure how François Robere can claim consensus. --E-960 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're making a whole fuss for just two words (which are already implied, anyway, by "right-wing" - the far-right (in Germany, Italy, etc..) is most often associated with anti-communism). The two words can be added if you really think they're relevant (though again, this could be off topic), but that doesn't discredit the whole statement. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Stating clearly that NSZ was "anti-communist" is only historically factual and accurate, so why do you keep objecting to it so much? The sources call NSZ exactly that, anti-communist, removing the term "anti-communist" is coming across as trying to sanitize the article. Btw, pls refer to the last AE, the admins clearly stated that there needs to be consens at the moment there are several editors who object, not just me. --E-960 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting to it - hell, I even said "The two words can be added if you really think they're relevant". Stop thinking of this as a battle, it isn't. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- The term "anti-communist" is already there in the current paragraph, we really don't need to add it again. Also, pls notice how user François Robere's version takes out the reference to NSZ liberating Jews from a concentration camp in Slovakia, and that's another problem with François Robere's text. --E-960 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might I ask then what " Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp.[6]" implies? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Also, I was clearly referring to the version by FR when talking of "adding 2 words". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- The term "anti-communist" is already there in the current paragraph, we really don't need to add it again. Also, pls notice how user François Robere's version takes out the reference to NSZ liberating Jews from a concentration camp in Slovakia, and that's another problem with François Robere's text. --E-960 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@E-960: Regarding "anti-Communist": Are you objecting to the inclusion of a "Jewish" part, or to the absence of a "communist" part? I've no objection to adding material on the latter.
Regarding "consensus": None of [the opposing editors] actually says why [this is undue]. If you can't explain why those 4+ RS are "undue", then it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
François Robere (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System, Volunteer Marek, and Icewhiz: The following?
The Polish right-wing National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), widely perceived as anti-Semitic, did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews.[4]: 96-97 Its approach towards Jews drew on both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism, perceiving Jewish partisans and refugees as both "pro-Soviet elements"{{ref}} and members of an ethnicity foreign to the Polish nation. The NSZ did not admit Jews[5]: 149 except in rare cases,[4]: 96 and on several occasions killed or kidnapped Jewish partisans of other organization,[5]: 149 as well as murdered Jewish refugees.{{ref}} However, some - such as historian and right-wing activist Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - dispute the claim the NSZ was anti-Semitic.{{ref}} At least two units of the NSZ operated with the approval or cooperation of the Germans:[5]: 149 The "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944.[6][10][11] It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp.[9] Another unit known for collaboration Hubert Jura's unit, also known as Tom's Organization, that operated in the Radom district.
François Robere (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- After reading the revised text I'm still very concerned that it contains WP:UNDUE weight and POV WP:PUSH. Please notice that François Robere still wants to change the focus of the text from the NSZ being 'anti-communist' to 'anti-semitic', all the sources say that first and foremost the NSZ was anti-communist (attacking other Polish left-wing organizations and partizans, and this is where we have some evidence of limited collaboration). However, the sources vary whether NSZ held uniformed anti-semitic views and even to what real extent). What's most troubling is that in this new text François Robere diminishes the 'anti-communist' policy of the NSZ and simply characterizes it as an excuse to attack Jews, as stated here: "Its approach towards Jews drew on both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism." Again, NSZ attacked Polish communist organizations, Polish peasants who supported communist partizans, and Armial Ludowa (Polish communist partizans) - some Polish Jews who shared those political view were part of these groups. To disprove the claims that NSZ went after Jews just because they were Jews only, we have examples of NSZ having Jewish members who also held anti-communist views and NSZ liberating Jews from a German concentration camp in Slovakia. --E-960 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Here is the 1943 National Armed Forces Manifesto [38] – (translated into English )
- NSZ is the ideological and military formation of the Polish nation.
- NSZ includes in their ranks all Poles, regardless of the political divisions, determined to fight with all the enemies of Polish state and Nation in its due enlarged borders, based on the principles of justice and Christian ethics.
- NSZ, the armed wing of the Polish nation, with the will of its vast majority, put its primary goal, the conquering of the western borders on the Oder and Neisse, as our old frontiers, only and permanently securing the existence and development of Poland. For this purpose, NSZ will seek directly and immediately after the break of Germany and after exile occupiers from the country. Our eastern borders, established by the Riga Treaty, cannot be negotiated.
- NSZ, while guarding the security and order of the reborn of the state, will vigorously oppose attempts to grasp power by the communists and against any elements of anarchy or center of political terror, not allowing to legislate by the Polish nation about its regime or form of governance.
- NSZ as an ideological and military formation is a bundle of the future state Army. Training and educating officers and serials in the spirit of Polish military ideology,
- NSZ prepares its staff, whose task will be to create a modern national Army.At present, NSZ, apart from organizational and training work, conducts a conspiratorial fight with the invader and liquidates the communist sabotage. If the German action would threaten us with the mass destruction, we will direct the collective resistance. The proper time for a nationwide uprising will depend on the collapse of Germany's military might and must be accepted by our allies.
- NSZ strive to merge the military action in the country under orders of the commander of the Armed Forces in the country. The particular objectives included in the NSZ Declaration and the conspiracy considerations justify the preservation of the separate NSZ branches within the Armed Forces in the Country.
I can’t see anything about the Jews (or Żyd in Polish) in the above. However, the manifesto talks about Christian ethics. Does reference to Christianity makes the NSZ anti-Semitic? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I find it also intriguing that the head physician of supposedly anti-Semitic NSZ was a Jew, Ludger Zarychta. [39]. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Both of these comments are red herrings. The text already says they "had no uniform policy" on the matter, so why quote their manifesto? And what's so "intriguing" about an anti-Semite having a Jewish doctor? Also, this. François Robere (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, why Jewish physician chose to be a head doctor of the antisemitic organization? Simple intriguing question not “red herrings”. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again can you please stop linking to incomplete google book results and provide quotes? it is impossible to tell form what you are posting context translations are very hard.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven Translation - "The head doctor of the NSZ Holy Cross Mountains Brigade was Jewish dr. Ludger Zakhrych, codename Dr. Żar. Hence the humorous saying in the brigade: "If you want to become a fighter of the Mountains Brigade, you must first go through the hands of a Jew." [40] GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- So not it does not say they were not antisemitic, it says they had a Jewish officer serving in a very specialist capacity (and the joke has some implications about how unwelcome it was, it does not even call him a doctor, but just a Jew). As I point out below it is not unusual for bigots to put their bigotry aside when self interest rear its head. And posting snippet views does not give us context, and this has been an issue here before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bigots you say..., was Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga a bigot? GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Was he in charge of the organisation? Again just because a few Jews served does not mean that overall (or even officially) they were not antisemitic (he was also the top ranking Jewish officer, and only commanded the forces in one small town, not exactly a member of the high command). What you need (do I really have to ask this again?) are sources that explicitly say (not what you infer they are saying) that antisemitism was not an officially (or even wide spread) policy. Not " a not universally enforced policy) if that is the definition we are using then Oscar Schindler can be used to prove the Nazis were not Antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bigots you say..., was Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga a bigot? GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- So not it does not say they were not antisemitic, it says they had a Jewish officer serving in a very specialist capacity (and the joke has some implications about how unwelcome it was, it does not even call him a doctor, but just a Jew). As I point out below it is not unusual for bigots to put their bigotry aside when self interest rear its head. And posting snippet views does not give us context, and this has been an issue here before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven Translation - "The head doctor of the NSZ Holy Cross Mountains Brigade was Jewish dr. Ludger Zakhrych, codename Dr. Żar. Hence the humorous saying in the brigade: "If you want to become a fighter of the Mountains Brigade, you must first go through the hands of a Jew." [40] GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- And they would not be alone [[41]]. It is not all that uncommon for self interest to take over from prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again can you please stop linking to incomplete google book results and provide quotes? it is impossible to tell form what you are posting context translations are very hard.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, why Jewish physician chose to be a head doctor of the antisemitic organization? Simple intriguing question not “red herrings”. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Paldiel, Mordecai (2017-02). Saving One's Own: Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8276-1295-2.
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Polonsky, Antony; Michlic, Joanna B. (2009-04-11). The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-2581-3.
- ^ Michlic, Joanna B. (2006-12-01). Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-5637-8.
- ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
Piotrowski 1998
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference
Cooper 2000
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Instytut Pamięci Narodowej--Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu. Biuro Edukacji Publicznej (2007). Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej. Instytut. p. 73.
- ^ Wozniak, Albion (2003). The Polish Studies Newsletter. Albin Wozniak.
- ^ Żebrowski, Leszek (1994). Brygada Świętokrzyska NSZ (in Polish). Gazeta Handlowa.
- ^ a b Korbonski, Stefan (1981). The polish underground state: a guide to the underground 1939 - 1945. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-88254-517-2.
- ^ Wozniak, Albion (2003). The Polish Studies Newsletter. Albin Wozniak.
- ^ Żebrowski, Leszek (1994). Brygada Świętokrzyska NSZ (in Polish). Gazeta Handlowa.
Collaboration by Armia Ludowa (People's Army)
One glaring omission from this article is the collaboration by the communist Armia Ludowa. Generally and specifically. In particular the joint AL-Gestapo action in Krakow in February of 1944 in which they captured the archives of the Krakow Home Army (pg. 27). Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please see above Communist collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but Communist collaboration seems not be discussing AL-Gestapo action in Krakow. Should I make an effort on adding this info into the article Xx236? What other editors think? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have mentioned a number of examples I know, I don't know about Krakow. Is the information available somewhere here, eg. in Armia Ludowa? If not, please start there, which isn't controversial.Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes but Communist collaboration seems not be discussing AL-Gestapo action in Krakow. Should I make an effort on adding this info into the article Xx236? What other editors think? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Please throw every bit of verifiable skulduggery by every party into this collective compost heap so that we may once and for all establish the vileness of the human species. This will prepare us well for taking up, in turn, the crimes against humanity of our own time. Nihil novi (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would support a short statement on the AL. --E-960 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was Communist Armia Ludowa tactical cooperation? Similar to NZS? GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Misrepresented sources, again
François Robere, I'm a not sure why you decided to change the text related to the Martin Winstone reference, from "suggesting those who hid Jews were also in danger from Polish szmalcowniks" back to "suggesting those who hid Jews were also in danger from their fellow Poles". Not only is "fellow Poles" a broad term which crudely implicates all Poles, but in your Edit Summary you wrote that "This is post-war ("at liberation"), so "szmalcowniks" were no longer an issue." How do you even justify that Winstone was talking about post-war, when in his statement he specifically talks about Germans, and Frank’s shooting order of October 1941? I ask other editors to review this text, because this again appears as a blatant misrepresentation of what the reference source actually says. --E-960 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sadly it seems like a misrepresentation of sources, possibly FR made a mistake. It has been fixed now, that’s good.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- @E-960, Volunteer Marek, and GizzyCatBella: You're really pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND here [42].
- What does the phrase "at liberation" means, and what does it imply for the statement that follows?
- Who does Winstone suggest was a danger in "the Germans were not the only danger"?
"It may well be that the risk of hiding a Jew was greater, but that is in itself suggestive since the Germans were not the only danger. Rather too many survivors’ accounts echoed the experience of Leon Weliczker at liberation: his rescuer Kalwinski ‘asked us not to come back to visit him or for any other reason; it would be hard for him if it were known that he had hidden Jews’."
- François Robere (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think you are mixing two different statements related to two different ideas. You took the end of one thought relating to the German occupation, Frank’s shooting order of October 1941, etc. and combined it with a reference to the a post-war experience — pls note that the 'rescuer Kalwinski' says "it would be hard for him" but, he does not that he would be in "danger". So, the latter passage clearly relates to a different experience, at a different time, other than during the actual occupation (btw, pls keep in mind that this article is about collaboration during the German occupation, not post-war). --E-960 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- @E-960: In this case the text is stating that "...it would be hard for him..." means "danger." The paragraph begins by describing the risk of hiding jews and continues, "Germans were not the only danger... Kalwinski ‘asked us not to come back to visit him or for any other reason; it would be hard for him if it were known that he had hidden Jews’."
- It's in the same paragraph. I didn't mix anything up. And that paragraph is about the war. Now answer the questions! François Robere (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hm, now you just said that it "is about the war", but in your Edit Summary you wrote "this is post-war". Clearly, the second part of that passage is not related to collaboration, since the Germans would have been gone. So, if the source is a unclear or ambiguous in its wording, why persist on keeping the questionable text. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Because you messed it up with a reference to "szmalcownik", which is a wartime term and not part of the actual quote. Also, Winstone didn't talk about szmalcowniks specifically.
Clearly, the second part of that passage is not related to collaboration
Clearly, you shouldn't make accusations before reading the text. What is that part about? François Robere (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)- In that case, the entire passage after the long pause should be removed, if it's not related to szmalcowniks and talks about post-war experience. --E-960 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- How you manage to break that one paragraph into so many little parts so as to claim it's devoid of meaning is beyond me. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, the entire passage after the long pause should be removed, if it's not related to szmalcowniks and talks about post-war experience. --E-960 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hm, now you just said that it "is about the war", but in your Edit Summary you wrote "this is post-war". Clearly, the second part of that passage is not related to collaboration, since the Germans would have been gone. So, if the source is a unclear or ambiguous in its wording, why persist on keeping the questionable text. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's in the same paragraph. I didn't mix anything up. And that paragraph is about the war. Now answer the questions! François Robere (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this has been hopefully solved now[44]GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Who were the collaborators according to Poles?
Who were punished as collboarators during and after the war? Writers and actors, editors and producers. If you find such POV Polish, it still deserves to be mentioned. Double agents were regarded to be collaborators ( pl:Muszkieterzy (organizacja), pl:Wanda Kronenberg).Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- The underground state didn't allow certain activities. There are plenty of texts about the underground state. I haven't written the poor quality page so I'm not oblidged to correct it. I'm informing you about the bias. If one writes about collaboration in China. he/she should quote Chinese sources and Chinese opinions. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Korbonski, Stefan (1981). The polish underground state: a guide to the underground 1939 - 1945 is quoted as a source about a liberation of a concentration camps in Cechoslovakia. What about the other hundered pages?Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC) BTW - the title of the book is incorrect, Polish.
- Directorate of Civil Resistance - an unsourced stub. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anita J. Prazmowska Civil War in Poland 1942–1948 Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't read the text by Paul, but he quotes many sources. [45] Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- https://fbc.pionier.net.pl/details/nnlv2sp Collaborating journalists were punished after the war.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc-r2009-t8-n1_(14)/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc-r2009-t8-n1_(14)-s103-132/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc-r2009-t8-n1_(14)-s103-132.pdf Młynarcyk is quoted once regarding 1944, what about the former years?Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/historia/1519780,1,aktorzy---kolaboranci-ii-wojny-swiatowej.read Actors Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Szarota, Okupowanej Warszawy dzień powszedni, Czytelnik, Warszawa 1973, 1978, 1988, 2010, ISBN 83-07-01224-4; in German: Warschau unter dem Hakenkreuz. Leben und Alltag im besetzten Warschau 1.10.1939 bis 31.7.1944, Schöningh Verlag 1985, ISBN 3-506-77472-7 Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I believe that foreighners ignore the role of Polish culture during the war. Both Germans banned the Polish culture, including Chopin, and the government of Poland supported some artists and didn't allow cultural collaboration. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
There's more than one kind of "denouncer"
A recurring theme in the discussions on this talk page was the identity of the people who denounced Jews to the Germans. Some editors claimed this was a marginal phenomenon, limited to what's known as "szmalcowniks", or "blackmailers". However, it's well-known that this wasn't the case - denouncers were "ordinary people" coming from all walks of life. Many sources address this, and I hope this handful will resolve this discussion once and for all:
Take any Polish book on the subject, preferably one with a happy ending, written by or about Jewish survivors who lived through the war assisted by the Poles. One realizes immediately from such a reading that the hiding Jews, as well as the Poles who were helping them, were vulnerable to denunciation. German functionaries, Gestapo agents, or extortionists who blackmailed Jews (the so-called szmalcownik), as the literature on the subject tells us, were few and far between in occupied Poland,and therefore the likelihood of a chance encounter with any of them was negligible for a hiding Jew. Why was it so difficult and dangerous,then, to hide a Jew? Reading Bartoszewski and Lewin’s volume, Righteous among Nations—compiled to show the record of assistance extended to Jews—makes one realize that the precariousness of a Jew’s existence among the Poles was due to a generalized, diffuse hostility toward the Jews. Historical record shows, I think, beyond reasonable doubt that a constant danger for a Jew hiding on the Aryan side, and for the Pole helping him to do so, came from a casual passerby, a house superintendent, a neighbor, a child playing in the courtyard who might, and frequently did, reveal a Jew’s presence outside the ghetto...
It must be clearly said that Poles did denounce Jews to the Germans during the occupation... Since they did denounce the Jews, we need to examine the practice of denouncing—who was denounced and how?
— Engelking, Barbara (2012). "Murdering and Denouncing Jews in the Polish Countryside, 1942–1945". The Holocaust in occupied Poland: New Findings and New Interpretations. Bern; New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang. pp. 61–67. ISBN 978-3-653-01247-7.{{cite book}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help)
- Engelking gives examples of denouncments:
- ...of Jewish children by the Poles who hid them for money
- ...by landlords who had Jews hiding on their grounds
- ...by acquaintances, neighbours and friends
- ...by passers-by - peasants, villagers, people roaming the forest
- ...of Jewish children by Polish children
- Engelking gives examples of denouncments:
- She mentions greed was an important motive for denouncement - both for a reward from the Germans, as well as "[The] desire for the Jewish property... [which] was often based only on the belief that Jews were wealthy."
- Both Skibińska (Skibińska, Alina (2012). "Perpetrators' Self-Portrait". The Holocaust in occupied Poland: New Findings and New Interpretations. Bern; New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-653-01247-7.
{{cite book}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help)) and Snyder (Snyder, Timothy (2015). "12". Black earth: the Holocaust as history and warning (First edition ed.). New York: Tim Duggan Books. ISBN 978-1-101-90345-2.{{cite book}}
:|edition=
has extra text (help)) give a myriad of examples of denunciation, the latter characterizing it as a common phenomenon in the Polish countryside both between Poles and Jews, and Poles and Poles. Skibińska concentrates on the motives and rationals of denouncers, as given in post-war trials; Snyder gives a complex account of behaviors and motives, including both help and denouncement, both in Poland and abroad, reaching some harsh, but enlightening conclusions that I recommend all editors read.
- Both Skibińska (Skibińska, Alina (2012). "Perpetrators' Self-Portrait". The Holocaust in occupied Poland: New Findings and New Interpretations. Bern; New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-653-01247-7.
François Robere (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Denouncers existed in many countries Sonderabteilung Lola. If an editor writes only about denouncers in Poland, is it possible that he is biased? Snyder writes about abroad but the editor doesn't inform us which abroad.
- There is no general study of the subject in Poland. Why don't you inform which groups are described by Skibińska and Engelking? The terror system in both occupations exterminated good people, cruel ones survived.
- The study by both authors has been financed by Polish taxpayers, including me. It seems that some other countries are greedy to study their vices. Who finances study of Jewish denouncers? Hannah Arendt isn't popular in Israel.
- Poland existed about 20 years. Many Poles were born and educated in Germany, Austria or Russia, sometimes in two of the three countries. Many good citizens inform the authorities.
- Poland is known to have low Social capital. Some reasons were occupations and terror, poverty, slavery. Slavery was imposed by local nobility, but occuptions and terrors were imposed by mentioned three nations. Does your bias help to craete the capital in Poland and meke ethnic Poles pro-Jewish? You are fighting a war against Polish people. You may win the war, but your victory may create more problems than cooperation.
- Home Army fought mail denounces [46].
Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome to fill the blanks in all the other article, if you're so inclined. In the meanwhile, remember WP:ASPERSIONS. François Robere (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can you specify what issue you're actually addressing? As in, what part of the article? Because right now it seems like you just wanted to post some negative text about Poles in general. Yeah, of course there were denouncers. I'm puzzled why you think it note worthy that it's possible to provide examples. Anyway, what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
A recurring theme in the discussions on this talk page was the identity of the people who denounced Jews to the Germans... Many sources address this, and I hope this handful will resolve this discussion once and for all.
- I may integrate some of this into the article later, but at the moment it's just to clarify the misconception, which was repeated on these talk pages, that denunciations were only (or mostly) due to blackmailers. The fact that they weren't is one of the reasons to eg. Grabowski's number, which was widely contested here. François Robere (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, still not clear on what this has to do with the article or, well, anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Can you specify what issue you're actually addressing? As in, what part of the article? Because right now it seems like you just wanted to post some negative text about Poles in general. Yeah, of course there were denouncers. I'm puzzled why you think it note worthy that it's possible to provide examples. Anyway, what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome to fill the blanks in all the other article, if you're so inclined. In the meanwhile, remember WP:ASPERSIONS. François Robere (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Colors
What are the rules of using grren or blue texts? Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Green text is usually generated by the
tq template
. Blue text is, obviously, wikilinks. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
DS
I think it may now be time to remind people this page is under DS sanctions that are rather severe.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)