Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 12) (bot |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 592: | Line 592: | ||
*'''Support''': this structure makes sense to me. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Support''': this structure makes sense to me. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
::'''NO — THIS IS FORUM SHOP''', this discussion is nothing more than an attempt my François Robere to forum shop. Similar section order changes were already suggested a few weeks back and rejected here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_12] (see other disscussion still up on the talk page), where user François Robere tries to push a incorrect POV suggesting that the Polish State collaborated, and make that the opening section. So, user FR makes subtle changes to push the article in that direction, here are some past examples: he changed the section "Political collaboration" into "State collaboration" (placed it first in the order), and removed text to fit that narrative, such as changing ''"a group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians"'' to ''"a group of eight politicians"'', or re-naming the "Security forces" section which contained a sub-section on the Wehrmacht to "National Service". Other users such as [[User:MyMoloboaccount]], [[User:Xx236]] and [[User:Piotrus]] have in the past objected to this narrative. --[[User:E-960|E-960]] ([[User talk:E-960|talk]]) 07:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Reversal == |
== Reversal == |
||
Line 597: | Line 598: | ||
{{ping|E-960}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&oldid=prev&diff=860576675&diffmode=source say] "functionary is more accurate" - is it? A functionary is "one who serves in a certain function" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/functionary] or "a person who has to perform official functions or duties; an official" [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/functionary] - both of these say almost nothing. "Guard" is clearly more ''precise'', as it adds information on the ''function'' those people perform. As for accuracy - the description of the image says nothing about functionaries, guards or anything else, so you've no source to say one definition is more accurate than the other. We're left with two options: Either drop the file, as its relevance here may be nothing but RS; or prefer the more precise, and hence ''concise'' description, which is "guards". [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
{{ping|E-960}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&oldid=prev&diff=860576675&diffmode=source say] "functionary is more accurate" - is it? A functionary is "one who serves in a certain function" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/functionary] or "a person who has to perform official functions or duties; an official" [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/functionary] - both of these say almost nothing. "Guard" is clearly more ''precise'', as it adds information on the ''function'' those people perform. As for accuracy - the description of the image says nothing about functionaries, guards or anything else, so you've no source to say one definition is more accurate than the other. We're left with two options: Either drop the file, as its relevance here may be nothing but RS; or prefer the more precise, and hence ''concise'' description, which is "guards". [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''': How about "<nowiki>Two [[Jewish Ghetto Police|Jewish Ghetto policemen]] guarding the gates of the [[Warsaw Ghetto]], June 1942]]</nowiki>"? --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 02:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''': How about "<nowiki>Two [[Jewish Ghetto Police|Jewish Ghetto policemen]] guarding the gates of the [[Warsaw Ghetto]], June 1942]]</nowiki>"? --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 02:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Again, François Robere is back trying to massively change the article to fit his POV, this is nothing more than an attempt to SANITIZE the article text, and the term "functionary" ''a person who has to perform official functions or duties'' is quite accurate, since the Ghetto Police were formally tasked with policing duties (not some security-guards), yet they were not "policeman" in a traditional manner. --[[User:E-960|E-960]] ([[User talk:E-960|talk]]) 07:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:41, 22 September 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)
3. Polish ambassador to Switzerland Dr. Jakub Kumoch is not an RS on collaboration for the purpose of this article (4)
4. No consensus has been reached for stating that Jewish collaborators routinely sought to entrap Poles who lent aid to Jews (5)
Baudienst
- The workers were imprisoned in obozy karne for disobidience. What can I clarify?
- I haven't written about an undefined higher education, so I have removed the word higher, maybe subsequent? [1] lists available technical schools "Berufsschulen - dawne gimnazja, czyli 3-letnie szkoły rzemieślnicze lub handlowe I stopnia; Technische Fachschulen - dawne licea czyli szkoły techniczne II stopnia; Berufspfichtschulen - dawne szkoły zawodowe dokształcające - wówczas obowiązkowe szkoły zawodowe otoczone szczególnie troskliwą działalnością propagandową; Werkschulen - szkoły fabryczne w przemyśle zbrojeniowym".
Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Re: the above - if anyone can give the full citation for http://www.fpnp.pl/info/pdf/baudienst.pdf
, as well as a translation of the passage for context. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Za odmowę wykonywania pracy lub samowolne opuszczenie miejsca pracy w ramach Baudienstu groziło skierowanie do więzienia, karnego obozu pracy, a nawet kara śmierci." – "Refusal to work or desertion of workplace, under Baudienst, were punishable with prison, punitive labor camp, or even death." Interesting form of "collaboration"! Xx236 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @François Robere: I wikified the citation you asked for. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Security forces ?
The section should describe the police. The Baudienst was a forced labor service and Wehrmacht was an army.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree about The Baudienst, but not the Wehrmacht , they they are the armed forces. But the British army in NI was part of the security forces as were...But there is no need to go on.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, that's quite correct, perhaps we can move the Baudienst to the Individual collaboration section, since this was a civilian matter? --E-960 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. If the Baudienst were conscripts, then they're neither "individual" nor "civilian". François Robere (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, that's quite correct, perhaps we can move the Baudienst to the Individual collaboration section, since this was a civilian matter? --E-960 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which is why I named it (and User:E-960 reverted it) "security forces and national services". All three were national services of some sort, all three had a conscript element, and all three took part in the "reign of terror". There's no reason to separate them. François Robere (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Being conscripts does not make them part of the security forces, do you have a source for the claim they were?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did not say they were a security force, I said grouping them with the security forces makes sense because they all shared some core elements: conscription, taking part in security/terror operations, and being run by the state. This is not unlike how the scouts (or parts thereof) are considered part of the resistance due to their nature, rather than their designation. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Are they?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- There you go again François Robere, your section title was reverted because it was also incorrect. When Poland was occupied there was no "National Services" otherwise you risk implying that there was a collaborationist Polish national service (like in Vichy France). Perhaps the section should be renamed "Uniformed Services". Btw, the Baudienst was a civilian auxiliary service not military (kind of like a mailman has a uniform works for government, but is still a civilian not military) this just shows that again, you lack proper subject matter knowledge. --E-960 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, I don't. The term "national service" refers to service of the nation, not by the nation. As for "uniformed services" - that includes firemen, train conductors and indeed, mailmen. François Robere (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: The Gray Ranks.
- So they were an active part of the resistance? So no not the same as something that just happened to be working for the state.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Baudienst didn't "happen" to be working for the state - they were intended to - and they took part in the organized persecution of Jews; this puts them on par with the "Blue Police" and other "security" organizations. Another parallel for the purpose of this discussion are engineering corps, which are part of a military but are often employed on civilian projects of national importance, and/or those that concern public safety and security. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- And there is a difference (assuming you have a source for the claim) between being part of the security services and engaging in persecution. Did they take an active part in security operations?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they did, and we say so in the article - they cordoned Jewish neighborhoods while the other "services" operated, and searched houses for hiding Jews or valuables left behind. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they did, and we say so in the article - they cordoned Jewish neighborhoods while the other "services" operated, and searched houses for hiding Jews or valuables left behind. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- And there is a difference (assuming you have a source for the claim) between being part of the security services and engaging in persecution. Did they take an active part in security operations?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Baudienst didn't "happen" to be working for the state - they were intended to - and they took part in the organized persecution of Jews; this puts them on par with the "Blue Police" and other "security" organizations. Another parallel for the purpose of this discussion are engineering corps, which are part of a military but are often employed on civilian projects of national importance, and/or those that concern public safety and security. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- So they were an active part of the resistance? So no not the same as something that just happened to be working for the state.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- There you go again François Robere, your section title was reverted because it was also incorrect. When Poland was occupied there was no "National Services" otherwise you risk implying that there was a collaborationist Polish national service (like in Vichy France). Perhaps the section should be renamed "Uniformed Services". Btw, the Baudienst was a civilian auxiliary service not military (kind of like a mailman has a uniform works for government, but is still a civilian not military) this just shows that again, you lack proper subject matter knowledge. --E-960 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Are they?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did not say they were a security force, I said grouping them with the security forces makes sense because they all shared some core elements: conscription, taking part in security/terror operations, and being run by the state. This is not unlike how the scouts (or parts thereof) are considered part of the resistance due to their nature, rather than their designation. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Being conscripts does not make them part of the security forces, do you have a source for the claim they were?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Friedrich (2005), Collaboration in a Land without Quisling:
Beyond strengthening the Nazified education and discipline of the younger generation through "hard labor," the organization also pursued economic and politically propagandistic aims. The Baudienst was made up of eighteen- to twenty three-year-old Polish and Ukrainian draftees who were kept in barracks under the command of German officers, paid "pocket-money," and made to labor in public works... Towards the end of the war, the cheap labor reserve gained importance in the buildup of defense positions in the GG...
Polish firemen, volunteers of "Organisation Todt" who were usually engaged in construction work, and Baudienst conscripts or junacy (as they were often called in Polish) took part in anti-Jewish crimes as auxiliary staff... In June 1942, "an unknown number of Poles from the Baudienst" supported SS, German, and Polish police in a vast operation (Aktion) against forty thousand Jews who had been compelled to reside in the southern Polish town of Tarnow. Junacy dug up graves where Jewish victims of massacres were buried (for example, in Sambor), they closed off the Jewish quarter in order to keep inmates from fleeing, and they took part in deportations; sometimes the Poles had to search houses and apartments after theirJewish inhabitants had been deported. Dutifully, they dragged those who were hiding out of sheds and crawlspaces and collected the Jews' belongings...
François Robere (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, they I think we can say they did operate as part of security forces. They did rather more then just dig ditches or erect fortifications.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which nation?
- The Ostbahn (General Government) was a branch of the Deutsche Reichsbahn National Railway of Germany, apparently of the German nation and ethnic Poles didn't belong to the German nation.
- The Deutsche Post Osten was Deutsch/German.
Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: In general what we're talking about here is a certain class of services provided by the state, intended (in a well-functioning state) to maintain safety, security and order. Different terms are employed in different places to describe different services: national service, emergency services, armed services, community service, civic service (not to be confused with "civil services") etc. My main reason for moving the "Baudienst" in with the "Blue Police" and "Wehrmacht" is that they're essentially part of the same class of organizations; the name of the section is of lesser importance. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's true that the three organisation belong to one class - Nazi terror organisations. The organisations drafted people and the German state punished those who refused to obey.
- Similar organisations existed in any occupied country. Some editors criticize Polish people and refuse to write about other nations. It's propaganda, not Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This is seems highly dubious original research or lack of knowledge.There was no national service in Genera Government nor was it a state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- No one said so. You're off-topic. François Robere (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- The name of this page is Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, which includes the GG, lands annected to Reich and the East (Northern Kresy). Any area was specific and the page should inform about the details.
- the name of the section is of lesser importance - a surprising opinion. Is it your general attitude? Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- The GG was a German zone of occupation. If your sources say it was a state or nation, please quote your reliable sources. The Baudienst existed only in some districts of the GG. Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I understand the Poles should have refused to work for the German state. The German state controlled the economy, rationed food, enslaved or imprisoned. The only way to completely refuse in occupied Poland was to die. Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Enough wit the emotive rhetoric. The issue of whether or not forced collaboration is collaboration is different from the issue of whether or not labour battalions are part of the security forces.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Uniformed services makes for an easy fix. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Part of this discussion is about English usage conventions: "National services" would make due, despite what some of you think it implies; "uniformed services" is technically correct, but isn't common (neither Merriam-Webster, ODE or Collins have entries for it [2][3][4]). If that'll quell your concerns then use it, but it's not the best option. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- national service
- noun
- a period of compulsory service in the armed forces during peacetime (phased out in the UK by 1963).
- Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said, it's one of several terms used to describe such engagement. Some would use "civic service" or "community service" instead. It don't actually mind what term we use as long as it's idiomatic (for example, "community service" sounds off in the context of the "Baudeinst", but it would've been okay if they did not take part in "security" operations). François Robere (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yet another term that would be used had the "Baudienst" not used expressly for the purpose of advancing the Nazi regime and its reign of terror would be "public works". François Robere (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. As I said, it's one of several terms used to describe such engagement. Some would use "civic service" or "community service" instead. It don't actually mind what term we use as long as it's idiomatic (for example, "community service" sounds off in the context of the "Baudeinst", but it would've been okay if they did not take part in "security" operations). François Robere (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Part of this discussion is about English usage conventions: "National services" would make due, despite what some of you think it implies; "uniformed services" is technically correct, but isn't common (neither Merriam-Webster, ODE or Collins have entries for it [2][3][4]). If that'll quell your concerns then use it, but it's not the best option. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we are losing our way here. We are talking about their presence in security services. I am, sure we can all agree that renaming this to "public works" is nonsensical given the presence of police. So arew we saying we rename the section, or move them to a new one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I would suggest Uniformed Services, it a catch-all that's applicable to both police, military, and civilian auxiliary. --E-960 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well as a source has been provided saying they did take part (directly) in security operations I do not see what the issue is now, why is the source wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- The goal of this page and this discussion is to prove that Poles are coresponsible for Nazi crimes. There is no such page about any Western nation (excludind Luxemburg). I believe that Wikipedia should be neutral. The Poles weren't allowed to disobey, they were murdered or deported to concentration camps. Please learn about the Nazi terror in Poland, described even by Grabowski in his "Hunt for Jews". The Baudienst workers were drafted and harshly punished. Only some of the officers were collaborators. If digging graves was collaboration, many Jews did collaborate. A number of peasants digged graves for my family. I have never considered them as collaboratora. The head of the village was ordered and no discussion was possible. Friedrich is German so not exactly neutal. The Sambor Ghetto doesn't say anything about the Buadienst but Ukrainian Auxillary Police. Sambor was situated in Distrikt Galizien. Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I would suggest Uniformed Services, it a catch-all that's applicable to both police, military, and civilian auxiliary. --E-960 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do Security forces link any forced labor organisation? The Baudienst didn't have any security mandate. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Other stuff is not a valid argument. If other pages do not do this find RS that claim it and alter them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- If this page is different, it's so because some editors are biased anti-Polish. And some editors lack basic knowledge, too.Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe it is because users on the other pages are? Or maybe it is because there is too much effort here paid to whitewashing the Poles, or maybe it is because no RS have said that Russian POW's being used as forces labour were part of the security apparatus, Or maybe it is because only the Baudienst was used for security operations, or maybe....but there is no need to go on. You do not know why this is the case, and the above is an assumptive PA. We have an RS that say they carried out security operations, do you have an RS that says they did not?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Other stuff is not a valid argument. If other pages do not do this find RS that claim it and alter them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The whitewashing is symmetrical to painting black. The history of the page shows who has started. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Are chimney sweeps security forces? They are uniformed and they work hard like the Baudienst.Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do RS say they took part in security operations?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- What is missing in the article and this discussion is that Baudienst was forced labour, to which people were drafted by force and located in forced labour camps. The best place to name it would be under Forced Labour section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- According to the existing source they weren't conscripted until April 1942, two years after they were formed. Not least unimportant, you're raising the problem of defining "collaboration" - the Blue Police were conscripted, and Judenrat members were often under some threat or another, but we don't excuse them for it. We've had a few discussions on it before, and for the meanwhile we've been keeping as close to the sources as possible. François Robere (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- "According to the existing source they weren't conscripted until April 1942"-again wrong, the exisiting source says they were punished by death if they evaded forced labour in Baudienst starting from 1942, not that it only became forced labour in 1942. For the record it was forced labour from the start." we've been keeping as close to the sources as possible"-the source you are quoting as mentioned doesn't state it was forced labour only starting in 1942. I have presented multipile sources below confirming that it was a forced labour.If there are no sources to support your claim that it only started being forced in 1942 I will restore this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have started (at least to the outside) as a conscripted service, and slowly deteriorated to actual "forced labor" in the sense that you're suggesting (slave labor). One source quoted at the main article elaborates on their living and work conditions at the beginning, and Melnyk (2017) mentions service terms; but other sources mention terrible conditions and arbitrarily long conscription period; neither accounts for the horrors Grabowski (2013) describes that were perpetrated by some of the Baudienst. So it seems we need to console all of this in that one section. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- "According to the existing source they weren't conscripted until April 1942"-again wrong, the exisiting source says they were punished by death if they evaded forced labour in Baudienst starting from 1942, not that it only became forced labour in 1942. For the record it was forced labour from the start." we've been keeping as close to the sources as possible"-the source you are quoting as mentioned doesn't state it was forced labour only starting in 1942. I have presented multipile sources below confirming that it was a forced labour.If there are no sources to support your claim that it only started being forced in 1942 I will restore this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- According to the existing source they weren't conscripted until April 1942, two years after they were formed. Not least unimportant, you're raising the problem of defining "collaboration" - the Blue Police were conscripted, and Judenrat members were often under some threat or another, but we don't excuse them for it. We've had a few discussions on it before, and for the meanwhile we've been keeping as close to the sources as possible. François Robere (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- "I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have started (at least to the outside) as a conscripted service"-all reliable sources named is as forced labor. If you believe it wasn't you need reliable sources claiming it wasn't.As you yourself admitted you yourself aren't sure.Since you haven't provided any sources, and we are left with yout opinion only, than I suggest ending this discussion until you find sources supporting your theory.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do re-read what I said:
it seems we need to console all of this in that one section
- conscription, forced labor, and zeal in persecuting Jews that is unexplained by either. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Do re-read what I said:
- "I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have started (at least to the outside) as a conscripted service"-all reliable sources named is as forced labor. If you believe it wasn't you need reliable sources claiming it wasn't.As you yourself admitted you yourself aren't sure.Since you haven't provided any sources, and we are left with yout opinion only, than I suggest ending this discussion until you find sources supporting your theory.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Xx236: Please self-revert this. Discussion is ongoing and it's a WP:CRP violation. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't demand me to lie. Bau is construction, it's basic German. And I refuse to discuss with you slave work in occupied Poland, it's below my dignity.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Some things that need to be done
Continuing from the above discussion:
Split the "political collaboration" section
The "political collaboration" section should be split: "state" (or "uncollaboration", or "defiance" or whatever you want to call it) and "political". The current section mixes several things:
- Attempt by Germans and attempts by Poles
- Attempts to preserve the state and attempts from when it no longer existed
- Attitude by heads of state and attitudes by lower-level politicians
I suggest splitting the section more or less along these lines, as it makes little sense to keep it all under one section. You can see a specific revision here.
- This was explained to you François Robere and three editors disagreed with your reasoning, pls see above discussion for reference. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Don't condescend, E-960. You never explained what's wrong with my suggestion other than objecting to the term "state collaboration", which doesn't even appear here. Kindly reply to the point. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Pls review my earlier comments which you continue to ignore, also I think further down one of the other editors also re-stated their concerns that you are pushing POV with these changes, and they are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Diff of the the relevant comment? François Robere (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Pls review my earlier comments which you continue to ignore, also I think further down one of the other editors also re-stated their concerns that you are pushing POV with these changes, and they are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Don't condescend, E-960. You never explained what's wrong with my suggestion other than objecting to the term "state collaboration", which doesn't even appear here. Kindly reply to the point. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this, instead I see two problems: first, in your revision, political collaboration is a section stub, second, state collaboration section title suggest collaboration on a state level. Which, pray tell, Polish state, collaborated with Germany? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't about state collaboration, but about collaboration (or lack thereof) at the state level:
Attempts to preserve the state and attempts from when it no longer existed... Attitude by heads of state and attitudes by lower-level politicians
. That's why I don't care so much for how the section should be named as long as it's split to better organize the content. François Robere (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC) - As for "section stub" - you know as well as I do there's enough material to go there, so that won't be a problem if we agree on the structure. François Robere (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Rename the "cultural collaboration" section
"Cultures" don't collaborate - people do. We can be more specific: "Collaboration in film and media", "collaboration in the media and the press", "collaboration in the arts" etc.
- Again, as noted earlier, a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, replacing a long staining section title. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. There's a really semantic problem here, and "longstanding" won't cover it. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree I doubt this really is going to cause any confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not about confusion, it's about style (or more clearly: linguistic conventions). I'm not going to argue about it because it's technically correct, but it's uncommon usage and reads oddly for a native speaker. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- As a native speaker I would say it makes perfect sense, I know exactly what is meant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not about confusion, it's about style (or more clearly: linguistic conventions). I'm not going to argue about it because it's technically correct, but it's uncommon usage and reads oddly for a native speaker. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No objection, but it is really a technicality. We should discuss headings in one section, all of them. They should be standardized. So no cultural collaboration, but you are ok with political collaboration heading? How about security forces heading, which doesn't mention that word at all? This mess needs cleaning, but we should fix them all at once, not one by one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. I tried to do that in a series of edits, some of which now reverted (you can see the result here). The usual copy considerations apply: readability, style, conciseness... but also interest - avoiding patterns that might bore or distract the reader (eg. repeating the word "collaboration" for every section head). François Robere (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Remove details of Kumoch's critique
We have an RfC stating the Polish ambassador to Switzerland isn't an RS on these matters, yet he's quoted in the article on matters of methodology. If he's not an RS, we shouldn't quote him on methodology. We can say he criticized Grabowski's methodology (or just G's work), but there's no reason to quote the explanation. It's like quoting someone who isn't an engineer (or expert, or otherwise well-informed) on the specifics of the construction of some bridge.
- This was explained to you François Robere earlier, pls see above discussion. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. You said the RfC doesn't necessitate removing that reference, you didn't explain why it is WP:DUE. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Grabowski lacks basic arithmetical skills so his numbers and his methodology don't deserve to be discussed here. Jacek Borkowicz summarises the recent book "Dalej jest noc" giving 40 000. Why the 40 000 isn't quoted here? Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- The IPN opinion [5].Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't mention Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It mentions Datner, misquoted by Grabowski. Don't you really know it?Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- But it doesn't mention Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- It mentions Datner, misquoted by Grabowski. Don't you really know it?Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't mention Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. You said the RfC doesn't necessitate removing that reference, you didn't explain why it is WP:DUE. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are reliable mainstream sources that mention Kumoch's critique and they can be added with explanation what it is.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem isn't with mentioning it, it's with quoting him on methodology. He's not an RS in this field and we shouldn't quote him as if he is. François Robere (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Below you said
Generally building articles by adding quotes after quotes doesn't seem good form to me
- why are you willing to accept Kumoch, but not three senior researchers from a world leading institution who are actual experts on this subject? François Robere (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I support removing Kumoch WHILE AT THE SAME TIME significantly trimming this section. All trimmed stuff, including Kumoch, should go to Hunt for the Jews. Seriously, we don't need to plug for Grabowski advertising that his book won some prize here, etc. I'd suggest the following to be left here: "In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles. The book estimates, however, sparked an ongoing controversy." This is neutral and to the point - in coming months and years we can update this with reliable sources, for now, with many historians speaking through online media or media in general, this is the best we can do, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Move the Gorals and Kashubians into the "ethnic minorities" section
This isn't "individual collaboration" in the sense that the section uses, but collaboration aimed at particular ethnic groups (with a political element, which means it could also belong at the "political collaboration" section). And yes - we have multiple sources referring to those groups as "ethnic minorities", though we can use other definitions as well (eg. "regional minorities).
- This was also explained earlier, pls see above discussion. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. I gave you two sources that state they are "ethnic minorities", which you ignored in favor of your own opinions. You did not provide alternative sources. That's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not an explanation. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- It a valid point, if RS say they are an ethnic minority we have no reason to ignore this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Does the RS inform about WWII or today?
- The Nazis considered ethnic Poles racially lower than Gorals or Kashubians (they murdered however educated Kashubians at the beginning of the war). Do we accept Nazi ideology? Or rtaher should we carefully quote Nazi opinions?Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- However as noted above, both Gorals and Kaszubs consider themselves Poli7sh, and Goral and Kaszub is their regional sub-identity (just like in Scotland there are variations to Scots depending on the region — Southern Scots in comparison to Highlanders). While Germans, Ukrainians or Belorussians (living within the borders of pre-war Poland) considered themselves only that. There is a lot of history behind this which user François Robere is just not aware of, and crudely tries to oversimplify things. --E-960 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia. Bring sources. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly, since you are the one trying to change long standing text, the burden is on you to properly justify you suggestion, we know that Goral and Kaszub are an ethnographic group, but they identify as Polish. So, what source compels you to move that text to "ethnic minorities" which did not identify themselves as Polish like Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually he does not have to provide sources that disprove long standing content, he just has to show there are no sources supporting it. Unsourced content can be challenged no matter how old it is. So What do the RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the text is sourced, you are arguing text placement within the article something completely different, stop mixing stuff. So, François Robere needs to justify that Goral and Kaszub did not see themselves as Polish. Again, read Wikipedia rules the burden of proof is on the person trying to make the changes. --E-960 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Errr, Being an ethnic minority has nothing to do with not seeing yourself as part of a larger national, group. He is not arguing they did not see themselves as Polish, just that they were an ethnic minority (are you really saying that Jewish Poles did not see themselves as Polish, really?).Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh and its not an RS but Ethnic minorities in Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the text is sourced, you are arguing text placement within the article something completely different, stop mixing stuff. So, François Robere needs to justify that Goral and Kaszub did not see themselves as Polish. Again, read Wikipedia rules the burden of proof is on the person trying to make the changes. --E-960 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually he does not have to provide sources that disprove long standing content, he just has to show there are no sources supporting it. Unsourced content can be challenged no matter how old it is. So What do the RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly, since you are the one trying to change long standing text, the burden is on you to properly justify you suggestion, we know that Goral and Kaszub are an ethnographic group, but they identify as Polish. So, what source compels you to move that text to "ethnic minorities" which did not identify themselves as Polish like Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia. Bring sources. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I still see no compelling evidence for the change, this is not about sources, but text placement, and if that's the argument we can simply change the title form Gorals and Kaszubs to Polish ethnographic groups, and make if a full section split into Gorals and Kaszubs. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- So why not Jews? As to sources [6], [7], both are distinct ethnic groups.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the section on Jewish collaboration was titled Polish Jews and for a time it was a full section not a sub-section as it is now, do you think we should return to that format? --E-960 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- No as the same can be said of Germans and Ukrainians, if we have an ethnicites section then all ethnicities should go there. Or in the same section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you notice, that Górals and Kaszubs are a bit of a special case, and I would argue that Polish Jews as well. --E-960 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then rename the section, either it is about ethnic minorities or something else, if it is something else say it. Now I haven provided sources, either provide counter sources or accept they are distinct ethnic groups and move them to the correct section (or sugeect a rename, and take out the Jews).Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wiki guidelines: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts [8], you are trying to make this matter black and white, while it is clear the issue about Gorals and Kaszubs is not, since they self identify as POLISH in the 2011 Polish Census for example. So instead of treating this as a special case you just want to oversimplify the topic. Also, if you want to return the section on the Polish Jews as before, I have no problem since this is also a special case. --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it was seriously contested you woulds have an RS that contests it, what you have is a census, so did it ask?Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- You asked for RS they have been provided, now it is down to you to do the same.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wiki guidelines: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts [8], you are trying to make this matter black and white, while it is clear the issue about Gorals and Kaszubs is not, since they self identify as POLISH in the 2011 Polish Census for example. So instead of treating this as a special case you just want to oversimplify the topic. Also, if you want to return the section on the Polish Jews as before, I have no problem since this is also a special case. --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then rename the section, either it is about ethnic minorities or something else, if it is something else say it. Now I haven provided sources, either provide counter sources or accept they are distinct ethnic groups and move them to the correct section (or sugeect a rename, and take out the Jews).Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you notice, that Górals and Kaszubs are a bit of a special case, and I would argue that Polish Jews as well. --E-960 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- No as the same can be said of Germans and Ukrainians, if we have an ethnicites section then all ethnicities should go there. Or in the same section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the section on Jewish collaboration was titled Polish Jews and for a time it was a full section not a sub-section as it is now, do you think we should return to that format? --E-960 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
2011 Polish Census Kaszubs 232,547 of which 215,784 identify as Kaszub-Polish, Góral 2,935 of which 2,824 identify as Goral-Polish. --E-960 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've lost you here. You're claiming that because they self-identify as Kash.-Polish or Goral-Polish they're only Polish?
- By the way, worth noting that this whole discussion is off-topic, as the question isn't to what degree they're ethnically-distinct or indistinct. Not sure why you insist on having it. François Robere (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Does the RS inform about WWII or today?
- The Nazis considered ethnic Poles racially lower than Gorals or Kashubians (they murdered however educated Kashubians at the beginning of the war). Do we accept Nazi ideology? Or rather should we carefully quote Nazi opinions? Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't misinform, it's unethical. Ethnic minorities in Poland#Minorities in the Second Republic doesn't list Gorals nor Kashubians.Xx236 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a link to a sources, it is a link to this discussion. And even if it was a link to a source (again I would ask what question was asked in the census) they identify themselves as their ethnic identity, but also Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
First, it's not move, but move back. This section was there before, as I moved it there myself. While I see how one could nitpick ethnic minorities, this is really just that, nitpicking. Lead of Gorals states they are an "ethnographic (or ethnic) group" (unreferenced, of course). Lead of Kashubians cleary states they are an ethnic groups. I fully support the move of this section back to the ethnic minorities part of the article. I don't know what weird point whoever is trying to make with the "Regional ethnographic groups", but it doesn't belong here. At best, we could compromise and call the section " Collaboration by ethnic minorities" " Collaboration by ethnic and ethnographic minorities" instead, but since ethnographic minority is not even defined, I call this term OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I previously suggested "ethnic and regional minorities". François Robere (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I dislike inventing terms (or using synonyms while suggesting they differ). Regional minority, alike, doesn't even have a redirect, and currently I am not willing to accept (pending somebody presenting reliable sources) that ethnic, ethnographic and regional minority are not simple synonyms (sorry, as a social scientist, I am quite irked by how many of my fellows try to build careers calling established social facts by another name and trying to say they invented them anew). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Rename it as you will. In the meanwhile... François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- The section title as suggested should be adjusted. However, I don't agree with the suggested view, since as noted by user Xx236, reclassifying Gorals and Kaszubs was part of Nazi ideology, and in 1931 Polish census, you did not have people identifying as such, So, even though Gorals and Kaszubs self-identify as Polish, we will include them in the same category as Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. who did not identify with the Polish nation. That's not correct either. --E-960 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again RS please, and can we see if they were given a choice?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did, the 2011 census results, where they were able to just identify with one ethnicity or two ethnicities. Kaszubs 232,547 of which 215,784 identify as Kaszub and Polish, Góral 2,935 of which 2,824 identify as Goral and Polish. So, only 16,763 Kaszubs identified themselves as only that, and a staggering 111 Górals. If you identify with the Polish nation, you would not have been in the same category as Germans, Ukrainians or Belorussians, who did not. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again RS please, and can we see if they were given a choice?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- I dislike inventing terms (or using synonyms while suggesting they differ). Regional minority, alike, doesn't even have a redirect, and currently I am not willing to accept (pending somebody presenting reliable sources) that ethnic, ethnographic and regional minority are not simple synonyms (sorry, as a social scientist, I am quite irked by how many of my fellows try to build careers calling established social facts by another name and trying to say they invented them anew). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Err I think that in the same census Germans Poles and Ukrainian Poles also identified as Polish. Besides which (as I have said) you can be black American and still be a minority. This does not say they identify as Polish but as "X Polish".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Some notes on the above:
- The entire discussion is off-topic. The question isn't about their identification or self-identification, but about how we ought to classify them in the context of the page structure. In this context, they obviously go to the "ethnic minorities" section, however we choose to name it.
- I'm not at all sure we should have such a section.
- Ethnicity is only partly determined by one's self-definition.
- The 2011 census lists thousands of Germans, Ukrainians and Belorussians who self-identify as "Polish-something" or "something-Polish", as well as Kashub. and Gorals. If the census was our sole RS here then we couldn't ignore the first, and no argument has been presented to ignore the second.
- The census is from 2011, we're discussing the 1940's. It's irrelevant.
- Furthermore, it's shallow. There's a lot of history there (that's what we're writing about) and going "No they're not! The census said so!!!" sidesteps the actual story we should be concerned with.
François Robere (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It;s also irrelevant as they still identify as Kaszub & Goral, this is a bit like saying they if you self identify as black American you are not part of an ethnic minority because you self identify as American.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- What is your RS regarding WWII period? Any discussion about contemporary Poland is irrelevant, ahistorical. There was a basic difference between the Ukrainians controlled by OUN-UPA, Gorals who killed their collaborationist leader, Kashubiabs decimated by Germans and Jews isolated in ghettos. What does the label etnic minority explain?
- Nazi politics in occupied Poland should be precisely described. The Germans implemented "Divide et impera". How far may one copy the Nazi propaganda in 2018?
- Jan Grabowski in his "Hunt for Jews" describes extensively Nazi politics in occupied Poland. No reader and no editor is able to understand anything if s/he doesn't know the basic facts. Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Form Kashubians:
During the Second World War, Kashubs were considered by the Nazis as being either of "German stock" or "extraction", or "inclined toward Germanness" and "capable of Germanisation", and thus classified third category of Deutsche Volksliste (German ethnic classification list) if ties to the Polish nation could be dissolved.[1] However, Kashubians who were suspected to support the Polish cause,[2] particularly those with higher education,[2] were arrested and executed, the main place of executions being Piaśnica (Gross Plassnitz),[3] where 12,000 were executed.[4][5] The German administrator of the area Albert Forster considered Kashubians of "low value" and didn't support any attempts to create Kashubian nationality.[6] Some Kashubians organized anti-Nazi resistance groups, Gryf Kaszubski (later Gryf Pomorski), and the exiled Zwiazek Pomorski in Great Britain.[2]
So the Nazis didn't care about Kashubian nationality.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- So?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Copyedit
eg. undo this reversal and reordering (and possibly renaming) some of the sections so that everything makes sense. For a revision that includes all of it, see here. François Robere (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- This was also explained earlier in conjunction with POV discussion, removing relevant detail for no particular reason. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. You merely said it was "longstanding", but "longstanding" has no meaning in the English Wikipedia. Plus, they're only "longstanding" because I was the one who ordered them so. So please explain the rational behind the current structure, and why it shouldn't be changed. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The renaming seems highly POV and doesn't add to the value of the article.It would actually make the article make less sense and push some fringe claims not supported by sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
No, François Robere you need to stop with the forum shopping, your suggestions above were rejected by 4 editors earlier and the reasons explained , so now instead of accepting that your changes were inaccurate and not warranted. You just opened up a another discussion hoping to get a different outcome. Several editors already noted that you editing approach carries a POV and is inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. You objected all of them but only explained two objections, and didn't bother with sources or actual discussion. User:Nihil novi came in and claimed I removed material, but didn't say which or why I was (hypothetically) wrong to do that. User:MyMoloboaccount said he "reviewed the discussion", then said he objects to something that wasn't even discussed. Neither of you engaged in actual discussion or made a minimal effort to achieve consensus, and I trust Molobo didn't even read the thread before he commented. Either you're willing to commit to an actual discussion or your objections remain in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in which case we'll have to look for some alternative route. Remember this page is under WP:DS, and we've already lost four editors for this sort of behavior, three of which espoused the nationalist narrative. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, no. Your suggested changes are inaccurate and very questionable, when you change section titles from "Political Collaboration" to "State Collaboration" and "Security Forces" to "Security Forces and National Services" than under the pretext of 'copyedit' you change text from "group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians" to "group of eight Polish politicians" it raises a red flag, that there is a push to insert a particular and historically inaccurate narrative into the article, suggesting the that POLISH STATE collaborated with the Germans, which it did not, instead going in to exile to London. Also, your suggestion to move the text about Gorals and Kashubians shows that you simply lack a full understanding of subject matter, and trying to push an inaccurate understanding of the topic. Also, in regards to Kumoch you refuse to accept that the RfC was inconclusive and instead, after it was closed you are trying to remove the text anyway as if the RfC reached a consensus, which it did not. --E-960 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is your responsibility as an editor to make the extra step beyond "it raised a flag" and check what the edit actually meant to do. I'm here, I'm offering explanations, I'm willing to answer questions, and you insist on blocking because of "flags"? Get serious, man. François Robere (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- You just latch on to some word or a phrase, there are several editors who objected to you changes you just conveniantly ignore or dismiss their comments. --E-960 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, give me something better to latch on to, like sources or rationals. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- "I trust Molobo didn't even read the thread before he commented" This is a show of very bad faith and a personal attack. I always read on what I comment.I kindly request that you remove this personal attack.As to the rest I have to agree with E-960, you continue to ask the same questions where numerous editors reached consensus that is against making highly POV changes not supported by sources that you have proposed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- So how did you come to comment on something that wasn't even part of the discussion? François Robere (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- You just latch on to some word or a phrase, there are several editors who objected to you changes you just conveniantly ignore or dismiss their comments. --E-960 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is your responsibility as an editor to make the extra step beyond "it raised a flag" and check what the edit actually meant to do. I'm here, I'm offering explanations, I'm willing to answer questions, and you insist on blocking because of "flags"? Get serious, man. François Robere (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, no. Your suggested changes are inaccurate and very questionable, when you change section titles from "Political Collaboration" to "State Collaboration" and "Security Forces" to "Security Forces and National Services" than under the pretext of 'copyedit' you change text from "group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians" to "group of eight Polish politicians" it raises a red flag, that there is a push to insert a particular and historically inaccurate narrative into the article, suggesting the that POLISH STATE collaborated with the Germans, which it did not, instead going in to exile to London. Also, your suggestion to move the text about Gorals and Kashubians shows that you simply lack a full understanding of subject matter, and trying to push an inaccurate understanding of the topic. Also, in regards to Kumoch you refuse to accept that the RfC was inconclusive and instead, after it was closed you are trying to remove the text anyway as if the RfC reached a consensus, which it did not. --E-960 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Diemut Majer, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939-1945, Von Diemut Majer, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, JHU Press, 2003, p. 240, ISBN 0-8018-6493-3
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
Borzyszkowski
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Senat Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej / Nie znaleziono szukanej strony..." Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 17 March 2015.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ "Wiadomości - Aktualności - Musieliśmy się ukrywać : Nasze Kaszuby". Retrieved 17 March 2015.
- ^ "Erika z Rumii" Piotr Szubarczyk, IPN Bulletin 5(40) May 2004
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 22 January 2009. Retrieved 6 May 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair
The text and reference sources on the Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair should be re-add to the article: "Jewish agent-provocateurs were used by the Germans in several high profile actions to entrap Poles who were helping Jews, and to bait Jews hiding outside of the ghettos. In one incident in the village of Paulinów, the Germans used a Jewish agent to pose as an escapee looking for a hiding place with a Polish family, after receiving help the agent denounced the Polish family to the Germans, resulting in the deaths of 12 Poles and several Jews who were hiding with the family. Jewish agents from the Żagiew network, falsely promised Jews hiding outside of the ghetto in Warsaw who held foreign passports a safe place at Hotel Polski, while they waited to leave the General Government for neutral countries. Around 2,500 Jews came out of their hiding places and moved to the hotel. All were then transferred to the Vittel and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps"
I added the text on the Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair as two examples of agent-provocateur actions — first dealing with Poles being victims of the tactic and the second Jews, however user François Robere removed them, both examples are legitimate with sources (more can be included). --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This seems very informative and I think it would be constructive addition to the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not going to speak to the first two sentences, as they were sourced to a Polish language source I cannot read. The second two sentences, however, are not supported by the original source given. The sentences "Jewish agents from the Żagiew network, falsely promised Jews hiding outside of the ghetto in Warsaw who held foreign passports a safe place at Hotel Polski, while they waited to leave the General Government for neutral countries. Around 2,500 Jews came out of their hiding places and moved to the hotel. All were then transferred to the Vittel and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps" was sourced to this Yad Vashem document. Unfortunately, that Yad Vashem document does not support the entirety of the information in the two sentences removed - there is nothing in the Yad Vashem document about "Jewish agents from the Zagiew network, falsely promised Jews hiding outside of the ghetto in Warsaw a safe place at Hotel Polski". The Yad Vashem document does not say anything about the Zagiew network at all - and it appears that the passports were forgeries ... but not made by Jews or Poles, but rather documents that had been made by the local consulates without the permission of the home countries - the Yad Vashem document says: "In mid-1943 the Gestapo used the Hotel Polski to house Jews who bore citizenship papers of neutral countries—mostly South American countries—and thus were to be exchanged for German citizens imprisoned by the Allies. Most of these citizenship papers were forged documents prepared by the neutral countries' consulates in Europe, without the knowledge of their home governments. Jews who had gone into hiding risked their lives to obtain the papers." and then later in the Yad Vashem document: "Ultimately, 300 Jews living at the Hotel Polski were deported to the Vittel camp, while another 2,000--2,500 were sent to Bergen-Belsen. The last group of 420 Jews to be taken to Bergen-Belsen was instead unloaded at the Pawiak prison and shot. The South American governments did not regard the citizenship papers as authentic, and thus refused to honor them. As a result, 2,500 Jews who considered those papers their ticket to life were deported to Auschwitz in 1943 and 1944, where they were murdered. Only a few hundred Jews were saved by their documents, most of them exchanged for Germans imprisoned in Palestine." It appears that the numbers were - 300 sent to Vittel, 420 to Pawiak, 2000 to 2500 to Bergen Belsen, and 2500 to Auschwitz, which is not what the removed text says. And this does not appear to have any bearing on the collaboration of Jews or Poles in German-occupied Poland. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The Jewish Historical Institute mentions these Jewish collaborators: [10] How did the Gestapo get these documents? In the case of Hotel Polski were involved two Jewish collaborators: Leon „Lolek” Skosowski and Adam Żurawin. The A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by Yitzhak ("Antek") Zuckerman also mentions Zagiew and these collaborators on page 324 as does Tadeusz Piotrowski in Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces on page 74. If needed I can quote them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Besides the two very good sources above there is mention of this in other publications, for example
Holocaust Survivors in Canada: Exclusion, Inclusion, Transformation,1947-1955 by Anna Goldberg states International passports and guarantees for Central and South American countries were sold by Jewish collaborators at Hotel Polski and came from Switzerland
The book The Case of Hotel Polski: An Account of One of the Most Enigmatic Episodes of World War II by Abraham Shulman also names Jewish collaborators as responsible. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Then those sources need to be used, not sources that do not support the information - the removal of those two sentences when they were only sourced to a Yad Vashem document that did not support the information was correct. And the Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising source is a primary source, I suspect - since Antek was one of the leaders of the uprising. Use the secondary sources rather than primary sources - remember we are supposed to be using high quality reliable sources, which means that if secondary sources cover the information- they should be used instead of primary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
"Then those sources need to be used" Goood, we can use then Jewish Historical Institute, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Anna Goldberg among other secondary sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Notes:
- The edit introduced material which contradicts the spirit of an RfC, by introducing a similar phrasing to one that was previously found to be unsupported by sources.
- It also violated WP:CRP, as it introduced parts of a text that was previously removed without first achieving consensus.
- Finally, it misrepresented a source - in itself an offense per the WP:DS rules applied on this page.
Questions:
- Who's Joanna Kierylak?
- Does the phrase "Jewish agent-provocateurs were used by the Germans in several high profile actions" actually appear in any of the sources? And what does "high profile" mean in this context?
- Why is the term "provocation" used in the source rather than "operation" or something similar?
François Robere (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- We can rephrase this information based on available secondary sources.However they are highly reliable and do confirm that this operation took place and it involved Jewish collaboration, which is part of this article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Joanna Kierylak is a guide in Treblinka museum.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I seem to recall the last time we had this conversation it tuned out none of the sources in fact supported the idea that Jewish collaborators really engaged in entrapment operations to trap Poles. I see this time the same thing seems to be occurring.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, the original issue was that the sources specifically described the Paulinów incident, while the text in article described the tactic in general terms, so now the text would simply describe the two examples instead of making a broad generalizations. In fact the RfC suggested a rewording to match the sources. --E-960 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we still imply it was a common tactic, we just give those two as examples. Also the Hotel Polski incident was not about agent provocateurs tricking Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are not reading the text correctly, no where does it say or imply that Hotel Polski incident tricked Poles, nowhere, in fact it specifically says it targeted Jews, while Paulinów incident targeted Poles. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed this seems to be confusion, the reliable sources provide information about Jewish Gestapo agents entrapping Jews, not Poles in this case.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are not reading the text correctly, no where does it say or imply that Hotel Polski incident tricked Poles, nowhere, in fact it specifically says it targeted Jews, while Paulinów incident targeted Poles. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we still imply it was a common tactic, we just give those two as examples. Also the Hotel Polski incident was not about agent provocateurs tricking Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, the original issue was that the sources specifically described the Paulinów incident, while the text in article described the tactic in general terms, so now the text would simply describe the two examples instead of making a broad generalizations. In fact the RfC suggested a rewording to match the sources. --E-960 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm again asking:
- So Joanna Kierylak is a museum guide. Do we have her bio, publications, anything?
- Does the phrase "Jewish agent-provocateurs were used by the Germans in several high profile actions" actually appear in any of the sources? And what does "high profile" mean in this context?
- Why is the term "provocation" used in the source rather than "operation" or something similar?
François Robere (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Which RfC supports removal of this few sentences?
@François Robere: Re: [11]? I'd appreciate an explanation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- You do not need an RFC, BLD covers it, so feel free to revert and discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- [12]. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, pls see the last sentence, "here was suggestion of rewriting the sentence so that it would be supported by the sources; further discussion on that can of course occur. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)" So, François Robere why did you remove the text if it was supported by sources, and if you think that they were not optimal, more could be found and were see discussion above. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
further discussion on that can of course occur
No discussion has occurred. You restored the text with only minor changes, while ignoring the objections raised during the previous discussion. What you should've done is brought it to talk so a text that's acceptable to everyone can be formulated. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)- This text is about Paulinów and Hotel Polski only, the previous text never mentioned the two incidents. How can it possibly be restored old text. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, but it referred to those incidents (as obvious from the RfC discussion) and was based on the same sources. François Robere (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, pls see the last sentence, "here was suggestion of rewriting the sentence so that it would be supported by the sources; further discussion on that can of course occur. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)" So, François Robere why did you remove the text if it was supported by sources, and if you think that they were not optimal, more could be found and were see discussion above. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we keep this in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I merged this with the other thread to keep things orderly. François Robere (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reviewed the RfC and rewriting was suggested and IMHO preferred. The old sentence made unfounded claims about Jewish collaborationist groups, the current version seems more correct attributing the agency to Germans using individual Jewish agents. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Removal of information that Baudienst was forced labour
This edit removed information that Baudienst was forced labour[13], although it was supported by RS and a quote" Baudienst (Construction Service) was a forced labour scheme for young men introduced in 1940 The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government page 122". The information that Baudienst was forced labour is not controversial, it's a simple historic fact, and I can provide dozens of both Polish and English scholarly works that state it.
- Children and War: Proceedings of Symposium at Siuntio Baths, ...
Marianne Kahnert, David C. Pitt, Ilkka Taipale - 1983 - Snippet view - More editions "Adolescents and children were also forced to do hard labour at their home. Local forced labour groups were established, the so called "Baudienst""
- The Holocaust: Readings & Interpretations - Page 168
Joseph R. Mitchell, Helen Buss Mitchell - 2001 ... the Polish Baudienst or 'Building Service', a National Socialist forced labour organization which coordinated the exploitation of young Polish male workers
- Obozy pracy w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie w latach 1939-1945
Józef Marszałek - 1998 The second category consisted of forced labour camps, of which type 792 functioned between 1939-1945. ... The forced labour camps of the Baudienst des Generalgouvernements (Construction Service of the Government General)
- The Tragedy of Children Under Nazi Rule - Page 139
Kiryl Sosnowski, Wanda Machlejd - 1962 In Poland, as in other countries, forced labour on the spot was introduced as well as deportation for work in the Reich. In the «General Government*, a Baudienst (building service) was organized.
The fact that Baudienst was forced labour is not disputed by any scholars I am aware of. And as this is a very important fact, then I see no reason to remove this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Some Western editors lack basic knowledge about the German occupation of Poland. Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- German/Polish historian Bogdan Musiał explains what was the Baudienst. Grabowski uses a Nazi propaganda picture of Baudienst conscripts in his book. [14]Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see no reason to exclude the term, it seems supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- We already mention that the Baudienst were conscripted starting April 1942. If you want to reinstate the term for that period, do so. For May 1940 - March 1942 we have only partial information on the conditions of their employment by the Germans (and I use that term broadly), so I don't support the inclusion for that period. There's another problem arising from this usage: What do we say of the Blue Police, Judenräte and others that were under duress, but are non the less termed "collaborators"? François Robere (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- The question is whether they were always forced, or only in the later stages of their existence. If they provided those services to the Nazi authorities willingly before 1942 then the definition isn't true for that period. We need more sources on this specifically. François Robere (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- "We already mention that the Baudienst were conscripted starting April 1942". The source states that death penalty was introduced in 1942 for avoiding this form of forced labour, not they were conscripted, where are you getting this from? Intially the penalty for avoiding Baudienst was imprisonment, but this became so widespread that Germans made the penalty harsher."The question is whether they were always forced, or only in the later stages of their existence. "There is no question-Baudienst was always forced service, although you could volunteer for it. "If they provided those services to the Nazi authorities willingly before 1942 then the definition isn't true for that period. We need more sources on this specifically."If you want to claim that Baudienst was voluntary before 1942 you need to find sources on this, but you simply won't find any.From the start it was a form of forced labour. Since out of 4 editors, only you try to challenge this, without presenting any sources, than it seems that you are not really representing consenus or able to back your claims with sources on this subject. As such I believe this discussion can be ended, unless you find sources supporting your claims.If you want a detalied analysis of this subject, there is an extensive work on it by Mścisław Wróblewski "Służba Budowlana (Baudienst) w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie, 1940–1945" 1984, Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- See comment on another section [15]. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- "We already mention that the Baudienst were conscripted starting April 1942". The source states that death penalty was introduced in 1942 for avoiding this form of forced labour, not they were conscripted, where are you getting this from? Intially the penalty for avoiding Baudienst was imprisonment, but this became so widespread that Germans made the penalty harsher."The question is whether they were always forced, or only in the later stages of their existence. "There is no question-Baudienst was always forced service, although you could volunteer for it. "If they provided those services to the Nazi authorities willingly before 1942 then the definition isn't true for that period. We need more sources on this specifically."If you want to claim that Baudienst was voluntary before 1942 you need to find sources on this, but you simply won't find any.From the start it was a form of forced labour. Since out of 4 editors, only you try to challenge this, without presenting any sources, than it seems that you are not really representing consenus or able to back your claims with sources on this subject. As such I believe this discussion can be ended, unless you find sources supporting your claims.If you want a detalied analysis of this subject, there is an extensive work on it by Mścisław Wróblewski "Służba Budowlana (Baudienst) w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie, 1940–1945" 1984, Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Using an eds nationality race or ethnicity to belittle or dismiss their opinions is against policy, I ask all users to stop it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is editing Wikipedia pages or discussing them without basic knowledge of the subject correct?
- Is miquoting Wikipedia correct?
- I ask all users to stop it.
- Is Western a nationality, race or ethnicity?
Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- What is being questioned here? Baudienst were conscripted, through this was not generally done at gun-point, AFAIK - through refusal (escape) could be punished by death in some cases. It was portrayed by German propaganda as "good work", through of course it was little better then slave labor. Still, it is likely some desperate for work individuals might have volunteered; most however had no choice (other than said escape, either before joining or after) as they were assigned to Baudienst by the government officials (essentially, if you had no other job, Baudienst service was de facto unemployment benefit of that time and place - the occupant gov't told you to go to work there. Or else - i.e you became a criminal/fugitive.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The basic question
What is this page about? You can't write about any collaboration if you don't know what the collaboration is. Lack of definition allows to attack Polish people ignoring facts and historical context. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources about the Baudienst, please correct that page. This page is about the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, not about basic description of the Baudienst.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we should move the Baudiesnt discussion to Talk:Baudienst?
- Well, in general Baudienst could use improvement. Anyway, the current Baudientst section here is poorly referenced. The ref to "Antoni Mączak, Encyklopedia historii gospodarczej Polski do 1945 roku: O-Ż (Encyclopedia of Poland's Economic History: O–Ż), Warsaw, Wiedza Powszechna, 1981." doesn't have page number or url, and I'll remove it shortly as unverifiable. This is much better (online, verifiable, reliable). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- The Encyklopedia is availabe for exchange [16]. Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- What has been added?Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to be a different tome than the one cited (through perhaps this is the correct one, considering the tome titles... just another reason to remove this source, since the person citing might have gotten the tome wrong anyway). Anyway, whoever added it should have noted down page numbers. After years here I believe that we need to teach lazy/sloppy editors to be less so, and if this means removing offline sources without page numbers, good. Learn how to cite properly, please. Or if this is too tough, said editors should stick to forums, where the bar to contribute is much less than to encyclopedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- A 2006 bibliography is available: [17]
It quotes a 1984 book by Wróblewski. It's based on his doctor thesis. Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a discussion, which quotes one Aktion - the workers were transported to an another place and obtained vodka. [18] Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Murdering of ethnic Poles
Trawniki men: Some officers of the Nazi German Ordnungspolizei felt uneasy about killing non-Jewish Poles. Their unit shot 4,600 Jews by September 1942, but disproportionately only 78 ethnic Poles. In contrast, the Hiwis, saw the Christian Poles as equal opportunity offenders. When they got too drunk to show up in Aleksandrów, Major Wilhelm Trapp ordered the release of prisoners rounded up for mass execution.[1] Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- What has this to do with Polish collaboration?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not here to teach you, sir. Read books.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, but you are here to argue your case, if you are unable to answer ab simple question in a courteous manner I must assume there is no connection and so must oppose any addition of material relating to this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but some of your comments are hostile (Szare Szeregi as a Nazi formation). Please learn if you want to control the page.
- USA Today describes Palij [19] as Polish born. It's a literary translation from German media (here Deutsche Welle). This text doesn't mention Palij's ethnicity. Palij was accepted by the USA as an Ukrainian, not as a Pole. The German phrase is Der gebürtige Pole Palij .
- This page should inform about Trawniki men, who accepted some former Polish citizens of non-Polish ethnicity. According to Browning such formations were used to murder ethnic Poles, because some German policemen didn't like to kill Poles. This information is important to oppose stories about Polish wardens in German camps.
Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- We do already mention Ukrainians (and one man does not an organisation condemn, and it only "oppose stories about Polish wardens in German camps" if it actually says anything about the subject.), and what the hell has Szare Szeregi got to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- So you have already forgotten? You have offended thousands of heroic Poles.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is not about me, so lay of the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Browning & 1992; 1998, p. 77.
The Wiesenthal list
List of Nazi War Criminals Slated for Possible Prosecution in 2016:
4 of 10 are listed with the word Poland, which is probably a place of crime. However Helma Kissner worked in Auschwitz and Natzweiler-Struthof, so maybe rather Poland/France?Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- So, as far as I know this article is about collaboration, so was she not German?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I mean sommeones ideas about Holocaust Geography - Auschwitz was in Poland but Natzweiler-Struthof in Germany. The French name of the village is Natzwiller but Kulmhof KZ is called Chełmno, even if 95% of the readers don't know how to say Chełmno. Double standards. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Return to the subject of Collaborationist forces in occupied Poland
While Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'd like a show of hands to gauge what the consensus is on including Collaborationist forces such as the Russian S.S. Sturmbrigade R.O.N.A. and its rape, torture and murder of 10,000 people in the Ochota massacre, etc. There were notable Azeri and Ukrainian units, too.
S.S. Sturmbrigade R.O.N.A. | |
---|---|
Active | November 1941 – October 1944 |
Disbanded | October 1944 |
Country | Nazi Germany |
Branch | Waffen-SS |
Type | Infantry |
Role | Auxiliary police |
Size | Brigade |
Colors | White, Blue, and Red |
Engagements | Bandenbekämpfung |
Commanders | |
First | Konstantin Voskoboinik |
Last | Heinrich Jürs |
Notable commanders | Bronislav Kaminski Christoph Von Diehm |
Insignia | |
Shoulder patch |
Poll, Yes/No: Should Collaborationist forces be included in the article 'Collaboration in German-occupied Poland' ?
- Yes. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC))
- No. Although the article's title is "Collaboration in Poland", it seems it is about collaboration of Polish population with occupants. If I understand it correct, collaborationism is "cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime". All foreign units acting in Poland can hardly be considered collaborators, because they were acting against another country, not against their own country. Ukrainian auxiliary police battalions acting in Belorussia were collaborators, because they were acting against their country (USSR). However, Russian (Ukrainian, Azeri etc) units acting agains Poles/Jews in Poland were not acting against their own country. I don't think their status was different from the status of French Foreign Legion or Spanish Blue Division members: they were just foreign citizens at Nazi service.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- This page does not define its subject. Your opinion should be included in a basic discussion of the subject, not here.
- If we accept your opinion, crimes of the mentioned formations committed in Poland should be described in Collaboration in Spain (?), Collbaoration in France... (There are no such pages after ages of creating this Wikipedia).
- Please remeber that some Ukrainians from Poland joined Hiwi (volunteer) (Trawniki men), Palij isn't the only case.Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- NO Agree with Paul Siebert. Also, you can always add links to the other topics in the See also section at the bottom of the page. But, adding this new subject matter would make the article go off on a tangent. --E-960 (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- The problem of this Wikipedia is that it shows Polish people as main collaborators of WWII. There are plenty of explanations why such bias is legal here, they don't however make the problem less important. It's a part of Western cultural collonialism. Wild natives are banned or subject banned when they feel offended. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is not a surprise that the article devoted to collaboration in Poland focuses of Polish collaboration. However, I am not sure your impression that Poles, according to this article, were main collaborators of WWII is correct. I saw much less articles (I mean really good scholarly articles) about Polish collaboration than about collaboration of other nations, so even Western sources give quite an adequate picture. The problem may be that manifestations of Polish anti-semitic, which had its own roots, unrelated to German Nazism, is interpreted as collaboration, although that was not necessarily the case.
- I see the problem not with this article, but with the articles about other occupied nations, because the articles about activity of Ukrainan, Baltic and other collaborators (who were collaborating at much, much larger scale) are trying to understate the scale of that activity, mostly m=because they are based on local sources and are being edited by local editors. One of the mosh shocking articles in that aspect are the articles about UPA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, if you are concerned about the undue emphasis of collaboration of by ethnic Poles, why cannot we expand the section devoted to collaboration in Kresy? Most non-Polish collaborators, including Bandera himself were from that region, and there is a lot of material about their collaboration with Nazi. The story of Galichina division, Battle of Brody (1944), etc definitely belongs to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose AS others have this this page grew out of a desire to have a more detailed discussion of collaboration in Poland by Poles (of whatever ethnicity).Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. A brief mention should be fine, but this article is not the best place of in-depth discussion of those formations. That said, this is a good illustration of why the name of this article shouldn't have been changed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, we do not have this problem in (say) Collaboration in German-occupied Soviet Union.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let's face it, all of such renames are a result of few people who don't want to heal a phrase "Fooian collaborator" (let's not talk about the concept of "Polish collaborators", that's offensive, let's weasel word this term into "collaborators in occupied Poland", then dilute this topic by talking about those evil minority collaborators). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your template Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country summarizes perfectly the bias of this Wikipedia, a small number of collaborators and a longer absence list. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe it is just a WIP, so lay of the accusations of bias. This is not a forum to discus Wikipedias problems, it is a forum to discus how to improve this (THIS) article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your template Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country summarizes perfectly the bias of this Wikipedia, a small number of collaborators and a longer absence list. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Let's face it, all of such renames are a result of few people who don't want to heal a phrase "Fooian collaborator" (let's not talk about the concept of "Polish collaborators", that's offensive, let's weasel word this term into "collaborators in occupied Poland", then dilute this topic by talking about those evil minority collaborators). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, we do not have this problem in (say) Collaboration in German-occupied Soviet Union.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Result: TBC
Włodzimierz Borodziej
https://www.focus.pl/artykul/hitlerowi-nie-zalezalo-na-polskich-kolaborantach Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- YEs?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
To be corrected
During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators.
- Who did execute whom after the war?
- Some forms of collaboration were punished by flogging or cutting hair or boycotting. The cost of an execution was high, sometimes death of many Poles.Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Revert
@Slatersteven: This - discuss? It's a straightforward copyedit - nothing changed in terms of meaning, except for one sentence that was redacted for brevity (the one about the ghetto's liquidation). François Robere (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thus it was not just a CE, it removed material. Also you did make more substantive changes (such as changing " In a smaller incident" to "In another, smaller incident"). It was not just a CE.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: What would you change to let it pass? François Robere (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Some suggestions
I want to revisit some edits I previously suggested. I've been away from Wikipedia for the last three weeks and am still preoccupied, so I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later.
Previous discussion
|
---|
François Robere (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Giving due weight to a non-RS
We have an RfC stating that Poland's ambassador is not an RS on the subject, and that the content of his criticism isn't reliable in the "RS" sense, so we shouldn't quote it. We can say he criticized Grabowski, but going into numbers or "who said what" is too detailed for something that an RfC explicitly states isn't an RS. We can have criticisms here by RS, but mind they should be concise - we already have a huge section in another article dedicated to similar criticisms of Grabowski, and we don't need another one here.
- If it is not RS it gets no weight, this was said last time nothing has changed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yet we're still quoting him in relative detail:
According to statements by Poland's ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch... "Grabowski admitted that the number of fugitives from the ghettos, 250,000, is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's writings. Grabowski simply accepted the maximum number of ghetto escapees suggested by Datner but rejected Datner's estimate of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski, if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion, only 50,000) from the number of fugitives, you get 200,000. Grabowski therefore stated this number as Jews murdered by Poles."
- If he's not an RS, then his methodological criticism is meaningless as far as we're concerned, and should be removed. François Robere (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Remove: undue opinion & per the RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding a section on war profiteering
I think we should consider a section on war profiteering. We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies, and they weren't the only one - some aristocracy, businesspersons, industrialists etc. likely profited as well, and of course there's the looting of Jewish property and the despicable "golden harvest". Assuming proper sourcing, do you think we should have such a section here, or should we spin it off to its own article?
- Not sure this is collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not per se, but much of it was due to collaboration, so it wouldn't be out of line with the rest of the article. If we stick to examples that are due to collaboration (and not eg. smuggling of general goods), would it justify a section? François Robere (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- What is your source that says any of this amounts to collaboration? Amsgearing (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Some of these clearly are - for example if you denounced a Jewish refugee in order to gain their possessions then you profited from collaboration. More familiar examples include corporations that supplied the Nazies, like IBM. Other cases, like looting properties owned by Jewish deportees, I wouldn't necessarily call "collaboration", even though they're on the same spectrum of phenomena. But anyway, as I said I'm not in a position at the moment to argue this in depth - I'm just looking for a decision on principal, on whether we should have a section on it if there are enough sources to support it. François Robere (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- What is your source that says any of this amounts to collaboration? Amsgearing (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not per se, but much of it was due to collaboration, so it wouldn't be out of line with the rest of the article. If we stick to examples that are due to collaboration (and not eg. smuggling of general goods), would it justify a section? François Robere (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: suggest integrating examples of actions by individuals into the "Individual collaboration" section to start with, and then see if the amount of content warrants its own section. Not sure about corporations. I've looked at War profiteering, and IBM etc. do not seem to fit the model. I.e. their German subsidiaries were part of the German industrial complex. In any case, they do not seem to have been "profiteering"; they were simply going about their business. Although perhaps the parent companies bear responsibility -- need to think about this more, or to be able to review some sources if offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Rearranging sections as a step towards restructuring
I think the sections should be reordered, and I suggest the following:
- Background
- Political collaboration
- Security forces
- Baudienst
- Individual collaboration
- Cultural collaboration
- Collaboration and the resistance
- The Holocaust
- Ethnic minorities
The rationale here is grouping everything "state" in the beginning, then moving to everything that's individual by nature, and finally to the meta-subject of the Holocaust, and to minorities. It's not ideal, but it's better than the current arrangement.
There are issues with the current structure that are beyond reordering alone: the "individual" section is unclear (what's "individual" and what's not? We should either redefine the kind of collaboration it covers or break it up and integrate the parts in other sections); "ethnic" is problematic (do we really want grouping by ethnicity here? It's easy, but it's not necessarily right); the "political" section should be split in two (see the rationale above); and the Holocaust section, which is a massive part of the subject, should probably be pushed elsewhere and better integrated with the rest of the article; but for now, simply reorganizing the sections would be a significant improvement.
François Robere (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support: this structure makes sense to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- NO — THIS IS FORUM SHOP, this discussion is nothing more than an attempt my François Robere to forum shop. Similar section order changes were already suggested a few weeks back and rejected here: [20] (see other disscussion still up on the talk page), where user François Robere tries to push a incorrect POV suggesting that the Polish State collaborated, and make that the opening section. So, user FR makes subtle changes to push the article in that direction, here are some past examples: he changed the section "Political collaboration" into "State collaboration" (placed it first in the order), and removed text to fit that narrative, such as changing "a group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians" to "a group of eight politicians", or re-naming the "Security forces" section which contained a sub-section on the Wehrmacht to "National Service". Other users such as User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Xx236 and User:Piotrus have in the past objected to this narrative. --E-960 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Reversal
@E-960: You say "functionary is more accurate" - is it? A functionary is "one who serves in a certain function" [21] or "a person who has to perform official functions or duties; an official" [22] - both of these say almost nothing. "Guard" is clearly more precise, as it adds information on the function those people perform. As for accuracy - the description of the image says nothing about functionaries, guards or anything else, so you've no source to say one definition is more accurate than the other. We're left with two options: Either drop the file, as its relevance here may be nothing but RS; or prefer the more precise, and hence concise description, which is "guards". François Robere (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: How about "Two [[Jewish Ghetto Police|Jewish Ghetto policemen]] guarding the gates of the [[Warsaw Ghetto]], June 1942]]"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, François Robere is back trying to massively change the article to fit his POV, this is nothing more than an attempt to SANITIZE the article text, and the term "functionary" a person who has to perform official functions or duties is quite accurate, since the Ghetto Police were formally tasked with policing duties (not some security-guards), yet they were not "policeman" in a traditional manner. --E-960 (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)