François Robere (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 516: | Line 516: | ||
We have been here over and over again, and we will return ad infinitum with an ever unstable article until we add a line in the lede with citations which states that some sources differ on what collaboration was. It's really not for us to decide what collaboration is. Per [[WP:NOTTRUTH]], what do the various sources say: Is the killing of a Pole by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is the killing of a Jew by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is working for the police - whether Blue Police or Ghetto Police - during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is declining to fight against Germany collaboration? Is profiteering collaboration? Is selling goods to Germans collaboration? etc etc. Please let's discuss proposals for the line, below. -[[User:Chumchum7|Chumchum7]] ([[User talk:Chumchum7|talk]]) 12:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
We have been here over and over again, and we will return ad infinitum with an ever unstable article until we add a line in the lede with citations which states that some sources differ on what collaboration was. It's really not for us to decide what collaboration is. Per [[WP:NOTTRUTH]], what do the various sources say: Is the killing of a Pole by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is the killing of a Jew by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is working for the police - whether Blue Police or Ghetto Police - during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is declining to fight against Germany collaboration? Is profiteering collaboration? Is selling goods to Germans collaboration? etc etc. Please let's discuss proposals for the line, below. -[[User:Chumchum7|Chumchum7]] ([[User talk:Chumchum7|talk]]) 12:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
: Connelly's quote on "structural collaboration" would've solved this for now, but it was removed by one or more editors at some point. By the way - as I said before, I've no objection to having a separate article: [[Complicity in the Holocaust]] covering all aspects of the discussion Re:Poland, but I guarantee you it will be even less stable than this one. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
: Connelly's quote on "structural collaboration" would've solved this for now, but it was removed by one or more editors at some point. By the way - as I said before, I've no objection to having a separate article: [[Complicity in the Holocaust]] covering all aspects of the discussion Re:Poland, but I guarantee you it will be even less stable than this one. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
::I agree with [[User:Chumchum7|Chumchum7]], this is going over board, and that's also the issue with Grabowski's statement, how much of this was criminal activity vs. actual collaboration. Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to impose his POV on this article by basically calling everything collaboration, imposing the most extreme definiton of the word (a minority view no less)... was just living and going to work "structural collaboration" because in effect you were still a cog in the German war time economy. I criticized user François Robere approach before as it is very one sided and bias leaning to the most broad defininion of collaboration to the point of extreme. --[[User:E-960|E-960]] ([[User talk:E-960|talk]]) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:35, 25 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)
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 [1].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 [2], [3], 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 [4], 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 [4], 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)
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 [6]. 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: [7]
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. [8] 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 [9] 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)
- I am not sure it needs changing, so I am not going to offer an alternative text.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: This?
- I am not sure it needs changing, so I am not going to offer an alternative text.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: What would you change to let it pass? François Robere (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Example text
|
---|
References
|
- François Robere (talk) 12:18, 22 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)
- I think we can quote an RS quoting him, but not him. But I am not fussed if it is removed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Remove: undue opinion & per the RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I am ok with removal, provided this criticism is retained in the article about the book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 24 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)
- We go with what RS say, if RS says X was collaboration so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- One question: Some sources use the phrase "profited from" rather than "profiteered from", which is uncommon usage. I don't see it as a problem, but others would disagree. Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- You could've just said, "I don't have any sources." Amsgearing (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
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
...We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies
In addition, there are a lot of sources on looting of Jewish property, denunciation of Jews for money, blackmailing (including of Jews hiding on one's own property) etc. etc., as these were quite common phenomena. What I don't have sources on ATM is more "traditional" examples of profiteering - industrialists, businesspersons etc., but I would be hard pressed to believe these didn't take place. François Robere (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- We go with what RS say, if RS says X was collaboration so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 22 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)
- Good suggestion. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- This subject matter is not quite related to collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman your justification of IBM is bizarre, IBM was not profiteering just doing business... seriously. There are so many sources out there that describe what IBM as collaboration, here are just a few articles [10][11][12]. Btw, just looting property is not collaboration, there were many examples of looting, not just against Jews. It seems that you apply a double standard on the issue. This material is not related to collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Btw, don't we already have references to "Szmalcowniks" who were the blackmailers and profiteers, in the Holocaust Section, why do you want to repeate the material on profiteering in the Individual Collaboration sections was well, that's undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- No one said anything about repetition. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman your justification of IBM is bizarre, IBM was not profiteering just doing business... seriously. There are so many sources out there that describe what IBM as collaboration, here are just a few articles [10][11][12]. Btw, just looting property is not collaboration, there were many examples of looting, not just against Jews. It seems that you apply a double standard on the issue. This material is not related to collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this should first be discussed in the article on collaboration with the Axis. A global overview should be created first, before we do something here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- [13]. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 25 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: [14] (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)
- E-960 your attitude is way beyond WP:AGF, and an admin already warned you (and others) against it [15]. You're assuming everything but good faith, and reading into things things that aren't there. If you recall, I also suggested renaming the section "state non-collaboration" and "state defiance", and I thoroughly explained why splitting the section in two makes sense. As for the "eight politicians" - we already quote a source stating they were low ranking in that very paragraph, so no material was removed - only duplicity. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is clearly an example of Forum Shop, when you keep repeating the same proposals that were not accepted just a few weeks ago. The reason why originally Individual Collaboration was first is because this was the most prevalent form of collaboration in Poland, There was no State Collaboration, because the Polish State went into Exile and fought against the German Nazis, and Political Collaboration was minimal. That's why the order starts with individual collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not quite, forum shopping is taking ti to multiple forums, but it can be seen as wp:tenditious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. The suggestion hasn't been previously discussed ("I don't like it" is not a discussion), so I'm entitled to bring it again. Now, from what I can see we have two in support (maybe three, if Piotrus notices it), and one against. François Robere (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Individual Collaboration is first as originally placed in article because it was the biggers form of collaboration, Political Collaboration was minimal that's why it's second. You want to group everything by "State" despite the fact that in previous discussions several editors objected to your POV push, since there was no Polish state collaboration, and that does not change just because a couple of weeks later you reopened the disscusion, their voice is still valid desipte you and user Slatersteven trying to ignore earlier objections This is just an extension of those original discusions and you have no consensus. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it was mostly arbitrary. You can see in this early revision that what we now have in that section was spread all across multiple sub-sections, and the "background" section (which is the first) actually contains the "political collaboration" material.
- If there was no state collaboration, what's the problem with stating that first? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have asked you to drop this, that is all I am going to say on it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- To a degree, but not only after a couple of months. This can look like just asking and asking and asking until you bludgeon the opposition into submission, hence what I said above.
- Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I understand. This is surely not my intention - I merely want one serious discussion to be conducted on this, just like other issues I previously raised (and haven't since re-raised). I'm content with whatever the consensus is, as long as actual discussion took place. BTW, do you have a position on this? François Robere (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- We have had that serious discussion, and I see no reason why we need another so soon. It does not matter if this is a rearrangement (with a rewording) or not, the rewording has been rejected by consensus before. I am asking you to drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- No one expressed any clear objections to re-arrangement until this discussion - only to re-wording, which is why I didn't re-raise it here. This is not a repetition of the previous discussion. At the moment we have two supporters and one objector - I'd rather let this run its course and see where we get. François Robere (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- We have had that serious discussion, and I see no reason why we need another so soon. It does not matter if this is a rearrangement (with a rewording) or not, the rewording has been rejected by consensus before. I am asking you to drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- And I would remind E-960 to AGF to bother to read what people write, ignoring what users say and attacking them for what you think they have said can also be seen as wp:tenditious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I understand. This is surely not my intention - I merely want one serious discussion to be conducted on this, just like other issues I previously raised (and haven't since re-raised). I'm content with whatever the consensus is, as long as actual discussion took place. BTW, do you have a position on this? François Robere (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Individual Collaboration is first as originally placed in article because it was the biggers form of collaboration, Political Collaboration was minimal that's why it's second. You want to group everything by "State" despite the fact that in previous discussions several editors objected to your POV push, since there was no Polish state collaboration, and that does not change just because a couple of weeks later you reopened the disscusion, their voice is still valid desipte you and user Slatersteven trying to ignore earlier objections This is just an extension of those original discusions and you have no consensus. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. The suggestion hasn't been previously discussed ("I don't like it" is not a discussion), so I'm entitled to bring it again. Now, from what I can see we have two in support (maybe three, if Piotrus notices it), and one against. François Robere (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not quite, forum shopping is taking ti to multiple forums, but it can be seen as wp:tenditious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is clearly an example of Forum Shop, when you keep repeating the same proposals that were not accepted just a few weeks ago. The reason why originally Individual Collaboration was first is because this was the most prevalent form of collaboration in Poland, There was no State Collaboration, because the Polish State went into Exile and fought against the German Nazis, and Political Collaboration was minimal. That's why the order starts with individual collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- E-960 your attitude is way beyond WP:AGF, and an admin already warned you (and others) against it [15]. You're assuming everything but good faith, and reading into things things that aren't there. If you recall, I also suggested renaming the section "state non-collaboration" and "state defiance", and I thoroughly explained why splitting the section in two makes sense. As for the "eight politicians" - we already quote a source stating they were low ranking in that very paragraph, so no material was removed - only duplicity. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 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" [16] or "a person who has to perform official functions or duties; an official" [17] - 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)
- The problem arose because the other common term - "police officer" - I find distasteful in this use. We should use "policemen" instead. François Robere (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- What was their official name, use that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Polizist" - policeman [18]. We should use that. François Robere (talk)
- A Wikipedia photo caption is not an RS, so I ask again what was their official name?09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia that's the source, it's the Bundesarchiv:
https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1537788716/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=1
François Robere (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)- Your link takes me to a search page, not a result. I would have though you could find a better source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weird. It should link directly to the item. You can check this link as well, but you'll need to click it for the description. François Robere (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your link takes me to a search page, not a result. I would have though you could find a better source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia that's the source, it's the Bundesarchiv:
- A Wikipedia photo caption is not an RS, so I ask again what was their official name?09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Polizist" - policeman [18]. We should use that. François Robere (talk)
Copyedit
This change was previously rejected. The reversing editor believe the removal of "low ranking" was removal of content; in fact, it is stated in the same paragraph that: "in view of the low profile of the Poles involved...", so "low ranking" was a duplicity, and removing it was a matter of copyedit. Nevertheless, I'm suggesting two alternatives, both I believe read better than the original:
Original:
A group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians and officers broke with the Polish Government and in Lisbon, Portugal, addressed a memorandum to Germany, asking for discussions about restoring a Polish state under German occupation, which was rejected by the Germans. According to Czeslaw Madajczyk, in view of the low profile of the Poles involved and of Berlin's rejection of the memorandum, no political collaboration can be said to have taken place.
Alt. 1:
A group of eight politicians and officers broke with the Polish Government and addressed a memorandum to Germany, asking for discussions about restoring the Polish state under German occupation. The Germans rejected the offer. According to Czeslaw Madajczyk, considering the low profile of those involved and Berlin's rejection of the memorandum, no "collaboration" can be said to have taken place.
Alt. 2:
A group of eight politicians and officers from the lower ranks of Polish Government broke with the official government line and addressed a memorandum to Germany, asking for discussions about restoring the Polish state under German occupation. The Germans rejected the offer. According to Czeslaw Madajczyk, considering the low profile of those involved and Berlin's rejection of the memorandum, no "collaboration" can be said to have taken place.
Which would you use? François Robere (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Again, the original should not be changes. Just like earlier in the same discussion you brough up a few weeks back, which did not gain consensus, no need to change anything. The long standing statement "low-ranking Polish politicians" is appropriate and provides a more details description and should stay. --E-960 (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, then you have alternative #2. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- No to alternatives, I said no change needed. --E-960 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- What's the importance of mentioning they met in Lisbon? François Robere (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- No to alternatives, I said no change needed. --E-960 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, then you have alternative #2. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Quoting writer rather than venue
We currently quote "an article in the Polish nationwide daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita (The Republic)"; any objections to attributing it instead to its writer, Piotr Zaremba (ie. "an article by Piotr Zaremba...")? Also possible: "An article by... published in...". François Robere (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep the statement as is, again François Robere you are making massive changes to the article (you were asked by several editors to refereing from such editing, including admins) — highlighting some detials while diminishing others, just like with the above section. All quite confusing when all these changes are being pushed on the article at once. --E-960 (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- See no reason why not, we often do it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, because you are stripping the detail. Rzeczpospolita is one of Poland's largest newspapers, so it should be mentioned. And your statement, "we often do it" comes across as Wikipedia:I just don't like it, not you or François Robere provided any legitimate justification for the change other than just want to change it. How about acticle in Polish nationwide daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita by Piotr Zaremba. --E-960 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- No it is about being consistent. also it was published in it's Plus Minus weekend magazine, not in the newspaper itself. One reason why we might want to attribute it to the writers rather then the publisher.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- So, write that in, New York Times also has a weekend edition. It is important to show where this interview appeard. I find you recomendations rather incosistant in one disscussion you argue for showing reliable sources, now you want to remove mention of them, absolutle no consistancy whatsoever, just sloppy arguments that fit your fancy. --E-960 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is not the weekend edition, it is a separate magazine.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, because you are stripping the detail. Rzeczpospolita is one of Poland's largest newspapers, so it should be mentioned. And your statement, "we often do it" comes across as Wikipedia:I just don't like it, not you or François Robere provided any legitimate justification for the change other than just want to change it. How about acticle in Polish nationwide daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita by Piotr Zaremba. --E-960 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Short re-haul of Grabowski paragraph
This is getting long again [19]. This isn't an article about Grabowski!
Original:
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." (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing).[1][2] The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize[3][4] but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians and by the Polish Antidefamation League.[5][6] In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski.[7][8][9] Grabowski's statements were criticized by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch.[10] Historian Bogdan Musial criticized Grabowski's work as improperly sourced, lacking in witness statements and archival documents.[11] Historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote in her review that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research.[12] Also, historian Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute, stated that Grabowski's claim of 200,000 Jews was "hot air" and wrote that it was difficult to accept Grabowski's claim as correct.[13] Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'."[14]
Suggestion:
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" (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing).[15][2] The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize[3][16] but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians, by the Polish Antidefamation League[17][6][18][19][13] and by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch.[10] In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski.[7][20][21] Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'."[22]
The above keeps all the references, but strips away most of the quotes. Alternatively, we can remove most of the refs and just add a {{main}} pointing to Hunt for the Jews#Controversy. François Robere (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good catch with this section. I'd suggest it should be removed entirely. Grabowsk's number, in addition be being controversial and disputed, is about killing Jews. Killing Jews was not always collaboration. A greedy peasant murdering a Jewish refugee to steal his purse was just an opportunist war profeetering criminal, not a collaborator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. It was performed in light and in advancement (direct or indirect) of the Nazi agenda (in fact, the title of one of the critiques is "The Polish people weren't tacit collaborators"). The context of the research ("Judenjagd") is also of collaboration. I submit that whether you agree this is collaboration or "just" complicity, it belongs here as long as we don't a separate article on the latter. We should keep it brief, though. François Robere (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- A matter for further debate (personally I think that collaboration requires direct contact; so if one Pole informed the Germans on a Jew in hiding, he was a collaborator; if he just killed the Jew himself, he was not a collaborator, through he was complicit in a Holocaust; i.e. I'd argue that not all Holocaust perpetrators where Germans or their collaborators), but for now I've shortened the paragraph, since we both agree on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with user:Piotrus, reference to Grabowski should be removed all together, his work is controversial and not universally accepted. Otherwise lengthy explanations for both arguments are needed. But, there is no consensus to just removing all statements which explain the objections to Grabowski's figures. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's not consensus regarding removal either. I think Piotrus's revision was good enough for the time being. We can link to the relevant section as well. Remember - this isn't an article about Grabowski! François Robere (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- You cited in the edit summary WP:NPOV - Grabowski's statement is attributed, and we mention the main criticism with three references; this is enough to satisfy neutrality requirements - we don't have to go into methodological details by both sides. As for Grabowski being "controversial" - his supporters from within the field, both in and outside of Poland, far outweigh his detractors. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with user:Piotrus, reference to Grabowski should be removed all together, his work is controversial and not universally accepted. Otherwise lengthy explanations for both arguments are needed. But, there is no consensus to just removing all statements which explain the objections to Grabowski's figures. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- A matter for further debate (personally I think that collaboration requires direct contact; so if one Pole informed the Germans on a Jew in hiding, he was a collaborator; if he just killed the Jew himself, he was not a collaborator, through he was complicit in a Holocaust; i.e. I'd argue that not all Holocaust perpetrators where Germans or their collaborators), but for now I've shortened the paragraph, since we both agree on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree. It was performed in light and in advancement (direct or indirect) of the Nazi agenda (in fact, the title of one of the critiques is "The Polish people weren't tacit collaborators"). The context of the research ("Judenjagd") is also of collaboration. I submit that whether you agree this is collaboration or "just" complicity, it belongs here as long as we don't a separate article on the latter. We should keep it brief, though. François Robere (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mirosław Maciorowski, "Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów". "Nigdy nie mówiłem o 200 tys. Żydów zamordowanych własnoręcznie przez Polaków", Gazeta Wyborcza. Retrieved 2018-05-06.
- ^ a b Grabowski, Jan (2013). Hunt for the Jews: betrayal and murder in German-occupied Poland. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253010742. OCLC 868951735.
- ^ a b "Hunt for the Jews snags Yad Vashem book prize", Times of Israel (JTA), 8 December 2014.
- ^ "Professor Jan Grabowski wins the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize", Yad Vashem, 4 December 2014.
- ^ "Stanowczo sprzeciwiamy się działalności i wypowiedziom Jana Grabowskiego" (in Polish). wPolityce.
- ^ a b "Canadian historian joins uproar in Israel over Polish Holocaust law". CBC. 20 February 2018.
- ^ a b "Historians defend prof who wrote of Poles' Holocaust complicity". Times of Israel (JTA). 13 June 2017.
- ^ Wildt, Michael (19 June 2017). "Solidarity with Jan Grabowski". Retrieved 8 April 2018.
- ^ Perkel, Colin (June 20, 2017). "University of Ottawa scholar says he's a target of Polish 'hate' campaign | CBC News". CBC. The Canadian Press. Retrieved 8 April 2018.
- ^ a b Kołodziejski, Konrad (1 March 2018). "A new number from Jan Grabowski. Who came up with 40,000 Holocaust survivors?" [Padła kolejna liczba Jana Grabowskiego. Kto wymyślił 40 tysięcy ocalonych z Holokaustu?]. wPolityce.pl.
- ^ Musial, Bogdan (2011). "Judenjagd – 'umiejętne działanie' czy zbrodnicza perfidia?"". Dzieje Najnowsze: kwartalnik poświęcony historii XX wieku (in Polish). Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
- ^ Samsonowska, Krystyna (July 2011). "Dąbrowa Tarnowska - nieco inaczej. (Dąbrowa Tarnowska - not quite like that)". Więź. 7: 75–85.
- ^ a b Grzegorz Berendt (24 February 2017). ""The Polish People Weren't Tacit Collaborators with Nazi Extermination of Jews" (opinion)". Haaretz.
- ^ Zaremba, Piotr (2018-04-15). "Rewizjoniści w drodze donikąd". Rzeczpospolita. Retrieved 2018-05-12.
- ^ Mirosław Maciorowski, "Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów". "Nigdy nie mówiłem o 200 tys. Żydów zamordowanych własnoręcznie przez Polaków", Gazeta Wyborcza. Retrieved 2018-05-06.
- ^ "Professor Jan Grabowski wins the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize", Yad Vashem, 4 December 2014.
- ^ "Stanowczo sprzeciwiamy się działalności i wypowiedziom Jana Grabowskiego" (in Polish). wPolityce.
- ^ Musial, Bogdan (2011). "Judenjagd – 'umiejętne działanie' czy zbrodnicza perfidia?"". Dzieje Najnowsze: kwartalnik poświęcony historii XX wieku (in Polish). Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
- ^ Samsonowska, Krystyna (July 2011). "Dąbrowa Tarnowska - nieco inaczej. (Dąbrowa Tarnowska - not quite like that)". Więź. 7: 75–85.
- ^ Wildt, Michael (19 June 2017). "Solidarity with Jan Grabowski". Retrieved 8 April 2018.
- ^ Perkel, Colin (June 20, 2017). "University of Ottawa scholar says he's a target of Polish 'hate' campaign | CBC News". CBC. The Canadian Press. Retrieved 8 April 2018.
- ^ Zaremba, Piotr (2018-04-15). "Rewizjoniści w drodze donikąd". Rzeczpospolita. Retrieved 2018-05-12.
Definition of the term, again
Look at the exchange above:
Killing Jews was not always collaboration. A greedy peasant murdering a Jewish refugee to steal his purse was just an opportunist war profeetering criminal, not a collaborator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. It was performed in light and in advancement (direct or indirect) of the Nazi agenda (in fact, the title of one of the critiques is "The Polish people weren't tacit collaborators"). The context of the research ("Judenjagd") is also of collaboration. I submit that whether you agree this is collaboration or "just" complicity, it belongs here as long as we don't a separate article on the latter. We should keep it brief, though. François Robere (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
We have been here over and over again, and we will return ad infinitum with an ever unstable article until we add a line in the lede with citations which states that some sources differ on what collaboration was. It's really not for us to decide what collaboration is. Per WP:NOTTRUTH, what do the various sources say: Is the killing of a Pole by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is the killing of a Jew by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is working for the police - whether Blue Police or Ghetto Police - during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is declining to fight against Germany collaboration? Is profiteering collaboration? Is selling goods to Germans collaboration? etc etc. Please let's discuss proposals for the line, below. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Connelly's quote on "structural collaboration" would've solved this for now, but it was removed by one or more editors at some point. By the way - as I said before, I've no objection to having a separate article: Complicity in the Holocaust covering all aspects of the discussion Re:Poland, but I guarantee you it will be even less stable than this one. François Robere (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Chumchum7, this is going over board, and that's also the issue with Grabowski's statement, how much of this was criminal activity vs. actual collaboration. Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to impose his POV on this article by basically calling everything collaboration, imposing the most extreme definiton of the word (a minority view no less)... was just living and going to work "structural collaboration" because in effect you were still a cog in the German war time economy. I criticized user François Robere approach before as it is very one sided and bias leaning to the most broad defininion of collaboration to the point of extreme. --E-960 (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)