MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) comment |
→Large section added without sources...: new section |
||
Line 496: | Line 496: | ||
--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Large section added without sources... == |
|||
Given that this article is under a restriction to use high quality sources - we really shouldn't be adding unsourced information ... please make sure its sourced before adding. If copied from another article, it still needs to be sourced. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 01:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:14, 2 October 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)
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 [1] 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 [2][3][4]. 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 [2][3][4]. 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)
- [5]. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- @E-960: Profiteering is about making "unreasonable profits"; it's unclear whether IBM's profits were "unreasonable". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 26 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: [6] (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 [7]. 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)
- Slatersteven, if you did not support this option earlier, than I appologize. --E-960 (talk) 16:20, 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 [7]. 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)
- Oppose. A while ago changes to the structure were already discussed and rejected.I mentioned back then that scholars on the subject divided by General Gouvernment and annexed territories(IIRC Francois Robere back then didn't knew about existence of General Gouvernment and Annexed territories and I had to provide explanation). Basically due to different political and administration organization by German state the forms of collaboration and methods used by German state were different.We should go by what the scholars do and distinguish annexed territories from General Gouvernment-the two were different.Furthermore the proposed sections are giving undue weight to certain topics-for example collaboration of ethnic minorities was dominant form of collaboration but is shifted at the very bottom, while marginal entity like Baudienst which is even disputed as collaboration is given place at the top.Another example:we have some vogue security forces named which might imply wrongly that there was some Polish state operating.For these reasons I do not view the proposal as neutral or contributing to the value of the article. I seems to push forward attempts to reignite discussions that were already on this discussion page and have little to do with the overall scholarly study of the topic like the ones done by Czesław Łuczak or Madajczak--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- @MyMoloboaccount, U, and E-960: I would appreciate if you could point me to the earlier discussion on this topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Reversal
@E-960: You say "functionary is more accurate" - is it? A functionary is "one who serves in a certain function" [8] or "a person who has to perform official functions or duties; an official" [9] - 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 [10]. 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 [10]. 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 [11]. 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)
- The main context of the Judenjagd is German terror, not collaboration. The collaboration is rather Grabowski's opinion which contradicts his own research.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 28 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)
- 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)
- Agree with Piotrs-killing Jews doesn't necessarily mean collaboration with Nazi Germany.Also Borkowicz in his analysis of the numbers points out that they must include people dying from hunger, cold and natural reasons while in hiding[12] and the number covers anyone whose fate is unknown--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC).
- Wikipedia policy and guidelines actually makes it very simple: If Grabowski doesn't refer to the Polish killing of Jews as collaboration, then the source has no place in this article. If he does refer to it as such, then he has a place in this article regardless of whether he is controversial or not. That fact that he is controversial would be stated with references to sources. If he has a fringe or minority view, then that would be stated too, with references to sources. François Robere, if you can give me a line of Grabowski that includes the word collaboration, then I may well support you to the hilt; if you are unable to, then I cannot. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's OR.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 28 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 imposing the most broad definiton of the word... 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)
- I previously noted that that is not my approach, but I value you taking the time to explain it. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well yes, not necessary all killings are motivated by collaboration, I think instead of arguing on the meaning on the term, every individual case has to be judged properly if it may be counted as a form of collaboration or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC))
- KIENGIR that would be a breach of WP:NOR. And per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability in reliable sources, not what random Wikipedia editors think is true. So the bottom line is: unless a reliable source refers to something as collaboration, it is a breach of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia for this article to say that something was collaboration. That said, there's still a place for definition of the term higher up the article; and I will support François Robere restoring the Connelly quote per WP:PRESERVE if he could propose a line here. But it should not be added in isolation, especially if it isn't referring to specifically Polish collaboration; there should be other definitions of the term alongside it, including that of the previously discussed Israeli historian who said Poles who killed Jews during the Holocaust tended to be considered murderers rather than collaborators with the Germans by the wider Polish population (and there is indeed a logical problem in whether one can label a Pole who killed Poles, Jews and Nazis a collaborator). One could also add content about the history of the word as used in the WWII context, that it was used by a Frenchman to discuss specifically Vichy French problems in WWII and has since been inflated and extrapolated (there was even differentiation between collaborateur and the collaborationniste, and Vichy arrests of unauthorized collaborators because they wanted to monopolize collaboration, a phenomenon with no parallel in Poland); that context doesn't necessarily fit with the very different complexities of wartime Poland. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- In the absence of any responses to my request for content proposals here, per WP:BOLD I have gone ahead and added the Israeli-American scholar who specifically discusses the notion of Polish antisemitism vis-a-vis collaboration [13]. That would also be the place to add the balancing Connelly quote adjacent to it, provided Connelly does actually name Polish collaboration, per my comment above. François Robere you say "I've no objection to having a separate article: Complicity in the Holocaust covering all aspects of the discussion Re:Poland". There's already the perfect place for that: The Holocaust in Poland#Poles and the Jews. Working on that section might be a way of helping us improve article stability in general. We can also link that section to this article and vice versa. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Chumchum7, I did not give any recommendation to breach any WP rules, I just said in any individual case or debate it has to be checked carefully if it may be treated as a collaboration or not, of course in accordance with the rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
- To clarify, I entirely agree with you that every individual case has to be judged properly if it may be counted as a form of collaboration or not and my point was only to state for the record that we can't be the ones who make that judgement, that it has to come from the sources. I apologize for my imprecise phrasing which might have looked like I was suggesting you were advocating OR, which you were not. That was not my intention. We're on the same page. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also to clarify, judgements are considered to be made in accordance with the WP rules, and some cases could much more complicated and widespread just to have one source's statements, etc. There are multiple sources, multiple approaches, in what case what source we may use, what would be relevant, decisive, correct or could treated in general for something, sythesis, etc. I think I don't tell you anything new, more or less even if all the WP rules are regarded and applied, many times the users decide in what form or how we apply them, since numerous constellations are possible, so anyway most of the cases the user's collaboration regarding consensus is also inevitable.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
- To clarify, I entirely agree with you that every individual case has to be judged properly if it may be counted as a form of collaboration or not and my point was only to state for the record that we can't be the ones who make that judgement, that it has to come from the sources. I apologize for my imprecise phrasing which might have looked like I was suggesting you were advocating OR, which you were not. That was not my intention. We're on the same page. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Chumchum7, I did not give any recommendation to breach any WP rules, I just said in any individual case or debate it has to be checked carefully if it may be treated as a collaboration or not, of course in accordance with the rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
- Well yes, not necessary all killings are motivated by collaboration, I think instead of arguing on the meaning on the term, every individual case has to be judged properly if it may be counted as a form of collaboration or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC))
- I previously noted that that is not my approach, but I value you taking the time to explain it. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 26 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 imposing the most broad definiton of the word... 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)
The lead is of poor quality
the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators
- Different punishments were applied: head shaving, flogging.
- The price of an execution was too high to be frequently applied.
- Some people were falsely accused (Józef Mackiewicz).
- Many people were punished after the war frequently on the basis of so clalled August decrees. The quality of law at that time was controversial. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
citation needed
- Does the template apply to the whole lead, the second paragraph or the last phrase?
- Any lead should summarize the page. Many leads don't quote any sources. This one quotes two sources, which is not enough. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Żbikowski
- Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to complete a task or achieve a goal. :Moral degradation under Nazi terror isn't collaboration.
- High criminality during the war isn't collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Generally people misuse outlawed people, eg. illegall immigrants. It's opportunism rather than collaboration with the state which doesn't alllow the immigration.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Winstone quotation
The first paragraph of this article's "The Holocaust" section includes the following:
Regarding the purported low Polish resolve to save Jews, Winstone writes that this tendency may be partly explained by fear of execution by the Germans. He nevertheless notes that the Germans imposed death sentences for many other acts and that "it may well be that the risk of hiding a Jew was greater, but that is in itself suggestive since the Germans were not the only danger".
Could somebody please explain the meaning of the second sentence in the above quotation? I have never been able to understand it.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- He is implying that the fear of firing squad may not have been the only factor.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- He's referring to the risk posed by fellow Poles (denouncers, blackmailers and mobs), as noted in a previous discussion. Earlier this week I've called Mr. Winstone, who kindly agreed to clarify this by email. I am now awaiting his reply. François Robere (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a valid source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it is if a 3rd party can verify the email is indeed from the source. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- And if they can verify it has not been altered in any way. And I suspect also there may be other needs (such as the third party must themselves be a reputable source, not Bert from down the pub or just another blogger). Thre is also the question of copyright (and SPS). It might pass muster, but may well not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've received Mr. Winstone's reply, which I will quote below. For the purpose of verification, I suggest forwarding the message to an admin of your choosing. François Robere (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- ...or to Bert down at the pub. François Robere (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've received Mr. Winstone's reply, which I will quote below. For the purpose of verification, I suggest forwarding the message to an admin of your choosing. François Robere (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- And if they can verify it has not been altered in any way. And I suspect also there may be other needs (such as the third party must themselves be a reputable source, not Bert from down the pub or just another blogger). Thre is also the question of copyright (and SPS). It might pass muster, but may well not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it is if a 3rd party can verify the email is indeed from the source. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a valid source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have read (I don't rememeber where) that Winston criticized that Poles accepted to die for Poland or for food (illegal pigs) rather than helping Jews.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the above, Mr. Winstone's reply:
The other danger I was referring to was the risk of denunciation (or worse) by neighbours. The example I use in the text is of the farmer Kalwinski who hid Leon Weliczker and asked him at liberation “not to come back to visit him or for any other reason; it would be hard for him if it were known that he had hidden Jews” (Leon Weliczker Wells, The Janowska Road (Macmillan, 1966), p. 239), i.e. he feared the consequences from his neighbours.
There are many well-documented examples of Poles being denounced by their neighbours during the war for hiding Jews; they often lost their lives as a result. Cases can be found in many studies, including:
Jan Grabowski, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (Indiana University Press, 2013), especially pp. 149-170
Barbara Engelking, Such a Beautiful Sunny Day…: Jews Seeking Refuge in the Polish Countryside, 1942-1945 (Yad Vashem, 2016), especially pp. 186-188
If you would like to quote specific examples, I have attached an article by Barbara Engelking[1] which summarises the above book – there are examples on page 442 (page 10 of the PDF).
— Martin Winstone, by email to the undersigned 12:14, 28 September, 2018 (UTC)
François Robere (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I cannot forward the e-mail, I do not have access to the original. Moreover there is no way to verify if this is an accurate or complete rendition of the text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm offering to forward it myself. If you think it's altered (the nuclear secret that it is) there are other ways to do it. Just pick a Wikipedian you trust who's willing to help and I'll handle the rest. François Robere (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Then forward it, and ask an admin to confirm this can be used.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm offering to forward it myself. If you think it's altered (the nuclear secret that it is) there are other ways to do it. Just pick a Wikipedian you trust who's willing to help and I'll handle the rest. François Robere (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I did not really need the email to understand the quotation. It seems pretty straightforward to me: (1) death penalty was imposed for many acts of resistance, including, but not limited to, hiding the Jews; (2) the danger to those aiding Jews in hiding did not only come from the Germans. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- coffman, you are just way smarter than me. I did what all the above editors could have done: found the book in Google Books, and edited accordingly. Not quite sure why we would ask the author to explain. But it's an interesting passage, that's clear. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- BTW I'm happy to see that my reading of the book seems to agree what the author said in further commentary, which indeed we are not going to cite. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- As you can see in the previous two discussions on the matter (the first linked above, the second immediately follows the first), some editors took issues with actually reading the text and writing on what we read, insisting on as obtuse an interpretation of the text as possible - creating the need for clarification.
- If the commentary resolves this on the TP, that's enough. François Robere (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t exactly see any point in the quote here.That people reported hiding Jews to German authorities is well known. It doesn’t come off as any revelation to anyone who studies this subject. Irregardless of problems veryifing the quote it had other problems, for example the broad term Poles doesn’t specify if they Germans with Polish citizens, ethnic Poles, Ukrainians or so on. I don’t really see any value in this quote, the general information can be added, if it isn’t already but it isn’t any breakthrough or revelation on its own.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's obvious that many Poles informed the Nazis but certainly not only about hiding Jews. They informed about criminal activities, underground. Some used the Nazis against hated neighbours. Many Poles were born in Germany or Austria so some of them accepted German rules. There is a book [15] about Poles who informed Nazis in Warsaw region 1940-1941 and about post workers who captured such letters.
- Denouncing deserves detailed description. Now there are only two atypical cases mentioned - a Jew and Communists. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Engelking, Barbara (August 2011). "Murdering and Denouncing Jews in the Polish Countryside, 1942-1945". East European Politics and Societies. 25 (3): 433–456. doi:10.1177/0888325411398912. ISSN 0888-3254.
The Baudienst as collaboration
The text doesn't even mention the Poles who worked as foremen, they were probably collaborators. I'm not sure if conscripted terrorised teeneagers were collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here are several suggestions how to edit this page (I admit, I have copied them, if the author claims his authorship - be welcome):
- Wikipedia being what it is, I'm urging editors to stay focused on the text. The way the Wikipedia community usually handles edit wars and personal animosities is by throwing the belligerents into a well and seeing who comes out first. It's nasty.
- Whether the passage belongs in this article or in some introductory or background text depends on whether the source presents it as a reply to criticism, or whether we're presenting it as such on our own accord.
- If the source presented this as a response to criticism, then it can be placed either immediately following the criticism (where it is now), or in a dedicated "responses to criticism" section. If the source did not present it as such, then it is WP:OR and should be re/moved. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm flattered! François Robere (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry,could you explain your comment? What are you flattered by?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Holocaust section-important parts missing
The current version for some reason was focused on Poles helping Jews. It lacked infroamtion on paramilitaries engaged in Holocaust and collaborative local administration assisting Nazis. I added some sections divided on phases of Holocaust in occupied Poland. I believe this could be further improved. Collaboration in Holocaust in occupied Poland mainly involved:
- Ukrainian and Lithuanian auxillary police units
- Trawniki men
- Judenrate
- Pogroms
I guess this could be divided in these sections if needed.The previous version was seriously lacking,since there was no mention of such important grups as Trawniki men who were intensely involved in Holocaust as organized collaboration paramilitary. I guess copying information might be not ideal, but it is a good start to build up the section in line with historical research and importance on this subject.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Large section added without sources...
Given that this article is under a restriction to use high quality sources - we really shouldn't be adding unsourced information ... please make sure its sourced before adding. If copied from another article, it still needs to be sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)