GizzyCatBella (talk | contribs) |
François Robere (talk | contribs) →"Baiting schemes": new section |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::::We do not judge that a source says, we repeat it. You have provide no valid rational for exclusion of this see also, and this is getting to the stage of tendentious editing.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC) |
:::::We do not judge that a source says, we repeat it. You have provide no valid rational for exclusion of this see also, and this is getting to the stage of tendentious editing.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::: [[User:E-960|E-960]] oh, so we are having a debate about Polish [[Waffen SS]] now :)? Interesting. Did we have a discussion about Polish [[Gestapo]] yet? Sorry for asking but I'm not following this closely anymore? In any case, let Piotr deal with this now [[User:E-960|E-960]]. [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella|talk]]) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC) |
:::::: [[User:E-960|E-960]] oh, so we are having a debate about Polish [[Waffen SS]] now :)? Interesting. Did we have a discussion about Polish [[Gestapo]] yet? Sorry for asking but I'm not following this closely anymore? In any case, let Piotr deal with this now [[User:E-960|E-960]]. [[User:GizzyCatBella|GizzyCatBella]] ([[User talk:GizzyCatBella|talk]]) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
== "Baiting schemes" == |
|||
{{quote|One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Polish families for help; if a family agreed to help, it was reported to the Germans, who—as a matter of announced policy—executed the entire family.}} |
|||
This looks like [[blood libel]] material, and is only sourced by ''Money.pl'' and ''Salon24'', which seem like popular magazines and not something we should count on for a claim of this gravity. Are there any RS supporting this, or should I remove it ''again''? [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:25, 17 March 2018
Poland Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Deprod
Splitting separate articles from long sections is how wikipedia works: WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. This was done in accordance with WP:SPLIT. One can of course take it to AfD, but you'll need a better argument that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (To be honest, I don't like this topic that much, but it doesn't stop me from seeing it is notable). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would seem that modern historiography and hagiography around this matter has made it independently notable, despite "collaboration" (here, and in the original parent article) being a POVish term.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- You take off that delete request, and I'll forward you to incident board, this article is clearly contact forking, because all it does is duplicates stuff on WW2 collaboration page, this article is noting more then user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus throwing a crying fit over the last article — instead of waiting a bit on the other article. --E-960 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Read the policy, this is not an uncontroversial deletion, as multiple edds have said so. AFD it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion- you may only PROD once. this article was already prodded and de-prodded. You can't prod again. If you think this should be deleted - you need to do an AfD. Or a merge discussion (back to the list) - I doubt such a motion will succeed, but that's the way forward after a de-Prod.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- You take off that delete request, and I'll forward you to incident board, this article is clearly contact forking, because all it does is duplicates stuff on WW2 collaboration page, this article is noting more then user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus throwing a crying fit over the last article — instead of waiting a bit on the other article. --E-960 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would seem that modern historiography and hagiography around this matter has made it independently notable, despite "collaboration" (here, and in the original parent article) being a POVish term.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hiwi (volunteer)
Poles who served in the Wehrmacht (it does not matter if they are ethnic poles) Poles in the Wehrmacht, they were Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is not the correct application of Hiwi, it primarily relates to other ethnicities that served in the SS, however I agree that the Poles in the Wehrmacht is ok in this case, as there were many Poles from Sląsk who were drafted in, but they were not willing collaborators. On the other hand Hiwi is a willing collaborator who joined the German uniformed services. --E-960 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Primarily is not solely, if poles served in the capacity of Hiwi it is a valid see also.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- I thought (by the way) no poles served in the SS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- No they did not serve in the SS, and there was no such thing as a Polish unit, that's correct. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- It does not matter if they were a unit [[1]] "...members transferred to various units of the SS, Gestapo..." so poles served in the SS, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps, you should let-off the subject, because I'll ask you what do you mean by "Pole" someone of ethnic back ground or former citizenship? Because an ethnic Poles was a non-entity with no legal status, and he would not have been allowed in to the GERMAN Wehrmacht, Gestapo, or German SS units. --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- It does not matter if they were a unit [[1]] "...members transferred to various units of the SS, Gestapo..." so poles served in the SS, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- No they did not serve in the SS, and there was no such thing as a Polish unit, that's correct. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- I thought (by the way) no poles served in the SS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Primarily is not solely, if poles served in the capacity of Hiwi it is a valid see also.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
BTW, read the the opening paragraph of Hiwi: "Hitler reluctantly agreed to allow recruitment of Soviet citizens in the Rear Areas during Operation Barbarossa." and "Between September 1941 and July 1944 the SS employed thousands of collaborationist auxiliary police recruited as Hiwis directly from the Soviet POW camps." This term relates to folks in the Soviet Union who collaborated, not Poland. This is what I was afraid of, editors who do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject just adding every questionable item to this article. --E-960 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- So are you arguing that Ethnic Germans were not Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Either way, Hiwi relates to SOVIET collaborators, pls read the article. This term is not applicable here. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it does (relate TO POLES) [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, it does. Second, "see also" links aren't always directly related to the article's subject, so even if it didn't it was still worthy of inclusion. François Robere (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Either way, Hiwi relates to SOVIET collaborators, pls read the article. This term is not applicable here. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup, I can see you're back and trying to add everything negative about Poles. This is a false statement that's just ignorantly lumps Poles with the Soviets, and in English speaking media this is not uncommon, just like the Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht... now the Polish Hiwi. --E-960 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- It is sourced, your claim is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- One dictionary reference, is hardly a reference source backed by full text, I can find you hundreds of short definitions on many things that are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- It does not have to be, it demonstrates what you claim is not accurate. It has been applied to Poles, and that is all a See also needs, a link to the subject (ohh and [[3]]). You have not one source saying it was used only for Russian volunteers.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Again, same with Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht I'm sure you can find in the English speaking world 100s of references that use those term. Still not correct, though. --E-960 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- We do not judge that a source says, we repeat it. You have provide no valid rational for exclusion of this see also, and this is getting to the stage of tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Again, same with Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht I'm sure you can find in the English speaking world 100s of references that use those term. Still not correct, though. --E-960 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- It does not have to be, it demonstrates what you claim is not accurate. It has been applied to Poles, and that is all a See also needs, a link to the subject (ohh and [[3]]). You have not one source saying it was used only for Russian volunteers.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- One dictionary reference, is hardly a reference source backed by full text, I can find you hundreds of short definitions on many things that are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"Baiting schemes"
One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Polish families for help; if a family agreed to help, it was reported to the Germans, who—as a matter of announced policy—executed the entire family.
This looks like blood libel material, and is only sourced by Money.pl and Salon24, which seem like popular magazines and not something we should count on for a claim of this gravity. Are there any RS supporting this, or should I remove it again? François Robere (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)