Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs) |
Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
::::::::::::::::You just made another attempt to misrepresent yet another source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139031332] but then removed your comment with the edit summary "org and tighten". I'm not sure how that makes sense. Since you just managed to make three false claims about what's in sources in like ten minutes and are refusing to back down from at least two of them, I am going to try and step away from this conversations for your sake, before you dig your hole any deeper.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::::You just made another attempt to misrepresent yet another source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1139031332] but then removed your comment with the edit summary "org and tighten". I'm not sure how that makes sense. Since you just managed to make three false claims about what's in sources in like ten minutes and are refusing to back down from at least two of them, I am going to try and step away from this conversations for your sake, before you dig your hole any deeper.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::::: I think we should see what RSN has to say about Coda Story in this topic area and IPN. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 00:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::::: I think we should see what RSN has to say about Coda Story in this topic area and IPN. Agreed that the two of us aren't going to be able to hammer it out. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 00:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
==== The number of Polish victims killed for aiding Jews ==== |
==== The number of Polish victims killed for aiding Jews ==== |
Revision as of 00:51, 13 February 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2021
Krystian Brodacki's article "Musimy ich uszanować!" in Tygodnik Solidarność, cited as name="KB"
, is available online in an archived webpage at https://archive.today/2006.12.18-232337/http://www.tygodniksolidarnosc.com/2004/51/2_mus.htm, although the original URL at http://www.tygodniksolidarnosc.com/2004/51/2_mus.htm is now dead: please add this link to this article's citation. 73.195.249.93 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am adding this more specific request to satisfy the template's requirements: Please change the citation for Brodacki's article to: "Krystian Brodacki, "Musimy ich uszanować!" Tygodnik Solidarność, 17 December 2004. (in Polish) Archived from the original on 18 December 2006." (Or to the preferred format for archive links in this style of citation if that is different.) - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done Elli (talk | contribs) 17:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2021
Please remove the <sup> ([[404 Error]])</sup>
from the citation of Dariusz Stola's The Polish government in exile and the Final Solution (name="stola"
), since that link still works (assuming it's intended to go to p. 87 of the book). Also, please add {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718023524/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/194439.html |date=18 July 2011}}
to the citation of Robert Szuchta's Śmierć dla szmalcowników (name="www3"
), since the link given there is dead. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Done Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Concerns have been raised about this article
Concerns of pro-Polish bias in this article have been raised in this research paper:
Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein (2023) Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust, The Journal of Holocaust Research, DOI: 10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939
Relevant section:
Wikipedia also downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans. The Wikipedia article ‘Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust’ claims that ‘less than one tenth of 1 percent of native Poles collaborated, according to statistics of the Israeli War Crimes Commission.’ Historians have no way of making such an estimation, which depends on how one defines ‘collaboration.’ Some early work by the Israeli government estimated the number of people directly and institutionally engaged in organized killings, but the number of individuals who contributed indirectly to the Jewish catastrophe remains unknown.
Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 09:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- See the related discussion at RSN - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. See also #Grabowski's press review of this article, by the same scholar, from a while back. PS. The "Israeli War Crimes Commission" rings a bell, see Talk:Collaboration_with_the_Axis_powers/Archive_7#What_is_the_Israeli_War_Crimes_Commission?. Not sure what happened to that claim in that article (Collaboration with the Axis powers), I don't think it's present there anymore, which probably is good, given that discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- So how did anyone arrive at the mathematics of "less than one-tenth of one percent"? Even going by every source which cites this unclear "Israeli War Crime Commission", the number of collaborationist Poles is given as "7,000-7,500 from a population of twenty million ethnic Poles". 7500/20,000,000 = 0.000375, or 0.0375%, which is a whole different order of magnitude... while technically true that it is "less than one-tenth of one percent", I don't think we should use such flowery language based on shaky data. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 11:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to change that to "7000 out of population of twenty million" I don't think anyone would object. AFAIK no one's ever brought that up before. Volunteer Marek 12:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, I want to remive the sentence entirely because the sourcing is shaky. There is simply no way this post-facto Committee (if it really existed) could have ever known if those seven thousand were the only collaborators among twenty million, at least unless we can snag the Committee reports themselves so that we don't have to sift through others' editorialising of its findings. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 15:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI Be bold. Nobody is defending this claim, and years ago I alraedy was skeptical of it. I mean, nobody ever clearly even identified what this Israeli War Crimes Commission was (a mistranslation of sorts?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- The same source says that
Richard C. Lukas’s 1989 book Out of the Inferno: Poles Remember the Holocaust, a book that has been heavily criticized by experts
and provides some evidence of poor quality historical research. - Also Lukas, Richard C. (1990). "Out of the Inferno: Poles Remember the Holocaust by Richard C. Lukas". The Polish Review. 35 (3/4). University of Illinois Press: 350–351. ISSN 0032-2970. JSTOR 25778533 confirms:
This is the weakest of Professor Lukas's four book-contributions to recent Polish history because, in spite of some valuable sources, it is uneven, poorly organized and lacks focus ... Oral history definitely requires self-discipline on the part of the editing questioner
. - Lukas is quoted no less than 10 times in the article. I remove the statements that, based on the article by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein, seem most questionable, starting with the one they quote from the lead:
Of the estimated 3 million non-Jewish Poles killed in World War II, thousands were executed by the Germans solely for saving Jews
. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)- @Gitz6666 I'd be more cautious here. Where is that "heavy criticism"? The review by Lerski you cite does point out faults with the book but also says
It would thus be of greater scholarly value if Dr. Lukas followed his fine introductory analysis of that complicated problem...
and concludes withthe reviewed book of Professor Lukas is also timely despite its shortcornings.
. Pointing out some shortcomings while commenting on a "fine introductory analysis" is what I'd call a mixed reception.- Another review for the book I located, by John D. Klier in The Slavonic and East European Review [1], seems positive, containing the following opinion:
As Lukas correctly observes...
. In his conclusion, Klier notes some shortcomings of the book's coverage too, but writes thatThese caveats aside, this book is a useful contribution, especially for nonspecialists, to the continuing debate on Poles, Jews and the Holocaust.
. I'd call this review mildly positive. - The final, third review I located is in German [2], so I had to use machine translation. It suggested also mildly positive or at least mixed reception:
However, the probative value of the testimonies published by him suffers including the fact that they mostly refer to Warsaw and thus one representation is difficult to verify. Likewise, the excerpts are sometimes a bit short. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that Luke is one of the few editions of this kind presented in the West and thus contributed to the objectivity of the discussion.
- So the only "heavy criticism" of this book I see so far comes from the new essay by Grabowski and Klein. What other experts have "heavily criticized" this work? The fact that one scholar (or two co-authors) are criticial of a source that has been generally seen as acceptable to reliable or praised (your assessment of how exactly the three reviews I found classify the book, may, of course, vary) by others should not result in its blanked removal. If a particular fact is criticized, I'd instead suggest attributing both sides and letting the reader draw their own conclusion, in the form of "Richad C. Lukas wrote that x, a claim that has been criticized by Grabowski and Klein as [insert criticism]". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly impressed by two mildly positive (Klier, Pohl) and one kindly critical (Lerski) reviews, considering that the book's presence in the scientific literature is practically nil [3]. Most importantly, we have two experts on the subject openly saying that that book, published more than 30 years ago, contains false information. I am not saying that the book should be regarded as globally unreliable (the interviews are certainly authentic and citable) but it is unreliable as a source of statistical, or pseudo-statistical, information about the numbers of people involved. This information is most likely inaccurate and should be removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Gitz6666 I don’t think it should be removed until we establish that Lucas is unreliable as RS and the other two, know better 🙂 Take it to RSN. So for now, slow down with the removal of the RS. Okay Gitz 🙂 ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Right. I will repeat what I said above: it's fine to add sources that have different estimates, but there is no valid reason to remove existing sources, simply because one article criticized them. When scholars disagree, we don't pick sides, we report both sides, per WP:BALANCE. (To be clear, I am fine with regards to removing the first claim noted, the one about the Isreli War Commission - I kind of thought we got read of that tidbit years ago...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that there's a lively scholarly disagreement on these estimates? Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein provide an overview of recent estimates and the numbers are of a different magnitude than those provided by Lukas. Lukas's book was published in 1989: has there been any progress in historical research on the subject? I notice that Lukas is barely quoted in Zimmerman (ed.), Contested Memories, Rutgers University Press, 2003. Zimmerman's introductory essay provides an apparently balanced and informed overview of the scholarly debates between Polish and Jewish historians and could be used to de-POV this article, which looks very one-sided and apologetic. By the way, that introductiory essay doesn't mention Lukas's contribution at all. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- IMO, Lukas definitely represents "older scholarship" on the subject. Having said that I don't think we should remove him simply "to placate Grabowski". It is not Wikipedia's job to adjudicate disputes among historians and Lukas definitely qualifies as RS. Rather what we could say is "Lukas' numbers were criticized by..." (this is putting aside for the moment the unsavory connection of this article to an indef banned user). Volunteer Marek 15:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lukas definitely qualifies as RS? They don't appear to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- A professor of History at a major American university with numerous works published by reputable journals and university presses. Yes that qualifies as RS, unless you have some very weird definition of what RS means (and no, the definition of a reliable source is not "personally approved and certified by one Jan Grabowski"). Why exactly are you starting these arguments? Volunteer Marek 22:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- From the reviews it seems that all of their work is not created equal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, some received more mixed reviews, others - most, arguably - genereally positive. So? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- From the reviews it seems that all of their work is not created equal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- A professor of History at a major American university with numerous works published by reputable journals and university presses. Yes that qualifies as RS, unless you have some very weird definition of what RS means (and no, the definition of a reliable source is not "personally approved and certified by one Jan Grabowski"). Why exactly are you starting these arguments? Volunteer Marek 22:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lukas definitely qualifies as RS? They don't appear to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- IMO, Lukas definitely represents "older scholarship" on the subject. Having said that I don't think we should remove him simply "to placate Grabowski". It is not Wikipedia's job to adjudicate disputes among historians and Lukas definitely qualifies as RS. Rather what we could say is "Lukas' numbers were criticized by..." (this is putting aside for the moment the unsavory connection of this article to an indef banned user). Volunteer Marek 15:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are you asking about the number of collaborators? I don't think anyone has estimated their exact number. First of all, it is difficult, because it all depends on the definition of collaboration, in Polish historiography, collaborators usually include primarily blackmailers or voluntary Volksdeutsche, etc., the emphasis is primarily on voluntary cooperation and harming others, supporting the system of terror. For example, the Blue Police has always been a formation with an unclear status, membership in it was not voluntary (all pre-war policemen were called up by force, but on the other hand, many people enlisted in it later, because it was a steady job), and their main occupation was simply maintaining order. Grabowski's research, among others, goes in the direction of emphasizing the role of policemen in the liquidation of ghettos (in large ones their role was secondary, but in smaller ones they often acted directly), as well as in the subsequent persecution of Jews in hiding, often without German initiative. While he showed convincingly that such situations did occur, more often than was commonly perceived, it is impossible to relate it to the scale of the entire country, or a formation of 15-20 thousand people. In general, I would advise against giving any specific numbers, as the margin of error is too large and definitions are vague. It seems to me that the information that the collaboration in Poland or rather the collaboration of Poles was smaller than in other countries is sufficient and well documented. Marcelus (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think this question was addressed to me - sorry for answering so late. With "estimates" I was not referring to the number of collaborators specifically. I agree with you that estimating the number of collaborators is difficult or even impossible, and that is precisely the reason why I removed this content
Less than one tenth of 1 per cent of native Poles collaborated
[4]. When I enquired here about the existence of a "scholarly disagreement on these estimates" I was referring toOf the estimated 3 million non-Jewish Poles killed in World War II, thousands were executed by the Germans solely for saving Jews
(source: Lukas). According to Grabowski and Klein, and to the sources they quote, today the estimated number of non-Jewish Poles killed in WW2 is between 1,8 mln - 2 mln, and the estimated number of killed rescuers is around 800 individuals. Therefore, I removed this [5]. Probably the 800 figure could be provided somewhere in the text of the article, if there's agreement between editors. Moreover, I removed the following estimates by Lukas, some of which were also challenged by Grabowski and Klein:Richard C. Lukas estimated that upwards of 1,000,000 Poles were involved in such rescue efforts,[1] "but some estimates go as high as three million."[1]...
[6];...Lukas estimated that the number of Jews sheltered by Poles at one time might have been "as high as 450,000...
[7];According to Lukas the number of renegades who blackmailed and denounced Jews and their Polish protectors probably did not number more than 1,000 individuals
[8];Richard C. Lukas estimated the number of Poles killed for helping Jews at about 50,000
[9]. It seems to me that this last one is the only fully verifiable (although possibly undue) content.
- If we have different numbers and/or different sources, these estimates can be replaced or, if they are accurate, restored. My rationale was that I'd avoid using older scholarship that has been openly challenged in recent academic sources. If there are sources showing the existence of a lively scholarly debate about these numbers, we should describe that debate. However, if there's not such a debate and Lukas's estimates are simply outdated and fringe, we should remove them, as I did. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think this question was addressed to me - sorry for answering so late. With "estimates" I was not referring to the number of collaborators specifically. I agree with you that estimating the number of collaborators is difficult or even impossible, and that is precisely the reason why I removed this content
- Is there any evidence that there's a lively scholarly disagreement on these estimates? Jan Grabowski & Shira Klein provide an overview of recent estimates and the numbers are of a different magnitude than those provided by Lukas. Lukas's book was published in 1989: has there been any progress in historical research on the subject? I notice that Lukas is barely quoted in Zimmerman (ed.), Contested Memories, Rutgers University Press, 2003. Zimmerman's introductory essay provides an apparently balanced and informed overview of the scholarly debates between Polish and Jewish historians and could be used to de-POV this article, which looks very one-sided and apologetic. By the way, that introductiory essay doesn't mention Lukas's contribution at all. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: That is completely backward, it is those who want to use a source which have to establish its reliability not those who want to not use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- We're talking about a History professor at a major American University with multiple works published in peer reviewed journals and books published by university presses. Your criteria would seem to exclude the very best kinds of sources we can use. Do you really think that we should automatically presume that scholars and academics are unreliable? How does that even make sense? Volunteer Marek 22:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are Lukas and Lucas the same person? Are these two different people or is it just a spelling error? PS somewhere a crowd at FSU is cheering because someone just called them a major University. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, their football team still sucks. Volunteer Marek 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are Lukas and Lucas the same person? Are these two different people or is it just a spelling error? PS somewhere a crowd at FSU is cheering because someone just called them a major University. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- We're talking about a History professor at a major American University with multiple works published in peer reviewed journals and books published by university presses. Your criteria would seem to exclude the very best kinds of sources we can use. Do you really think that we should automatically presume that scholars and academics are unreliable? How does that even make sense? Volunteer Marek 22:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Right. I will repeat what I said above: it's fine to add sources that have different estimates, but there is no valid reason to remove existing sources, simply because one article criticized them. When scholars disagree, we don't pick sides, we report both sides, per WP:BALANCE. (To be clear, I am fine with regards to removing the first claim noted, the one about the Isreli War Commission - I kind of thought we got read of that tidbit years ago...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Gitz6666 I don’t think it should be removed until we establish that Lucas is unreliable as RS and the other two, know better 🙂 Take it to RSN. So for now, slow down with the removal of the RS. Okay Gitz 🙂 ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly impressed by two mildly positive (Klier, Pohl) and one kindly critical (Lerski) reviews, considering that the book's presence in the scientific literature is practically nil [3]. Most importantly, we have two experts on the subject openly saying that that book, published more than 30 years ago, contains false information. I am not saying that the book should be regarded as globally unreliable (the interviews are certainly authentic and citable) but it is unreliable as a source of statistical, or pseudo-statistical, information about the numbers of people involved. This information is most likely inaccurate and should be removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- The same source says that
- @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI Be bold. Nobody is defending this claim, and years ago I alraedy was skeptical of it. I mean, nobody ever clearly even identified what this Israeli War Crimes Commission was (a mistranslation of sorts?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, I want to remive the sentence entirely because the sourcing is shaky. There is simply no way this post-facto Committee (if it really existed) could have ever known if those seven thousand were the only collaborators among twenty million, at least unless we can snag the Committee reports themselves so that we don't have to sift through others' editorialising of its findings. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 15:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to change that to "7000 out of population of twenty million" I don't think anyone would object. AFAIK no one's ever brought that up before. Volunteer Marek 12:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- So how did anyone arrive at the mathematics of "less than one-tenth of one percent"? Even going by every source which cites this unclear "Israeli War Crime Commission", the number of collaborationist Poles is given as "7,000-7,500 from a population of twenty million ethnic Poles". 7500/20,000,000 = 0.000375, or 0.0375%, which is a whole different order of magnitude... while technically true that it is "less than one-tenth of one percent", I don't think we should use such flowery language based on shaky data. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 11:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Re [10] - first, it's not true that the text "fails verification". Here is the direct quote from the source: "(Poland was) the only German-occupied land where Christians automatically risked death for aiding Jews". "Only German occupied land" and "was unique to Poland among all German-occupied countries " mean the same thing and this is just a paraphrasing to avoid WP:COPYVIO.
Second, this is not how Wikipedia works. If one source says "this is true" and another source says "this is not true" then we don't pick and choose which one we believe and which one we don't, we include both. It's perfectly fine to include sources which disagree with this conclusion but it is not fine to remove reliable sources (and yes, Lukas is a reliable source per WP:RS) on the basis of "somebody said so".
Finally, in regard to the merits of the matter, this discussion seems to ALWAYS involve different degrees of equivocation and interpretation of the word "automatically". It is most certainly true that in other parts of occupied Europe individuals could face death for rescuing Jews. The question is whether this was "automatic" and applied to the same degree as in Poland. Related to that is the legal framework - the claim that is usually made is that occupied Poland was the only place where an legal edict was issued by Nazis which imposed the death penalty on people helping Jews whereas in other areas the Nazis acted on more ad hoc basis. Volunteer Marek 19:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
My comments on the objections made by Grabowski and Klein to this article
I decided to take a brief look at Grabowski's and Klein's article, and one by one verify and comment on their objections to the article "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust".
3 million non-Jewish Polish victims
‘Of the estimated 3 million non-Jewish Poles killed in World War II, ’claims the article,‘ thousands were executed by the Germans solely for saving Jews.’ Both figures are false. The estimate of 3 million non-Jewish Polish victims of World War II was pulled out of thin air in 1946 by Jakub Berman, head of the Polish security apparatus, in order to establish Polish and Jewish losses on par. According to historian Gniazdowski, officials at the time presented an equal proportion of losses among Poles and Jews, although according to the contemporary, and to subsequent estimates, Jewish losses were higher.’ Evidently, he explained, they were fearful of issuing an official estimate which would indicate that Poles were less impacted by war than the Jews.’ It was one of the first examples of a phenomenon that historians today call‘ Holocaust envy.’ In contrast, the 1945 official Polish estimates put the number of Polish victims of World War II at 1.8 million.
p. 7-8
1. In general, Grabowski and Klein are correct that the figure of 6,028,000 victims (half each of Polish and Jewish) was top-down by Jakub Berman after the war. It is true that lower estimates operate in the literature, lowering the number of ethnically Polish victims to as many as 1.8 million. However, the 2 million given is not "the most recent estimate," since it dates from 1994. The most recent estimate is the one made for the 2022 Report on War Compensation for Poland, which puts the total number of Polish losses during the German occupation at 5.2 million. But already the 2008 work Poland 1939-1945: Personal Losses and Victims of Repression under Two Occupations estimates Jewish losses at 2.7- 2.9, and ethnic Polish losses at 2.77 million, after adding 0.15 million victims of Soviet crimes and 0.1 victims of Ukrainian nationalists, we are approaching a similar figure. In fact, no one knows the true numbers and there will probably never be a certainty. This does not change the fact that giving 3 million Polish victims is not manipulation or the result of deliberate misrepresentation. Such numbers function in the literature. The article World War II casualties of Poland explains it very well, presenting various estimates. In conclusion, the exact number of Polish victims is not and will not be exactly known. Rather, 3 million is the maximum possible number, but using it is not manipulation, it is confirmed by contemporary estimates. Marcelus (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the record, "Of the estimated 3 million..." was removed from the article here. I support the removal. Looking at the two sources you cite:
- 2022 Report on War Compensation for Poland, I assume, refers to Poland's claim for war reparations from Germany. I can't find the actual report, but I hope we can all agree that Poland's claim for war reparations is not an WP:RS?
- Poland 1939-1945: Personal Losses and Victims of Repression under Two Occupations I guess is this book by IPN. Is it an RS? Is IPN an RS in 2009? I don't know. But I'm not seeing this report's figure of 2.77 million ethnic Polish losses being cited very often even though it's been 14 years [11]. This German review appears to criticize it as unreliable (but: for being too low, I think? I don't speak German). I'm not sure how much WP:WEIGHT should be given to this source.
- Ultimately, though, I think I agree about not mentioning numbers; this isn't an article about Polish losses in WWII. Levivich (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- The report's Volume 1 consist of series scientific articles about Polish loses. Chapter 2 Poland's population loss caused by Germany during the Second World War was written by Konrad Wnęk, historical demographer. I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered RS. Same goes for 2009 book. They are as RS as Łuczak, qouted by Grabowski & Klein. IPN is RS in general, even Grabowski and Klein are qouting in their article several IPN books. Marcelus (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- IPN is a RS in general? Are you sure about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Yes - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't the Institute of National Remembrance known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake nationalist history? Is this not particularly true when it comes to the Holocaust[12]? Is there a period before which they actually are reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- No. And can you please not phrase your questions in a "have you stopped beating your wife" style which tries to automatically assume its answer? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- They are rhetorical questions because the answer is in the WP:RS provided. Its true, the Institute of National Remembrance is known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake nationalist history about the Holocaust. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't ask rhetorical questions since that kind of approach does not facilitate constructive discussion. If you wish to make an assertion than say it rather than posting it as a rhetorical question or you will likely be misunderstood. So now that your meaning is clear, no, you did not provide an RS. Since these articles are under sourcing restrictions, and since we are indeed discussing sources, it's probably not a good idea to try and cite a "multi media presentation" by a "multimedia journalist" as a relevant source. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Coda Media is a WP:RS. Multimedia journalism is no less valid than any other form of journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- It is certainly not an RS for this topic area which is subject to stricter sourcing restrictions. Volunteer Marek 00:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- (even in general terms it is only RS for factual reporting - this and this happened - not for opinions, which is what this is) Volunteer Marek 00:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Its generally reliable, there is no relevant topic area restriction in the consensus. It doesn't appear to be opinion, it appears to be reporting facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow. I just finished reading the source and putting aside the fact that it is not RS for this topic, it doesn't even say that "Institute of National Remembrance known for spreading conspiracy theories". You should refrain from making claims such as these, even on the talk page, since this can be understood to mean that you are misrepresenting sources.
- (ec) No, this topic area is under special source restrictions and yes for most part this is an opinion piece. Volunteer Marek 00:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you're not contesting that the WP:RS says they spread fake nationalist history about the Holocaust, that at least is some progress. Where is it marked as opinion? Also if as you say this topic area has extra strict sourcing requirements why in the world would the Institute of National Remembrance be usable and Coda Story not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- HEB, you just falsely claimed that a source said that "IPN was known for spreading conspiracy theories". You might want to drop this. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not dropping it, you are free to escalate this to RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- HEB, you just falsely claimed that a source said that "IPN was known for spreading conspiracy theories". You might want to drop this. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Glad you're not contesting that the WP:RS says they spread fake nationalist history about the Holocaust, that at least is some progress. Where is it marked as opinion? Also if as you say this topic area has extra strict sourcing requirements why in the world would the Institute of National Remembrance be usable and Coda Story not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Its generally reliable, there is no relevant topic area restriction in the consensus. It doesn't appear to be opinion, it appears to be reporting facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Coda Media is a WP:RS. Multimedia journalism is no less valid than any other form of journalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please don't ask rhetorical questions since that kind of approach does not facilitate constructive discussion. If you wish to make an assertion than say it rather than posting it as a rhetorical question or you will likely be misunderstood. So now that your meaning is clear, no, you did not provide an RS. Since these articles are under sourcing restrictions, and since we are indeed discussing sources, it's probably not a good idea to try and cite a "multi media presentation" by a "multimedia journalist" as a relevant source. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- They are rhetorical questions because the answer is in the WP:RS provided. Its true, the Institute of National Remembrance is known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake nationalist history about the Holocaust. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- No. And can you please not phrase your questions in a "have you stopped beating your wife" style which tries to automatically assume its answer? Thanks. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't the Institute of National Remembrance known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake nationalist history? Is this not particularly true when it comes to the Holocaust[12]? Is there a period before which they actually are reliable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Yes - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- IPN is a RS in general? Are you sure about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- The report's Volume 1 consist of series scientific articles about Polish loses. Chapter 2 Poland's population loss caused by Germany during the Second World War was written by Konrad Wnęk, historical demographer. I see no reason why it shouldn't be considered RS. Same goes for 2009 book. They are as RS as Łuczak, qouted by Grabowski & Klein. IPN is RS in general, even Grabowski and Klein are qouting in their article several IPN books. Marcelus (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow. Again. The source doesn't say the IPN "spread fake nationalist history about the Holocaust" either (and once again you worded your comment to make it appear as if I said something I didn't). Horse... this isn't good. Misrepresenting sources by claiming they say things which they don't say is usually quickly sanctioned. Not sure if RSN is the appropriate venue in this case. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok let's try something different, what do you think the source says? What is a fair summary of what the Coda Story article says about the Institute of National Remembrance? Trying to see your side here but nothing is indicating that they're a reliable source for the subject... Nor is there anything which indicates that Coda Story isn't (we have consensus that Coda Story is a WP:RS, we don't seem to have that same consensus for the Institute of National Remembrance). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow. Again. The source doesn't say the IPN "spread fake nationalist history about the Holocaust" either (and once again you worded your comment to make it appear as if I said something I didn't). Horse... this isn't good. Misrepresenting sources by claiming they say things which they don't say is usually quickly sanctioned. Not sure if RSN is the appropriate venue in this case. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- You just made another attempt to misrepresent yet another source [13] but then removed your comment with the edit summary "org and tighten". I'm not sure how that makes sense. Since you just managed to make three false claims about what's in sources in like ten minutes and are refusing to back down from at least two of them, I am going to try and step away from this conversations for your sake, before you dig your hole any deeper. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should see what RSN has to say about Coda Story in this topic area and IPN. Agreed that the two of us aren't going to be able to hammer it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- You just made another attempt to misrepresent yet another source [13] but then removed your comment with the edit summary "org and tighten". I'm not sure how that makes sense. Since you just managed to make three false claims about what's in sources in like ten minutes and are refusing to back down from at least two of them, I am going to try and step away from this conversations for your sake, before you dig your hole any deeper. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The number of Polish victims killed for aiding Jews
The most recent estimates put the ethnic Polish losses at closer to 2 million, still well below the Wikipedia claim. Moreover, the number of Poles executed by the Germans solely for helping the Jews was not in the thousands, as the Wikipedia page claims. Research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s showed that the number of Polish victims killed for aiding Jews was closer to 800. More recently, historians reevaluated these estimates downward still.
p. 7-8
2. As for the number of Poles murdered for helping Jews, in fact, the Institute of National Remembrance keeps an "Index of Poles murdered and repressed by the Nazis for helping Jews," which includes certain stories and names of people who were certainly repressed and murdered for helping Jews. The list includes some 500 names. The actual number is probably 2-3 times higher. Writing about "thousands" actually seems inaccurate. However, this is very new research, the results were published in 2019, in English a year ago. Not surprisingly, they have not penetrated to Wikipedia.
Polish collaboration with the Germans
Wikipedia also downplays the scope and nature of Polish collaboration with the Germans. The Wikipedia article ‘Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust’ claims that ‘less than one tenth of 1 percent of native Poles collaborated, according to statisticsof the Israeli War Crimes Commission.’ Historians have no way of making such an estimation, which depends on how one defines ‘collaboration.’ Some early work by the Israeli government estimated the number of people directly and institutionally engaged in organized killings, but the number of individuals who contributed indirectly to the Jewish catastrophe remains unknown.
p. 9
3. First of all, it is difficult to make certain estimation, as Grabowski and Klein are saying, because it all depends on the definition of collaboration, in Polish historiography, collaborators usually include primarily szmalcowniks or voluntary Volksdeutsche, etc., the emphasis is primarily on voluntary cooperation and harming others, supporting the system of terror. For example, the Blue Police has always been a formation with an unclear status, membership in it was not voluntary (all pre-war policemen were called up by force, but on the other hand, many people enlisted in it later, because it was a steady job), and their main occupation was simply maintaining order. Grabowski's research, among others, goes in the direction of emphasizing the role of policemen in the liquidation of ghettos (in large ones their role was secondary, but in smaller ones they often acted directly), as well as in the subsequent persecution of Jews in hiding, often without German initiative. While he showed convincingly that such situations did occur, more often than was commonly perceived, it is impossible to relate it to the scale of the entire country, or a formation of 15-20 thousand people. As for szmalcowniks according to Gunnar S. Paulsson in Warsaw alon there was some 3,000–4,000 people acted as blackmailers and informants. As for the Volksdeutsche, about 100,000 people who signed the list in the General Government voluntarily were considered traitors. However, this was the Polish perspective, many of them identified themselves as Germans before the war, and this entry simply sanctioned this. Here, too, the situation is complicated.
In general, I would advise against giving any specific numbers, as the margin of error is too large and definitions are vague. It seems to me that the information that the collaboration in Poland or rather the collaboration of Poles was smaller than in other countries is sufficient and well documented. Marcelus (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just noting "less than one tenth" was recently removed here, and I agree with the removal for the reasons you state (and in Gitz's edit summary). I agree we shouldn't get into numbers of collaborators here, especially because this isn't an article about collaboration. Levivich (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Karski and Pilecki reports
Still more exaggerated Polish heroism appears in the article ‘Rescue of Jews by Polesduring the Holocaust,’ which claims that‘the Home Army (the Polish Resistance) alerted the world to the Holocaust through the reports of Polish Army officer Witold Pilecki, conveyed by Polish government-in-exile courier Jan Karski.’ Nearly everything is wrong here. First of all, as we know today, the report regarding the destruction of Polish Jewry was delivered to the Polish authorities in London, not by Jan Karski (nowadays celebrated in film and popular literature), but by another courier. Second, Pilecki wrote his report in the summer of 1943, by which point the vast majority of Polish Jews had already been murdered, and Jan Karski, the courier, had left Poland in the fall of 1942. Karski (or any other courier) simply could not have carried abroad a report written nearly one year after his departure. Finally, Pilecki’s 1943 40-page report (the so-called Report W) described the situation at Auschwitz I main camp, but barely mentioned the ongoing extermination of Jews in nearby Auschwitz II–Birkenau and instead focused on the Polish camp resistance movement.
p. 10
4. First: it is a wrong to write that Karski transported Pilecki's report. Karski had long been in the West (he left Poland in September 1942) when Pilecki wrote his report. Although I consider the remark by Grabowski and Klein that Karski is not rightly celebrated by books and popular literature to be wrong, and the tone as disrespectful to this man. What we call "Karski's report" was created in November in London on the basis of two microfilms, one of which was brought by Karski via Germany, the other via Budapest by an unknown courier. Both microfilms were deposited in France and delivered via Lisbon to London in November, where they formed the basis of the Polish government's November 24 report on the extermination of the Jews. Karski arrived in London two days later. It is true that the main part of the report was based on microfilm that traveled through Budapest. However, it is not true that Karski did not carry important information on this matter (he was carrying, among others, a letter from Leon Feiner, the leader of the Bund). After that, he talked about it with many people, including Anthony Eden and President Roosevelt. Presenting him as an impostor is disgraceful.
- I agree that these should be split up. Really quickly on one point - feel free to move this comment if this gets split up - regarding Karski and Pilecki. The "confusion" in this regard, which, to put it politely is "glossed over" by Garbowski and Klein, is between THE "Pilecki Report" which was indeed composed in 1943 after Karski had left and Pilecki's reports, that is, the earlier reports he composed while in Auschwitz. THE "Pilecki Report" was the final one but it was preceded by several others (Pilecki was in Auschwitz since 1940). Usually when authors write about "the Pilecki Report" or "Witold Report" they are referring to this last and major ones. But authors will also state that the earlier reports informed Home Army intelligence assessment and it looks like this is what this article is referring to. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- (comment moved and partially "smalled" by me) Volunteer Marek 21:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Death penalty for Poles aiding Jews
In another instance of inflated claims about Polish aid toward Jews, the same article states (once again citing Lukas),‘The imposition of the death penalty for Poles aiding Jews was unique to Poland among all German-occupied countries and was a result of the conspicuous and spontaneous nature of such an aid.’ In fact, the death penalty did not apply specifically to Poles, but to all non-German inhabitants of the General-government, including millions of Ukrainians, Belorussians, and other minorities living on prewar Polish territory. Moreover, the obvious explanation for the introduction of the death penalty for aiding and abetting the Jews was that Poland housed the majority of European Jews, and it was in Poland where the Germans decided to implement the ‘final solution of the Jewish question,’ namely, the physical extermination of European Jews. Furthermore, the death penalty was introduced in October 1941, long before any signs of conspicuous and spontaneous help’ could have manifested themselves.
p. 10
5. I don't understand this comment, it's just picking on details that don't really matter. Yes, the ban applied to all residents of the General Government, it needs to be stated more precisely, but it does not change the main information, which is true. It is not clear to me why Grabowski and Klein believe that there could be no 'spontaneous help for Jews' in October 1941, since in the district of Galicia, incorporated into the General Government in mid-1941, the Germans organized mass hunts and executions of Jews. Jews were also hiding outside the ghettos in central Poland even then. Moreover, the decision to mass exterminate Jews in the General Government was made at the Wansee Conference in early 1942.
Denunciation
Furthermore, the Ulmas were denounced to the Germans by a Polish policeman. In such a way, most of Markowa’s Jews were delivered for execution to the Germans by their own Polish neighbors, some of whom continued to look for the Jews even after liberation. This entire context is tellingly absent from the discussed article.
p. 11
6. Article doesn't hide it, it clearly states: The response of the Polish majority to the Jewish Holocaust covered an extremely wide spectrum, often ranging from acts of altruism at the risk of endangering their own and their families lives, through compassion, to passivity, indifference, blackmail, and denunciation. This section list the most known cases of the Polish people executed for aiding Jews, Wikipedia isn't hiding the full context, which is presented on Józef and Wiktoria Ulma article.
Białka massacre
It is true that the Germans executed men in the above mentioned village of Białka. It is not true, however, that this act of terror in any way stemmed from villagers helping Jews. The German crime was an act of reprisal for the assistance that the peasants were thought to have given to the local communist and left-wing partisans. The presence of these partisans (and there were some Jews among them) is well-documented in historical literature. It was only recently that attempts have been made, within the framework of the Polish ‘history policy,’to link the mass shooting in Białka to the alleged help offered to Jews by the local population.
p. 11
7. This is not true. Several hundred, even up to a thousand Jews who had escaped from the ghettos were hiding in the forests of Parczew, there were also Soviet prisoners of war who had escaped from the camps, Poles, and partisans were active. Białka was massacred for helping these groups hiding in the forests. The version that the inhabitants of Białka were shot for helping Jews has not appeared recently, but it has been around since the war.
Jewish and Polish collaboration
In such a narrative, Poles faced threats from everyone, Jews included. ‘Polish rescuers [of Jews] faced threats from unsympathetic neighbors, the Polish-German Volksdeutsche, the ethnic Ukrainian pro-Nazis, as well as blackmailers called szmalcowniks, along with the Jewish collaborators from Zagiew and Group 13,’ states the article ‘Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust,’ adding, ‘The Catholic saviors of Jews were also betrayed under duress by the Jews in hiding following capture by the German Order Police battalions and the Gestapo, which resulted in the Nazi murder of the entire networks of Polish helpers.’ In reality, the activities of the collaborationist Group 13 in the Warsaw ghetto (whose members had been arrested by the Germans in April 1942) had no bearing on the fate of Poles hiding the Jews after the liquidation of the ghettos.
p. 11
8. It seems to me that it is rather clear that the mentioned "neighbors" and "blackmailers" are Poles. Although it should actually be written directly, especially since Ukrainian and Jewish collaborators are mentioned. Group 13 (actually the Office for Combating Usury and Speculation) was formally dissolved in August 1941, but members now as the Emergency Service continued to function. Also, the murder of the group's leading activists in the spring of 1942 did not end its activities; many, including leader Gancwajch, hid on the "Aryan side", where they continued their activities (some were implicated Hotel Polski affair, such as Adam Żurawin). Gancwajch was killed in April 1943, so after liquidation of ghetto. Marcelus (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- The strange part in this one is that our article doesn't say anything about before or after the liquidation of the ghetto. Even taking Grabowski and Klein's claim that "(Group 13 had) no bearing on the fate of Poles hiding the Jews after the liquidation of the ghettos" at face value, this doesn't contradict our text here at all. Volunteer Marek 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)