Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:18, 26 May 2018

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE). The current restrictions are: Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users. Edits by IP editors are subject to WP:3RR. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert. Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Editors who are deemed to be properly aware of discretionary sanctions and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / German / Polish / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Polish military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

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 purge this page.

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)

RfC on whether a source support a categorical statement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• The statement "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland such efforts failed" is immediately followed by a single reference, to News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination (1940).
• The source says the following: "When the Germans invaded Poland, they suggested that Estreicher should form a puppet government. They naturally met with no success in making this proposal...".
• The source makes a claim in the singular ("he refused"), while the article makes a claim in the plural ("such attempts failed").

Is the source enough to establish the claim? (yes / no) 00:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTE TO EDITORS

At this point the wording in the article that was the subject of this RfC was changed and several additional reference sources added to back up the text.--E-960 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. A generalized claim needs to be supported by a generalizing source. François Robere (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here you go: : "Practically the only countries under German occupation that did not have a Quisling government were Poland and Holland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. It is unclear whether there was a serious German attempt (or if this was a low level local half-hearted try) - so failed would be over stating this. The source itself is POVish (as may be see with the "naturally met with no success" language). Comparative statements regarding the situation in other countries should be done based on sources covering WWII as a whole - from a comparative cross-national stance - and not POVish sources covering this specific subject (which may perhaps be utilized for sourcing what happened in Poland - but not what happened outside of Poland). As might be seen in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty some of the claims / POVish stmts these sources make regarding exceptionalism in German-occupied Poland (vs. other occupied countries) are outright wrong and have been refuted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz: That's a good point, and I think most sources agree on this. In some places, particularly, Poland, Germans did very little effort to create such a state. The emphasis should be on the fact that, as sources agree, Poland was one of the few places there was no 'quisling' government. Why is not relevant for this sentence, through something to be discussed in detail in a dedicated paragraph. It should be made clear that one of the main reasons for lack of such government was the fact that Germans were not interested in it in the first place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus:It is somewhat correctly addressed already in the 5th sentence (I think you missed that Piotr)
    • Nazi racial policies and German plans for the conquered Polish territories, on the one hand, and Polish anti-German attitudes on the other, militated against any Polish-German political collaboration. Further German efforts in that direction were precluded after April 1940, when Hitler banned negotiations concerning any degree of Polish autonomy It could be added that Hitler lost interests in creating a puppet state after 1940.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus: To clarify - I agree that indeed Poland was one the few places (and possibly the only major (e.g. German occupation of the Channel Islands#Administration did not have a Quisling) such country (depending on how you define collaborating (Denmark, Holland, the non-Vichy half of france etc.)) without a collaborating ("Quisling") gvmt - and that that should be stated (I object to "failed").Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. This RfC is not properly created and should be cancelled. First off, who initiated it, since there is no signature? Also, there are THREE reference sources attached to this statement, not just the ONE that's listed in the RfC description. Are you challenging all three, or just one of them, so you can justify the removal of the text or the reference itself? What is the end objective of the RfC? because it's not clearly stated. --E-960 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The other two were only added after the RFC was created . The "end objective" is to clarify the use of this source. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC statement might have been more neutrally and adequately worded (i.e. referring to a general "Is it acceptable to say that the 'Germans failed to establish a puppet state'?"), but there is no requirement that the RfC statement be signed. In fact, in cases like this, where the article is clearly subject to lots of conflict, I would personally recommend avoid it so as to keep the statement a bit more neutral. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. On top of that, there are plenty of sources already given in the prior discussions, and I understand François Robere (individual filing this RfC) is well aware of that. "failure"_to_establish_a_puppet_state,_part_II It appears that FR started the same matter all over again (3rd time actually) to have text adjusted exactly the way he desires.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. As you're well aware, that discussion ended without consensus on this particular phrasing. But this RFC isn't about that - it's about this source. Is it, or is it not out of place? François Robere (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• No While it is true that no collaboration government was formed, it is unclear (from the sources presented in the previous discussions, I and II) whether this was a result of the Nazis trying and failing or the Nazis not actively pursuing this objective - even more unclear given that not all sources seem to agree and that various editors seem to be able to spin (often, the same) sources to both sides of the argument. Therefore, concluding that the Germans "failed", in wiki-voice, would be either WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYNTH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2018‎
  • Comment. The problem is that this survey is misleading, because there are other sources citied there not just this one, and it comes across as if the initiator of this RfC wanted to remove the statement just by discrediting only one of the sources provided. --E-960 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You're reading too much into it. I repeatedly flagged that particular source, but at least two of the other editors (Bella, Marek , and possibly even yourself) removed those flags repeatedly. Seeing that there's no discussing or even tagging that source despite its obvious shortcomings, I decided to bring it to an RfC. François Robere (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to the above: I think the text currently in the article (which does not take position, but merely mentions the facts as they are given in the sources, which goes exactly per what is described in WP:WikiVoice) is perfectly acceptable in its current state. Agree that the survey is misleading and non-neutral, both for the reasons you give and for the reasons I have also given above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, use a different source Yes (support): this failure is also discussed in "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris" by John Connelly. Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 771-781. Available to read with free registration at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649912. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Connelly discusses the pre-war negotiations, which are covered in the Background section, not the Political collaboration section (here's what other sources say). Regardless, the RfC is about News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination (1940), which doesn't make that statement. François Robere (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Connely makes a statement (quoting from memory) that the German occupation of Poland was especially harsh because the Poles refused to collaborate. In any case, when peer-reviewed sources exist that say the same thing, I don't see a point in holding an RfC about a potentially inadequate source. Just use a better source. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I tagged that source as inadequate several times, but it was repeatedly untagged by some of the other editors involved here, who defended that statement and weren't willing to budge on it; an RfC was the only option left. As for Connelly - his views, like many of his contemporaries, are more complex than simply stating that there "was" or "wasn't" collaboration, and at any rate he makes no statement germane to this RfC. François Robere (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite following. The RfC is about a statement Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland such efforts failed. IIRC, Connely makes a statement that Germans failed to install a successful collaborationist government because Poles refused to collaborate, or something to this effect. These two statements seem pretty close to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is first and foremost about a source; the statement was modified, as I understand it, to reflect the fact that whether or not they "failed" is contested, with some sources explicitly stating the opposite . The distinction I make here with regards to Connelly is of "before" and "after" the beginning of the war: Connelly discusses the pre-war negotiations, which are covered in the Background section, not the Political collaboration section. The first part of the story isn't contested; the second part is more complicated, and saw various parties making various suggestions and contacts, starting in Sept. 1939 and going all the way to 1941 and early 1942; here the Germans typically rebuffed any suggestions of collaboration. Does this clarify the issue and the RfC? François Robere (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (support) especially since, contra the false wording above, this is NOT the only source that makes the claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not "false wording". As stated several times above, at the time the RFC was opened that was the only source attached to that statement. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No. Not as currently phrased nor using present sources. That collaboration was relatively minimal seems generally agreed, but phrasing implies that Poles - almost alone of occupied countries - heroically declined to compromise, whereas there is little indication that the occupying power ever seriously sought, expected or wanted 'accommodation' with the Poles and that their plans for much of Eastern Europe - inc Poland - aimed at complete subjugation and destruction of 'the nation', from day one. Better sources, putting a more nuanced picture seem called for. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Totally wrong, there are much more sources to verify that part, please take a better look.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But that's not what the RFC is about. The RFC is about this source. If this source isn't enough to establish the claim, and you need to instruct the reader to "take a better look", then you failed as an editor.

There are loads of citations, just look into the history of the talk page and article itself. Are you starting the whole dispute again "failure"_to_establish_a_puppet_state,_part_II or you are kidding me?GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking a simple question: A statement is immediately followed by a source. Does that source establish that statement? François Robere (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it" (WP:INCITE). If this "bit of material" isn't supported by the specific source, then either one shouldn't be there. François Robere (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A question, do the sources say "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments"? Hell what countries outside Europe did the Nazis occupy?Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What Nazis? Did you mean Nazi Germany?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course.... Now why not answer the question.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a controversial claim. Many good references should be easy to find (ex. , or ). Really, what's the purpose of this RfC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And at least one of those does not say that this was common in other occupied countries. SO can you provide the quote that I am missing?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

: "Poland remains a country without a Quisling and, in all of Nazi-controlled Europe, the place least likely to assist the German war effort... " Anyway, if someone really has a problem with qualifiers "most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments", well, we can just list them; see the second column in German-occupied Europe: Slovak Republic, Vichy France, Quisling regime, Hellenic State (1941–1944) , Government of National Salvation or the list at List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states#Germany. The cases of Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark are interesting, too. Misplaced Pages sources seem confused on whether Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands were occupied and under direct administration, allied with Germany or puppet states, the related articles/sections are a mess, but in the end those are smaller countries. Geographically and demographically, most of Nazi-occupied Europe was ruled by Nazi-friendly collaboratinist puppet states. See the map here: File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. Another way of looking at this, is which parts of Europe did not produce collaborative governments (because for various regions they remained under military occupation only?): Poland, USSR, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Outside USSR, the three Nordic countries had some level of government collaboration (Denarmk had its entire government, the two others, at least some semblance of political activity and autonomy). On the other hand, France, Finland, Norway, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria were either German allies or collaborating puppet states. The RfCed sentence seems correct, through I agree it would be nice to find a more clear and direct quote. PS. : "Practically the only countries under German occupation that did not have a Quisling government were Poland and Holland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

How more direct it can be?

• The Contemporary Review, Volumes 160-161 - A. Strahan

But all the German attempts to build up a Polish government have failed. In the first months after the conquest, the Nazis approached many people in order to persuade them to form a government on the Hacha model, but nobody accepted. This total refusal of collaboration has led Hitler to a change of policy. As long as he hoped to get some Poles to work with him the non- annexed part of Poland was officially called "Polnischer Reststaat"GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, care to highlight where it says this worked on most occupied countries? Odd given we have better sourcing for this claim made before this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

Slatersteven, what is the point of your arguments, in most cases your statements come across as if you really have NO IDEA about the subject matter, and just visit the page to argue and be disruptive by creating confusion during discussions. You don't need a source for every word in the article. It's common knowledge that in most occupied countries there was a collaborationist government like in Vichy France, Quisling regime, Reichskommissariat Niederlande, Denmark, Independent State of Croatia, Slovakia, Hellenic State, Finland and so on. You challenge facts that are really obvious and non-controversial, just to pick a fight on the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Like Czechoslovakia you mean? It is far more complex then that, many countries simply ceased to exist, and were replaced by smaller (and totally new) entities. Others (like Lithuanian) had a government that only lasted a very brief period. Others (like Denmark) were not official occupied but were called allied (a fiction to be sure, but it helps to muddy the waters). Others (like Finland) were never in fact occupied at all and were purely allied nations (who had their own beef with Russia). Still others (like the Reichskommissariat Niederlande) were in fact Germans (or in this case Austrian headed German authorities, not Quisling regimes, like the General government). In fact very few followed the Norway model. Which is why I wanted that claim sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

?? Czechoslovakia... uh, it did not exist during WWII and does not exists now. Thanks for proving my point that your aim is only to create confusion with un-ending red herring arguments. --E-960 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia existed prior to WWII and if not for "peace in our times" might have been the start of it. Even the Vichy example you give above (which is a favorite of some - possibly since it is the best known - but actually is not such a good example) - was only in half of France (and that - for 2 years until Nov 1942) - the other half was under German military administration in occupied France during World War II - should we say that "Zone occupee" was one of the few countries/areas without a collaborationist government?Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps I can interest you in topics such as British–German cohabitation of Nazi-occupied Channel Islands, British Free Corps and Edward VIII they could use additional scrutiny as well.--E-960 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, seriously, why are you latching on to exceptions, was only part of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Finland, Greece, etc. partly under a collaborationist government. So, this is your tactic you find an exemption and want to throw the baby with the bath water. --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A, yes I only mentioned Czechoslovakia, thus proving your point. B, Yes that is my point (that the issue is not obvious and rather complex, and did exist after WW2 as well as before it). The issue of collaborationist governments is not as black and white as some of you claim. Many would argue that Vicey was not France, and thus France (as a nation) did not have a collaborationist movement, the same has been used by many in other nations. The arguments may often be silly and nationalistic, they are still there. Thus it is best if we source any claim that might be challenged.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And there are people who claim the earth was flat. So, on that topic as well, you're like... "sound legit". We can't say the earth is round cause there are folk who think it's flat. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the same, this is not an irrefutable fact backed by science, it is an opinion that many historians have contested, hell even one of your examples is flat out wrong. So you wonder why when such mistakes occur I asked for sourcing, rather then OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Slatersteven, perhaps topic such as British–German cohabitation of Nazi-occupied Channel Islands, British Free Corps and Edward VIII they could use additional scrutiny as well.--E-960 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about those articles, or whether I edit them. So care to answer how Holland had a collaborationist regime?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that "some" or "many" German-occupied countries had collaborationist governments? Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said before E-960's intervention I now accept that the claim has a source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, under the Reichskommissariat Niederlande, a cabinet position under the Reichskommissar, of the Leader of the Dutch People Anton Mussert. Kind of what the Germans wanted to use Wincenty Witos for, but unlike Mussert, Witos did not agree to collaborate. --E-960 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read what I have said above? Why are you still arguing this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Any objection, then, to some such text as the following?

"Unlike the situation in many German-occupied European countries which had collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland there was no puppet government."

Nihil novi (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we now have sources that say it..Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Editorializing

User:E-960 restored the whole "Grabowski is unprofessional" segement (see below). I tagged it, but the tag was removed :

The problem here is the general sense of doubt arising from the text:

• "acknowledged" and "admitted", rather than "clarified" or "explained"
• "not the result of original research, but..." (does it have to be?)
• "based solely on his estimates" (which, as an expert, he's qualified to make)
• "selective treatment of Datner's works" (?)

And that's just the first two sentences. That's not neutral text. If it's based just on the newspaper, then that's an unqualified source to cast doubt on a historian's research methods; and if it doesn't, then it's OR. François Robere (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is presented out of context (that some Polish right-wing publicists said Grabowski said something he hadn't said - Gazeta Wyborcza was asking him to set the record straight) - and is unneeded. The wPolityce piece is even worse - this is a right-wing internet portal (not a newspaper - they do have a weekend paper - but this is the site) - and is not wPolityce saying something (which would be FRINGE and not an academic source in any event) - but rather wPolityce reporting on the Facebook posts of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland - which is certainly not a source for history or BLP content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

These are both reliable sources, Gazeta Wyborcza and wPolityce are like the two biggest papers in Poland one on the right and the other on the left. As for some of the bullet points regarding Grabowski, expert or not, his work CAN be scrutinized by other academics and writers and journalists, and as in the case of Grabowski, there is no original research involved, only the equivalent of academic copy/past... a rather questionable and lazy way of doing anything, just to make a "new" shocking claim in a book to sell more copies. As with any profession, there is such a thing as questionable and poor quality research. --E-960 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

wPolityce is reporting on a series Facebook posts by a Polish ambassador - that's not an academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And, you have a US President and everyone else using Twitter to announce policy, that's 21st century. Btw, this was a Polish ambassador not Joe-schmo on FB, so the ambassador probably was briefed on the matter, and he raised a legitimate point that Grabowski did not use first hand sources, only an analysis of other historians' works. That's a big thing to point out, and very legitimate in this case. --E-960 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

All of what you've just written is either WP:FORUM or editorializing in its own right. The fact of the matter is you have a diplomat, a journalist, and a Misplaced Pages editor giving their opinions on something neither is qualified to opine on. This isn't an appropriate counter-balance to the nearly 200 professional historians who wrote in his support. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Grabowski's work is of poor quality, and the academics who support him are not infallible themselves. The basic facts around Grabowski don't add up, all of a sudden 70 years after the war, he "discovers" new facts — not based on going to to first hand sources, but doing arithmetic based on other historians' works. It's like writing a book about Brazil, by either going to Brazil and writing about it, or going on-line geting a bunch of facts, then make your own interpretations and write a book. That kind of "expert academic" research is BS nothing more. Just an excuse to publish a book and sell copies by making new and shocking claims. At this day and age "academia" is nothing more than just another avenue to make money. --E-960 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that your opinion is WP:OR, contradicted by actual reception of this work in peer reviewed journals. Clearly this work has faced some push back from elements in Polish society, but overall reception has been quite positive - reviews and a major prize in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is that the two sources are RELIABLE, so instead of trying to remove them, why don't you find text which supports Grabowski instead of trying to 'tag' or 'delete' everything that makes you unhappy. Btw, it not hard to get 'good' reviews when you are preaching to the quire. --E-960 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is reliable, but says nothing new - Grabowski merely repeated in 2018 what he wrote and said in multiple interviews. wPolityce is not a RS - but even if it were - it is merely reporting on a Facebook post by the ambassador - so we could say the ambassador posted that on Facebook. The Facebook post itself is not a RS - it is UNDUE to include the opinion of a functuonary - but if included it has to be attributed to him - note this was discussed at RSN.19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, if wPolityce is not a reliable source than what is, is there an international committee that determines what media outlet is "reliable" and which one is "not reliable", basically anything right of centre-left is radical and not reliable in today's liberal standards. Because wPolityce has a national audience, makes money form advertisers and newsstand sales, the writers have worked in the past in other national news outlets (credentials). So, it's not a blog edited in someone's basement, and it has a conservative side, just like CNN is liberal and FOX News conservative. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If your point was that that site is as reliable as Fox News, then it's not a very good point to make - it's highly contested . Also, I think you're missing what Icewhiz says: The first source states nothing already stated before; the second is actually the ambassador, not the paper, and the ambassador is not an RS in his own right. So, again, you're left with very little in terms of the reliability of those claims. François Robere (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you can say wPolityce quoted the ambassador and his analysis of the work, in any case, it's legitimate to include in the article. --E-960 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And since when is the Polish ambassador an authority (i.e. reliable source) in the field of Holocaust history??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep the analysis of the source itself to Icewhiz, who's more familiar with it. If it did pass RS, the change of tone would still be required, as well as the length of the text covering it (WP:DUE). Again, none of it is actually criticism by an RS on the subject. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't you know that Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel, and The Jerusalem Post, which we cite in some Misplaced Pages articles, are all peer-reviewed, scholarly, unbiased reliable sources, in contrast to these Polish non-peer-reviewed, unscholarly, biased, nationalist, wrong-wing, non-English-language non-reliable-source publications? Nihil novi (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Many internet web portals (and some newspapers) do not pass RSN. See WP:DAILYMAIL.Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On the RS spectrum of WSJ / Fox News / Breitbart / WND - wPolityce would probably fall around Breitbart which we generally reject as a source (beyond the actual issue that what is reported is a copy of Facebook posts by a diplomat).Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:FORUM and editorializing, that's not true and you're not backing up your assertion in any way. It's definitely not like Breitbart. Fox News? Maybe. Or maybe even more mainstream than that. So yeah, like it or not, by Misplaced Pages's standards, it's a reliable source, though I wouldn't use it myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No information source or authority tells the truth all the time, or lies all the time. Part of our job is to critically weigh the evidence. Nihil novi (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH is not a goal. WP:BALASP of WP:RS is.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't the point. When we cite them in this context, we usually cite either an interview with a scholar, or the scholar itself (eg. Daniel Baltman, who occasionally writes in Haaretz). We don't Cite a journalist who has no particular expertise criticising a scholar who has expertise. François Robere (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yea? So some journalist Ofer Aderet from Haaretz you cited should be removed as a reference then. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't read the article, did you? It includes an interview with Grabowski, commentary by Timothy Snyder, quotes from the book and observations of Polish media response. François Robere (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

wpolityce is perfectly reliable source,I see no reason to remove it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not when we are discussing serious criticism of academic work. A newspaper which has an interview with someone on an academic subject is reliable insofar that the interviewee is a reliable source. As established above, Grabowski is, the Polish ambassador isn't. WP:DEADHORSE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

And insofar as the journalist does not distort what the "reliable source" says, as apparently a lady journalist at Haaretz distorted what Jan Grabowski told her, thereby spreading the rumor about "200,000" Jews killed by Poles. Nihil novi (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski said "directly or indirectly" - and from the sources above, it is not the journalists who quote him that distorted that into "200k killed by Poles" - rather, it's the (yes, mostly Polish, but nevermind) critics. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a male, not a female, at Haaretz - and Haaretz reported Grabowski's claim quite accurately - saying "directly and indirectly". It would seem that some fringe Polish-language publications reported second hand on what Grabowski said to Haaretz - in an inaccurate manner - that reflects on use of those sources - not on Haaretz or Grabowski.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What the heck does "directly and indirectly" mean exactly?? This kind of vague language is endemic of Grabowski and other "academics" who write about the Holocaust and Poland. Someone can interpret it as Poles personally killed almost 200,000 Jews, or that close to 200,000 Jews died as a result of Polish collaboration. That's why the Gazeta Wyborcza source is useful because it clarifies the original "directly and indirectly" meaning. --E-960 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Indirectly quite obviously (if you read the interview beyond the headline, or are familiar with the subject matter) means handing over the Jews to someone else (the Nazies, usually) who then killed them.
• As for the ambassador.... An ambassador representing a political party with some unaccepted (per most scholars) views on the role of Poles in WWII (Two Senior Polish Ministers Deny Poles' Involvement in Massacres of Jews) is not a WP:RS. It is actually quite a WP:QS. There are some great Polish sources out there. However, we shouldn't place UNDUE emphasis on Polish views - the Holocaust, WWII, and Polish involvement have been studied extensively world wide - and we should reflect the worldwide balance on the subject. Governmental views on history (particularly at the ambassadorial level - but this would be also true at the presedential level) - carry very little weight - they should not be present in historical articles in Misplaced Pages (unless analyzed widely in a secondary manner - as such views are PRIMARY from a non-RS), but perhaps in the articles on the government or people making such stmts - while clearly representing the academic consensus on the matter the government official is referring to.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not "quite obvious" when someone is new to the subject, so stop assuming everyone is well versed in this topic, so that you can use contextual shortcuts to address complicated statements. Also, the ambassador Dr. Jakub Kumoch, has a background in academia as a political scientist and worked for three research institutes. Btw, don't for a second think that just cause some historian like Grabowski or anyone else for that matter is a "scholar" that they do not carry a political or an ideological affiliation and remain neutral. --E-960 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)}}

Icewhiz, NO CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED DO NOT DELETE THE STATEMENTS OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO ADMINS FOR DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND VANDALISM. --E-960 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to include. We also already discussed this in RSN - Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - the content you added was a BLP vio, as well, as it misrepresented the source to say that Grabowski said something when in fact it was the ambassador saying things (on Facebook) about Grabowski - which per the RSN dicussion should (if included at all) be attributed to the ambassador.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Listen Icewhiz, the last time I check in the above discussion there are 5 editors who agree that Gazeta Wyborcza reference is reliable Nihil novi, MyMoloboaccount, GizzyCatBella, 198.84.253.202 and me (against 2, you and FR). So, I don't know how the heck you have the nerve to assume that you can reasonably delete that statement, and as for the wPolityce text, the discussion is 4 to 3 in favor of keeping. So what you just did is vandalism. --E-960 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored it, please let me know if I did it corectly.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Btw, the original text form wPolityce (which was removed earlier) is not what I used — that text if you compare, analyzed the number of escapes form the Ghettos and how Grabowski arrived at that number (which was a bit out of place), while this new text focuses on the overall approach of Grabowski instead of focusing on just one part. You can see the difference if you just look at the two texts—very different. --E-960 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gazeta Wyborcza statement is still missing after being deleted, even though the consensus is that it's a reliable source. --E-960 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You can add me to the count of 5, so 6 to 1, that Gazeta Wyborcza is reliable - I stated so above. That is not the question at all - it is reliable, definitely for an interview of Grabowski (and much more, being a rather leading Polish newspaper) - it is simply not needed, as it has Grabowski repeating exactly the same stmt he has been saying/writing for years. The Facebook post of the Polish ambassador (reported by wpolityce - which is not a RS - but attributed anyway to the ambassador's facebook) - is a separate matter. At the minimum it must, per policy, be attributed to the ambassador. It is also UNDUE for inclusion, the ambassador not being an expert in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The question posed here is if GW is reliable, not if it's needed (most editors understand it as such). As for wPolityce, I don't mind if the text states that this reference was made by the current Polish ambassador and political scientist Dr. Jakub Kumoch. He might not be a WWII expert, but he is an academic, and political science and history are related — so we are not talking about a microbiologist talking about history. --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually that's not the question. If the interview itself merely repeates what he already said earlier, then there's no need for it; if you use that interview to editorialize and imply that he's somehow inconsistent or unreliable, then that's a violation of any number of policies. What exactly does the piece say? François Robere (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Most editors agree that the source is reliable, thus it can be part of the article, and those editors did not say it reliable but let's remove it. --E-960 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That a source is reliable (has anyone said otherwise for GW? I guess we would have to consider in newer reporting possible holocaust law censorship), is a neccesary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion, as we have several other policies as well as common sense and editor discretion. In this case, repeating that Grabowski said this again in 2018 to GW has little purpose - there is no need to list every media outlet in which he said this (and there are quite a few - in English and in Polish). Had this been an article about Media appearances by Grabowski it might be relevant. In this article - not.Icewhiz (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I do suggest constructively that if you want to use the "not personally" language - that you tack this on to one sentence (with a , perhaps in between) discussing his 200,000 estimate, and based on a multitude of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's essential information that seems to be very relevant having Grabowski here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this statement is very relevant. These are Grabowski's own words directly from the newspaper interview: "Nigdy nie mówiłem o 200 tys. Żydów zamordowanych własnoręcznie przez Polaków". It says, just what is in the article now. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: Here is why, whether reliable source or not, that text does not go in the article.
In the preceding sentence, Grabowski is quoted as saying "200,000 Jews 'were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles'". This is, as demonstrated above, rather clear and says exactly what it needs to say. The following sentence (the one you absolutely wish to be kept) is, per above, presented out of context, because "some Polish right-wing publicists said Grabowski said something he hadn't said - Gazeta Wyborcza was asking him to set the record straight". We can keep the reference, but there is no reason to have another sentence to discuss this when it is already clearly explained that the 200k number refers to both "directly or indirectly". Having the sentence also brings an element of doubt (by having the reader ask: did he contradict himself?) which is both false (there is no doubt - this is what Grabowski has always said, period.) and only serves to further the "Grabowski is unprofessional" OR-criticism. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I will repeat most editors agree that the source is reliable, thus it can be part of the article, and those editors did NOT say it's reliable but it should be removed. Also, if you look at the top, this discussion was never about what you are now advocating. Thus, the final word is that the MAJORITY of editors agree with the 'Gazeta Wyborcza' text and it was affirmed by this edit , so this issue is resloved. --E-960 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you read English? FR above says "If the interview itself merely repeates what he already said earlier, then there's no need for it". Icewhiz says "That a source is reliable is a neccesary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion, as we have several other policies as well as common sense and editor discretion. In this case, repeating that Grabowski said this again in 2018 to GW has little purpose". This discussion is about that section, and anyway I'm not going to further fragment this discussion by creating another section when this same issue has been discussed above. As for "majority", of the 6 editors who participated in this section, 3 (Me, FR, Icewhiz) are against keeping the sentence, 2 (You, Bella) are for, and 1 (Nihil Novi) hasn't stated his opinion directly. Assuming Nihil Novi sides with you, that would still be 50-50. And since you wanted to include the sentence but the proposal has not gained consensus (or even a majority, but consensus is not a vote and it is usually stronger than a simple majority), then it can be removed. The nearest thing to a consensus/compromise I can find is Icewhiz proposing to "if you want to use the "not personally" language - that you tack this on to one sentence (with a , perhaps in between) discussing his 200,000 estimate, and based on a multitude of sources." I would support this if it can be worked out, but the current sentence (which is out of context and has plenty of other issues) cannot stay. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No this text and citation is useful because it clarifies an ambiguous statement. Perfect example of it is when an Israeli mayor said referencing Grabowski's work: "Polish farmers killed 200,000 Jews during the war". But, in that interview with Gazeta Wyborcza, Grabowski clarified that he did not mean to imply that all 200,000 Jews were killed personally by Poles. So, now it's clear why you are so heck-bent on removing the GW text, and to answer your sarcastic question, I can read and also understand motives. --E-960 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Most of the world sees little difference between handing someone over, knowing he will be killed (and possibly rewarded for doing so) - and killing by one's own hand.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So,out of those alleged 200,000 how many were captured or denounced by the "Jewish Gestapo" did Grabowski even bother to take that fact into consideration? Oh, another uncomfortable question. Just blame those victims on the Poles as well. That's why Grabowski's work has serious issues and shows clear bias towards Poles, and that why such statements as GW and needed. --E-960 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we keep thus focused in the article please?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Gestapo specialized in tracking people outside the Ghettos. The number of victims is running into thousands (Jews and Poles helping them). 200 thousands of Grabowski minus the above thousands?

After all, Grabowski came up with the 200.000 number subtracting the figure of escapees with the number of survivors. See? Grabowski's work has serious issues as per comment above. That's why his own explanation what he meant is crucial to have it in the article.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

And, tell me, do you happen to be an academic who specializes in this topic area, and who published this in an academic journal? Obviously not, so whether you like it, or not or even whether you think you are right is irrelevant - we need serious sources, not newspapers (which are not known to always be exact, nor are representative of academic research) or Wikipedians (who are really not reliable)... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What part of the fact that this discussion is done to you not get? Because François Robere in this edit used a compromise solution, and the Edit Summary states (→‎The Holocaust: Per talk). So, just cause you don't like the outcome does not mean we'll just start every thing from the beginning, cause you're throwing a hissy fit. --E-960 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Be nice. Their argument is valid. They probably didn't notice that edit, and that's okay. Notify them civilly at that's it. François Robere (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Kołodziejski, Konrad (1 March 2018). "A new number from Jan Grabowski. Who came up with 40,000 Holocaust survivors?" . wPolityce.pl.
2. Kumoch, Jakub; Tomaszewska, Weronika (2 March 2018). "Where did the number of 40,000 Holocaust survivors come from? Poland's ambassador to Switzerland unmasks Jan Grabowski: He cites secondary sources that fit his thesis" . wPolityce.pl. Fratria.
3. http://wyborcza.pl/alehistoria/7,121681,23154070,prof-jan-grabowski-pomagalismy-niemcom-zabijac-zydow.html

1 million estimated collaborators attributed by Friedrich Klaus-Peter to Madajczyk=failed verification

Friedrich cites Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitikin Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: Annaherungen-Zblizenia (Dusseldorf, 1996), p. 146 as source for his claim about million collaborators.

There is no information about collaborators by Madajczyk on page 146. Page 146 is about Polish Solidarity movement in article by Grzegorz Leszczynski. As such I will remove this information and suggest strongly reviewing any information given by Friedrich Klaus. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it best if we just don't give any number in the lead. Now stop focusing on details and try reaching consensus on more controversial matters. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You may tag it, but not remove it. We've had worse sources kept here by other editors, and I don't see a reason to except this one. I'd like to see the source, if you happen to have it in PDF form. François Robere (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it will be removed since it presents a strong claim based on source that doesn't contain this information.We can't keep information that has been objectively proven false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't prove it false, you merely didn't find it. Friedrich is not known for factual errors. I want another verification, or to see the source myself. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't prove it false, you merely didn't find it.I checked page 146, different author, different subject. I am pretty sure that this is the definition of not being there.It falls on to you to find such information, not me.Until you find it, the false claim is out.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You already said that earlier and was wrong. I want either the source, or another verification. As I said earlier: We've kept around claims that are even less substantiated because some editors insisted on it (eg. the non-existent "Israeli War Crimes Commission", or the poorly-sourced "baiting" claim); Friedrich is not known for factual errors and there's no reason not give him the benefit of the doubt. François Robere (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, are you not able to check the Madajczyk reference yourself? Nihil novi (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not have the book on hand, and it will take time procuring. In the meanwhile, there's no reason not to tag the claim instead of removing it. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

François has a point, at this time it has only failed verification. If after bit of time no corroboration is produced then we can remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If someone can provide the text or a link to it, I'll be glad to review it and translate any pertinent passages. Nihil novi (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Above is not a problem, I will upload a scan of table of contents showing clearly that page 146 is by different author on different subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There,page 141 to 152 is an article about Solidarity by Grzegorz Leszczynski--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

English translation of the table-of-contents item: "'Solidarity': The trade union in the role of political modifier of authorities" Grzegorz Leszczyński, 141".

So, François Robere, it seems that Friedrich Klaus-Peter, who you say above "is not known for factual errors", is in error here.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And is there a Madajczyk text anywhere in there? This store offers the book with one. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry it has not failed verification, a table of contents is not a complete list of everything in a chapter. Yes the fact it is about Solidarity is not a good sign. But it is also not proof.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree (WP:COMMONSENSE) with Slatersteven, it is very possible that there is a (passing?) mention of Friedrich on page 146 without the number being the main subject discussed in the 'Solidarity' section. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about a page error, because the books is supposed to have an article by Madajczyk. I've asked for a library to acquire it, I expect a reply in a couple of weeks. François Robere (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have read the book and there is nothing about Friedrich on page 146, and nothing about 1 million collaborators in article by Madajczyk as far as I could read.

I also don't recollect seeing that claim in the book, so no, until it is proven to be in the book, this claim is out.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You won't be the one to make that decision, Bella. MyMoloboaccount, are you in possession of the right edition? He cited a particular one. François Robere (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Since we have people claiming they have read the source and it is wrong: to avoid any doubts, please scan / photograph the page from the correct edition (also the edition first page) and link it here from an image host. I think this is the only way to dispel the doubts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I want more than that: If it's a page error, but the article is in the book (as the contents here suggest), we need that article. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded some images from German version that is used. The table of contents lists the same pages , there is nothing about 1 million collaborators on page 146 and I couldn'f find such information in Madajczyk's article. Obviously I am not going to scan 30 or so pages, if François Robere wants he can find the book himself and present us with precise information, I couldn't find it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct - the claim of "1 million" is out. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this in good faith. However, the scan itself has multiple problems - the top of the page is unreadable/missing and we can't see the page number - is this indeed p. 146 or not? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Reliable sources

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Are the Polish's ambassador Facebook posts, as reported by wPolityce (pl), a reliable source? 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment

Reporting on Twitter and/or Facebook comments is standard practice in mainstream news, as seen in this example here: --E-960 (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment to the comment: the issue is not that the comments were on social media. Generally, even though mainstream news report on such comments, the comments themselves usually fail to be a reliable source on anything but what they say (i.e. they are a primary source), per WP:FACEBOOK. Also, we must give due weight to differing viewpoints. The opinion of the Polish ambassador might be worth mention since it is after all from the Polish government. However, it also has a lot of issues since it comes from a politician (who might have all sorts of reason to slightly "modify" the truth to fit his agenda - but its not like somebody ever did that..., right?). Also, we are using a self-published statement on Facebook (WP:SOCIALMEDIA) to support a controversial claim - the Polish media might have covered it since it is from a locally important political figure, but WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies and we have no obligation (or really, good reason) to give anything more than a passing mention, since the comments were not published in a reliable, academic-level journal or book (which is where Grabowski published his estimate...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No Per previous discussion in the "Editorializing" section. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Wpolityce newspaper is an entirely reliable source by Misplaced Pages's standards. Polish ambassador Dr. Jakub Kumoch is a political scientist.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. While Wpolityce (which I think would fail RSN generally) would probably be reliable enough for the existence of the Facebook posts (which can be verified on Facebook as well) - the Facebook posts by a non expert political person (with a phd in pol science and experience in politics and communication) are not a RS for WWII history in general. We also have a censorship/legal issue since these posts were made after the 2018 law limiting discourse on Polish Holocaust complicity - though that is overshadowed here by this being a non-expert, on Facebook, which is UNDUE and is not a RS for anything beyond their non-notable opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The wPolityce news online portal is reliable, with it's weekly news&opinion magazine available in all newsstands nationwide, generating profits through advertising and sales, it's staff has credentials working previously for other mainstream news media outlets such as Newsweek Polska, Rzeczpospolita, TVP Wiadomośc, etc. it also hosts interviews with conservative mainstream academics and politicians (including ministers, ambassadors and professors). To argue that this is a "fringe" outlet (like some blog done out of a basement) is misleading. Also, Dr. Jakub Kumoch's statements (who is the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, and an academic before taking over the role of ambassador), are reliable, and can be used to highlight criticism of Grabowski's research. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

How much of it is also true for the Daily Mail? François Robere (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A manipulative statement made only to perpetuate the perception that wPolityce is some kind of a tabloid. But, yes in today's media environment anything that's conservative is labelled as fringe, tabloid or fake news. --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. There's a host of reliable conservative-leaning outlets . François Robere (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha... funny, that chart has CBS as neutral, in one CBS Evening News broadcast they started out the program with news that President Trump got in a Tweet exchange with Rosie O'donnel... again, see here: . So you see, reporting on Facebook or Tweets is common practice in "mainstream' news. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been off-topic on this for a while. The question isn't the reporting itself, but the "who" and the "what" of the claims. Trump wasn't reported as an RS on O'Donnell, and were he not who he is he wouldn't have been reported at all. François Robere (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• yes & no. The facebook posts are not RS for facts (he is not an expert inn the filed), the report of them is RS for the fact he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

He is an academic (political science) and was involved in topics related to WWII, here is an interview with PolskieRadio regarding another Holocaust related topic . Also, here is an article in ] one of the oldest and most established news papers in Poland, which notes Dr. Jakub Kumoch's comments, and also states about Grabowski "Grabowski also has difficulty in proving in his journalistic statements that every Jew who had earlier escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"academic" does not mean "expert is all fields". Is he a recognized expert on WW2 (oh and writing about WW2 does not make you an expert of the holocaust, as I think David Irving might be able to demonstrate)Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We're focusing too much on the internet portal wPolityce. What is relevant is whether the facebook (or random saying otherwise) sayings of a Polish diplomat are relevant. Frankly - even if these was a reknowned holocaust scholar making a facebook post (not peer reviewed) we should be having a discussion on whether to include. In this case we have a nobody in ww2 history making a facebook post - it is not a RS for anything beyond the ambassador's opinion, and the ambassador's opinion as a nobody in the field - is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• CBS Nightly News reported as the first story of the program on President Trump's Tweet to Rosie O'Donnell, see here this is a legitimate mainstream practice. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Lest we get sidetracked yet again - Kumoch is not Trump. Kumoch has no credentials in historical research, and holds a mid-level diplomatic post. Had he published this as an oped in some mainstream newspaper - it still would not merit inclusion, as the ambassador's opinions on the Polish role in the Holocaust are irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Wpolityce is a reliable source of information and statements of the ambassador are reliable in regards to his position as a notable representative of Polish government in context of debating of Grabowski's exaggerated allegations(which frankly shouldn't be on this page, but this is a seperate matter).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• No (do not include): a WP:UNDUE opinion by a political appointee and not an expert on the collaboration during WW2 or the Holocaust. Given the high profile of the book, surely expert opinions published in peer-reviewed publications are available. My suggestion would be to use them instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Do not include: The RS question is a bit of a red-herring, the first source probably generally is RS, whilst Wpolityce is probably RS that a Facebook post was made by the Ambassador. However in so far as these are criticisms of historical methodology and content, better sources should exist from historians published in one of the two relevant topic areas (WWII Poland or Holocaust). I am persuaded by the arguments of Icewhiz and K.e.coffman that inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Pincrete (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. an ambassadorship is a formal government post, statements made by an official have a degree of credibility attached to them--91.90.182.130 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — 91.90.182.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

They have a degree of credibility attached to them as a governmental opinion. However, it is only "a degree of credibility" and it largely depends on a lot of other factors (i.e., it is not an automatic pass). Furthermore, being in a government does not make a person who says something an expert on the matter (or even a reliable source - politicans are sometimes not really honest, especially when it caters to their voter base) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, because the speaker is not an authoritative source. Sentiments like "Wpolityce newspaper is an entirely reliable source by Misplaced Pages's standards" are irrelevant, and fundamentally misunderstand our core content policies. There is no such thing as source that is categorically reliable for everything. Newspapers are presumptively reliable for secondary-source material of a journalistic nature, nothing more. Many things published in newspapers are not secondary but primary, and are not reliable for anything other than "the person who wrote this piece expressed this particular view" (WP:ABOUTSELF) (editorials, op-eds, opinion columns, subjective book reviews, advertisements, humor pieces, and various other things found in newspapers – even some feature articles, if they are highly personal investigative journalism pieces with a slant and which cannot be fact-checked beyond what the author wrote). Some newspaper material is also tertiary, e.g. sidebar tables of regurgitated statistics – we would not cite those, but the original source(s) of the stats. The ambassador's posts are a primary source, not secondary. The newspaper can confirm that they were made (as can Facebook itself, so whether they exist was never in question, ergo we need no newspaper source for them – it's a redundant cite). The paper cannot confirm the veracity of their message, the correctness of the ambassador's assertions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• There's nothing in the ambassador's position as such that makes it particularly reliable in the context of historical research. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Please also see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba where uninvolved editors (there are involved comments in the end) thought this was reliable only for the ambassador's opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• RS for what?. Also if you are sourcing a report of the posts, it is that source (not the posts) that would be the RS (or not) not the thing they report on.Slatersteven (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically this should be at RSN, it might get more feedback.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a similar article about ambasador's comment found on MSN Wiadomosci , now you can't argue that MSN collects news from "fringe" sources. --E-960 (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I will also point out that notability and reliability are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfinished business

There are a number of issues about this article which were opened on the Talk page several weeks ago (see Archive 4, for example) and have been left unfinished, presumably diverted by the flame wars and WP:ARBEE restrictions that have ensued. I'll start with what I said at the time was the most important issue, because it can help bring about article stability. This is to open with a 'definition of terms' section, covering the scope of the article. Even The Holocaust has a 'Terminology and definition' section. Let's get back to that now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

What is it you want it to say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The real question would seem to be, What does the article want to say? What is its actual subject? Are all the editors talking about the same thing? What is "collaboration", in this context?

Nihil novi (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, firstly, an explanation about why 'collaboration' and 'antisemitism' are two different words, and to what extent they mean different things. One explanation comes from Saul Friedländer who speaks of a paradox specific to occupied Poland: “Precisely because Polish anti-Semitism was not tainted by any trace of collaboration with the Germans, it could prosper — not only in the street but also in the underground press, in political parties, and in the armed forces.” For Friedländer, one can be an antisemite (even a murderous one) while not being a collaborator; he appears to be generalizing that Poles did not collaborate, even though many were antisemites, including murderous ones. Friedländer's position calls into question the very rationale for this article. By contrast, other sources may well define any killing of Jews during the Holocaust as collaboration - in which case, we must include those sources in this proposed section too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: For good form, when adding references to a talk page discussion, you should use {{reftalk}} to make sure the references appear in the vicinity of where you cite them (not much difference in this particular case, since the discussion was at the bottom anyway, but...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/killers-of-jews-or-saviors-of-jews/

The section does have a statement referencing historian John Connelly who addresses exactly the issue you are raising, regarding the two view points on 'collaboration' and 'anti-Jewish sentiment'. At this point, I actually do think that this issue was addressed and resolved. In the end, this is an article on collaboration, and to overly concentrate on anti-semitism creates un-due weight. --E-960 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Jews stood up to the German army in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - from the quoted article. False - the desctruction of the Ghetto was a police action. Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Cultural collaboration - the underground was very strict regarding culture. A number of journalists were killed or almost killed as collaborators. Actors weren't allowed to work. Such collaboration was defined and punished, but not mentioned here. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

True. There was even a saying, "Tylko świnie siedzą w kinie" ("Only swine go to the movies"). The collaborating actor Igo Sym was executed by the Polish underground.

Please add a section on cultural collaboration. Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A source, please??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration by individual artists or journalists would just fall under the section of Individual Collaboration, no need to create another category. --E-960 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The civilian underground defined rules for actors and journalists, not for individuals. Both groups influenced the society and were punished.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Academic book about the GG

https://www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/rezbuecher-24802 Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Particularly interesting, the following (section of a) paragraph is particularly on topic and could be summarized and inserted into the article:

The Germans made the Holocaust happen, but Winstone notes that Jewish suffering and deaths increased because of common attitudes among locals that did not see the Jews as part of their own. While he argues that only a minority of gentiles actively persecuted the Jews, he also makes clear that only a minority actively assisted the Jews. Winstone also downplays claims regarding the purported Polish lack of agency in saving Jews in occupied Poland (pp. 181–184). As he observes, the propensity not to help was due more to human nature rather than national predilections, but the result was no less deadly: “The Holocaust was made possible at every stage by moral choices” (p. 186).

198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Too much, at this point the article already addresses this very topic with statements from historians John Connelly and Klaus-Peter Friedrich, to add yet another paragraph creates issues of un-due weight, because equating "passivity" with collaboration is not an universal view held by scholars. But, if a sentence includes balanced key points summarizing all four sentences above then maybe. --E-960 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

198.84.253.202 - the majority of Polish Jews did not see themselves as Polish. Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: Source, please? And, even with a source, how is this even relevant to the above material? @E-960: Obviously, yes, the information should be summarized, as I suggested. I was just listing it so that we have something to start with. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You quote biased description of GG and you don't see my answer to be relevant. Strange.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So? I fail to see the relevance of that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a try, and included a sentence summarizing Winstone's remarks as noted above. --E-960 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I still fail to see the relevance, what does it matter if they did not see themselves as Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The self-isolation of Jews influenced Poles. There existed almost no family relation between the two groups and frequently existed economical conflict.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And this is your opinion or can you give us a source for it? It still lacks pertinence - we do not need to justify why the Poles (mostly) didn't help: such a statement, in addition to being likely WP:OR, would be highly controversial and saying it in WP:WikiVoice would be a very bad idea neutrality-wise, and this article already has enough POV problems as is. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: The sentence as currently in the article lacks the second part of the sentence in the source, which says "he also makes clear that only a minority actively assisted the Jews". This needs to be included too, so as not to misrepresent the source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

198.84.253.202, you can add the second part, if you feel that it's worth mentioning, I don't see an issue. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Except I can't add anything, because of this. The issue is remaining neutral and accurately representing the source. The text also too closely paraphrases the source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, will add the full statement, reasonable enough. --E-960 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This page is about Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Please explain the connection betwen it and only a minority actively assisted the Jews.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: Please explain the connection between "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" and "Many Christian Poles, at high risk to themselves and their relatives, succeeded in protecting Jews from the Germans. " Wait, actually, you don't need to, because it is painfully obvious that the opposite of collaboration is resistance, and when treating of collaboration in a large geographical area, it would be unbalanced not to mention that there was resistance of some kind. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "Poland was the first and one of the greatest victims of World War II." since it clearly fails MOS:FIRST and is also a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, giving an unattributed POV statement in the first sentence of the article (which already suffers enough POV problems as it is). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a bombastic line that comes across as egregious point-of-view editing more consistent with a political speech than an encyclopedia. A far greater percentage of the Roma and Sinti ethnicity than Poles were murdered by the Germans, and some data shoes greater percentage of Belorussians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians killed; in terms of total numbers, there were multiples more Chinese and Indonesians killed. Meanwhile the whole notion of who was a "first" victim is absurd: the Austrians have even had a go.

This said, instead of simply cutting, the line ought to be replaced with better language and moved lower down the lede. This would be to clarify the historians' consensus - and in spite of the potentially misleading title of the article here - that Poland was not a collaborative power such as Vichy France and did not have collaborative units such as the Croatian SS. I also insist that there's a requirement here for a brief differentiation between collaboration and other forms of wartime conduct, for example:

Historians such as Saul Friedländer reserve the term "collaboration" strictly for the institutional contribution to the German war effort by military units and political power, neither of which which was made by Poland.

This may also assist article stability in that it should help editors to stop arguing at cross-purposes.

The contribution of some Polish individuals to the Holocaust is sometimes referred to as collaboration in popular discourse, and I am looking for a reference that puts this fact in a nutshell, to use alongside the Friedländer line. Assistance in my search would be most welcome.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that a nuanced description is appropriate further down in the lead. However, this article isn't per se about the victims of Nazi atrocities in Poland (there is already an article about that, i.e. the one linked in the spurious sentence above).

The quote I gave in the preceeding section would be sufficient for giving a nuanced and accurate statement about collaboration (or rather, the amount of Poles who collaborated) - but it makes no mention of collaboration, and given the standard set for describing people as "collaborators" in a previous RfC (and given that the possible synthesis there was less objectionable ), it might be insufficient. Somebody with access to the book could check whether the book itself makes a direct mention of collaboration in this context - in that case there could be no possible objection to including material sourced from the book. Nevertheless, it is still a great source for putting things into perspective and giving a neutral tone to the article.

Disagree that the title is misleading - there was indeed collaboration (to some extent, minimal yes, but still) in German-occupied Poland and this article's primary role is to describe it (again, no matter how minimal it is, so long the subject is notable and covered in reliable sources, and it clearly is).

Giving a statement on the conflicting definitions of collaboration would be helpful, yes. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

One could add that the word 'victim' connotes passivity, which makes its use inaccurate here because Poland was the only fully mobilized Allied belligerent fighting against Nazi Germany in the first six months of the war, and even by the war's end was the fourth biggest Allied contributor to the European theater, and the biggest in terms of service personnel per head of population. It's a matter of POV whether Poland was one of the greatest victims of Germany or one of the biggest contributors to the fight against Germany. So yes, let's reword the whole lede. If you could write a draft in italics below, I'll respond.-Chumchum7 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: With or without a source, the sentence is POV and fails MOS:FIRST. @Chumchum7: If you wish you can go and boldly remove the offending sentence (since there was never consensus to include in the first place) . ] I'll follow up on the lead shortly, I have more pressing matters as of right now. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a highly POVish stmt - and contested by other sources (regarding the "firstness") - it depends on how you count. This is the sort of style that would fit in a hagiography, not Misplaced Pages.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also agree, this statement is more suited for an article on Poland's WWII casualties, but here (though related) it's not ideal to start the page with. --E-960 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Clearly not NPOV statement removed by Icewhiz. There is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS to include this statement which was unsourced when added and does not reflect the body text as MOS:LEAD expects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Igo Sym

Igo Sym was an important collaborator, both a Gestapo agent and a Nazi propaganda worker. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Source??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, one actor is hardly anything to focus on, and his impact on the bigger picture was minimal. --E-960 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Was quite big, which made the AK to kill him.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I still don't get - what should we do with this information? Is he the only one to have been killed by the Polish resistance? Of course no, so why should we start picking examples? Lets cover the topic first in a broader, general, neutral way and then we can start worrying about details such as naming examples of collaborators or people killed because they were allegedly collaborators. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Communist collaboration

The Communists infomed Germans about Armia Krajowa activities. pl:Bogusław Hrynkiewicz pl:Czesław SkonieckiXx236 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but Polish communist collaboration is more notable in Soviet-occupied Poland 1939-41. This could well prompt a change of title and therefore scope from Collaboration in German-occupied Poland to Collaboration in Occupied Poland. I hereby request editors' show of hands about the change.-Chumchum7 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that this topic is part of this particular article, unless you are specifically talking about Polish Communists, but if it's Soviets than it's outside the scope of this article. --E-960 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Polish Workers' Party and it's military division Gwardia Ludowa, Armia Ludowa were Polish Communist organizations. Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Except those organizations are examples of resistance, not collaboration. They don't really go in this particular article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Communists infomed Germans about Armia Krajowa activities. pl:„Dezinformacja” Polskiej Partii Robotniczej, pl:Bogusław Hrynkiewicz, pl:Czesław Skoniecki", They informed the Nazis even about some former Communists. According to post-war Communist investigation 200 names were trasferred to Gestapo. Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source - and I don't understand Polish anyway. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Szarota's article in Wyborcza

http://niniwa22.cba.pl/kolaboranci_pod_pregierzem.htm Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You may buy the original copy . Szarota is a respected historian.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So it can be verified as the original good.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

http://niniwa22.cba.pl/problem_kolaboracji.htm Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I commend, to linguistically-misinformed colleagues, journalists, and scholars who write about Polish authors disingenously avoiding use of the term "collaboration" in connection with World War II Polish history, the final sentence in Tomasz Szarota's 1995 Gazeta Wyborcza article, linked above:

"Jeśli się nie mylę, określenia 'kolaborant' i 'kolaboracja', w odniesieniu do sytuacji w okupowanej Polsce, w ogóle nie występowały w naszej prasie konspiracyjnej."

In English:

"If I'm not mistaken, the terms 'collaborator' and 'collaboration', in relation to the situation in occupied Poland, did not appear at all in our underground press."

Cognate words in different languages often carry different denotations. E.g., "konspiracyjna", above, is not "conspiracy" but "underground".

The Underground Poles did not speak of "kolaboracja" but of "współpraca", which, depending on context means either "cooperation" (there's that disingenuous Polish word !) or "collaboration".

Tread carefully in matters of language! And don't obfuscate through ignorance—or malice!

Nihil novi (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"collaboration" does means "cooperation". Collaboration is just a type of cooperation (thus one does not exclude the other).Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously. And "appeasement" similarly means a "pacifying", "placating", or "bringing to peace".

Nihil novi (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

it also means "Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict.", So it depends on context, what context is współpraca being used in?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the ignorant (malicious?) comments of some "experts" that the Poles refuse to call a spade ("collaboration") a spade and instead use the weasel-word, "cooperation". Nihil novi (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No I saw it, I just ignored it. So I will ask again what kind of "cooperation" was it? Cooperation with a friend?, an ally?, A neighbor? Or was it cooperation with an occupation power?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh and has any one actually suggested an edit or a way to improve the article here, if so I am missing it? If this is a rename request I see no issue with renaming the page "Polish cooperation with Nazi Germany".Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Except this is an English language article, and WP:TITLE is rather clear that English language usage should be the one we use to determine article titles (per WP:CRITERIA#Naturalness). Given that all other similar pages are titled " collaboration with " or "Collaboration in -occupied ", it would be against current project consensus to use "cooperation" instead (per WP:CRITERIA#Consistency). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reversal?

@E-960: Care to explain this recent reversal? It's not the first time you undo several of my (or someone else's) edits in one swipe, nor the first time you accuse me of removing material I didn't remove. This lack of attention to what you just reverted makes it seem like you didn't even bother to read it through, and just reverted the whole lot on a whim. Would you like to demonstrate good faith by explaining exactly what is it that you object? (with the relevant diffs) François Robere (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You clearly removed content which was, yes, disputed, but without gaining a prior consensus. There are some portions which, I, personally, would have supported the removal of, some which I think is indeed POV pushing (on your part), and some which I am unsure about. Nevertheless, you should have brought up the issue on the talk page instead of being recklessly bold, especially given that this page is the subject of active sanctions and is otherwise controversial (this is in line with the recommendations given in the linked policy). As is stated in header, "If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first." - it would be safe to assume that, since you took part in the discussion which resulted in this page getting that header in the first place (here), you were well aware of this. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think so feel free to take it to ANI. In the meanwhile, do show me where Policy states that if you disagree with some edits you should revert all of them, and without discussion. I didn't only remove content, but also restored content that was improperly removed, and fixed blatant distortions of sources. I reckon User:E-960 should've looked for alternatives to reversion and reverted only when necessary. François Robere (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Its nothing actionable (at this stage), but given that previous attempts () to boldly remove or add such information as you see fit didn't work, you should try the talk page - it actually works (more than once)! Especially if you don't start your comment with a variant of assuming the other is a troll. @E-960: Agreed that you, by this point, should have answered FR's inquiry about this here.

Nevertheless, the onus is on he who wishes a change to be made (FR in this case) to get consensus for it. WP:ONUS could possibly apply, but in a controversial topic, it would be better not to game it and rather go for the usual practice of discussing any disputed change on the talk page instead. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope - WP:ONUS applies to inclusion of material - not changes. Those who support inclusion of some material need to present a case (regardless of when it was added or how "stable" the version) - not the other way around. That being said - I do suggest attempting to make smaller changes - blanket reverts are unhelpful, but smaller steps here might elicit easier compromise.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@198.84.253.202: It's nothing actionable because I didn't break any rule. As for Talk - you've been in this situation yourself more than once , and I don't recall anyone giving you trouble over it.

@Icewhiz: The breadth of changes is a result of not having touched this article for nearly two weeks, during which other editors made some questionable changes, and others were kept despite previous discussions. However, I took care to make the changes fine-grained enough that it shouldn't be a problem for other editors to address specific ones. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No. You are performing volume changes, all at once, often rewriting the complete narrative of the sections. Keep in mind that others editors are not agreeing with you. OK? Mass changes? 1 -> discuss 2 -> get a consensus 3 -> proceed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Being responsible for many of those narratives, you should know how wrong they are. I'm happy you mentioned agreement: After the word "failed" was removed during an RfC discussion, you quietly re-inserted it further down the paragraph. It's a particularly sneaky and dishonest change, don't you think? François Robere (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

“Failed” has been changed to “unsuccessful” I think, despite the source cited word “failed”. Somebody else restored “failed", but this is so minor issue that I'm rolling my eyes that you keep wasting your energy on it. There are few actual real issues in the article that I have identified with passing time, but I’ll let you figure it out. If you find it I’ll support you despite all the abuses and insults you have given me. BUT FIRST DISCUSS if you find it. Try also to realize that we are all sinful of being biased and making oversights (yes, that includes you FR). The trick is to be conscious of that fact. This might guide us to reach an understanding and find a compromise much easier.GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Am I to understand you've no objections to this change? François Robere (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The "failure" question has been addressed without use of that word, near the end of the first paragraph of this article's "Political collaboration" section. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Still waiting on User:E-960 to comment on the rest. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

also think that 'failure' is not the best word here --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

FR replace the word “failed” but don’t massively bomb the entire section shifting the narrative 180 degrees ok? Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: Getting the discussion back on point now that you're here, which of the changes starting with this one do you object, and why? You reverted all of them in one go. François Robere (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• François Robere, again how many times were you asked not to make these kinds of MASS changes to the article, and how many times were you asked not to randomly place SHAME TAGS next every statement you have an issue with. Right in the text you asked about above, you have this tag that you inserted: , even though there is a page number in the citation. So, if you question the citation, then the burden is on you to re-confim, not place a tag and expect someone to start looking. --E-960 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tags are not shame tags. And if someone asks for verification - provide a quote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

When you SPAM the article with at least two dozen tags since the article was created, and you are the only editor doing that, the validity of such actions is questionable. --E-960 (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche

@Nihil novi: This is mostly fine - one problem is "Polish citizens of German extraction who declared themselves Volksdeutsche," - not all Volkdeutsche were actually from the German ethnic minority, and not all of them "declared themselves" - some were simply forced into signing it. See Volksdeutsche#'Volksdeutsche'_in_German-occupied_western_Poland
Another problem is all of the changes in the first and last paragraphs of the Security forces section - either they are not actual improvements either they actually make the text worse. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a general problem - Poland was divided into several parts, the situation was different in Reich than in GG and a little different in Galizien. If we describe Poland in general, we should explain the differences in any section. Maybe a regional division should be introduced? The discussed phrase was generally true in GG and false in Reich.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is that not all Poles who were declared German chose to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only only this problem, A description of occupied Poland is complicated and any shortcut doesn't work.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What this "Polish citizens of German extraction who declared themselves (or were forced to accept the status of) Volksdeutsche" is too complex?Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, but a non-knowledgeable reader would not know what the Volksdeutsche were. Therefore, I propose we reinstate the previous sentence ("Polish citizens who declared themselves part of the German minority (Volksdeutsche)"), but with a modification, to allow for the fact that not all of them did it willfully. The text in the article would thus read:

" Polish citizens who declared themselves, either willfully or forcibly, part of the German minority (Volksdeutsche), ")

198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Edited for wording. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This point has already been clarified in the article's "Individual collaboration" section. Thanks for raising the question. Nihil novi (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous denunciations

Soem Poles informed German police about illegal activities of other people. Anonymous denunciations didn't bring any rewards. The underground collected some letters adressed to the police. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes?

Please sign your texts with four '~'.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a form of collaboaration, described in an academic book. It was considered a crime by the underground and opposed by collecting the letters. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thought i had.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Baiting? Non-RS

This was reverted. While I am happy to see a fringe conspiracy writer was removed subsequently, this blanket stmt is currently based on:

1. post on a regional musuem's website which describes a single alleged incident and was written by a guide - which would not seem to be a RS and in any event does not make the claim ascribed to it.
2. which is a blog post by this guy in the picture speakin against feminists. I am nkt sure the blog makes the claim ascribed to it (did not bother to read this rant in full) - however this WP:SPS is clearly not a RS.

Unless you have a strong academic level source for this, preferably in English, this sentence should be stricken. Using a blog of the sort of the above is shameful.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is that “fringe conspiracy writer” again?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, your arguments are rather weak, you just want that statement removed because you and FR are trying to sanitize the article based on your POV. So, now the Treblinka Muzeum website reference is not reliable (and WOW, your statement that that this is just "a post on a regional musuem's website" is extremely disrespectful, no that is the muzeum of the actual extermination site). Btw, there are references used from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum all over Misplaced Pages. --E-960 (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The musuem itself describes itself as regional. The post on the website (and not part of an exhibit or endorsed it would seem) was made by a musuem guide, and not an established scholar. Furthermore, this post describes a single alleged incident - and does not make a blanket stmt as made by the version in the article - so this is a misrepresentation of a non RS. The blog post is shameful. Unless you have an actual RS supporting the text - this goes.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Germans only utilized this baiting method just this ONE time, and never again. I think this incident is most often referenced because of how many Poles were murdered because of a Jewish collaborator. In any case, more references will be added. --E-960 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And throwing in a random IPN document, which woyld ne be considered an unbiased reliable secondary source, which spans several hundred pages without a page number and quote - is unhelpful. Frankly, if you are not able to find a high quality source for this then it is clearly UNDUE beyond the current state of lacking a RS to back it up.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Random IPN document? Uhhh... it is an unbiased academic secondary source (again, every Polish source is bias according to you). Also, I'm pretty sure the citation has page numbers, you just did not bother to even look at it. Btw, on a side note Zbrodnia w Paulinowie here is the Polish WP page on the incident (which includes book references). --E-960 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is a government agency in charge of government memory policy and prosecution. It is not an academic source. Regardless you are taking one alleged incident and turning it into "One of the Jewish collaborationist..." which is a gross misrepresentation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Yad Vashem academic? Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say, but it is RS for who it gives awards to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yad Vashem was set up by an act of the the KNESSET (Israeli parliament), just like IPN was created by an act of SEJM (Polish parliament). Also, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was set up by an act of US CONGRESS. But to user Icewhiz, it's just the Polish institution that is not reliable. --E-960 (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• C-Class European history articles
• Low-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• Start-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment