Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Holocaust in Poland

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Icewhiz (talk | contribs) at 10:21, 12 May 2018 (→Recent reversal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:21, 12 May 2018 by Icewhiz (talk | contribs) (→Recent reversal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
WikiProject iconJewish history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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.
WikiProject iconPoland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEuropean history
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconGermany High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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.
WikiProject iconJudaism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-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.
WikiProject iconHuman rights
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconDisaster management
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconReligion
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.


Archives

Page views (90 days)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Volksdeutsche from Reich?

Weren't they rather Reichsdeutsche?Xx236 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for noticing. Sentence refactored to read: Following the invasion of 1939, additional 1,180,000 German speakers came to occupied Poland either from the Reich or from the east with little to lose (Volksdeutsche).  Done Poeticbent talk 15:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A number of problems

  • What was Poland? Was Vilnius or Grodno Poland?
What do you mean by this? 'Grodno' is not mentioned by name in the main copy, only in references? Vilnius is mentioned in section "German-inspired massacres" (quote): In the lead-up to the establishment of the Wilno Ghetto in the fifth largest city of prewar Poland and a provincial capital (Wilno), now Vilnius, Lithuania) ... Sounds fine, so — what would you like me to do here? Poeticbent talk 15:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
My question is fundamental, what is "The Holocaust in Poland"? Was Grodno Poland or not? Jews and Poles were murdered in Ponary/Paneriai by Lithuanian volunteers, was it a part of the Holocaust in Poland?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Quite many Jews were transported from Western Europe to ghettos and camps in occupied Poland. Some of them were later transported to another ghettos or camps. Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
What part of the article are you referring to? Please provide citation, or at least the location which is of interest to you. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The Holocaust in Poland was a part of the Holocaust in general, both Jewish victims and the executors were moved from place to place. Many Western Jews died in Łódź ghetto (which was named Litzmannstadt ghetto, not Łódź). Was it a part of the Holocaust in Poland? Hundreds of thousands Jews were transported to Auschwitz from Greece, Slovakia, Hungary, Western Europe. Was it a part of the Holocaust in Poland? Some Polish Jews died in camps in Germany. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The name The Holocaust in Poland suggests there existed Poland like there existed Hungary or Norway. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a meta question that can only be answered by writing a whole manual on the topic of sovereignty. I will look into the foreign deportations' question, which is the only thing I can do. Poeticbent talk 18:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand which problem you address. The definition of "Poland" is basic to discuss the "Holocaust in Poland". Apparently many Western readers, journalists ignore basic facts - the destruction of Polish state, annexations, German administration (districts, gaus). German administration in GG was both civilian (Hans Frank controlled by German government) and SS/police (controlled by Himmler). Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Poland as a country or region is distinct from Poland the state - and in territorial extent is different from the modern state (which has moved to the West - taking German lands on the one hand, and losing land to the USSR). In terms of Jewish history - much of greater Poland - contained in the Pale of Settlement - is often referred to as Poland. The brief spurt of Polish independence to the Jewish destruction in the Holocaust was fairly irrelevant. (this often causes issues when reconciling a source that says Poland with modern day geography). In any event - The region itself is distinct from the state. If Britain were to have been occupied - we still would have referred to events in Britain or the British Isles.Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Part of Britain was ooccupied. Am I the only expert here?Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
May someone explain me the above text? Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to try. Your repeated attempts, over many years, to cloud the issue by asking for a definition of Poland are a waste of everybody's time—including yours. When Poland was partitioned, the Polish state ceased to exist, but the history of Poland didn't suddenly cease, only to begin again with the reestablishment of a Polish state after World War I. Likewise, when the Polish state ceased to exist after the start of World War II, Poland did not cease to exist. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant - which area do we assume to be "Poland" during WWII. Vilnius area is described both here and in The Holocaust in Lithuania. The Holocaust in Ukraine is allegedly about Reichskommissariat Ukraine, but it mentiones also Lviv and Lvov, which is the same place.Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any problem. Both cities belonged to prewar Poland. Therefore, they are correctly included on this page. But they also should be included to pages about The Holocaust in Lithuania and in Ukraine because they were a part of Holocaust on these territories. Same thing can be noted on any number of pages if it is logically and historically connected to subjects of these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Some Polish Jews were deported to places outside Poland, eg. to camps in Germany. Some of them died there, some survived. Is it the part of the subject?Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Next time, please start a new thread, because responding to old threads is counterproductive. All nations have their own national mythologies, with or without sovereignty. Jews were citizens of prewar sovereign states including the Second Republic and the USSR, but they were targeted in the Holocaust as one 'race'. The Poles were also targeted as one 'race' based on language, ancestry and culture, regardless of where they lived (in the Holocaust, but also during the Polish Operation of the NKVD and later). At the conclusion of World War II millions of people were either moved or expelled. As a result, we have two separate histories to contend with: the history of the land, on the one hand, and the history of the peoples, on the other. Poeticbent talk 18:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't mean any mythology, I'm asking if this page should inform about Polish Jews deported by Nazis outside Poland, eg. when Auschwitz prisoners were evacuated in 1945.Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain

What is the connection of the phrase "At that time, Wilno had only a small Lithuanian-speaking minority of about 6 percent of the city's population" with the Ponary massacre?Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This would explain why this present day Lithuania locale was actually Polish (part of the second Polish republic and demographically Polish).Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The subject of this page is the Holocaust, not ethnicity of this present day Lithuania locale. The murderers were mostly Lithuanian and at least one thousand of victims were ethnic Poles - local leaders, underground activists. Eyewitnesses who documented the crimes were Polish - Kazimierz Sakowicz and Józef Mackiewicz. Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The new reference, you brought (above link): Prof. Piotr Niwiński from University of Gdańsk (2011) Ponary, Institute of National Remembrance with Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland); results in yet another problem. In our article, the reference used is: Müller, Jan-Werner (2002), Memory and Power in Post-War Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past. Cambridge University Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-521-00070-3. Chapter: Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, 1939–1999 by Timothy Snyder, section "The Transfer of Vilnius". — But page 47 is not in the Google Books' preview, therefore the information cannot be confirmed now as claimed by Misplaced Pages (quote): "Wilno (Vilnius) had only a small Lithuanian-speaking minority of about 6 percent of the city's population." Meanwhile, the statistics offered by Niwiński's are very different (quote from page 4 in PDF): "The Lithuanians represented less than 0.7 percent of the inhabitants of Vilnius." Not 6 percent... but 0.7 percent. I don't know what to believe. Let's go back to Polish census of 1931, population by city: "Wilno," table 10. Population according to mother tongue, (Commons). Here's what it was in 1931: Grand total – 195,071 inhabitants, including 128,628 Polish speakers, and 1,579 Lithuanian, and 47,523 Yiddish, and 7,073 Hebrew among several other groups. Here's the math: 1579x100/195071=0.8 percent of Lithuanians from 100% data. Would you consider this 0.8 percent original research on my part, or is it OK to be used? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think this would be OR, it would however only be correct for 1931 (would have to be attributed as such).Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This must be a nightmare. The paragraph informs about a Ponary massacre and you discuss ratio of ethnic Lithuanians in the city/region. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The connection between population statistics and the Ponary massacre is direct, because statistics help us define who the victims were. The mass killings began in July 1941; the victims were Polish Jews, in most part. I found another book reference which is equally relevant for our purposes as Niwiński. Shatterzone of Empires edited by Omer Bartov & Eric D. Weitz; chapter "Nationalizing the Borderlands" by Tomas Balkelis, pp. 246–248. This information is critical; by outlining the presence of war refugees according to Lithuanian sources, above and beyond the 10-year-old Polish national census. According to: Note 21. Regina Zepkaite, Vilniaus istorijos atkarpa, 1939–1940 (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990), 49 – in 1937, the total population of Polish Wilno was 210,000. Take into consideration possible Lithuanian bias also. Upon the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, (now) Vilna was transferred to Lithuania per Soviet–Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty. But refugees from German-occupied western Poland kept arriving, which resulted in humanitarian crisis (quote): According to the Lithuanian Red Cross, in February 1940 these 'newcomers' numbered around 150,000 in the entire Vilnius region, including 83,000 in Vilnius itself. On the eve of the Soviet annexation of Lithuania , Vilnius alone was home to around 100,000 newcomers, including 85,000 Poles, 10,000 Jews, and 5,000 Belorussians and Russians. When the killings started, the number of Lithuanian speakers in the city was negligible. I am going to include the new findings and the Niwiński's stats in mainspace. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the connection between Auschwitz camp and demographic structure of Oświęcim?
"When the killings started, the number of Lithuanian speakers in the city was negligible." - so what? BTW - Lithuania obtained Wilno region in 1939 and a number of Lithuanians moved there (some of them returned after about 20 years).Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The text should inform not only about Ponary executions but also about Lithuanian Security Police.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Territory of Poland handed over to Lithuania: orange/brown.
  • I find your attitude toward my inquiry condescending, and the rhetorical question regarding the (quote-unquote) connection between Auschwitz complex and the demographic structure of Oświęcim – in reply to my analysis of the Ponary massacre victims by nationality – vacuous and obtuse. Sorry. This article is about the Holocaust in Poland. The persecution of Lithuanian-speaking Jews (including by LSP) as described by Lithuanian historians (Bubnys, 1997) was taking place elsewhere in occupied Lithuania, not in formerly Polish Wilno, where all ~ 22,000 victims were Polish, hence the connection with the article subject. Victims of the Holocaust by bullets at Ponary were not Lithuanian. Poeticbent talk 18:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The Lithuanian Security Police acted also in Wilno. Alaksadras Lileikis was the leader. They persecuted Jews and ethnic Poles.
At least one thousand of ethnic Poles was murdered in Ponary.
It's quite probable that Jews murdered in Ponary were citizens of Poland, but a source is neede rather than OR. Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Not only Jedwabne

There was a series of pogroms in the region in about 20 places. Two pogroms took place probably without any German participation - Szczuczyn, Kolno. Jedwabne is so popular thanks to the JT Gross' book. There are hundreds of sources, eg. IPN two volume report, Anna Bikont's book, "Miasta śmierci". Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Szlachta helped hiding Jews

https://wpolityce.pl/historia/391371-to-zascianki-endeckie-i-onr-owskie-uratowaly-najwiecej-zydow-paradoksy-grabowskiego-i-engelking In some areas of GG there were nationalistic zaścianeks (poor szlachta villages) and peasant villages. The zaścianeks saved more Jews than villages. Unfortunately many Jews ignored the difference. Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Ewa Kurek as a source

The removal of a source (while retaining the text sourced to a different source) was reverted. To begin with iUniverse is a self-publishing company, which would preclude using this source in most situations - however, surprisingly, this is not the most troubling aspect here. The author Ewa Kurek - while she does have a PhD from the Catholic University of Lublin, she is not particularly well published nor cited (note - there is a better published microbiologist with the same name - plwiki entry - so if you go scholar - you need to filter out all the life sciences hits) - nor does it seem does she hold a significant academic post (as of 2006 - wyborcza article on her views on "Jews having fun in the ghetto" - she held a lecturing position in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" (which seems to mainly do weekend studies - per the city website). Moving a bit onwards, it seems she has quite interesting views about Jews - and it seems she has been called out on it by Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint) - not only the Jewish community, but it would seem also Polish government officials (yup - the current government). AP leads off with One, Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II when describing her, and notes a response by the Polish government "Andrzej Pawluszek, an adviser to Poland's prime minister, said Wednesday that the award was never a government initiative, but authorities acted to stop an event that would have been divisive.". per Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward - "“Deeper research” reveals that Kurek says Jewish perfidy is intrinsic to Jewish law and communal organization." (not so deep research - you might see this in the video of her speaking above (which I found prior to this article - containing - “Jews behave like a of lions in a threatening situation,” Kurek says in a YouTube video. “Lions are said to throw the weakest ones to death, to save the rest. And this is the norm among Jews. We Christians, since the beginning of … time, we have one principle: In the situation of a threat, the strong protect the vulnerable. If someone tells you about a Judeo-Christian civilization, then there is no such thing because this law excludes our civilization.”. Some have noted some subtle aspects to her discourse “Kurek is more subtle than David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”. In short - we should definitely not be using her as a source in Misplaced Pages for WWII history.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

The above wall-of-text is a multiple copy-paste by User:Icewhiz first added to Talk:Irena Sendler on 25 April 2018, with no relevancy to this article content. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have engaged in cleanup of Kurek (thankfully - the red flags around this as a source are quite obvious - and this was used in very few articles). The relevance for this article, as I pointed out in a diff also above - was use of Kurek as source in this article. The paragraph source to her has another supporting reference, so removing this questionable source does not affect this article's text.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz you copy/pasting same mass wall of text all over. Here !!! 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Mark Paul as a source

I've removed some information sourced to Mark Paul, which was self-published on-line and via PEFINA. This was reverted (note that this affected approx. 2 sentences of text). Per WP:SPS self-published sources are not an acceptable sources generally. Mark Paul (bio details unavailable - it is possible this is pseudo-name or composite) has been publishing "response tracts" to notable works (e.g. Neighbors by Gross, Hunt for the Jews by Grabowski, There once was a world: A 900-Year Chronicle of the Shtetl of Eishyshok by Eliach, etc.) under the Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles of the Canadian Polish Congress. These works are hardly cited by reliable sources (in google scholar - one of them has 1 cite, if you search via books - you get a bit more hits - but some of the citing books themselves are not reliable (e.g. self-published)). Also at issue is that the online PDFs/Words are updated (they are not static) - and page numbers are liable to change. It is actually quite hard to find RSes covering Mark Paul, however per Allan Levine in a footnote in a new edition of fugitives of the Forest, Ironically, even a cursory examination of The Story of Two Shtetls reveals that Mark Paul and the other authors in this generally anti-Jewish tract rely almost overwhelmingly on Polish secondary sources-rather than archival research-to discount the "Jewish version" of the events described. In other words and without explanation, Polish histories of the Holocaust are taken as the gospel truth, while Jewish sources and testimonies are mostly treated as complete falsehoods.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Note 2

The above wall-of-text is a multiple copy-paste entry by User:Icewhiz first added to Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust on 25 April 2018, with no relevancy to this article content.

Yes, the same 'meme' was just rewritten by User:Icewhiz to mean exactly the same thing with the use of slightly different words. I repeat, his intentions are quite obvious throughout. Please look at his edit wars, and the AN/I reports. There's no end to it. Poeticbent talk 15:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe
Claims made in the Hunt for the Jews by Grabowski (which User:Icewhiz is POV-pushing hard in mostly pathetic edit wars) have never been confirmed for accuracy by any reputable historian of the Holocaust whatsoever. Some authors mention his (never reviewed) work in their 'Notes', that's all. Grabowski however, is a new darling of Haaretz. Icewhiz is single-handedly trying to make him into something he isn't by gaming the system under false pretences. Poeticbent talk 15:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Grabowski (who has been covered in RS, and reviewed in peer reviewed journals, as well as being cited), but who to the best of my knowledge has not cited or mentioned Mark Paul - has no relevance on whether Mark Paul, writing in WP:SELFPUBLISHed books, is WP:RS.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't lie. No reputable historian of the Holocaust has ever confirmed Grabowski's claims. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If you don't want to have anyone mentioned, in replies to your repeat attempts at WP:SOAPBOXING, than stop pushing their names with your (always the same) POV qualifiers. And please desist from making your own unproven claims by WP:SHOUTING. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Off topic. On-topic - the sources you restored are WP:SELFPUBLISHed, by an author with unclear credentials (he is not described in his own books, as far as I can tell, nor could I find bio information for him - though being a very common name - makes searching for him difficult). What are you supporting inclusion of these sources by Paul?Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything here is 'on-topic' because the topic is the Holocaust in German-occupied Poland. Groundbreaking works on the Holocaust have been (quote-unquote) "self-published". One of them is: Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard (571 pages), featuring an exhaustive analysis of all available data on the Treblinka gas chambers. It was published by Holocaust Controversies in 2011. Ironically, the reply to this volume by a group of vehement Holocaust deniers published by Castle Hill was NOT "self-published" by Icewhiz's standards. Another good example is The Rabka Four - Instruments of Genocide and Grand Larceny. A Warning from History by Robin O'Neil first published completely online in 2011 or "WP:SELFPUBLISHed".

For those of you who might not be familiar with what is really going on here in regard to this hunt for WP:RS authors – please be aware that the only in-depth review; and point-by-point analysis (ever written) on the Hunt for the Jews by Grabowski, actually originates from Mark Paul. It is a 140-page (1.4 MB) critique in a form of an exceptionally well-researched paper made available online by the Polish Canadian Congress. This is an actual real motive behind this argument. Poeticbent talk 18:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. https://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/Grabowski-Hunt-Critique-3.doc
Grabowski is off topic for the sources above. KPK's work of issuing unread and uncited responses spans two decades. This work being done unde "Committee for the defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles" raises severe WP:BIASED and advocacy concerns. While self published works may be, in rare cases, reliable there is no indication these are - they are almost always ignored by notable authors and scholars and appear mainly in shady internet forums and sites (some quite a bit beyond shady) and on amazon.com reader comments for well read books on the topic. There is absolutely nothing here that would suggest reliability of these self published works and quite a few red flags.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Paul is extensively cited on the justice4poland.com website, e.g. , a site devoted to "Connecting true geography and detailed unfolding of wide variety of crimes perpetrated by German/Ukrainian Nazis and jewish bolsheviks of Soviet Union on the Polish nation." - which speaks volumes about reliability here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can copy-paste from another webpage, either legally or not. That's a different matter. The best one can do is to alert the lawful publisher about the issue. However, there's another thing that troubles me recently. How come, it was you, who provided OTRS Ticket:2018032610007576 for the photograph which you did not make @ File:Jan Grabowski 2018.jpg? Are you Jan Grabowski or perhaps a close associate of his? Per WP:DISCLOSE: If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it. Poeticbent talk 20:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no COI to disclose in regards to the Holocaust, Poland, or Grabowski (whose relevance to this discussion escapes me). I did email Grabowski asking for a photo release after not finding a good free one online (I did upload the USHMM photo first) - something I have done for other subjects, e.g. (I emailed the photographer). Do you perhaps have a COI to disclose in relation to KPK or Mark Paul? I am puzzled by the challenge to remove these cites which support very little text, but are in the bibliography in a notable location - and this for self published books!Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no WP:COI of anykind here. I'm only concerned with the new and unjustified attacks on historians of the Holocaust (referred to in numerous academic works, and in many Misplaced Pages articles already), per WP:NEUTRALITY. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Stmt duly noted. WP:ONUS is on you to show why self published works by "Committee for the defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles" meet WP:RS policy (which beyond various other red flags,
Please stop playing this wp:game with me, and don't lie about any "works" by "Committee" because you know better. The same paper by Mark Paul is also hosted by the University of Notre Dame at https://www.coursehero.com/file/30253496/Grabowski-Hunt-Critique-3doc/. Almost every single one of your contributions to Poland-related articles is a WP:REDFLAG. I have no idea where you get your energy from, for all that. Poeticbent talk 21:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, WP:NPA. A document uploaded to coursehero by loafmkanyoo is not an indication of reliability (nor is it one of the titles discussed here - but even if it was). SPS online books by authors with an unknown bio (Mark Paul's credentials do not seem to be even self described in these documents - and I at least have been unable to locate Paul (this one) from beyond the title) - do not make a reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Open access

  • There is a serious problem here with regard to the meaning of the phrase "SELFPUBLISHed" in Misplaced Pages. In order to become "WP:SELFPUBLISHed" one needs to 'publish the self' first. There's no self-publishing without the publishing process. The various weblinks to papers by Mark Paul hosted by Glaukopis quarterly (which is a scientific journal), and the Polish Canadian Congress, are just links to his papers. They are NOT self-published books ... they are 'self-written' books made available via PDF files which are hosted by portals which disseminate knowledge and/or support their own communities. Mark Paul is not "self-publishing" anything by our standards. He writes, and makes his work available ... not to general public, but to internet portals which store his documents at their own discretion, and provide links to them. The "WP:SELFPUBLISHing" charge is false and intentionally misleading. However, Mark Paul's identity is also shrouded in mystery since at least 10 years ago in Misplaced Pages – which is like an eternity in its time-span. He has been virulently attacked, and called names by problem users repeatedly, because his research illuminates dark corners of the post-Holocaust historiography, and his knowledge in this area along with reputation for fact-checking are enormous. "Paul's work is obsessively footnoted" wrote Sonia Misak (East European Jewish Affairs, Volume 28, Issue 2 Winter 1998, pp. 114-116), whatever she meant by that. Perhaps, there are reasons for Paul to stay out of dodge. We don't know that. He might be a monk for example – monks don't write for money – or a convert; an armchair philosopher; a theologian ... or an academic demoted after questioning the official party line. Anything's possible. Personally, I don't think Mark Paul will ever reveal his real-life identity after twenty (20) years of writing under a nom de plume but that doesn't make his research any less enlightening. You can read his damning revaluation of Grabowski's Hunt for Jews at http://studylib.net/doc/25162478 (for now) without having to download anything. Poeticbent talk 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Back in the days of yore, these were self published by PEFINA press (Polish Educational Foundation of North America - which is associated with the congress (and seems to have published only Mark Paul and little else) - and you could mail order these in book form from the KPK congress for 20 bucks) - the newer versions (and all of these PDFs/DOCs have multiple versions - works from the 90s all have an updated electronic version) seem to be inline only. They are obsessively footnoted from my reading (some chapters are more than 80% screenspace of small font footnotes). Paul's identity is a mystery (the name seems like an alias - which may mean one individual - or a composite of many people at the congress) Getting his work hosted by Glaukopis.pl's website does not indicate a peer review, nor do any of the other online sites this is hosted (www.glaukopis.pl, www.internationalresearchcenter.org, or http://kpk-toronto.org) - and falls within the definiton of WP:SPS or alternatively WP:USERGENERATED - neither of which is acceptable as a source. Most tellingly, these are simply very rarely cited by anyone else - which means we should not use them either.Icewhiz (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      To be clear - if you are claiming these aren't self-published (which some of the older ones were, at least per my understanding) - then it is WP:USERGENERATED - per your own words they are 'self-written' books made available via PDF files which are hosted by portals which disseminate knowledge and/or support their own communities. Mark Paul is not "self-publishing" anything by our standards. He writes, and makes his work available ... not to general public, but to internet portals which store his documents at their own discretion, and provide links to them.. WP:USERGENERATED is even less acceptable than self-published books as source.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop talking to yourself and misrepresenting policies to justify your partisan POVPUSH. The historian in question does not run "personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, or internet forums." WP:USERGENERATED is unrelated here. Please, read the writing on the wall. WP:CONSENSUS is required. Glaukopis, ISSN 1730-3419 is a brick-and-mortar publishing output with stamp of approval from the Ministy of Science and Upper Education. No need to 'bold' the presence of "website" which every single journal regularly maintains these days. References from Mark Paul have been confirmed and are listed in this article as well, particularly Isaac Bashevis Singer. Poeticbent talk 14:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is required for inclusion. In this peer-reviewed journal article - Zeleznikow, John. "Life at the end of the world: a Jewish Partisan in Melbourne." Holocaust Studies 16.3 (2010): 11-32. - the documents by Paul are mentioned Whatever the result of the case in a court of law, the larger discussions about the partisan activities have produced some demonstrably false claims. For instance, in a document published by the Canadian Polish Congress..... (the citation does contain Mark Paul) but are are ascribed to the Canadian Polish Congress - which would not be a reputable source by any policy grounds - including per Zeleznikow "demonstrably false claims".Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

2010 allegations

Please note: the above dead link from Icewhiz reads: "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it: <Error><Code>AccessDenied</Code>...</Error>

Reply John Zeleznikow allegations by Paul. Note 362 on page 208 of Tangled Web (2016 expanded edition, 432 pages).

Zeleznikow became a Soviet “intelligence officer” before leaving for central Poland in 1945. See Richard Peterson, A Place of Sensuous Resort: Buildings of St Kilda and Their People (Melbourne: St Kilda Historical Society, 2005), chapter 5. Curiously, Abram Zeleznikow’s son, John Zeleznikow, alleges that discussions about the activities of the Jewish partisans “have produced some demonstrably false claims.” He attempts to illustrate this point by referring to the fact that the present work (A Tangled Web) states that his father did not mention the attack on Koniuchy in an earlier account, but did mention it in his 1993 interview. Since he does not dispute this in any way, there is nothing false about this claim. John Zeleznikow also appears to take issue with the fact that this work states that his father was part of the “Struggle” unit, insisting that his father’s group “was named ‘Death to Fascism’ and was commanded by Abba Kovner.” However, all historical accounts agree that Kovner was the commander of the “Avenger” unit, not the “Death to Fascism” unit. John Zeleznikow then goes on to explain how his father came to rationalize the slaughter of “thirty-eight Lithuanians” (sic) in Koniuchy: “He accepted that split-second decisions needed to be made to save his and his comrades’ lives. There was no time for ethical decision-making and perhaps some killings were unnecessary but enabled by an historic context of violence and desperation.” However, the assault on Koniuchy was not a “split-second” decision; it was a carefully planned mass slaughter of civilians, mostly women and children, who posed no threat to the Soviet and Jewish partisans.

Comment: NOTHING here is related to the present article. This is the usual beating around the bush by Icewhiz in an attempt to discredit any-and-all Polish historians whose WP:BLPs he's been trying to deface lately by quoting pro-Israeli anonymous attack pages. Poeticbent talk 04:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. John Zeleznikow, “Life at the End of the World: A Jewish Partisan in Melbourne,” Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History, vol. 16, no. 3 (Winter 2010): 11–32.
The deadlink is since the s3.amazon url seems to change. google the title in scholar gets to the article. I have not used "pro-Israeli anonymous attack pages" for any article. As for the connection to this article - it relates to the reliability of the self-published/user-generated works by Mark Paul - this being one of the very few cites of Paul in a peer-reviewed setting (in this case - to point out errors in these publications by the Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles).Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
But you have no problem with making this extraordinary claim (edit ) citing as a source some unknown Dr. Kwiatkowska's Ph.D. thesis It appears that you are being very dishonest while evaluating sources Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Far from an extraordinary claim - it is a simple analysis of this particular right-wing newspaper, and the University College London is a top-tier university.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So you are declaring that Dr. Kwiatkowska's Ph.D. thesis is a RS but historian Mark Paul work is not. Do I read you correctly Icewhiz ? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Who's Mark Paul? What are his credentials? Has he ever published through an academic press or some other respected publisher? Do you have his Ph.D thesis? Why is a venerable "no-one" cited here to support contentious statements? François Robere (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I suspect "Mark Paul" is an alias - we have absolutely nothing (beyond "independent scholar" or referring to his works as "published by the Canadian Polish Congress") about him - including anything about his education or occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my comment is useful (If you can't tell, I've found editing in this area a bit toxic and have largely refrained recently), but I agree that there isn't really any reason to consider PEFINA a reliable publisher or Paul a respected subject expert. Paul's work is certainly expertly written, but to me he looks like an advocate for a fringe set of theories and there is very little discussion of his work in reliable sources (one possible exception: https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=9G9_AgAAQBAJ&q=mark+paul). What I've read of his that isn't fringe can increasingly be found elsewhere and I don't really understand the motivation not to switch from less to more reliable sources. For instance, the reversion which started this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Holocaust_in_Poland&diff=838355618&oldid=838337633) cites Paul when stating that lack of Polish assimilation among Jews should be contrasted with "the overwhelming majority of German Jews of this period spoke German as their first language". This is an extremely misleading statement, as the majority of middle-class and of urban Jews in Poland spoke Polish, a majority of children spoke Polish and attended state schools for elementary education, there was a sense of Yiddish fading in many areas, etc.( and ) More up-to-date and reliable sources would definitely give a more accurate picture here and elsewhere. Smmurphy 21:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that I jusst now added a link to the sources for my claims in this previous paragraph in small text. Smmurphy 21:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Paul himself cites Isaac Bashevis Singer (a bit out of context it would seem) - he was a promoter of the Yiddish language in the US (as well as winning a Noble prize for his Yiddish authorship) - who grew up in a backwater shtetl and as an adult also spent time in Warsaw prior to emigrating to the States in 1935. Singer wouldn't be an expert source for Yiddish/Polish fluency throughout Poland - though he would be a PRIMARY source for his family. I agree with your assessment that this is misleading regarding Urban Jews in 1939, though perhaps correct in the backwaters.Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope, we all understand what is really going on here. The above attacks are NOT on any one historian but on Holocaust history per se. We have a two-prong WP:TAG TEAM attempting to erase some facts from public memory (i.e. every single instance of Jewish World War II complicity in the mistreatment of others). According to this WP:TAG TEAM's own perpetual WP:GAME, the only sure way to do this is by shooting the messenger. — Let me explain. In February 2018 Polish parliament passed the so-called Holocaust bill. The international outrage was accompanied by the media frenzy. Some writers began throwing tantrums, and saying dumb things. Outright distortions of history in the papers and personal tripping became the new norm, biased samples abound! Mind you, I don't have a problem accepting carefully controlled omissions from some Misplaced Pages entries, but not like THIS. Icewhiz/Robere WP:TAG TEAM went on a rampage, slashing and burning like there was no tomorrow, deleting up to 50% of some articles, and staging libelous attacks on Polish historians. This is blunt manipulation of long-established Misplaced Pages principles; NOT ACCEPTABLE by any behavioral standards. But, is there anybody listening? Poeticbent talk 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven would advise you this is a WP:SOAPBOX, and you should be wary as the page is subject to DS. I would further advise that you avoid WP:PERSONAL attacks against other editors, both for reasons of civility as well as ANI and SPI's unwillingness to accomodate these aggressions in the past. Do you have anything on the question of Mark Paul's credibility? François Robere (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would agree, the above is not constructive and both attacks users motives and discuses of wiki attitudes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: In general - cleaning up Misplaced Pages from WP:FRINGE theories from WP:QS authors is not a "slash and burn" campaign. Poorly crafted articles, with outright hoax or extremist material do Misplaced Pages great harm. As for Paul, he makes his own POV clear in the following passage: (from NEIGHBOURS -On the Eve of the Holocaust, 2017 version)

"While the gathering of accounts is still in its infancy, like many aspects of wartime Polish-Jewish relations, a fairly clear outline emerges of some sordid and shameful aspects of the conduct of Jews vis-à-vis their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule. It is an immensely important story that has never before been told and one that redefines the history of wartime Polish-Jewish relations. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945. As such, it is an integral and important aspect of the study of wartime collaboration and one of the most important studies of Polish-Jewish relations to be published in decades. With the publication of Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust, the history of Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War can never again revert to the simplistic patterns of the past, which focused exclusively on Polish conduct in general and on the victimization of the Jews."

(boding not in the original, page 14 of the 2017 version)
Mark Paul makes several things clear in this passage regarding his own views and acceptance of these views by others:
  1. Per Paul - Jews collaborated with Soviets, and de-facto (by extension) with Nazi Germany which "shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945" with the Soviets. (the mainstream view being that while the Soviets possibly shared the Nazies opposition to an independent nationalist Poland (for different reasons, e.g. the Russian Empire having held the Russian Partition of Poland for over a hundred years prior to WWI and the losses in the Polish–Soviet War ) - they were hostile to Nazi Germany even in 1939-41, and certainly opposed in 1941-45 (beyond, perhaps, the narrow question of post-war Polish independence) - Jews are generally seen in mainstream discourse as victims in WWII, who were also oppressed and expelled by the Soviets (though, ironically, being sent to the Gulag from Eastern Poland was a god save - saving those Jews from the Polish pogroms and the subsequent Nazi orchestrated Holocaust) - as well as being victims of Germany)
  2. Paul is recounting an untold story, which has never before been published.
  3. Paul acknowledges that mainstream scholarship has "focused exclusively on Polish conduct in general and on the victimization of the Jews".
It would seem however, that the publishing by Paul is WP:SELFPUBLISHED, and Paul's identity remains unknown (all we know is his connection to KPK). Paul was responding to Jan T. Gross Neighbors: The destruction of the Jewish community in Jedwabne, Poland which is widely regarded as one of the groundbreaking works in Holocaust history in the past 2 decades and per Google scholar has been cited some 717 times by other authors - a definitive work. Paul's document, on the other hand, has been cited zero times per scholar (considering it is there - it probably was cited once somewhere - perhaps they filtered out cites that they eventually flagged as WP:QS/WP:SPS in Google). It would seem Paul's story - which google books says was first released as early as 2001 shortly after Gross (it seems there are multiple extant versions of this document in existence - I cited the 2017 version above, but there are many versions in between) - remains untold. Beyond the WP:SPS issue, per WP:BALASP we should reflect this on Misplaced Pages - leaving it untold here as well.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Page-level arbitration restrictions

While I agree that this article falls under the general Eastern Europe arbitration restrictions, placing it under 1RR is a more specific move that requires logging. While there's been some sniping and trouble in the edit history, I don't see a need for 1RR to be imposed at this time. I'm inclined to place the general notice at the top, but to stop short of page-level restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing information

The Holocaust in Poland included genocide of Poles and Roma besides the Jewish victims. Currently there is only information about Jewish victims

As per main article about the Holocaust: https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"only occupied county with death penalty"

@Volunteer Marek: with this this revert yiu restored information sourced to a self published book (iUniverse) by a WP:QS author Ewa Kurek (see wyborcza article on her views on "Jews having fun in the ghetto" or ). Not only that - this is false information. While some propaganda pieces like to claim Poland was the only place witha death penalty for helping Jews (and I will note that none of the authors claiming this have a cross-country research background) - this is incorrect - "only_German-occupied_European_country"_with_death_penalty see this discussion or page 55 of Grabowski's book that was there previously. This was applied in territories east of Poland as well as Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and elsewhere. We should not repeat fake news on Misplaced Pages, all the more so when sourcing used is dubious self published books.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll AGF and remove Kurek but give me some time to check into the rest of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
With regard to the "only occupied country in Europe" - there are other sources there which say the same thing but I think the issue is with what the word "automatically" means. While you could get killed for helping Jews in other countries, the Germans applied this haphazardly. In Poland it was pretty automatic. You would need to bring some other sources here, esp. with regard to "territories east of Poland" (what does that mean? Russia? It better mean Russia ;) ) and Serbia. Also your link to the other discussion doesn't work for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm open to clarifying or rewording this, but the distinction between the situation in Poland and that in other occupied countries is crucial and it is almost always brought up in sources, so something like this has to be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a long running claim in some Polish sources (some of which is just copied over by inertia) - but it is incorrect. It was known to be incorrect as early as Jan 1942 - see this Jan 1942 press report (this are secondary sources of high quality, but sometimes period reports are more convincing). It is correct that in Western Europe this was not applied (though people there helping Jews were sent to concentration camps and many died) - which probably morphed to all countries in a careless step by someone (to be fair - prior to the computer/internet age making these cross country checks was not trivial)... The same nazi order was issued in every place they controlled directly (not one of their proxies) in the east and north - including Norway. In Holland, for instance, the death penalty order did not apply (you still could get killed for helping a Jew, but this was not on the books, and if that is "all you did" (as opposed to wider subversive action) - you probably would not be killed). However in Serbia, Ukraine and other USSR parts, and I think Norway - it was the same sutomatic death sentence on the books - same order more or less. This was applied more often in Poland as there were more Jews and helpers(Norway just had around 2000 - compared to around 3 milllion in Poland!).Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok but you need secondary sources... NOT from 1942. (And your source for Norway can be read ambiguously - they faced death penalty because they were part of the resistance, which then helped Jews, rather than just for rescuing Jews). Also, you need to propose a wording here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
See some secondary sources "only_German-occupied_European_country"_with_death_penalty here, as well as Grabowski which I was following in "Those helping Jews were at risk of execution by the Germans following a German regulation in October 1941, similar to regulations that were issued by the Germans in territories east of Poland.". I do not think we should get into lenghly comparative death penalty (between countries) in this article which is about Poland - that would be a better fit in The Holocaust or Individuals and groups that assisted Jews during the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. Hunt for the Jews, Jan Grabowski, page 55, Indiana University Press
  • Comment: Lukas indeed mentions this: "These people either feared becoming actively involved in aiding Jews because of the risk of the death penalty the Germans automatically imposed on Poles who helped Jews — Poland was the only occupied country where this was done —...." but his book that he quotes (The Forgotten Holocaust) first appeared in 1986 and is rather dated 30 years on. Columbia Guide to the Holocaust merely repeats Lukas: .
USHMM says: "Jews in hiding and their protectors risked severe punishment if captured. In much of German-occupied eastern Europe, such activities were deemed capital offences" . Eastern Europe would include Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, etc. See also: (Belarus); (Ukraine).
There's some discussion about the death penalty in GG here: Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945, which says it was not unique to helping the Jews and included a host of other offences. Only one page is visible to me, unfortunately. But I assume the decrees were similar in the other parts of Eastern Europe, with the death penalty for any passive or active resistance being the 'norm' rather than the exception. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent reversal

@Volunteer Marek: Re: this change - two problems:

  1. The phrase "Jews... received help from the Poles in an organized fashion" suggests Żegotawas some kind of an ethnic Polish initiative, when in fact it was Polish governmental initiative. Jews who received help from Żegota did not receive it from "the Poles", but from their own government.
  2. The rest of the paragraph is simply fallacious, and was already removed from this and other articles several times (as above).

François Robere (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh, look man. You're trying to remove relevant text about the ... Council to Aid Jews, from the article on The Holocaust in Poland. Based on some bullshit excuse you've invented which involves hair splitting between "ethnic Polish initiatives" and "Polish government initiatives", whatever the hey that is suppose to mean. Where are the sources which make this distinction or validate your original research? Oh, that's right, you haven't provided any.

Seriously, removing relevant text about the Council to Aid Jews from the article on The Holocaust in Poland because you decided it's irrelevant, is about as WP:TEND and WP:POV as you can get. It's exactly these kind of tricks and stunts that you're repeatedly trying to pull why you should be just topic banned from this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything, I rephrased existing material (#1). The rest is as Icewhiz already explained (#2). What's the problem? François Robere (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"I didn't remove anything," <--- why, why, why WHYYYY do you do this??? It is so freakin' easy to check that this assertion of yours is just completely false. Sigh. Why are you blatantly... telling falsehoods like that and how do you expect other editors to take you seriously???
Here:
This was the text you left in: "Many Jews persecuted by the Germans, received help from the Polish Council to Aid Jews (the Żegota), as well as from individual Poles. This help was offered despite the danger faced by anyone helping Jews at the hands of the German forces"
And this was the text before: "Many Jews, persecuted by the Germans, received help from the Poles in an organized fashion (see Żegota) and random aid through varying degrees of individual efforts: help ranging from major acts of heroism, to minor acts of kindness involving hundreds of thousands of helpers acting often anonymously. This rescue effort occurred even though ethnic Poles themselves were subject to execution at the hands of the German police (from October 1941) if found offering any kind of help to a person of Jewish faith or origin."
I've bolded the parts you removed, but I did not include "the rest" that "Icewhiz already explained" (which is another falsehood you're telling - he's addressing something else)
And I still want to see sources which make a distinction between "ethnic Polish initiative" and "Polish governmental initiative" as well as a coherentexplanation of what it has to do with ... anything really.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The "major acts of heroism" etc. is just meaningless prose, and unsourced at that. The second part is summarised in "the danger faced by anyone..." (and about that we've got a whole article). None of this is out of the purview of simple rephrasing, so why are you assuming bad faith?
Well, Żegota was run by AK, a proxy of the government in London; it was funded by the government in London; and it had JNC and Bund representatives - it's in the article. Ergo, it wasn't an "ethnic" Polish thing but a governmental one. The onus is on you to prove ethnicity was enough of a factor here to qualify it as "Polish" in the ethnic sense, not on me to prove otherwise. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The onus isn't on anything. You're making stuff up. And you have no sources. And you wrote several things above which are blatantly false and now, that it's been pointed out, you're attempting to deflect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. I didn't add any material to the article, so I don't need to bring any new sources.
  2. As for sources for this discussion: it's in the article.
  3. What do you contend is false or "made up"? Do remember you've made such allegations before, and they never held. François Robere (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
So um, apparently, you neither removed nor added anything to the article, yet you're arguing about this, do I have that right? Hell, maybe you didn't make an edit at all!
And if there's sources in the Zegota article that distinguish between "ethnic Polish initiative" and "Polish government initiative" then you should have no problem presenting them here. Quit deflecting. And making stuff up.
Hmm, what is false? Well, I've already pointed it out. You claimed that you didn't remove anything. Quote: "I didn't remove anything". I directly quoted the text you actually removed. You claimed some weird ass distinction between "ethnic Polish initiative" and "Polish government initiative" you invented was supported by sources. You have failed to provide these. You claimed that "rest is as Icewhiz already explained". But Icewhiz was addressing the issue of whether or not Poland was the only country in occupied Europe where the death penalty was applied automatically for helping Jews. Nothing to do with Zegota OR the text you removed. So that's another false assertion. And that's just the most recent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
And if there's sources... that distinguish between "ethnic Polish initiative" and "Polish government initiative":
  1. Again, the onus is not on me. The sources we have make clear that Żegota was run by AK, a proxy of the government in London; it was funded by the government in London; and it had JNC and Bund representatives - the underlying assumptions here are that a government represents all its people regardless of ethnicity, and that an organization with operatives of more than one group isn't ethnically homogeneous. To characterize such an organization as "ethnic" rather than "governmental", and therefore justify the previous phrasing, you'd have to provide proof, not me. Specifically, you'd have to show that the Polish government was synonymous only with the ethnic Poles; or that something in the character of Żegota made it a primarily an ethnic-Polish organization (eg. the way a mission is a Christian organization); or that it wasn't a governmental organization to begin with.
  2. That being said, if you believe there is no difference between the two, then you have no reason to object my edit, as from your POV it would simply be a rephrasing that doesn't change the fact.
Do you have any claims with regards to the facts of the argument - that is, the edits themselves? François Robere (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek I have documented numerous likewise, baseless and possibly dishonest reverts of François Robere he has made in the past.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Would you consider this comment on-topic? François Robere (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes and no, the comment is about edits to the article and not (for example) attitudes or politics if it. But it is discussing you, and not the subject. But (to a degree) so is your comment.Slatersteven (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Me pointing it out, that is? François Robere (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"And that's just the most recent"--> PER Volunteer Marek. My comment refers to that and it is on the topic of this discussion. So quit looking for backers FR, and focus on your ill revert to this article. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a quick educational reading -> Władysław Bartoszewski, who served for Żegota measured that at least several hundred thousand Poles engaged in numerous actions in the rescue of Jews across GG. Research hints that a million Poles were committed to giving aid, but some calculations go as high as three million for those who were passively protective.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The article, as is, is full of too much puffery for Polish rescue attempts. The mainstream historical view being that there were very few rescuers, many of whom were motivated by greed and not altruism, and that the rescuers themselves were persecutred by the majority of Polish society. While there were more rescuers in Poland - there were also significantly more Jews. Some elements (represented by Ewa Kurek and the like) in modern Polish society have attempted to turn this into an element of the national narrative - but mainstream Holocaust historians mainly disagree with this - and the current article is not NPOV as it represents this narrative and not serious study.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Categories: