This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A great summary of Żegota's achievements during WW II. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.106.1.229 on 14 April 2004.
Who is meant by this, Jews?: had 180 persons under its care within a short time. Or did the author mean to say this?: "soon had 180 helpers at its disposal" -- Espoo 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says, "A difficult problem therefore was to find hiding places for persons who looked Jewish." It would be good to elaborate on this with two points. With men and boys, it was easy for the Nazi occupiers to check, since Jewish men and boys would have been circumcized and non-Jewish Poles would not. Also, I understand that there were Jews living in Poland at the time who were so lived so completely in the Jewish community that they spoke only Yiddish and could not speak Polish; they could not be passed off as non-Jewish Poles. 140.147.160.78 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
How does one pronouce "Zegota"? Long 'e'? Just curious. -- Bk0 20:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
What syllable is the accent on? -- Espoo 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. The dot over the "z" makes it something like the "z" in "azure," or the "j" in the French "jour." The "e" is as in the English "bet." The "o" is open (short) as in "got," not as in "oh." The "a" is open. And in Polish, one almost always accents the penultimate (i.e. next to last) syllable (in words of more than one syllable). So it's "zhe-GO-ta." 140.147.160.78 13:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
The author is writing:
unless these ladies, from Prof. 'Grzegorzewski' onwards, were Americans with Polish ancestors, which they were not, afaik, their names must be given in their Polish forms, i. e., GrzegorzewskA, SolskA, Buchholtz-BukolskA, SawickA, RybickA, KurowskA, (Maria) OssowskA, Sempolowska (or rather: Sempołowska), RzeczyckA, LaskA. Strangely enough, the author quotes the last surname, Derwisz-Parnowska, in the correct form. Their husbands, brothers (if any) and father were called 'GrzegorzewskI', 'SolskI' --- they were not. -A, not -I. This is the law in Polish. 131.220.251.28 ( talk) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wojciech Żełaniec
I found a few of the names in sprawiedliwi.org.pl, so I changed them to -ska. I'm assuming savingjews.org (the quoted source) was wrong in quoting the names. I can't imagine all these women would have opted for the male form of the -ski name. I have met with women bearing the -ski names, but rather for less usual names: Biały, Jasny. I could not, however, find Ms. Laski in any source, so I left it unchanged.
LMB (
talk)
19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The guy standing in the right of the image has clearly been photoshopped in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.150.178 ( talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Why? By what indications can we conclude this? -- Jüber ( talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Jüber ( talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Over 700 Polish heroes, murdered by Germans as a result of helping and sheltering their Jewish neighbors, were posthumously awarded the title Righteous Among the Nations; given the alleged involvement of over 200,000 Poles in the precarious underground hidings provided to Jews, this indicates that the death penalty was used as a deterrent rather than as a frequently executed punishment.[6] They were only a small percentage of thousands of Poles reportedly executed by the Nazis for aiding Jews."
The reason why there is such a small number of executed people recognised as Rightous is because the Jews they were hiding died along with them, so there are no Jewish witnesses. In my family's hometown three families were executed for hiding Jews and none of these people is recognised as Righteous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.6.63 ( talk) 05:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"More specific estimates indicate that some 100,000 to 300,000 Poles met Yad Vashem’s criteria, having been directly engaged in rescuing Jews despite the threat of death, which did deter others"
Total nonsense this and all the other guessings about Poles involved in saving Jews. If 100 - 300.000 Poles would met YV criterias there would not be 6.706 Polish Righteous but at least 100.000. Meeting criterias means providing evidence for those acts, not only "I heared my grandmother/grandmother saved Jews"! No evidence = no Righteous, easy as such. However, there are even Poles who "saved" Jews by including them in the family and instead to hide them he let them work on his farm in bright daylight! Noz long as another Pole became aware about and informed the German authorities. As result all Jews were killed as the Pole with his family. And this Polish farmer&family incl. small children were considered "saviour of the Jews " while the father caused in reallity the death of all persons! BTW, as the Poles are allways showing off with their big number of Righteous: 35000 000 Polish inhabitants (during WWII) and only 6706 Righteous makes exactly 0.019 Percent. O.019% of the Polish population was able to provide enough evidence to be considered as Righteous, the other guessed "saviors" not. That speaks for itself. Austrianbird ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@ GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent: Any policy based justification for reverting back in a WP:SPS source? Such sources, per policy, are not suitable, failing V. Also note, that though unlikely (due to the subjects' age) - unless you verified via RS that all those named are dead, there is a BLP issue here - as per WP:BDP we assume anyone younger than 115 (1903 birth year is alive). Icewhiz ( talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
or that reason, self-published media, such as books, ... personal websites ... and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Certainly there are worthless published books, but self-published books are generally considered, by Wikipedia policy, to be unacceptable sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna often cite the number of Christian Polish rescuers of Jews honored to date by the Yad Vashem Memorial Institue in Jerusalem, numbering approximately 6,350, as a tool to "normalize" the dark past. By employing this data, they claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, in order to restore the image of Poles as solely heroes and martyrs (note 33).. [1], footnote: [2]. She is being used to source information on possible BLPs - in this article for instance (in which she is used to source information on some 27 names - and unless you have a RS proving each and everyone of them is dead (many are) - we assume per WP:BDP that as possible post-1903 births - they are alive) - which is a no-go per policy. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennikin footnote 85 - whose context is
Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85). So her work/views are clearly referred to as a myth in an actual RS (all be it - relegated to a passing mention in a footnote). In the interview in question she describes her work at the savingjews website which in the online copy of the self-published book. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Anna Poray is not a WP:SPS publishing historian because she is deceased- which doesn't square with the website (which was up in 2004 and mentioned by Poray in her notrious Nasz Dziennik interview) and book (which per google was published (by A.Poray - so quite obviously self-published) in 2007. USHMM actually doesn't have a publication date - [3] - it is described as a
Personal Web site- and archived in 2007). Poray herself died in 2013. Which brings me to the point - would you be so kind as to explain the connection of Project InPosterum to savingjews.org? and, if you may, what else do you know about whomever is propagating this? Icewhiz ( talk) 15:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Piotrus:, @ Nihil novi:, @ GizzyCatBella: - are there still objections to the removal of Poray? Please speak up. If you are still objecting, I intend to take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard per WP:BLPSPS. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
What in the world does any of this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Please note that the BLP/n discussion while possibly not agreeing on whether this is a BLP situation, was conclusive in terms of excluding this content on a number of different grounds. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history of the underlying article and spotted this "I am the author. I removed a paragraph that misrepresents the book by cherry-picking a quotation from it, which removed this statement:
References
So it seems that the author, if we are to believe the edit summary, disclaimed this statement. I suggest it be removed from this article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
References
This is work-in-progress and it is too early to report a definite results, but on the early returns it does not seem that those who have been officially recognised represent as many as ten per cent of the deserving cases. Keeping in mind that these cases are drawn from published memoirs and from cases on file at Yad Vashem and the Jewish Historical Institute, it is probable that the 5,000 or so Poles who have been recognised as 'Righteous Among the Nations' so far represent only the tip of the iceberg, and that the true number of rescuers who meet the Yad Vashem 'gold standard' is 20,50, perhaps even 100 times higher...... summary (last paragraph in article):
How many people in Poland rescued Jews? Of those that meet Yad Vashem's criteria - perhaps 100,000. Of those that offered minor forms of help - perhaps two or three times as many. Of those who were passively protective - undoubtedly the majority of the population. All these acts, great and small, were necessary to rescue Jews in Poland.. I would be wary regarding Paulsson hedging his estimates with the "work in progress" bit in terms of using this article. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Mark Paul did not misrepresent Gunnar Paulsson’s statements. As anyone can see for themself, Mark Paul cited Paulsson’s publications verbatim: http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf (p. 287). (Also http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc). At no time did Mark Paul attribute a 300,000 estimate to Paulsson. Any such allegation is demonstrably false. Tatzref ( talk) 16:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm open to presenting this information in a different way or paraphrasing it but I'm categorically against removing this well sourced information wholesale. And what the BLP discussion states is that it is NOT a BLP issue. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This - Żegota faced a constant battle for funding, receiving more from Jewish organizations than from the government-in-exile, whilst the right-wing parties refused to support it ---> is not it the book apparently suppose to be on page 181-182 - see search results [13] GizzyCatBella ( talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
but you dropped everything after the coma:Żegota came too late to save most yet it proved indispensable in supporting thousands of Jews,
Then you picked another two lines,primarily in Warsaw, by providing hiding places (and replacements when apartments were discovered by the szmalcownicy), food, medical care and financial support.
but omitting an opening lineŻegota faced a constant battle for funding, receiving more from Jewish organizations than from the government-in-exile, whilst the right-wing parties refused to support it. Relatively few sentences were passed against blackmailers.
and all text before it and after. Is appears to be cherry picked 3 lines that if read without the full context return only negative connotation. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 15:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)However, positive judgements must be qualified.
@ Volunteer Marek: Where exactly am I " stonewalling"? The last messages here were mine, with questions to you: 1) Did you read the source before claiming the quote was picked, and 2) Do you have specific information about this quote by Bartoszewski? If the answer is "no" to both questions, then your claim has no basis. François Robere ( talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
It looks like only words with a negative undertone have been chosen
No. We're not obliged to "balance" everything by the word. The source is critical of Zegota's environment, and the quote reflects that.
What was his opinion based on?
As he was a community leader and the unofficial archivist of the Warsaw ghetto, Zegota's main area of operations, one can assume he had some knowledge of their activity.
François Robere (
talk)
06:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems Żegota was funded by the JDC quite a bit, and that its funding issues are covered in secondary post-war sources. Ringelblum wasn't writing a diary, but a historical account, and modern scholars use him quite a bit. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: You reversed this change [15] saying "still lacks consensus", but I'm not seeing any policy-based argument here, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to object a change. François Robere ( talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I
reverted this. Besides puffery issues, the cited source doesn't say this (merely saying Żegota was unique - which is undoubtedly true - each and every organization has unique circumstances) and is a Poland-specific source that doesn't cover cross-European rescue efforts. As might be seen in
USHMM JEWISH AID AND RESCUE and
USHMM Rescue other secret rescue organizations existed in Europe, e.g.
Œuvre de secours aux enfants or the
Slovakian "Working Group" - making the assertion that "Poland was the only country in
German-occupied Europe where, during the war, there existed such a dedicated secret structure"
- demonstrably false.
Icewhiz (
talk) 05:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed Ground->Group.
Icewhiz (
talk)
05:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"No such Christian group existed in any other German-occupied country"- you omitted Christian from the middle of the quote. I'll note that the assertion that Zegota was "Christian" is questionable, as there were both Christian and Jewish members on the council. The book itself is not a history book, and is essentially a travel log of sorts through post-Communist Central/Eastern Europe (this assertion is made in the midst of an interview). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"such an organization, run jointly by Jews and non-Jews from a wide range of political movements"- which is a very narrow stmt (other organizations being only Jewish, only non-Jewish, or being jointly Jewish and non-Jewish but holding a fairly monolithic political view) - so sure - if you add specific qualifiers (in this case - joint Jewish/non-Jewish with wide range of political movements) you end up with a singularity. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow... It appears that Żegota was not only unique but also the most most dangerous conspiracy in wartime Europe. [19] Code Name: Zegota: Rescuing Jews in Occupied Poland, 1942-1945: The Most Dangerous Conspiracy in Wartime Europe Should we append - "the most dangerous organization"? I think we should. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 09:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Group rescue, the third form, was carried out by organizations such as Żegota in Poland or Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee in southern France. These organizations were created explicitly for the purpose of helping Jews and other victims of Nazism.- equating Varian Fry#Emergency Rescue Committee with Żegota. QED. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Museum dedicated entirely to the history of Polish Jews ( POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews) in Warsaw also tells us that Żegota was the only institution in all of occupied Europe officially established and supported by a government with the aim of saving Jews. [21] And they affirm that twice, here also [22] “only state-sponsored organization in occupied Europe which was set up with the aim of saving Jews”. Wow… it was something remarkable indeed. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 01:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (ISS PAS). After an M.A. from the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot, she received her PhD from Warsaw University. Her research interests concern the cultural patterns, narratives, and phantasms legitimizing violence and exclusion. [24]. Sometimes there are a few individuals with the same name - do take care when jumping to conclusions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 10:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
A few notes:
François Robere ( talk) 16:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it. You're mixing up your blind reverts [29] [30]. This text isn't about Zegota's funding. It's about its uniqueness. There's no RfC regarding that question. Your edit summaries don't make sense. You're not even bothering to read the edit you're reverting!
See WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TEND, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:GAME. Freakin' a, if you're gonna start an edit war at least put some effort in making your reverting look semi-legit. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean this edit summary in particular is straight up evidence that Icewhiz did not even bother to read what he was reverting. The text has nothing to do with funding yet he goes on and on in the ES about funding! Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm the author of that entry and one who referenced this information to the RS. The “established and supported” by government means organized/formed and backed with its large secret arrangements in occupied Poland. I attempted to inform readers about the uniqueness of the organization. Please refer to the sources that were attached to the removed text (sources are now also removed); there is nothing that pertains to funding or money.
Volunteer Marek is correct. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
government-established and -supported- government supported is close synonymous with funded. As long as we have the RfC open - can be stop attempting to push government support related content to the article (all the more so the lede)? Nothing blind here. This poorly crafted addition to the lede has been challenged. The correct thing to do is to discuss - not attempt to edit-war this in during a RfC. There is clearly no consensus for these lede sentence in this form, and WP:ONUS is on you. Please, also address content, and not the contributor. Now - will you self revert? Icewhiz ( talk) 19:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify:
Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences.per Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify - in the original conversation [33] from June 22 regarding Elżbieta Janicka [34] Icewhiz didn't know who she actually is [35] (you got the wrong Elżbieta Janicka Icewhiz wrote). I had to tell Icewhiz that this is the same Janicka, a photographer with a Ph.D. in humanities he is referring to [36] Eventually she ended up being described as “a woman of many talents” [37]. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences.Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History - I do suggest you strike your repeated BLP violations - as she clearly is a historian. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek Your comment is indicative of occupational stress, which you may wish to resolve by taking some time off. François Robere ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it.
How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another?
And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem:
As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
Żegota was too late and so on ... . Non-Poles did apparently better. Who and where? Xx236 ( talk) 10:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone specified the financial contributions to Żegota from the Polish Government-in-Exile in London, and from "Jewish organizations"? Nihil novi ( talk) 21:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Polish authors connect Zofia Kossak-Szczucka's "Protest" with Żegota. Why is this being ignored here? Xx236 ( talk) 10:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Text under dispute: "Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe where, during the war, there existed such a dedicated secret structure"
My understanding is that the "dedicated secret structure" part was added to appease some editors. But if need be, we can just change it to something like:
"Poland was the only country in German occupied Europe where such a unique institution, with a dedicated aim of saving Jews and which was run jointly by Jews and non-Jews, existed"
Can't argue that that's not based on sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Group rescue, the third form, was carried out by organizations such as Żegota in Poland or Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee in southern France. These organizations were created explicitly for the purpose of helping Jews and other victims of Nazism.
And here is more:
Now, can we have some sources which say it wasn't unique, rather than original research and WP:IJDLI? Otherwise, let's drop this ridiculous topic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding a footnote in which we can say something like 'While majority of sources call Zegota unique, several scholars drew comparisons to smaller and lesser known organizations like Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee, Œuvre de secours aux enfants, Naamloze Vennootschap (NV) and the Piet Meerburg Group (in the Netherlands) and the Garel network (in France). What made Zegota unique was... ' TBH, I am not exactly sure what made it unqique - size? But the point is many sources call it unique. Remember, WP:NOTTRUTH... we report what the majority of sources say, with occasional footnotes and clarifications. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"The Righteous Defense in all its variations allows for the gradual shift of Jewish victims to the periphery of the historical account and their systematic replacement with noble Gentiles. The first step in the process of de-Judaizing the Holocaust places the Righteous Poles at the center of each and every account. No occasion can be missed to invoke the brave rescuers; to introduce the underground Żegota rescue group, “the only organization created specifically to help the Jews in occupied Europe;” to highlight Jan Karski, “who tried to warn the world” about the ongoing extermination; or to make a reference to Irena Sendler, who saved Jewish children. The results have been, at least initially, very awkward. The Holocaust becomes a theater that provides a stage upon which Righteous Gentiles can perform noble deeds on the largely undefined and obscure crowd of anonymous Jews in need. Over time, however, and repeated often enough, the “national claim” over the Holocaust starts to sound more and more plausible. Given the near monopoly of Polish state institutions in representing the country's history abroad, achieving the expected results is only a question of time."Most of the sources point out the uniqueness of Żegota (and yes - there were some unique aspects) - tend to be Poland specific (this can also be a non-Polish writer), and they mainly echo this claim without actually checking it. The relevant literature for stating uniqueness is literature that covers a number of countries and actually makes comparisons. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: It think it's important to stress the discussion on "uniqueness" isn't about Żegota or any of its operatives, most of whom I doubt would have wanted this kind of attention anyway. This discussion is about Poland's reputation. The phrase "the only government-supported rescue organization" places the emphasis not on the organization itself (whose uniqueness or non-uniqueness in Europe is of very little importance), but on the fact that it was "government-supported". Being "unique" in this sense is supposed to reflect on the Polish nation more than on the organization itself, which if funded by the Chinese would've changed very little for its operations. More than anything else, this proposed addition is a hijacking of this remarkable organization for the sake of national ethos. François Robere ( talk) 11:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it's relevant here now that we have the RfC, but Krakowski states that Żegota received no more than $250,000 out of the $35m + DM25m that were available to organizations subject to the Delegatura. François Robere ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Refutation of the note: I think the problem is not Żegota, but the rejection of Polish culture as "lower". Dutch - very good, French - perfect, but Polish - disgusting.
I detect an ongoing escalation in our Siamese twins' deprecation of Żegota and its good works.
First, according to the twins, Żegota did not do all that much for Poland's Jews who were being persecuted and murdered by the Germans. Then Żegota ceased to be "unique", when compared with the good offices of American journalist Varian Fry in southern, non-German-occupied Vichy France, where Fry could go about his good deeds without fear of being assassinated by the Germans.
Then first, according to our twins, Żegota was not sponsored by the Polish Government-in-Exile in London. Then Żegota did receive some funds from the Polish Government-in-Exile. Then Żegota received less funding from the Polish Government-in-Exile than from "Jewish organizations". Then the Polish Government-in-Exile stole most of the funds that it received from the Jewish organizations to help Żegota. Then, we learn from Yad Vashem, from July 1943 Jewish organizations (the Jewish National Committee and the Bund) "began to receive relief funds sent directly from abroad."
I would like to see a precise accounting (not just a broad general characterization by a "Holocaust scholar", published in a "peer-reviewed journal" or in a book issued by a publisher of "reliable-source" studies) of Żegota's material support, over its lifetime, by the Polish Government-in-Exile, by "Jewish organizations", and by internal Polish resources within German-occupied Poland.
Of course Żegota was not adequately financed. What Polish agency was, or could be? And despite the Polish Government's pleas to its western Allies to do something to help Poland's Jewish-Polish and ethnic-Polish populations, which were being brutalized and murdered by the Germans – if only by Allied bombing of the rail lines leading to the German death camps – the Allies chose first to disbelieve the information provided by the Poles, then to totally sidetrack the matter, expecting it to be resolved by eventual Allied victory in the war.
Nihil novi ( talk) 22:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So many experts in Żegota's vices, noone helps to write Vaad Hatzalah. Xx236 ( talk) 11:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Large wooden crate used by Zegota, a Polish underground group, to hide false documents
Xx236 ( talk) 12:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You won't find this information in the text. Xx236 ( talk) 12:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Waldemar Grabowski. Rada Pomocy Żydom „Żegota” w strukturach Polskiego Państwa Podziemnego. „Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej”. nr 11 (120), listopad 2010. IPN.
It contains tables showing overal transfer to resistance in Poland, month by month analysis of aid sent to organizations saving Jews and discusses various aspects of financial help and obstacles involved with this.
It is available online here [50] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
At 22:39, 13 July 2018, to the " Operational difficulties" section, User:MyMoloboaccount added the following information, which was deleted on 12:27, 14 July 2018:
During the war, the Polish Government-in-Exile continually increased its funding for Żegota. In May 1944 the monthly support was raised from 30,000 zloty to 338,000 zloty; by the end of the war, to 1,000,000 zloty. The Polish Government's total financial contribution was 37,400,000 zloty, 1,000,000 dollars, and 200,000 Swiss Franks. [1] [2]
Nihil novi ( talk) 20:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to the English version of the name, Council to Aid Jews or Council to Aid Jews "Żegota". Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
"Polish Council to Aid Jews"? Nihil novi ( talk) 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing a major revision of the article that's mostly copyedit and disambiguation tags; other changes that are worth explaining here follow. I had to alternate between the "visual editor" and the source view; hopefully the switches didn't introduce any errors.
Extended content
|
---|
Prominent activistsIn a letter from February 26, 1977 Adolf Berman mentions the following activists as especially meritorious:
|
It is estimated that about half of the Jews who survived the Holocaust in occupied Poland were aided in some shape or form by Żegotais taken from p. 118 of Piotrwoski, from a paragraph about the varying estimates of the number of survivors. This isn't a statement of fact by Piotrowski like it's presented here. François Robere ( talk) 07:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The systematic killing of Jews began to take place, so it was hard to save Jews already in the ghetto. That is why they only protected Jews located in hiding in Polandis poorly-phrased, mis-cited (Piotrowski, p. 118), and contradicts the statement about Zegota helping prisoners in forced labor camps. François Robere ( talk) 07:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
...for every Pole (the head of the household and his or her entire family) living in a house where Jews were discovered.is poorly-worded and poorly-cited. François Robere ( talk) 07:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding:
Not to take away from the courage and integrity of the Danes, I suspect it may have been easier for them to resist the Final Solution due to their Germanic descent and western European location. The Germans were interested in Lebensraum in the east, at the expense of the non-Germanic Slavs, whom they planned to exterminate just as they were exterminating Europe's Jews. Nihil novi ( talk) 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I find the statements about the unique nature of Zegota to be undue in the lead. The fact that a functioning (albeit underground) state would create a government department concerned with the well-being of its persecuted ethnic minority is not remarkable. To be sure, the circumstances that Zegota operated in were exceedingly dangerous and its operation required extraordinary bravery; it may be more appropriate to highlight this in the lead instead. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Made an as per the preceding discussion. François Robere ( talk) 14:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Nihil novi: Explain? François Robere ( talk) 22:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Bund Xx236 ( talk) 06:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Does the new book support the number? What is "only"? Were the money offered for Jews and bad Poles robbed them? Xx236 ( talk) 07:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Zofia Kossak was arrested and deported to Auschwitz. Such information is avaliable in her biography here. She has published her account Z otchłani. [51] Xx236 ( talk) 07:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced.
Probably should be mentioned among activists/key people. Xx236 ( talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Re: [53]. The additions seem fine, but I don't see the point of removal. Please try to combine both and avoid loosing useful info. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Text
|
---|
Before: The Polish Government-in-Exile, based in London, faced immense difficulties funding its institutions in German-occupied Poland; this affected, as well, funding for Jewish organizations and Żegota. [1] Part of the funds had to be sent in via highly inefficient airdrops (only some 17% of which succeeded), resulting in financial difficulties for Poland's underground structures. [2] Waldemar Grabowski notes that the Polish Government-in-Exile had difficulty funding itself and its own institutions in occupied Poland, and some of the funds raised could be delivered only in the late period of the war. [3] According to Marcin Urynowicz, the percentage of funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to social help for Jews, including Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population. [4] After: The Polish Government-in-Exile, based in London, faced immense difficulties funding its institutions in German-occupied Poland; this affected funding for Żegota as well. Part of the funds had to be sent in via highly inefficient airdrops (only some 17% of which succeeded) and some could only be delivered late in the war. [5] ... In response, Marcin Urynowicz claims the percentage of the funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to help Jews, including through Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population. [6] |
References
What is your evidence for Marcin Urynowicz's information being "in response" to something- that's a good connective. If you prefer, change it to "however".
Why did you delete (before Piotrus restored them) all the specific sums- I stated it both in the edit summary and, in part, in the previous thread on this ("Survey", above): First, they're raw numbers - we might as well quote Żegota's ledger directly - which means they're a WP:PRIMARY sources that violates WP:STATSBOOK. Per Wikipedia's guidelines we ought to prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, which is what the expert quotes provide. Second - those numbers don't give anything to the reader: What can a lay reader understand from these numbers alone? That Żegota was over-funded? Under-funded? Properly-funded? The reader can't compare it to anything - the reader doesn't know what portion of the pie the other organizations received, nor what it's worth in current monetary terms - if we wrote that Żegota received a billion dollars and one trillion franks the reader would be none the wiser. So the raw numbers quoted a dozen times really give very little, which is ironic given Molobo's complaints about "quote spam".
If the Polish authors are able to quote specific Polish Government-in-Exile donations to Żegota, then why are your authors unable to do the same for donations to Żegota by unnamed "Jewish organizations"?- I just received word from Joseph Kermish - he says the numbers are in the top drawer to the left, next to the Wiki policy saying "don't ask silly questions".
I repeat my unanswered previous question- we've been at it before. The "means" are well publicized - through the GIE and the Delegatura (that didn't necessarily pass them on time, or according to one source in full), and perhaps by other means as well - American organizations, British spies and the like, but I'm not certain about those at the moment. François Robere ( talk) 00:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I expect you wouldn't mind giving them a little additional publicity- I'd be happy to, I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. You wanted quotes [54], now that you have them you're not happy with what they say, so you interrogate the sources. It's not a "pick your quotes" buffet.
I suggest you provide a scale of comparison by adding to this article section the figures for the Jewish organizations' contributions- So you're looking to cast historical blame on Jewish organizations instead of accepting the sources we have on the Polish government, of which they were citizens?
Wikipedia is about writing quality, neutral articles, not a blame game.I suggest you seriously reconsider your edits, if you don’t understand this basic core concept. The numbers are highly relevant, informative and relevant. Furthermore your justifications for their removal are baseless, the rules you invoked speak about excessive use of statistics that make articles unreadable and are excessive. The information here is neither, and frankly suggesting that section about financing should lack data on finances is absurd. MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
the rules you invoked speak about excessive use of statistics- no, they're not. The rule itself has two parts - the first about statistics in general, the second about excessive use of statistics (highlights mine):
(I) Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. (II) Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.
Please answer my above questions about the "Jewish organizations'" contributionsExcuse me, but no. This discussion isn't about Polonsky, Ringelblum or any of the other half dozen respectable sources that all say the same thing, and you're not going to deflect it there. This discussion is on whether a dozen sums given in several historical currencies, with no context or interpretation, mean anything to a contemporary reader. I say they do not, and neither you nor Molobo explained why or how they do. François Robere ( talk) 20:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've tabulated the data and added some more from the other sources - you're both so keen on numbers, I doubt you'll object. Now tell me, what does a lay reader get from that data, other than the impression that it's a mess? François Robere ( talk) 01:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The lead should explain the context - the Holocaust and German terror in Poland. Many Wikipedia raeders don't know basic facts. Xx236 ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A great summary of Żegota's achievements during WW II. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.106.1.229 on 14 April 2004.
Who is meant by this, Jews?: had 180 persons under its care within a short time. Or did the author mean to say this?: "soon had 180 helpers at its disposal" -- Espoo 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says, "A difficult problem therefore was to find hiding places for persons who looked Jewish." It would be good to elaborate on this with two points. With men and boys, it was easy for the Nazi occupiers to check, since Jewish men and boys would have been circumcized and non-Jewish Poles would not. Also, I understand that there were Jews living in Poland at the time who were so lived so completely in the Jewish community that they spoke only Yiddish and could not speak Polish; they could not be passed off as non-Jewish Poles. 140.147.160.78 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
How does one pronouce "Zegota"? Long 'e'? Just curious. -- Bk0 20:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
What syllable is the accent on? -- Espoo 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. The dot over the "z" makes it something like the "z" in "azure," or the "j" in the French "jour." The "e" is as in the English "bet." The "o" is open (short) as in "got," not as in "oh." The "a" is open. And in Polish, one almost always accents the penultimate (i.e. next to last) syllable (in words of more than one syllable). So it's "zhe-GO-ta." 140.147.160.78 13:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
The author is writing:
unless these ladies, from Prof. 'Grzegorzewski' onwards, were Americans with Polish ancestors, which they were not, afaik, their names must be given in their Polish forms, i. e., GrzegorzewskA, SolskA, Buchholtz-BukolskA, SawickA, RybickA, KurowskA, (Maria) OssowskA, Sempolowska (or rather: Sempołowska), RzeczyckA, LaskA. Strangely enough, the author quotes the last surname, Derwisz-Parnowska, in the correct form. Their husbands, brothers (if any) and father were called 'GrzegorzewskI', 'SolskI' --- they were not. -A, not -I. This is the law in Polish. 131.220.251.28 ( talk) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wojciech Żełaniec
I found a few of the names in sprawiedliwi.org.pl, so I changed them to -ska. I'm assuming savingjews.org (the quoted source) was wrong in quoting the names. I can't imagine all these women would have opted for the male form of the -ski name. I have met with women bearing the -ski names, but rather for less usual names: Biały, Jasny. I could not, however, find Ms. Laski in any source, so I left it unchanged.
LMB (
talk)
19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The guy standing in the right of the image has clearly been photoshopped in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.150.178 ( talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Why? By what indications can we conclude this? -- Jüber ( talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Jüber ( talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Over 700 Polish heroes, murdered by Germans as a result of helping and sheltering their Jewish neighbors, were posthumously awarded the title Righteous Among the Nations; given the alleged involvement of over 200,000 Poles in the precarious underground hidings provided to Jews, this indicates that the death penalty was used as a deterrent rather than as a frequently executed punishment.[6] They were only a small percentage of thousands of Poles reportedly executed by the Nazis for aiding Jews."
The reason why there is such a small number of executed people recognised as Rightous is because the Jews they were hiding died along with them, so there are no Jewish witnesses. In my family's hometown three families were executed for hiding Jews and none of these people is recognised as Righteous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.6.63 ( talk) 05:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"More specific estimates indicate that some 100,000 to 300,000 Poles met Yad Vashem’s criteria, having been directly engaged in rescuing Jews despite the threat of death, which did deter others"
Total nonsense this and all the other guessings about Poles involved in saving Jews. If 100 - 300.000 Poles would met YV criterias there would not be 6.706 Polish Righteous but at least 100.000. Meeting criterias means providing evidence for those acts, not only "I heared my grandmother/grandmother saved Jews"! No evidence = no Righteous, easy as such. However, there are even Poles who "saved" Jews by including them in the family and instead to hide them he let them work on his farm in bright daylight! Noz long as another Pole became aware about and informed the German authorities. As result all Jews were killed as the Pole with his family. And this Polish farmer&family incl. small children were considered "saviour of the Jews " while the father caused in reallity the death of all persons! BTW, as the Poles are allways showing off with their big number of Righteous: 35000 000 Polish inhabitants (during WWII) and only 6706 Righteous makes exactly 0.019 Percent. O.019% of the Polish population was able to provide enough evidence to be considered as Righteous, the other guessed "saviors" not. That speaks for itself. Austrianbird ( talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@ GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent: Any policy based justification for reverting back in a WP:SPS source? Such sources, per policy, are not suitable, failing V. Also note, that though unlikely (due to the subjects' age) - unless you verified via RS that all those named are dead, there is a BLP issue here - as per WP:BDP we assume anyone younger than 115 (1903 birth year is alive). Icewhiz ( talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
or that reason, self-published media, such as books, ... personal websites ... and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Certainly there are worthless published books, but self-published books are generally considered, by Wikipedia policy, to be unacceptable sources. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna often cite the number of Christian Polish rescuers of Jews honored to date by the Yad Vashem Memorial Institue in Jerusalem, numbering approximately 6,350, as a tool to "normalize" the dark past. By employing this data, they claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, in order to restore the image of Poles as solely heroes and martyrs (note 33).. [1], footnote: [2]. She is being used to source information on possible BLPs - in this article for instance (in which she is used to source information on some 27 names - and unless you have a RS proving each and everyone of them is dead (many are) - we assume per WP:BDP that as possible post-1903 births - they are alive) - which is a no-go per policy. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennikin footnote 85 - whose context is
Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85). So her work/views are clearly referred to as a myth in an actual RS (all be it - relegated to a passing mention in a footnote). In the interview in question she describes her work at the savingjews website which in the online copy of the self-published book. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Anna Poray is not a WP:SPS publishing historian because she is deceased- which doesn't square with the website (which was up in 2004 and mentioned by Poray in her notrious Nasz Dziennik interview) and book (which per google was published (by A.Poray - so quite obviously self-published) in 2007. USHMM actually doesn't have a publication date - [3] - it is described as a
Personal Web site- and archived in 2007). Poray herself died in 2013. Which brings me to the point - would you be so kind as to explain the connection of Project InPosterum to savingjews.org? and, if you may, what else do you know about whomever is propagating this? Icewhiz ( talk) 15:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Piotrus:, @ Nihil novi:, @ GizzyCatBella: - are there still objections to the removal of Poray? Please speak up. If you are still objecting, I intend to take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard per WP:BLPSPS. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
What in the world does any of this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Please note that the BLP/n discussion while possibly not agreeing on whether this is a BLP situation, was conclusive in terms of excluding this content on a number of different grounds. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history of the underlying article and spotted this "I am the author. I removed a paragraph that misrepresents the book by cherry-picking a quotation from it, which removed this statement:
References
So it seems that the author, if we are to believe the edit summary, disclaimed this statement. I suggest it be removed from this article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
References
This is work-in-progress and it is too early to report a definite results, but on the early returns it does not seem that those who have been officially recognised represent as many as ten per cent of the deserving cases. Keeping in mind that these cases are drawn from published memoirs and from cases on file at Yad Vashem and the Jewish Historical Institute, it is probable that the 5,000 or so Poles who have been recognised as 'Righteous Among the Nations' so far represent only the tip of the iceberg, and that the true number of rescuers who meet the Yad Vashem 'gold standard' is 20,50, perhaps even 100 times higher...... summary (last paragraph in article):
How many people in Poland rescued Jews? Of those that meet Yad Vashem's criteria - perhaps 100,000. Of those that offered minor forms of help - perhaps two or three times as many. Of those who were passively protective - undoubtedly the majority of the population. All these acts, great and small, were necessary to rescue Jews in Poland.. I would be wary regarding Paulsson hedging his estimates with the "work in progress" bit in terms of using this article. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Mark Paul did not misrepresent Gunnar Paulsson’s statements. As anyone can see for themself, Mark Paul cited Paulsson’s publications verbatim: http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf (p. 287). (Also http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc). At no time did Mark Paul attribute a 300,000 estimate to Paulsson. Any such allegation is demonstrably false. Tatzref ( talk) 16:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm open to presenting this information in a different way or paraphrasing it but I'm categorically against removing this well sourced information wholesale. And what the BLP discussion states is that it is NOT a BLP issue. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This - Żegota faced a constant battle for funding, receiving more from Jewish organizations than from the government-in-exile, whilst the right-wing parties refused to support it ---> is not it the book apparently suppose to be on page 181-182 - see search results [13] GizzyCatBella ( talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
but you dropped everything after the coma:Żegota came too late to save most yet it proved indispensable in supporting thousands of Jews,
Then you picked another two lines,primarily in Warsaw, by providing hiding places (and replacements when apartments were discovered by the szmalcownicy), food, medical care and financial support.
but omitting an opening lineŻegota faced a constant battle for funding, receiving more from Jewish organizations than from the government-in-exile, whilst the right-wing parties refused to support it. Relatively few sentences were passed against blackmailers.
and all text before it and after. Is appears to be cherry picked 3 lines that if read without the full context return only negative connotation. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 15:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)However, positive judgements must be qualified.
@ Volunteer Marek: Where exactly am I " stonewalling"? The last messages here were mine, with questions to you: 1) Did you read the source before claiming the quote was picked, and 2) Do you have specific information about this quote by Bartoszewski? If the answer is "no" to both questions, then your claim has no basis. François Robere ( talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
It looks like only words with a negative undertone have been chosen
No. We're not obliged to "balance" everything by the word. The source is critical of Zegota's environment, and the quote reflects that.
What was his opinion based on?
As he was a community leader and the unofficial archivist of the Warsaw ghetto, Zegota's main area of operations, one can assume he had some knowledge of their activity.
François Robere (
talk)
06:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems Żegota was funded by the JDC quite a bit, and that its funding issues are covered in secondary post-war sources. Ringelblum wasn't writing a diary, but a historical account, and modern scholars use him quite a bit. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: You reversed this change [15] saying "still lacks consensus", but I'm not seeing any policy-based argument here, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to object a change. François Robere ( talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I
reverted this. Besides puffery issues, the cited source doesn't say this (merely saying Żegota was unique - which is undoubtedly true - each and every organization has unique circumstances) and is a Poland-specific source that doesn't cover cross-European rescue efforts. As might be seen in
USHMM JEWISH AID AND RESCUE and
USHMM Rescue other secret rescue organizations existed in Europe, e.g.
Œuvre de secours aux enfants or the
Slovakian "Working Group" - making the assertion that "Poland was the only country in
German-occupied Europe where, during the war, there existed such a dedicated secret structure"
- demonstrably false.
Icewhiz (
talk) 05:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed Ground->Group.
Icewhiz (
talk)
05:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"No such Christian group existed in any other German-occupied country"- you omitted Christian from the middle of the quote. I'll note that the assertion that Zegota was "Christian" is questionable, as there were both Christian and Jewish members on the council. The book itself is not a history book, and is essentially a travel log of sorts through post-Communist Central/Eastern Europe (this assertion is made in the midst of an interview). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"such an organization, run jointly by Jews and non-Jews from a wide range of political movements"- which is a very narrow stmt (other organizations being only Jewish, only non-Jewish, or being jointly Jewish and non-Jewish but holding a fairly monolithic political view) - so sure - if you add specific qualifiers (in this case - joint Jewish/non-Jewish with wide range of political movements) you end up with a singularity. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow... It appears that Żegota was not only unique but also the most most dangerous conspiracy in wartime Europe. [19] Code Name: Zegota: Rescuing Jews in Occupied Poland, 1942-1945: The Most Dangerous Conspiracy in Wartime Europe Should we append - "the most dangerous organization"? I think we should. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 09:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Group rescue, the third form, was carried out by organizations such as Żegota in Poland or Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee in southern France. These organizations were created explicitly for the purpose of helping Jews and other victims of Nazism.- equating Varian Fry#Emergency Rescue Committee with Żegota. QED. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Museum dedicated entirely to the history of Polish Jews ( POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews) in Warsaw also tells us that Żegota was the only institution in all of occupied Europe officially established and supported by a government with the aim of saving Jews. [21] And they affirm that twice, here also [22] “only state-sponsored organization in occupied Europe which was set up with the aim of saving Jews”. Wow… it was something remarkable indeed. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 01:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (ISS PAS). After an M.A. from the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot, she received her PhD from Warsaw University. Her research interests concern the cultural patterns, narratives, and phantasms legitimizing violence and exclusion. [24]. Sometimes there are a few individuals with the same name - do take care when jumping to conclusions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 10:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
A few notes:
François Robere ( talk) 16:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it. You're mixing up your blind reverts [29] [30]. This text isn't about Zegota's funding. It's about its uniqueness. There's no RfC regarding that question. Your edit summaries don't make sense. You're not even bothering to read the edit you're reverting!
See WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TEND, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:GAME. Freakin' a, if you're gonna start an edit war at least put some effort in making your reverting look semi-legit. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean this edit summary in particular is straight up evidence that Icewhiz did not even bother to read what he was reverting. The text has nothing to do with funding yet he goes on and on in the ES about funding! Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm the author of that entry and one who referenced this information to the RS. The “established and supported” by government means organized/formed and backed with its large secret arrangements in occupied Poland. I attempted to inform readers about the uniqueness of the organization. Please refer to the sources that were attached to the removed text (sources are now also removed); there is nothing that pertains to funding or money.
Volunteer Marek is correct. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
government-established and -supported- government supported is close synonymous with funded. As long as we have the RfC open - can be stop attempting to push government support related content to the article (all the more so the lede)? Nothing blind here. This poorly crafted addition to the lede has been challenged. The correct thing to do is to discuss - not attempt to edit-war this in during a RfC. There is clearly no consensus for these lede sentence in this form, and WP:ONUS is on you. Please, also address content, and not the contributor. Now - will you self revert? Icewhiz ( talk) 19:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify:
Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences.per Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To clarify - in the original conversation [33] from June 22 regarding Elżbieta Janicka [34] Icewhiz didn't know who she actually is [35] (you got the wrong Elżbieta Janicka Icewhiz wrote). I had to tell Icewhiz that this is the same Janicka, a photographer with a Ph.D. in humanities he is referring to [36] Eventually she ended up being described as “a woman of many talents” [37]. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 19:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences.Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History - I do suggest you strike your repeated BLP violations - as she clearly is a historian. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek Your comment is indicative of occupational stress, which you may wish to resolve by taking some time off. François Robere ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it.
How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another?
And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem:
As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
Żegota was too late and so on ... . Non-Poles did apparently better. Who and where? Xx236 ( talk) 10:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone specified the financial contributions to Żegota from the Polish Government-in-Exile in London, and from "Jewish organizations"? Nihil novi ( talk) 21:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Polish authors connect Zofia Kossak-Szczucka's "Protest" with Żegota. Why is this being ignored here? Xx236 ( talk) 10:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Text under dispute: "Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe where, during the war, there existed such a dedicated secret structure"
My understanding is that the "dedicated secret structure" part was added to appease some editors. But if need be, we can just change it to something like:
"Poland was the only country in German occupied Europe where such a unique institution, with a dedicated aim of saving Jews and which was run jointly by Jews and non-Jews, existed"
Can't argue that that's not based on sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Group rescue, the third form, was carried out by organizations such as Żegota in Poland or Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee in southern France. These organizations were created explicitly for the purpose of helping Jews and other victims of Nazism.
And here is more:
Now, can we have some sources which say it wasn't unique, rather than original research and WP:IJDLI? Otherwise, let's drop this ridiculous topic. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding a footnote in which we can say something like 'While majority of sources call Zegota unique, several scholars drew comparisons to smaller and lesser known organizations like Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee, Œuvre de secours aux enfants, Naamloze Vennootschap (NV) and the Piet Meerburg Group (in the Netherlands) and the Garel network (in France). What made Zegota unique was... ' TBH, I am not exactly sure what made it unqique - size? But the point is many sources call it unique. Remember, WP:NOTTRUTH... we report what the majority of sources say, with occasional footnotes and clarifications. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"The Righteous Defense in all its variations allows for the gradual shift of Jewish victims to the periphery of the historical account and their systematic replacement with noble Gentiles. The first step in the process of de-Judaizing the Holocaust places the Righteous Poles at the center of each and every account. No occasion can be missed to invoke the brave rescuers; to introduce the underground Żegota rescue group, “the only organization created specifically to help the Jews in occupied Europe;” to highlight Jan Karski, “who tried to warn the world” about the ongoing extermination; or to make a reference to Irena Sendler, who saved Jewish children. The results have been, at least initially, very awkward. The Holocaust becomes a theater that provides a stage upon which Righteous Gentiles can perform noble deeds on the largely undefined and obscure crowd of anonymous Jews in need. Over time, however, and repeated often enough, the “national claim” over the Holocaust starts to sound more and more plausible. Given the near monopoly of Polish state institutions in representing the country's history abroad, achieving the expected results is only a question of time."Most of the sources point out the uniqueness of Żegota (and yes - there were some unique aspects) - tend to be Poland specific (this can also be a non-Polish writer), and they mainly echo this claim without actually checking it. The relevant literature for stating uniqueness is literature that covers a number of countries and actually makes comparisons. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: It think it's important to stress the discussion on "uniqueness" isn't about Żegota or any of its operatives, most of whom I doubt would have wanted this kind of attention anyway. This discussion is about Poland's reputation. The phrase "the only government-supported rescue organization" places the emphasis not on the organization itself (whose uniqueness or non-uniqueness in Europe is of very little importance), but on the fact that it was "government-supported". Being "unique" in this sense is supposed to reflect on the Polish nation more than on the organization itself, which if funded by the Chinese would've changed very little for its operations. More than anything else, this proposed addition is a hijacking of this remarkable organization for the sake of national ethos. François Robere ( talk) 11:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it's relevant here now that we have the RfC, but Krakowski states that Żegota received no more than $250,000 out of the $35m + DM25m that were available to organizations subject to the Delegatura. François Robere ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Refutation of the note: I think the problem is not Żegota, but the rejection of Polish culture as "lower". Dutch - very good, French - perfect, but Polish - disgusting.
I detect an ongoing escalation in our Siamese twins' deprecation of Żegota and its good works.
First, according to the twins, Żegota did not do all that much for Poland's Jews who were being persecuted and murdered by the Germans. Then Żegota ceased to be "unique", when compared with the good offices of American journalist Varian Fry in southern, non-German-occupied Vichy France, where Fry could go about his good deeds without fear of being assassinated by the Germans.
Then first, according to our twins, Żegota was not sponsored by the Polish Government-in-Exile in London. Then Żegota did receive some funds from the Polish Government-in-Exile. Then Żegota received less funding from the Polish Government-in-Exile than from "Jewish organizations". Then the Polish Government-in-Exile stole most of the funds that it received from the Jewish organizations to help Żegota. Then, we learn from Yad Vashem, from July 1943 Jewish organizations (the Jewish National Committee and the Bund) "began to receive relief funds sent directly from abroad."
I would like to see a precise accounting (not just a broad general characterization by a "Holocaust scholar", published in a "peer-reviewed journal" or in a book issued by a publisher of "reliable-source" studies) of Żegota's material support, over its lifetime, by the Polish Government-in-Exile, by "Jewish organizations", and by internal Polish resources within German-occupied Poland.
Of course Żegota was not adequately financed. What Polish agency was, or could be? And despite the Polish Government's pleas to its western Allies to do something to help Poland's Jewish-Polish and ethnic-Polish populations, which were being brutalized and murdered by the Germans – if only by Allied bombing of the rail lines leading to the German death camps – the Allies chose first to disbelieve the information provided by the Poles, then to totally sidetrack the matter, expecting it to be resolved by eventual Allied victory in the war.
Nihil novi ( talk) 22:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So many experts in Żegota's vices, noone helps to write Vaad Hatzalah. Xx236 ( talk) 11:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Large wooden crate used by Zegota, a Polish underground group, to hide false documents
Xx236 ( talk) 12:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You won't find this information in the text. Xx236 ( talk) 12:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Waldemar Grabowski. Rada Pomocy Żydom „Żegota” w strukturach Polskiego Państwa Podziemnego. „Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej”. nr 11 (120), listopad 2010. IPN.
It contains tables showing overal transfer to resistance in Poland, month by month analysis of aid sent to organizations saving Jews and discusses various aspects of financial help and obstacles involved with this.
It is available online here [50] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
At 22:39, 13 July 2018, to the " Operational difficulties" section, User:MyMoloboaccount added the following information, which was deleted on 12:27, 14 July 2018:
During the war, the Polish Government-in-Exile continually increased its funding for Żegota. In May 1944 the monthly support was raised from 30,000 zloty to 338,000 zloty; by the end of the war, to 1,000,000 zloty. The Polish Government's total financial contribution was 37,400,000 zloty, 1,000,000 dollars, and 200,000 Swiss Franks. [1] [2]
Nihil novi ( talk) 20:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to the English version of the name, Council to Aid Jews or Council to Aid Jews "Żegota". Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
"Polish Council to Aid Jews"? Nihil novi ( talk) 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing a major revision of the article that's mostly copyedit and disambiguation tags; other changes that are worth explaining here follow. I had to alternate between the "visual editor" and the source view; hopefully the switches didn't introduce any errors.
Extended content
|
---|
Prominent activistsIn a letter from February 26, 1977 Adolf Berman mentions the following activists as especially meritorious:
|
It is estimated that about half of the Jews who survived the Holocaust in occupied Poland were aided in some shape or form by Żegotais taken from p. 118 of Piotrwoski, from a paragraph about the varying estimates of the number of survivors. This isn't a statement of fact by Piotrowski like it's presented here. François Robere ( talk) 07:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The systematic killing of Jews began to take place, so it was hard to save Jews already in the ghetto. That is why they only protected Jews located in hiding in Polandis poorly-phrased, mis-cited (Piotrowski, p. 118), and contradicts the statement about Zegota helping prisoners in forced labor camps. François Robere ( talk) 07:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
...for every Pole (the head of the household and his or her entire family) living in a house where Jews were discovered.is poorly-worded and poorly-cited. François Robere ( talk) 07:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding:
Not to take away from the courage and integrity of the Danes, I suspect it may have been easier for them to resist the Final Solution due to their Germanic descent and western European location. The Germans were interested in Lebensraum in the east, at the expense of the non-Germanic Slavs, whom they planned to exterminate just as they were exterminating Europe's Jews. Nihil novi ( talk) 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I find the statements about the unique nature of Zegota to be undue in the lead. The fact that a functioning (albeit underground) state would create a government department concerned with the well-being of its persecuted ethnic minority is not remarkable. To be sure, the circumstances that Zegota operated in were exceedingly dangerous and its operation required extraordinary bravery; it may be more appropriate to highlight this in the lead instead. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Made an as per the preceding discussion. François Robere ( talk) 14:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Nihil novi: Explain? François Robere ( talk) 22:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Bund Xx236 ( talk) 06:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Does the new book support the number? What is "only"? Were the money offered for Jews and bad Poles robbed them? Xx236 ( talk) 07:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Zofia Kossak was arrested and deported to Auschwitz. Such information is avaliable in her biography here. She has published her account Z otchłani. [51] Xx236 ( talk) 07:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced.
Probably should be mentioned among activists/key people. Xx236 ( talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Re: [53]. The additions seem fine, but I don't see the point of removal. Please try to combine both and avoid loosing useful info. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Text
|
---|
Before: The Polish Government-in-Exile, based in London, faced immense difficulties funding its institutions in German-occupied Poland; this affected, as well, funding for Jewish organizations and Żegota. [1] Part of the funds had to be sent in via highly inefficient airdrops (only some 17% of which succeeded), resulting in financial difficulties for Poland's underground structures. [2] Waldemar Grabowski notes that the Polish Government-in-Exile had difficulty funding itself and its own institutions in occupied Poland, and some of the funds raised could be delivered only in the late period of the war. [3] According to Marcin Urynowicz, the percentage of funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to social help for Jews, including Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population. [4] After: The Polish Government-in-Exile, based in London, faced immense difficulties funding its institutions in German-occupied Poland; this affected funding for Żegota as well. Part of the funds had to be sent in via highly inefficient airdrops (only some 17% of which succeeded) and some could only be delivered late in the war. [5] ... In response, Marcin Urynowicz claims the percentage of the funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to help Jews, including through Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population. [6] |
References
What is your evidence for Marcin Urynowicz's information being "in response" to something- that's a good connective. If you prefer, change it to "however".
Why did you delete (before Piotrus restored them) all the specific sums- I stated it both in the edit summary and, in part, in the previous thread on this ("Survey", above): First, they're raw numbers - we might as well quote Żegota's ledger directly - which means they're a WP:PRIMARY sources that violates WP:STATSBOOK. Per Wikipedia's guidelines we ought to prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, which is what the expert quotes provide. Second - those numbers don't give anything to the reader: What can a lay reader understand from these numbers alone? That Żegota was over-funded? Under-funded? Properly-funded? The reader can't compare it to anything - the reader doesn't know what portion of the pie the other organizations received, nor what it's worth in current monetary terms - if we wrote that Żegota received a billion dollars and one trillion franks the reader would be none the wiser. So the raw numbers quoted a dozen times really give very little, which is ironic given Molobo's complaints about "quote spam".
If the Polish authors are able to quote specific Polish Government-in-Exile donations to Żegota, then why are your authors unable to do the same for donations to Żegota by unnamed "Jewish organizations"?- I just received word from Joseph Kermish - he says the numbers are in the top drawer to the left, next to the Wiki policy saying "don't ask silly questions".
I repeat my unanswered previous question- we've been at it before. The "means" are well publicized - through the GIE and the Delegatura (that didn't necessarily pass them on time, or according to one source in full), and perhaps by other means as well - American organizations, British spies and the like, but I'm not certain about those at the moment. François Robere ( talk) 00:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I expect you wouldn't mind giving them a little additional publicity- I'd be happy to, I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. You wanted quotes [54], now that you have them you're not happy with what they say, so you interrogate the sources. It's not a "pick your quotes" buffet.
I suggest you provide a scale of comparison by adding to this article section the figures for the Jewish organizations' contributions- So you're looking to cast historical blame on Jewish organizations instead of accepting the sources we have on the Polish government, of which they were citizens?
Wikipedia is about writing quality, neutral articles, not a blame game.I suggest you seriously reconsider your edits, if you don’t understand this basic core concept. The numbers are highly relevant, informative and relevant. Furthermore your justifications for their removal are baseless, the rules you invoked speak about excessive use of statistics that make articles unreadable and are excessive. The information here is neither, and frankly suggesting that section about financing should lack data on finances is absurd. MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
the rules you invoked speak about excessive use of statistics- no, they're not. The rule itself has two parts - the first about statistics in general, the second about excessive use of statistics (highlights mine):
(I) Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. (II) Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.
Please answer my above questions about the "Jewish organizations'" contributionsExcuse me, but no. This discussion isn't about Polonsky, Ringelblum or any of the other half dozen respectable sources that all say the same thing, and you're not going to deflect it there. This discussion is on whether a dozen sums given in several historical currencies, with no context or interpretation, mean anything to a contemporary reader. I say they do not, and neither you nor Molobo explained why or how they do. François Robere ( talk) 20:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've tabulated the data and added some more from the other sources - you're both so keen on numbers, I doubt you'll object. Now tell me, what does a lay reader get from that data, other than the impression that it's a mess? François Robere ( talk) 01:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The lead should explain the context - the Holocaust and German terror in Poland. Many Wikipedia raeders don't know basic facts. Xx236 ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)