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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I want to revisit some edits I previously suggested. I've been away from Wikipedia for the last three weeks and am still preoccupied, so I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later.
Previous discussion
|
---|
François Robere ( talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
|
We have an RfC stating that Poland's ambassador is not an RS on the subject, and that the content of his criticism isn't reliable in the "RS" sense, so we shouldn't quote it. We can say he criticized Grabowski, but going into numbers or "who said what" is too detailed for something that an RfC explicitly states isn't an RS. We can have criticisms here by RS, but mind they should be concise - we already have a huge section in another article dedicated to similar criticisms of Grabowski, and we don't need another one here.
According to statements by Poland's ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch... "Grabowski admitted that the number of fugitives from the ghettos, 250,000, is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's writings. Grabowski simply accepted the maximum number of ghetto escapees suggested by Datner but rejected Datner's estimate of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski, if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion, only 50,000) from the number of fugitives, you get 200,000. Grabowski therefore stated this number as Jews murdered by Poles."
I am ok with removal, provided this criticism is retained in the article about the book. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we should consider a section on war profiteering. We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies, and they weren't the only one - some aristocracy, businesspersons, industrialists etc. likely profited as well, and of course there's the looting of Jewish property and the despicable "golden harvest". Assuming proper sourcing, do you think we should have such a section here, or should we spin it off to its own article?
I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later...
We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economiesIn addition, there are a lot of sources on looting of Jewish property, denunciation of Jews for money, blackmailing (including of Jews hiding on one's own property) etc. etc., as these were quite common phenomena. What I don't have sources on ATM is more "traditional" examples of profiteering - industrialists, businesspersons etc., but I would be hard pressed to believe these didn't take place. François Robere ( talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this should first be discussed in the article on collaboration with the Axis. A global overview should be created first, before we do something here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the sections should be reordered, and I suggest the following:
The rationale here is grouping everything "state" in the beginning, then moving to everything that's individual by nature, and finally to the meta-subject of the Holocaust, and to minorities. It's not ideal, but it's better than the current arrangement.
There are issues with the current structure that are beyond reordering alone: the "individual" section is unclear (what's "individual" and what's not? We should either redefine the kind of collaboration it covers or break it up and integrate the parts in other sections); "ethnic" is problematic (do we really want grouping by ethnicity here? It's easy, but it's not necessarily right); the "political" section should be split in two (see the rationale above); and the Holocaust section, which is a massive part of the subject, should probably be pushed elsewhere and better integrated with the rest of the article; but for now, simply reorganizing the sections would be a significant improvement.
François Robere ( talk) 18:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This is getting long again [7]. This isn't an article about Grabowski!
Original:
In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles." (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing). [1] [2] The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize [3] [4] but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians and by the Polish Antidefamation League. [5] [6] In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski. [7] [8] [9] Grabowski's statements were criticized by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch. [10] Historian Bogdan Musial criticized Grabowski's work as improperly sourced, lacking in witness statements and archival documents. [11] Historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote in her review that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research. [12] Also, historian Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute, stated that Grabowski's claim of 200,000 Jews was "hot air" and wrote that it was difficult to accept Grabowski's claim as correct. [13] Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." [14]
Suggestion:
In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles" (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing). [15] [2] The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize [3] [16] but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians, by the Polish Antidefamation League [17] [6] [18] [19] [13] and by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch. [10] In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski. [7] [20] [21] Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." [22]
The above keeps all the references, but strips away most of the quotes. Alternatively, we can remove most of the refs and just add a {{ main}} pointing to Hunt for the Jews#Controversy. François Robere ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
References
I found Paulsson's statement in which he states that the number of "bad" Poles most probably amounted to around 20,000. https://isurvived.org/4Debates/paulsson_supplement.html Mat0018 ( talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article is only covering information on collaboration with Germans in German occupied Poland, but there were also groups collaborating with Soviets on these territories as well and preparing for Soviet rule.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The term "collaboration" is a loaded one and is of questionable use in analyzing .... Then quoting Pinchuk saying this is
problematic at best and misleading at worst. Discussing verbiage of zydokomuna supporters is out of scope for this article. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a Polish Wikipedia article on collaboration with Soviet? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up to the regulars, this rather important wikilink in the lede
Collaborationism does not even mention Poland and defines collaboration as cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime
- (is that description accurate for the topic of this article?)
Seraphim System (
talk)
03:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this par.:
François Robere ( talk) 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Many Poles informed Germans either to obtain some bonus (food) or incognito, as vengeance. They informed about hiding Jews, underground activities, crimes like illegal raising of pigs. The Home Army checked and destroied post adressed to German police. Xx236 ( talk) 13:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@
Xx236: - you
added text on Kalkstein and Kaczorowska. For starters, I don't think this needs a sub-heading (could perhaps deserve a sentence somewhere - maybe - not sure). But the reason I'm speaking up is the sourcing restriction on this page (see the top of this page) - and I'm quoting - "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."
. You added this without a source at all. Do you have a high-quality, preferably English, source backing this up?
Icewhiz (
talk)
13:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
"Contrary to what he writes, there is no documentary evidence as to when or how Grot-Rowecki ded or of what happened to his body. The study also contains numerous factual errors and misprints. Space does not allow this reviewer to enumerate all of them. [11] Other sources I see for this are various low-quality pulp publications. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Alexander Donat lived in Warsaw ghetto and later in concentration camps. What is the source of his expertise in Polish behaviour under Nazis? His son was rescued by Poles. Oh those nasty Poles. Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/1514376/Unwanted_Collaborators_Leon_Koz%C5%82owski_W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Studnicki_and_the_Problem_of_Collaboration_among_the_Polish_Conservative_Politicians_in_World_War_II Xx236 ( talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's from Pomiędzy współpracą a zdradą. Problem kolaboracji w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie – próba syntezy by Młynarczyk. Xx236 ( talk) 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Help when they are brief and give a better understanding of what the cite is saying, they are over used and overly long here. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Also quotes that are not in English (not matter how short) are of no use, we are an English language encyclopedia.
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/4003043/Bedeutung_und_Nutzen_des_Begriffs_.Kollaboration_f%C3%BCr_Forschungen_%C3%BCber_die_Zeitgeschichte_Polens Xx236 ( talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) If you wish to see if a source is suitable for inclusion the correct place is RSN. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Collaboration in German-occupied Poland's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "google":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to move the discussion regarding Grabowski's 200,000 claim over from User talk:Paul Siebert to the actual article talk page. I also reverted User:Piotrus changes as they need further discussion.
I would argue that quoting Grabowski's 200,000 is problematic, because there were legitimate objections by other historians about his claims, for example historian Shimon Redlich stateded that the careless "claim of 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews seeking shelter among the Polish populace", which according to Redlich cannot be extrapolated to the whole country based on one single area or historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research; for example, by not trying to contact the families of Jewish survivors from Dąbrowa Tarnowska, or the Poles who hid them. Samsonowska argues that, by using broader resources, she could identify 90 Jews who had survived the war in hiding in Dąbrowa County, as opposed to the 38 cited by Grabowski. Yet, Grabowski is cited as an be-all end-all reference, however the debate about the involvement of Poles and the actual numbers is still going on, Grabowski is just one side of the debate, not the undisputed authority. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is what I find most troubling about Grabowski's claim page 2-3 — quote directly taken from his book "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." This is highly speculative statement using words such as "assume" or "could reach", yet user Piotrus re-wrote the section to make it sound like the 200,000 figure is based on hard research. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Against One's Own: Patterns of Jewish Collaboration in Cracow and the Cracow Area. by Witold Medykowski. Xx236 ( talk) 07:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Wehrmacht is an army. Xx236 ( talk) 11:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
One quotation of the 200,000 hoax is not enough. More and more pages are being attacked. "One can assume that" lies are lies, even if they are repeated 100 times. Xx236 ( talk) 11:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
User:François Robere - "stable version" is not a legitimate argument for making a blind revert, as you did
here. First, that is not a "stable version" (why restore "Pauli's version" (whoever that is), why not restore E-960's version? - this is a disingenuous excuse at best). Second, please see "Inappropriate usage" in
WP:STABLE, which says "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war.
. "Never invoked". "Not a valid reason". "Should never be used".
Additionally, by reverting to that version you've restored content which has been challenged by reversion in contravention of the discretionary sanctions in place on this article.
Please self revert. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.". The text in our article was not clear that this was "structural collaboration" - so I added that. As an interesting side note - Connelly places the toll of "structural collaboration" at around 5% of Polish Jews - or around 166,667. This estimate was made in 2005 - prior to Grabowski and the Holocaust center - and seems to agree with it. Might be worth adding the numeric estimate (5%) here as well. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war.. "Never invoked". "Not a valid reason". "Should never be used".
"Klaus-Peter Friedrich wrote that "most [Poles] adopted a policy of wait-and-see... In the eyes of the Jewish population, [this] almost inevitably had to appear as silent approval of the [German] occupier's actions.""- should be restored (I can not, as VM placed a failed verification tag on text (making my revert a 1RR violation) - on text clearly verified by the Connelly quote above) - as per Connelly leads off his article with
"Klaus-Peter Friedrich asks why Poland has witnessed recurring debates about collaboration.", and also writes:
"Klaus-Peter Friedrich also takes up an additional form of "structural collaboration" in Poland, namely Polish willingness to assume living quarters and personal property left behind by Jews. Even after the Germans had skimmed off the most valuable resources, Poles still seized the household and business possessions of millions of murdered Jewish neighbors. Though the issue has failed to attract the major study it deserves, it seems justified to state that before embarking on death transports Poland's Jews had performed one more service to a fatherland they had enriched for generations with contributions to culture, science, economy, and politics: they had bequeathed a wealth that kept tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of fellow Polish citizens from starvation under a tremendously destructive German agriculture regime.30"- this is structural collaboration. [17] and on-topic here. The text in the article should clarify this. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful"from the article. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Astonishingly, we still do not have a history of collaboration in Poland during World War II. Klaus-Peter Friedrich shows that the building blocks for such a history already exist, however. They are scattered throughout the contemporary Polish press and studies on the Nazi occupation regime. Examples include institutionalized cooperation (Baudienst, Polish Police), ethnically defined segments of the population (Volksdeutsche), informal support of Nazi projects on ideological common ground (anti- Semitism and anticommunism), and the stance of the Polish peasantry as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Friedrich concludes that collaboration eludes study because of a mental image according to which ethnic Poles were the foremost victims of the occupiers and heroically resisted them. Questionable views of national self-interest keep Polish society from coming to terms with the past. Nevertheless, debates on “Polish collaboration” continue to recur—as they have since 1939."- Friedrich is clearly on topic on collaboration in Poland. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "According to Connolly the Polish "shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful"" Slatersteven ( talk) 09:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.". Black on white in Connolly's journal article. Per WP:CALC 90-85 = 5 - is not OR. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The current paragraph on G. reads as follows:
In 2013, historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." [1] The book was praised by some scholars for its approach and analysis, [2] [3] while a number of other historians criticized his methodology for lacking in actual field research, and argued that his "200,000" estimate was too high. [4] [5] [6]
It reads too much like a book review, and one of the sources (Samsonowska) doesn't clearly support the assertion it's attached to. I suggest trimming it to something like this:
Historian Jan Grabowski writes that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." [1] Some historians suggest the real number was lower. [4] [6]
References
François Robere ( talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
that could be said of any critique found in any sourceCan it? Is my phrasing of exactly the same criticism ("some historians suggest the real number was lower") reads like one?
Historian Jan Grabowski writes that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000" in Poland. Some historians, such as Bogdan Musial and historian X, suggest the number was lower.
@ Volunteer Marek: Regarding your edit summary: To my understanding there's consensus for that change. I haven't seen you comment here. If you disagree, why not comment here instead of revert? François Robere ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
With this edit, several errors were introduced ... of the type that have been repeatedly been pointed out to User:MyMoloboaccount. Can you please fix them? There needs to be spaces between sentences, and punctuation goes BEFORE the refs. Also, a copyedit needs to be done to fix errors such as "committed numerous atrocities against civilian population" where the articles have been omitted. It gets very old fixing other people's errors .... and when they have been pointed out often enough, it no longer becomes some other editor's job to clean up after such simple things to fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 15 December 2019 (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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I want to revisit some edits I previously suggested. I've been away from Wikipedia for the last three weeks and am still preoccupied, so I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later.
Previous discussion
|
---|
François Robere ( talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
|
We have an RfC stating that Poland's ambassador is not an RS on the subject, and that the content of his criticism isn't reliable in the "RS" sense, so we shouldn't quote it. We can say he criticized Grabowski, but going into numbers or "who said what" is too detailed for something that an RfC explicitly states isn't an RS. We can have criticisms here by RS, but mind they should be concise - we already have a huge section in another article dedicated to similar criticisms of Grabowski, and we don't need another one here.
According to statements by Poland's ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch... "Grabowski admitted that the number of fugitives from the ghettos, 250,000, is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's writings. Grabowski simply accepted the maximum number of ghetto escapees suggested by Datner but rejected Datner's estimate of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski, if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion, only 50,000) from the number of fugitives, you get 200,000. Grabowski therefore stated this number as Jews murdered by Poles."
I am ok with removal, provided this criticism is retained in the article about the book. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we should consider a section on war profiteering. We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies, and they weren't the only one - some aristocracy, businesspersons, industrialists etc. likely profited as well, and of course there's the looting of Jewish property and the despicable "golden harvest". Assuming proper sourcing, do you think we should have such a section here, or should we spin it off to its own article?
I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later...
We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economiesIn addition, there are a lot of sources on looting of Jewish property, denunciation of Jews for money, blackmailing (including of Jews hiding on one's own property) etc. etc., as these were quite common phenomena. What I don't have sources on ATM is more "traditional" examples of profiteering - industrialists, businesspersons etc., but I would be hard pressed to believe these didn't take place. François Robere ( talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this should first be discussed in the article on collaboration with the Axis. A global overview should be created first, before we do something here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the sections should be reordered, and I suggest the following:
The rationale here is grouping everything "state" in the beginning, then moving to everything that's individual by nature, and finally to the meta-subject of the Holocaust, and to minorities. It's not ideal, but it's better than the current arrangement.
There are issues with the current structure that are beyond reordering alone: the "individual" section is unclear (what's "individual" and what's not? We should either redefine the kind of collaboration it covers or break it up and integrate the parts in other sections); "ethnic" is problematic (do we really want grouping by ethnicity here? It's easy, but it's not necessarily right); the "political" section should be split in two (see the rationale above); and the Holocaust section, which is a massive part of the subject, should probably be pushed elsewhere and better integrated with the rest of the article; but for now, simply reorganizing the sections would be a significant improvement.
François Robere ( talk) 18:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 11:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This is getting long again [7]. This isn't an article about Grabowski!
Original:
In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles." (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing). [1] [2] The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize [3] [4] but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians and by the Polish Antidefamation League. [5] [6] In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski. [7] [8] [9] Grabowski's statements were criticized by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch. [10] Historian Bogdan Musial criticized Grabowski's work as improperly sourced, lacking in witness statements and archival documents. [11] Historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote in her review that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research. [12] Also, historian Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute, stated that Grabowski's claim of 200,000 Jews was "hot air" and wrote that it was difficult to accept Grabowski's claim as correct. [13] Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." [14]
Suggestion:
In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles" (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing). [15] [2] The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize [3] [16] but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians, by the Polish Antidefamation League [17] [6] [18] [19] [13] and by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch. [10] In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski. [7] [20] [21] Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'." [22]
The above keeps all the references, but strips away most of the quotes. Alternatively, we can remove most of the refs and just add a {{ main}} pointing to Hunt for the Jews#Controversy. François Robere ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
References
I found Paulsson's statement in which he states that the number of "bad" Poles most probably amounted to around 20,000. https://isurvived.org/4Debates/paulsson_supplement.html Mat0018 ( talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article is only covering information on collaboration with Germans in German occupied Poland, but there were also groups collaborating with Soviets on these territories as well and preparing for Soviet rule.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The term "collaboration" is a loaded one and is of questionable use in analyzing .... Then quoting Pinchuk saying this is
problematic at best and misleading at worst. Discussing verbiage of zydokomuna supporters is out of scope for this article. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there a Polish Wikipedia article on collaboration with Soviet? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up to the regulars, this rather important wikilink in the lede
Collaborationism does not even mention Poland and defines collaboration as cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime
- (is that description accurate for the topic of this article?)
Seraphim System (
talk)
03:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this par.:
François Robere ( talk) 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Many Poles informed Germans either to obtain some bonus (food) or incognito, as vengeance. They informed about hiding Jews, underground activities, crimes like illegal raising of pigs. The Home Army checked and destroied post adressed to German police. Xx236 ( talk) 13:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@
Xx236: - you
added text on Kalkstein and Kaczorowska. For starters, I don't think this needs a sub-heading (could perhaps deserve a sentence somewhere - maybe - not sure). But the reason I'm speaking up is the sourcing restriction on this page (see the top of this page) - and I'm quoting - "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."
. You added this without a source at all. Do you have a high-quality, preferably English, source backing this up?
Icewhiz (
talk)
13:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
"Contrary to what he writes, there is no documentary evidence as to when or how Grot-Rowecki ded or of what happened to his body. The study also contains numerous factual errors and misprints. Space does not allow this reviewer to enumerate all of them. [11] Other sources I see for this are various low-quality pulp publications. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Alexander Donat lived in Warsaw ghetto and later in concentration camps. What is the source of his expertise in Polish behaviour under Nazis? His son was rescued by Poles. Oh those nasty Poles. Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/1514376/Unwanted_Collaborators_Leon_Koz%C5%82owski_W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Studnicki_and_the_Problem_of_Collaboration_among_the_Polish_Conservative_Politicians_in_World_War_II Xx236 ( talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's from Pomiędzy współpracą a zdradą. Problem kolaboracji w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie – próba syntezy by Młynarczyk. Xx236 ( talk) 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Help when they are brief and give a better understanding of what the cite is saying, they are over used and overly long here. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Also quotes that are not in English (not matter how short) are of no use, we are an English language encyclopedia.
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/4003043/Bedeutung_und_Nutzen_des_Begriffs_.Kollaboration_f%C3%BCr_Forschungen_%C3%BCber_die_Zeitgeschichte_Polens Xx236 ( talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) If you wish to see if a source is suitable for inclusion the correct place is RSN. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Collaboration in German-occupied Poland's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "google":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to move the discussion regarding Grabowski's 200,000 claim over from User talk:Paul Siebert to the actual article talk page. I also reverted User:Piotrus changes as they need further discussion.
I would argue that quoting Grabowski's 200,000 is problematic, because there were legitimate objections by other historians about his claims, for example historian Shimon Redlich stateded that the careless "claim of 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews seeking shelter among the Polish populace", which according to Redlich cannot be extrapolated to the whole country based on one single area or historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research; for example, by not trying to contact the families of Jewish survivors from Dąbrowa Tarnowska, or the Poles who hid them. Samsonowska argues that, by using broader resources, she could identify 90 Jews who had survived the war in hiding in Dąbrowa County, as opposed to the 38 cited by Grabowski. Yet, Grabowski is cited as an be-all end-all reference, however the debate about the involvement of Poles and the actual numbers is still going on, Grabowski is just one side of the debate, not the undisputed authority. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is what I find most troubling about Grabowski's claim page 2-3 — quote directly taken from his book "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." This is highly speculative statement using words such as "assume" or "could reach", yet user Piotrus re-wrote the section to make it sound like the 200,000 figure is based on hard research. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Against One's Own: Patterns of Jewish Collaboration in Cracow and the Cracow Area. by Witold Medykowski. Xx236 ( talk) 07:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Wehrmacht is an army. Xx236 ( talk) 11:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
One quotation of the 200,000 hoax is not enough. More and more pages are being attacked. "One can assume that" lies are lies, even if they are repeated 100 times. Xx236 ( talk) 11:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
User:François Robere - "stable version" is not a legitimate argument for making a blind revert, as you did
here. First, that is not a "stable version" (why restore "Pauli's version" (whoever that is), why not restore E-960's version? - this is a disingenuous excuse at best). Second, please see "Inappropriate usage" in
WP:STABLE, which says "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war.
. "Never invoked". "Not a valid reason". "Should never be used".
Additionally, by reverting to that version you've restored content which has been challenged by reversion in contravention of the discretionary sanctions in place on this article.
Please self revert. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.". The text in our article was not clear that this was "structural collaboration" - so I added that. As an interesting side note - Connelly places the toll of "structural collaboration" at around 5% of Polish Jews - or around 166,667. This estimate was made in 2005 - prior to Grabowski and the Holocaust center - and seems to agree with it. Might be worth adding the numeric estimate (5%) here as well. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war.. "Never invoked". "Not a valid reason". "Should never be used".
"Klaus-Peter Friedrich wrote that "most [Poles] adopted a policy of wait-and-see... In the eyes of the Jewish population, [this] almost inevitably had to appear as silent approval of the [German] occupier's actions.""- should be restored (I can not, as VM placed a failed verification tag on text (making my revert a 1RR violation) - on text clearly verified by the Connelly quote above) - as per Connelly leads off his article with
"Klaus-Peter Friedrich asks why Poland has witnessed recurring debates about collaboration.", and also writes:
"Klaus-Peter Friedrich also takes up an additional form of "structural collaboration" in Poland, namely Polish willingness to assume living quarters and personal property left behind by Jews. Even after the Germans had skimmed off the most valuable resources, Poles still seized the household and business possessions of millions of murdered Jewish neighbors. Though the issue has failed to attract the major study it deserves, it seems justified to state that before embarking on death transports Poland's Jews had performed one more service to a fatherland they had enriched for generations with contributions to culture, science, economy, and politics: they had bequeathed a wealth that kept tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of fellow Polish citizens from starvation under a tremendously destructive German agriculture regime.30"- this is structural collaboration. [17] and on-topic here. The text in the article should clarify this. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful"from the article. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Astonishingly, we still do not have a history of collaboration in Poland during World War II. Klaus-Peter Friedrich shows that the building blocks for such a history already exist, however. They are scattered throughout the contemporary Polish press and studies on the Nazi occupation regime. Examples include institutionalized cooperation (Baudienst, Polish Police), ethnically defined segments of the population (Volksdeutsche), informal support of Nazi projects on ideological common ground (anti- Semitism and anticommunism), and the stance of the Polish peasantry as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Friedrich concludes that collaboration eludes study because of a mental image according to which ethnic Poles were the foremost victims of the occupiers and heroically resisted them. Questionable views of national self-interest keep Polish society from coming to terms with the past. Nevertheless, debates on “Polish collaboration” continue to recur—as they have since 1939."- Friedrich is clearly on topic on collaboration in Poland. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
How about "According to Connolly the Polish "shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful"" Slatersteven ( talk) 09:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.". Black on white in Connolly's journal article. Per WP:CALC 90-85 = 5 - is not OR. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The current paragraph on G. reads as follows:
In 2013, historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." [1] The book was praised by some scholars for its approach and analysis, [2] [3] while a number of other historians criticized his methodology for lacking in actual field research, and argued that his "200,000" estimate was too high. [4] [5] [6]
It reads too much like a book review, and one of the sources (Samsonowska) doesn't clearly support the assertion it's attached to. I suggest trimming it to something like this:
Historian Jan Grabowski writes that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." [1] Some historians suggest the real number was lower. [4] [6]
References
François Robere ( talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
that could be said of any critique found in any sourceCan it? Is my phrasing of exactly the same criticism ("some historians suggest the real number was lower") reads like one?
Historian Jan Grabowski writes that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000" in Poland. Some historians, such as Bogdan Musial and historian X, suggest the number was lower.
@ Volunteer Marek: Regarding your edit summary: To my understanding there's consensus for that change. I haven't seen you comment here. If you disagree, why not comment here instead of revert? François Robere ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
With this edit, several errors were introduced ... of the type that have been repeatedly been pointed out to User:MyMoloboaccount. Can you please fix them? There needs to be spaces between sentences, and punctuation goes BEFORE the refs. Also, a copyedit needs to be done to fix errors such as "committed numerous atrocities against civilian population" where the articles have been omitted. It gets very old fixing other people's errors .... and when they have been pointed out often enough, it no longer becomes some other editor's job to clean up after such simple things to fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)