![]() | 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 | Archive 3 |
I have started this new section to determine the language for an RfC, as previous discussions were becoming too large. Below is a draft text for a proposed RfC. Once multiple editors have approved the proposed draft, it will be sent to RfC to generate comments from the wider Wikipedia community. This discussion is not where editors express a preference for which text they want in the article. Rather, this is to ensure that all sides approve of the RfC that will be conducted. Proposed text is below:
Title: RFC on proposed text
Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the sources?
The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman and Farkash:
"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”
[2]
"For example, following one such collective deliberation in the winter of 1943, Wenkart allowed a group of Jewish partisans to enter the camp to seek refuge from persecution by the Armia Krajowa (AK)"
[3]
The two proposed texts are:
Proposal A
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2] According to Farkash, in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group into the camp.
[3]
Proposal B
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2]
Proposal C
A report of the
Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.
Proposal D
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
[1]
Proposal E
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.
Proposal F
Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.
[1]
Proposal G
Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
Proposal H
None of these texts should be included, and the source should be excluded from the article.
References
Please indicate below if you approve of this text going to RfC, or would like to modify the text. Z1720 ( talk) 21:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I’m afraid we are going in circles here. There is more that these two versions of yours proposed (see section) [1]. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
"..the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jews"you composed and wrote into our article citing Zimmerman [3]. As said earlier already, your voice is as important. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't remove Farkash. I worked on Zimmerman first. There is nothing stopping Farkash being worked on next. Meanwhile I maintain what I raised in my last message, and still wait for it to be addressed. That said, I am getting closer to WP:DISENGAGE because in my 12 years experience of the WP:ARBEE area this discussion is looking a lot like something that will end up with administrator intervention. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm about to WP:DISENGAGE as well. I have no more energy for this. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
My original proposal -
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
Chumchum7’s proposal with my tweaks:
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources. GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, note WP:TALKO and WP:TALK#REPLIED. Because it appears "Proposal C" was inserted into Z1720's first comment in this thread some time after my reply to it refers to Z1720 having made two proposals. I don't have time to go through the diffs to check when in the discussion it was inserted, and who by. The guidelines advise us not to edit our own comments after they've been replied to, because it only adds to confusion. Guidelines advise us to contribute to the bottom of the discussion if a reply has already been posted. The guidelines also advise us not to edit others' comments, it is disruptive. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Z1720 - Please include both proposals, I like Chumchum7 which I tweaked even better but would like to have mine taken into consideration also.. since I spent about 11 hours of my soon ending life here already. Also, please remove Farkash from this RfC and make two separate RfCs, Zimmerman first which is this one and Farkash later. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @ Z1720 And if current proposal B is to be excluded is not up to me; I didn’t write it. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Recap so we are clear here:
Buidhe used below citations while writing the article:
The citations read:
In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands. [1]
One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.” [2]
She then wrote this text into the article (see first diff)
[7] based on the citations above. Following suggestions at FAC, Buidhe added to her text word "ethnic" before word "Polish"
[8] for final version to read as below. (Note added after: Buidhe does not support addition of the word ethnic anymore but supports the below text without that word (see conversation below).Text remained in article until challenged on May 26th, 2021
[9]
"According to a 1943
Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants.
[3]
After protests and inauguration of this discussion, you (Z1720) added offered the full text of below citation from page 361 on top of Buidhes already given citation from page 213:
"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”
[2]
And you (Z1720) came up with this proposal:
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
Then I (GCB) proposed this based on the same citation:
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
Then came Chumchum7’s proposal based on the same citation:
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division said communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He says that according to a Home Army report, while the local population had rather favorable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups who took their food and resources.
Then Piotrus proposed below based on the same citation:
A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.
Am I correct here
Piotrus , is this your proposal?
Then I (GCB) tweaked a little Chumchum7’s proposal adding “some”, “rural" etc. to read like this:
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.
Note:
There are also proposals raised to quote Zimerman directly and to remove that text all together.
Thank you for your attention. (13th hour now!) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
References:
@ GizzyCatBella: I think the information above is correct. I don't think there's been specific proposed text on how "to quote Zimmerman directly" would be worded in a proposed text. I hope someone who supports this solution will post the suggested text below, and I will add it to the draft. I think the last "proposed text" in the RfC should be to remove that text. Once everything is proposed, the final draft wording of the RfC can be posted below and editors can say if they endorse opening up the RfC. I'll also note that the Farkash source, while part of his discussion, will be included in its own separate RfC which will be created at a later date. Z1720 ( talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe, please do not modify other people comments as you did here [10]
This is against policy. If you are disputing that you wrote that text into our article and can prove it, I'll be happy to strike that for you myself. But let's take a look again before I do that.
On January 1st, 2020, you composed
[11] this text based on the quote from Zimmerman and recorded it into our article:
"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from Polish peasants."
On September 9, 2020, you expanded it
[12] adding "ethnic" to the word "Poles" "Polish" utilizing the same Zimmerman's reference for text to look like this:
"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants."
The text you composed and wrote remained in our article until May 19, 2021
[13] till an editor challenged the text you wrote as not pairing with reference you added.
[14].
and finally on May 26th
If you can find any mistakes in what I just wrote please point it out and I’ll correct it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ User:buidhe, in reply to your comment higher up the page: FYI article stability is one of the six specified criteria for Good Article status at WP:GACR, it's also encouraged by policies WP:CONS, WP:WAR and others. When all else fails, sometimes leaving out troublesome content has contributed to stability. Especially in the notoriously febrile WP:ARBEE space, where editors are routinely blocked for fighting over content instead of working collegially towards a stable consensus. Back to the task at hand, I submitted my proposed content higher up this thread. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Z1720: It's generous and gracious of you to say you made a mistake earlier, and this has straightened some things out. I am finding the changes to the top of this thread confusing, and do think it best to stick to WP:TALK#REPLIED. Generally I'd appreciate it you could follow the guidance there to add to the bottom of the thread. We now appear to be working on two chunks of Zimmerman, while my proposed content (and possibly others) was based on only the first one - so I'll have to compose another content proposal below. A couple of things that remain front of mind for me are that (i) "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands" ≠ "people are decidedly hostile to Jews" and (ii) I don't see that Zimmerman is implying it's necessarily a slur for the Home Army report to say these Jewish groups were communist; I see he's simply saying the Home Army said much of the local population didn't get along with these groups. Let's remember that according to secondary sources, many Jewish groups surviving outside the camps and ghettos proudly self-identified as communist (e.g. the nearby Parczew partisans and more famous Bielski partisans). All of these tactically cooperated with the much larger non-Jewish, Polish communist Gwardia Ludowa and Armia Ludowa (ethnic Polish communists heavily outnumbering Jewish communists) and/or Soviet forces. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 13:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I have struck Prop E. The direct quote has been added as Prop G. References have been added to Prop F and G. The exclusion option has been added as Prop H: please check the text to ensure it reflects what the option entails. When I post the final draft below, I will move the direct quote as the first option. I think the exclusion option should be the last one, because it entails a "none of the above" aspect that is formatted better as a final option. Thoughts?
Also, if anyone else would like to add a new proposal, please do so below. Piotrus would you like Proposal C to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? GizzyCatBella would you like Proposal D to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? Z1720 ( talk) 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I discovered more slips between the sources and text written into the article, but let's not worry about it yet. Let's get this issue behind us. This is an excellent article written by Buidhe who worked hard to produce it. Thank you Buidhe for writing it. If we could fix those errors (stamina granted - I'm running out), this article deserves the best status for sure. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Z1720, I was still giving proposal E some consideration before GCB agreed for you to strike it. I've come to the view that it has a very useful nuanced difference to Prop F that could be the very point where WP:CONS may be found. That's on whether or not to use the last sentence of text to emphasize the said groups' alleged or actual ideology and ethnicity. I believe there may be some hope of RfC coming up with some variation on these two proposals, and maybe others, which accommodates our multiple interpretations of Zimmerman. For these reasons, please 'unstrike' it. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Below is a cleaned-up version of the RfC draft above, with changes that include: 1) removing all struck out text 2) moving proposed text G to proposed text A, per the request at
this diff, 3) renaming Proposed text H as Proposed text G 4) Changing the wording of Proposal G to "None of these texts should be included" as suggested and approved by editors above. 5) Adding a page 213 reference to Proposal C and E, D and F, as I do not think users expressed which page number should be cited.
Subsequent changes: 1) Proposal G has been added, which causes the "None of these texts" option to become Proposal H. Z1720 ( talk) 00:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Subsequent changes, 2: 1) Proposal G, buidhe's added text, has been placed in the Proposal C slot, with the other proposals moved down a slot. I also crossed out C and E above, as they have become Proposals D and F in the move. If there are any questions, please comment below. Z1720 ( talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
At the bottom of this section, please post if you approve of this RfC draft text, if something should be added or removed, and/or if there are any concerns. Please do not post which proposal you prefer or the merits of a proposed text, as this will be discussed when the RfC is officially opened.
I am pinging all editors who have been part of this discussion so far. If you are not listed, you are also invited to comment or approve the text. If I missed anyone, please ping them here or below. Pinging: buidhe, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Chumchum7, Volunteer Marek, Chipmunkdavis. Thanks, Z1720 ( talk) 23:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Title: RFC on proposed text
Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?
The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman:
"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
"In contrast to the sense of extreme alarm and urgency revealed in the letters of Polish Jewish leaders...reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews during this time reflected the eerie distance of mere observers. One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”
[2]
The proposed texts are:
Proposal A
Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
Proposal B
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2]
Proposal C
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2]
Proposal D
A report of the
Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.
[1]
Proposal E
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
[1]
Proposal F
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.
[1]
Proposal G
Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.
[1]
Proposal H
None of these texts should be included.
References
Hats off to your patience and perseverance. Some of the proposals purposefully don't reflect the second excerpt at all, and would automatically get thrown out by the phrasing of the question: "Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" This wording assumes it's a given that both excerpts are applicable to the article. Because the second excerpt doesn't mention the distinct subject of Deblin or Irena at all, that is highly questionable per WP:SYNTH and WP:VNOT. The second excerpt would clearly be applicable to articles about the specific locations it mentions, or a more generic article about the Holocaust in the Lubelskie region (which would include the Soviet-backed Parczew partisans and the postwar pogrom by Polish partisans in Parczew [1]), and possibly an article about the Holocaust in Poland in general. So to accommodate this, the question can be adjusted to: "Are both texts applicable to this article? Which proposed content best reflects the excerpt(s) that is/are applicable to this article?" Also, it would be a waste to reduce the question to a blunt multiple choice; there may be a 'eureka' moment when a fresh pair of eyes creates an all-new proposal, so we can also add: "Would any other proposal work better?" - Chumchum7 ( talk) 04:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
One example is the Polish Underground..., so it's written in the context of something else.
One example..of what? Anyone with quick access to this source? What is the context, example of what? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"...summary of Poles' attitudes in general: There is certain symphaty for the Jews.."Zimmerman writes that
"...local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews..",
"...Jewish individuals able to escape from deportations and go into hiding were able to find Poles willing to help..",
"..they were able to find Poles willing to provide shelter.",
".. people of Jewish background hiding among Christian population". Based on Zimmerman, how on earth you wrote that "the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives". For Christ sake what's going on here? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives."and you see nothing wrong with it? Do I understand you correctly? No-slip on your part? None? Do you still claim that the source says that? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Zimmerman describes the attitude of Poles in encircling areas toward Jewish fugitives as assertive and helping the Jews who escaped the Ghettosis inaccurate. He actually says that in this part of Poland, "local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews", citing a few individual examples. Additionally, as you acknowledged above, I wasn't the one who came up with the language of "ethnic Poles" so I'd appreciate if you didn't put those words in my mouth. ( t · c) buidhe 00:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Z1720: and here is the question you should ask yourself. (see my above comment addressed to Buidhe) Please read page 362 and ask yourself if you still support the proposal According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people
and if this even should go to RfC. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Since there was no objection to it, I have struck Zimmerman 361 from the RfC. I will wait at least 24 hours before posting this RfC to see if anyone else would like to make changes or post other concerns before this RfC is opened. I am also mindful of Volunteer Marek's concerns above about the number of proposals; I think my proposed text, Proposal B, is no longer necessary as I have decided to strike it. In the RfC, the proposals will be re-lettered accordingly.
If anyone has any concerns or changes they would like to make, please post below. Z1720 ( talk) 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmermanwith
In his book "The Polish Underground and the Jews", while surveying reports from the Polish underground of alleged Jewish-Communist activity, Joshua Zimmerman notes the following:
This follows several discussions on the anticommunist division's "preoccupation with the Jews and their alleged pro-communist affinity" (pp. 119, 140, 149, 188, 208).
![]() | 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 | Archive 3 |
I have started this new section to determine the language for an RfC, as previous discussions were becoming too large. Below is a draft text for a proposed RfC. Once multiple editors have approved the proposed draft, it will be sent to RfC to generate comments from the wider Wikipedia community. This discussion is not where editors express a preference for which text they want in the article. Rather, this is to ensure that all sides approve of the RfC that will be conducted. Proposed text is below:
Title: RFC on proposed text
Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the sources?
The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman and Farkash:
"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”
[2]
"For example, following one such collective deliberation in the winter of 1943, Wenkart allowed a group of Jewish partisans to enter the camp to seek refuge from persecution by the Armia Krajowa (AK)"
[3]
The two proposed texts are:
Proposal A
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2] According to Farkash, in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group into the camp.
[3]
Proposal B
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2]
Proposal C
A report of the
Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.
Proposal D
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
[1]
Proposal E
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.
Proposal F
Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.
[1]
Proposal G
Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
Proposal H
None of these texts should be included, and the source should be excluded from the article.
References
Please indicate below if you approve of this text going to RfC, or would like to modify the text. Z1720 ( talk) 21:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I’m afraid we are going in circles here. There is more that these two versions of yours proposed (see section) [1]. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
"..the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jews"you composed and wrote into our article citing Zimmerman [3]. As said earlier already, your voice is as important. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't remove Farkash. I worked on Zimmerman first. There is nothing stopping Farkash being worked on next. Meanwhile I maintain what I raised in my last message, and still wait for it to be addressed. That said, I am getting closer to WP:DISENGAGE because in my 12 years experience of the WP:ARBEE area this discussion is looking a lot like something that will end up with administrator intervention. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm about to WP:DISENGAGE as well. I have no more energy for this. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
My original proposal -
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
Chumchum7’s proposal with my tweaks:
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources. GizzyCatBella 🍁 17:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, note WP:TALKO and WP:TALK#REPLIED. Because it appears "Proposal C" was inserted into Z1720's first comment in this thread some time after my reply to it refers to Z1720 having made two proposals. I don't have time to go through the diffs to check when in the discussion it was inserted, and who by. The guidelines advise us not to edit our own comments after they've been replied to, because it only adds to confusion. Guidelines advise us to contribute to the bottom of the discussion if a reply has already been posted. The guidelines also advise us not to edit others' comments, it is disruptive. -- Chumchum7 ( talk) 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Z1720 - Please include both proposals, I like Chumchum7 which I tweaked even better but would like to have mine taken into consideration also.. since I spent about 11 hours of my soon ending life here already. Also, please remove Farkash from this RfC and make two separate RfCs, Zimmerman first which is this one and Farkash later. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @ Z1720 And if current proposal B is to be excluded is not up to me; I didn’t write it. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Recap so we are clear here:
Buidhe used below citations while writing the article:
The citations read:
In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands. [1]
One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.” [2]
She then wrote this text into the article (see first diff)
[7] based on the citations above. Following suggestions at FAC, Buidhe added to her text word "ethnic" before word "Polish"
[8] for final version to read as below. (Note added after: Buidhe does not support addition of the word ethnic anymore but supports the below text without that word (see conversation below).Text remained in article until challenged on May 26th, 2021
[9]
"According to a 1943
Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants.
[3]
After protests and inauguration of this discussion, you (Z1720) added offered the full text of below citation from page 361 on top of Buidhes already given citation from page 213:
"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”
[2]
And you (Z1720) came up with this proposal:
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
Then I (GCB) proposed this based on the same citation:
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
Then came Chumchum7’s proposal based on the same citation:
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division said communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He says that according to a Home Army report, while the local population had rather favorable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups who took their food and resources.
Then Piotrus proposed below based on the same citation:
A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.
Am I correct here
Piotrus , is this your proposal?
Then I (GCB) tweaked a little Chumchum7’s proposal adding “some”, “rural" etc. to read like this:
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.
Note:
There are also proposals raised to quote Zimerman directly and to remove that text all together.
Thank you for your attention. (13th hour now!) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
References:
@ GizzyCatBella: I think the information above is correct. I don't think there's been specific proposed text on how "to quote Zimmerman directly" would be worded in a proposed text. I hope someone who supports this solution will post the suggested text below, and I will add it to the draft. I think the last "proposed text" in the RfC should be to remove that text. Once everything is proposed, the final draft wording of the RfC can be posted below and editors can say if they endorse opening up the RfC. I'll also note that the Farkash source, while part of his discussion, will be included in its own separate RfC which will be created at a later date. Z1720 ( talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe, please do not modify other people comments as you did here [10]
This is against policy. If you are disputing that you wrote that text into our article and can prove it, I'll be happy to strike that for you myself. But let's take a look again before I do that.
On January 1st, 2020, you composed
[11] this text based on the quote from Zimmerman and recorded it into our article:
"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from Polish peasants."
On September 9, 2020, you expanded it
[12] adding "ethnic" to the word "Poles" "Polish" utilizing the same Zimmerman's reference for text to look like this:
"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants."
The text you composed and wrote remained in our article until May 19, 2021
[13] till an editor challenged the text you wrote as not pairing with reference you added.
[14].
and finally on May 26th
If you can find any mistakes in what I just wrote please point it out and I’ll correct it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ User:buidhe, in reply to your comment higher up the page: FYI article stability is one of the six specified criteria for Good Article status at WP:GACR, it's also encouraged by policies WP:CONS, WP:WAR and others. When all else fails, sometimes leaving out troublesome content has contributed to stability. Especially in the notoriously febrile WP:ARBEE space, where editors are routinely blocked for fighting over content instead of working collegially towards a stable consensus. Back to the task at hand, I submitted my proposed content higher up this thread. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Z1720: It's generous and gracious of you to say you made a mistake earlier, and this has straightened some things out. I am finding the changes to the top of this thread confusing, and do think it best to stick to WP:TALK#REPLIED. Generally I'd appreciate it you could follow the guidance there to add to the bottom of the thread. We now appear to be working on two chunks of Zimmerman, while my proposed content (and possibly others) was based on only the first one - so I'll have to compose another content proposal below. A couple of things that remain front of mind for me are that (i) "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands" ≠ "people are decidedly hostile to Jews" and (ii) I don't see that Zimmerman is implying it's necessarily a slur for the Home Army report to say these Jewish groups were communist; I see he's simply saying the Home Army said much of the local population didn't get along with these groups. Let's remember that according to secondary sources, many Jewish groups surviving outside the camps and ghettos proudly self-identified as communist (e.g. the nearby Parczew partisans and more famous Bielski partisans). All of these tactically cooperated with the much larger non-Jewish, Polish communist Gwardia Ludowa and Armia Ludowa (ethnic Polish communists heavily outnumbering Jewish communists) and/or Soviet forces. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 13:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I have struck Prop E. The direct quote has been added as Prop G. References have been added to Prop F and G. The exclusion option has been added as Prop H: please check the text to ensure it reflects what the option entails. When I post the final draft below, I will move the direct quote as the first option. I think the exclusion option should be the last one, because it entails a "none of the above" aspect that is formatted better as a final option. Thoughts?
Also, if anyone else would like to add a new proposal, please do so below. Piotrus would you like Proposal C to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? GizzyCatBella would you like Proposal D to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? Z1720 ( talk) 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I discovered more slips between the sources and text written into the article, but let's not worry about it yet. Let's get this issue behind us. This is an excellent article written by Buidhe who worked hard to produce it. Thank you Buidhe for writing it. If we could fix those errors (stamina granted - I'm running out), this article deserves the best status for sure. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Z1720, I was still giving proposal E some consideration before GCB agreed for you to strike it. I've come to the view that it has a very useful nuanced difference to Prop F that could be the very point where WP:CONS may be found. That's on whether or not to use the last sentence of text to emphasize the said groups' alleged or actual ideology and ethnicity. I believe there may be some hope of RfC coming up with some variation on these two proposals, and maybe others, which accommodates our multiple interpretations of Zimmerman. For these reasons, please 'unstrike' it. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Below is a cleaned-up version of the RfC draft above, with changes that include: 1) removing all struck out text 2) moving proposed text G to proposed text A, per the request at
this diff, 3) renaming Proposed text H as Proposed text G 4) Changing the wording of Proposal G to "None of these texts should be included" as suggested and approved by editors above. 5) Adding a page 213 reference to Proposal C and E, D and F, as I do not think users expressed which page number should be cited.
Subsequent changes: 1) Proposal G has been added, which causes the "None of these texts" option to become Proposal H. Z1720 ( talk) 00:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Subsequent changes, 2: 1) Proposal G, buidhe's added text, has been placed in the Proposal C slot, with the other proposals moved down a slot. I also crossed out C and E above, as they have become Proposals D and F in the move. If there are any questions, please comment below. Z1720 ( talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
At the bottom of this section, please post if you approve of this RfC draft text, if something should be added or removed, and/or if there are any concerns. Please do not post which proposal you prefer or the merits of a proposed text, as this will be discussed when the RfC is officially opened.
I am pinging all editors who have been part of this discussion so far. If you are not listed, you are also invited to comment or approve the text. If I missed anyone, please ping them here or below. Pinging: buidhe, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Chumchum7, Volunteer Marek, Chipmunkdavis. Thanks, Z1720 ( talk) 23:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Title: RFC on proposed text
Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?
The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman:
"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
"In contrast to the sense of extreme alarm and urgency revealed in the letters of Polish Jewish leaders...reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews during this time reflected the eerie distance of mere observers. One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”
[2]
The proposed texts are:
Proposal A
Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"
[1]
Proposal B
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2]
Proposal C
According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.
[1]
[2]
Proposal D
A report of the
Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.
[1]
Proposal E
In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.
[1]
Proposal F
According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.
[1]
Proposal G
Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.
[1]
Proposal H
None of these texts should be included.
References
Hats off to your patience and perseverance. Some of the proposals purposefully don't reflect the second excerpt at all, and would automatically get thrown out by the phrasing of the question: "Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" This wording assumes it's a given that both excerpts are applicable to the article. Because the second excerpt doesn't mention the distinct subject of Deblin or Irena at all, that is highly questionable per WP:SYNTH and WP:VNOT. The second excerpt would clearly be applicable to articles about the specific locations it mentions, or a more generic article about the Holocaust in the Lubelskie region (which would include the Soviet-backed Parczew partisans and the postwar pogrom by Polish partisans in Parczew [1]), and possibly an article about the Holocaust in Poland in general. So to accommodate this, the question can be adjusted to: "Are both texts applicable to this article? Which proposed content best reflects the excerpt(s) that is/are applicable to this article?" Also, it would be a waste to reduce the question to a blunt multiple choice; there may be a 'eureka' moment when a fresh pair of eyes creates an all-new proposal, so we can also add: "Would any other proposal work better?" - Chumchum7 ( talk) 04:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
One example is the Polish Underground..., so it's written in the context of something else.
One example..of what? Anyone with quick access to this source? What is the context, example of what? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"...summary of Poles' attitudes in general: There is certain symphaty for the Jews.."Zimmerman writes that
"...local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews..",
"...Jewish individuals able to escape from deportations and go into hiding were able to find Poles willing to help..",
"..they were able to find Poles willing to provide shelter.",
".. people of Jewish background hiding among Christian population". Based on Zimmerman, how on earth you wrote that "the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives". For Christ sake what's going on here? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives."and you see nothing wrong with it? Do I understand you correctly? No-slip on your part? None? Do you still claim that the source says that? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 23:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Zimmerman describes the attitude of Poles in encircling areas toward Jewish fugitives as assertive and helping the Jews who escaped the Ghettosis inaccurate. He actually says that in this part of Poland, "local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews", citing a few individual examples. Additionally, as you acknowledged above, I wasn't the one who came up with the language of "ethnic Poles" so I'd appreciate if you didn't put those words in my mouth. ( t · c) buidhe 00:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@
Z1720: and here is the question you should ask yourself. (see my above comment addressed to Buidhe) Please read page 362 and ask yourself if you still support the proposal According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people
and if this even should go to RfC. -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Since there was no objection to it, I have struck Zimmerman 361 from the RfC. I will wait at least 24 hours before posting this RfC to see if anyone else would like to make changes or post other concerns before this RfC is opened. I am also mindful of Volunteer Marek's concerns above about the number of proposals; I think my proposed text, Proposal B, is no longer necessary as I have decided to strike it. In the RfC, the proposals will be re-lettered accordingly.
If anyone has any concerns or changes they would like to make, please post below. Z1720 ( talk) 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmermanwith
In his book "The Polish Underground and the Jews", while surveying reports from the Polish underground of alleged Jewish-Communist activity, Joshua Zimmerman notes the following:
This follows several discussions on the anticommunist division's "preoccupation with the Jews and their alleged pro-communist affinity" (pp. 119, 140, 149, 188, 208).