![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
http://www.jhi.pl/blog/2017-09-07-zydzi-w-obronie-warszawy-we-wrzesniu-1939
I don't know the subject, the numbers here are partially different than in the page. Xx236 ( talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Such opinion, based on one US source, is controversial. Polish Jews were aware of German danger and supported the Polish state and army. They were preparing to war together with non-Jews. They contributed to Fundusz Obrony Narodowej. https://sztetl.org.pl/pl/miejscowosci/l/691-lubartow/99-historia-spolecznosci/137597-historia-spolecznosci Xx236 ( talk) 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
From Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6.: "For example, in the annexed western territories, where the majority of Polish Jews ended up after the war, the government allocated “formerly German” property to new settlers making the recovery of their property elsewhere largely irrelevant." What does the law say about receiving compensation and then asking for it again? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Either way you look at it, trying to place more blame on Poles who were victims of the Germans, or diminish the plight of the Jews, is a really unseemly motivation to have for ensuring the POV here be "correct". There is no reason to edit war over this article or, IMHO, to focus on the importance of its content. I'm not saying the editors now edit warring are definitely in one of those camps but even an appearance of that should be enough to consider looking for some other articles to battleground over. And is this fight seriously (partly) over how to mention Argentinian Jew pimping? All the more embarrassing for everyone involved. —DIYeditor ( talk) 07:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" campaign resulted in the removal of Jews from the Polish United Worker's Party Poland was ruled by the Party but you believe that the state removed Jews from the Party. It's absurd. Xx236 ( talk) 10:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
He should be probably mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 08:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Czesław Śliwa was a Holocaust survivor, who pretended to create an Austrian Consulate in Wrocław. There is a movie based on his case. Xx236 ( talk) 07:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it obvious that it's Polish-Yiddish (not Hebrew)? Xx236 ( talk) 10:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Iran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change dead URL:
To working URL:
TY- -- Green C 03:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Will be in effect once the protection lapses. (And, yes, I realize Poland is in Central Europe, and yet, watch me go!) El_C 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason we are using the definite article both in the title and the prose. It would seem that unless we are discussing specific groups that are recognizable in context we should just use "jews" in the prose and "Jews" in the title. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.<ref>Paweł Machcewicz and Krzysztof Persak, eds. ''Wokół Jedwabnego'' (Warsaw: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej—Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, 2002) vol. 1, 379–387.</ref> This was one of the edits that we didn't keep as I argued above it is undue. But I'll note I found the claim repeated here: Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6. "Jewish claimants also occasionally abused the restitution process. "News travel to Krakow from smaller Jewish communities that Jaws started to sell houses which were not theirs"... "The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the "racket" of some Jews going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs...". I am still worried that mentions of such events would be UNDUE here, but since we also mentions details such as some other Jewish survivors facing problems due to Polish gangs, or government corruption etc., this appears to be about as relevant. Some survivors were murdered for their property, some tried their luck with the legal system with varying results, others however engaged in less savory activities. As Cichopek-Gajraj notes, greed was apparent on both sides of the conflict. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
A recent discussion prompted me to do some research. And here's what I found:
How to summarize this in this article, and where? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The biggest opressed group of nationalisation victims was ziemianstwo (gentry). They lost their manors and farms and were expelled from their counties. Rich Jews lost their businesses but weren't legally expelled. Xx236 ( talk) 11:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
So is antisemitism. Suggesting that because most properties were Polish antisemitism didn't play a role with those properties that were Jewish is a non sequitur, and hence a straw man. It's like stating the Romani were not massacred for being Romani, because the Nazis "generally" targeted minorities.
Sure, nationalization of Jewish properties was tied to the Holocaust, etc.
? This isn't an offhand fact here, it's the fact. Talking about context..?
the goal of
nationalization in Poland was not primarily to steal Jewish properties. That was just an accidental byproduct
No, it wasn't. The goal (or one of the goals) of the 1945-1946 laws was to expropriate Jewish properties, and we already cite several sources on that. It combined with the larger agenda, but it was very much not incidental - it was intentional.
François Robere (
talk)
10:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Many of the restututed estates are sold by Jewish organisations. Xx236 ( talk) 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
How about something constructive? Polish Jews is a redirect here, which is clearly a problem. We need a proper article that's not just history (see ex. Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Italian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Galician Jews - the last two btw may be relevant to this as subarticles...). I suggest we work on a draft here: Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Polish Jews, with the aim of a nice DYK, at least. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/ksiazki/62410,The-Holocaust-and-Polish-Jewish-Relations-Selected-Issues.html Xx236 ( talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"After 2015 the IPN converted into an institution promoting revisionism in reference to Polish-Jewish relations. Previously open attitudes to research and teaching about the Holocaust were amended., it is has a reputation of promoting revisionism.
"The IPN became famous after heated controversies erupted over its activities, especially between 2005 and 2007, when PiS was in power. It has been at the centre of political disputes about Lech Walesa’s past... ). As a result of these contentious public debates, the IPN has been mainly referred to as a ‘Ministry of Memory’ (Stola, 2012) or a political institution at the centre of ‘memory games’ (Mink, 2013) in the scientific literature.- is is engaged in political propaganda games.
"Hence PiS, immediately after assuming power in 2015, started to redefine the place of Lech Wałęsa in Polish collective memory. Educational materials produced by the IPN, including the already analysed ‘The Unconquered’ animation, erased the figure of Wałęsa from the most recent history of Poland.- erasing history per request.
"the “protection of the reputation of the Polish Republic and the Polish nation” 77 was added to the tasks of the IPN"- thus, by law, this institution is aimed at producing publications favorable to Poland. It is an organ in fulfilling PiS's official polityka historyczna ("historical policy") which per Hackman -
"international scholarly assessment of the historical policy by PiS is widely negative and has been seen, for instance, in an “implicit alliance,” 96 with Russian memory politics.. In short - this is clearly not a reputable publisher.
Yad Vashem... likewise, will focus on researching and publishing on topics regaled [sic] to The Holocaustisn't "bias" or an agenda - it's a field. Your argument could just as well be used against CERN with physics.
it's clear [IPN will]] publish about topics such as Rescue of Jews by the Poles rather than about postwar anti-Jewish violence in PolandThat, one the other hand, is bias. Why wouldn't the Institute of National Remembrance research that? Weren't Jews part of the nation and worthy of remembrance? And that's the difference between IPN and YV: YV publishes all across the field, regardless of the government's - or anyone else's - political position; IPN is obliged to satisfy someone. Is it independent enough to qualify as an RS per WP:BIASED? That's certainly arguable per the above sources.
IPN is reliable. This has been discussed to death. Stop making shit up. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Can we delete this? I really don't see why this needs highlighting, especially given the dubiousness of the alleged event involved? -- Calthinus ( talk) 19:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
With the influence of the Endecja party growing - when exactly was the influence growing? Endecja was dominated by Sanacja since 1926. ONR activists were imprisoned in Bereza Kartuska prison.
The paragraph starts with smaller towns but it describes universities situted in cities. Please learn to write. Ratio of Jewish students in 1937 is quoted, but ratio of Jews with university education isn't. There existed real problem of social advance of peasant children in former Russia, including Warsaw. The Jews lived in Poland among uneducated ethnic Poles. No social group accepts such situation. The governmnet of Poland failed to support children of peasants and workers.
Simon Wiesenthal studied in Prague. The majority of Polish youth didn't study. Xx236 ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This should not be restored to the article. POLIN might have it but it is cherrypicking that reinforces one of the most pernicious anti-Semitic canards around. Jews just like all other peoples in teh period had some involvement in slavery, but the canard ignores the participation of others and focuses disproportionately on the Jewish role to make it seem like Jews ever "controlled" the phenomenon. European medieval sources, typically ecclesiastic, are often insanely biased not only against Jews but also against the pagan Prussians (relevant for
Adalbert of Prague), and are predictably also guilty of this sort of bigoted cherrypicking. Here's one RS [
[9]] : Bohemia, as is wel-known, was one of the principal markets for the sale and purchase of Slav slaves... Poland was also drawn into the net of this international trade. Here too, as in other countries, the church protested not against the slave trade in general, but only against Jews who purchased Christian slaves. In the biography of St. Adalbert Wojtech... declined a post in Prague because ... he was prevented from ransoming Christian captives and slaves, which a [quotes in original] "Jewish trader had purchased for his accursed gold"... Judged by these reports (unilaterally gathered by church chroniclers, incidentally) it was permanently settled, but there were itinerant Jewish traders in Poland who participated, generally with Greeks and Arabs, in the slave trade...
. The source also mentions Christian German rulers taxing "Jewish and other" slave trading meaning they condoned it. This is all dubious at best. Why are we featuring a picture depicting Jews as the enslavers of native Slav Christians when the situation was much more complicated, with slavers of all religions, and participation of native Christians in the market including the apparently hypocritical Prague authorities?--
Calthinus (
talk)
15:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
"These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.". Having the image here basically recycles anti-Semitic tropes of the past to say the least. Resnjari ( talk) 16:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
"These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.". Resnjari ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate explanation of why the following content was removed. I will order this sentence by sentence, and I'd appreciate if anyone who considers a given sentence a problem would explain, properly, why is this so, ex. "Sentence 2 is based on unreliable source", or "quote for Sentence 3 failed verification". I have tried searching this talk for discussion of the following sources, and I couldn't find much or anything on the following. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
1) According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” [1]
References
2) Based on studies of court records carried out by several historians, Adam Kopciowski and Alina Skibińska conclude that "relatively many" Jews were able to reclaim former Jewish properties. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles. [1]
References
"Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów "mienia opuszczonego" wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika, Łukasza Krzyżanowskiego, Adama Kopciowskiego. Ten ostatni zauważa, a jego wniosek potwierdzają również moje badania, "że choć odzyskiwanie utraconego w czasie wojny mienia wiązało się z ogromnym ryzykiem, stosunkowo wielu Żydom udało się je odzyskać. [The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of "abandoned property" seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, "that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it.] (p.571)
3) The situation was similar in other towns in the Lublin Province. [1] [2] [3]
"It is difficult to assess how many acts of violence against Jews were motivated economically, Undoubtedly, there was a rise in the crime rate during the post-war period, and the Jews were an attractive target for the many gangs of robbers active at that time."(the courthouse statistic appear as a possible motivation of some robbers - all the rest of the journal article is a long chronicle of anti-Jewish violent incidents in the Lublin region - e.g. the paragraph above is on the murder of Szmul Pelc who was murdered by Belzec extermination camp grave-robbers. The paragraph below discusses antisemitic motives of the perpetrators. You've literally cherrypicked a small fragment of a long article on anti-Jewish violence - which for some reason you're not advancing into the article (e.g. the 118 Jews murdered in the Lublin region 1944-1946 - table on page 203). In addition - this is a very low-level local assessment (the municipal court hourse in Wlodawa - not Poland wide). Icewhiz ( talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
References
4) Historian Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.” [1]
References
Tensions and antisemitism - bias. Quite many Jews were economically, academically, politically succesfull, no such subparagraph here. Compare Raphael Lemkin. Xx236 ( talk) 06:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"were tortured and beaten to death by members of the local population" is extreme ignorance. Most of the Jedwabne victims were burned to death in a barn. You lack respect for them. You probably meant the Wąsosz pogrom.
It's obvious the number of victims at Jedwabne was below 1,000, probably below 400. The only source for the "1,600" number is Wasserstein, who didn't know the local statistics and wasn't an eyewitness; he repeated hearsay. Jan Gross' "1,600" and Jan Grabowski's "200,000" are anti-Polish propaganda. The discussion of how many people could be fitted inside the barn dishonors the victims. The "1,600" number is simply a hammer with which to bash the Polish people.
Probably about 1,600 Jews died in the entire region, but who cares about facts? Who is able to write " Wąsosz" or " Radziłów"? Apparently not the editor. Xx236 ( talk) 07:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Answer, please. Xx236 ( talk) 07:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
How many elementary errors are there here? You discuss details, but you ignore elementary facts. Shame on you. Xx236 ( talk) 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss it not here but at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Golden_Harvest_or_Hearts_of_Gold? where hopefully new, and more neutral voices, will help us reach consensus on whether we can cite this work or not. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Again asking why is this source used if it's so problematic, which is something we're all aware of. Some of you who support this inclusion have in the past fought repeatedly against including Grabowski (who's cited at least a couple of hundred times) and Gross (who's cited well over 2,000 times), but are now supporting this book that was written by a group of authors who, for the most part, are well outside mainstream academia (some of them are so outside of it that they can't even get published in English anymore); which was published by an "easy reading" publishing house and translated by Chodakiewicz's own minor "Leopold Press" (and apparently contains numerous spelling and translation errors); and which is so rarely cited that I can't even find on Google Scholar. It barely even passed WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so why push it? François Robere ( talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
the main representatives of the post-1989 historiography, characterized by prejudicial views and concepts about Jews and other minorities are the late Tomasz Srzembosz, Bogdan Musial and Marek J. Chodakiewicz. These historians belong to the school of (ethno)-nationalist history writing, in which the themes of martyrdom and victimhood of ethnic Poles vis-a-vis other groups play a key role in shaping their arguments and their interpretations.. Start next paragraph:
"Chodakiewicz's works represent the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writings ..... In contemporary Polish historiography Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian who constantly uses conflict in the expanation of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland ..... close to ... the National Democracy's interpertation of anti-semitism in general. Reading Chodakiewicz, one could easily reach the conclusion that the Jews were themselves responsible for what happened to them: "They received the type of anti-Semitism they deserve" (Zydzi maja taki antysemityzm na jak zasluguja), as one of the interwar popular National Democratic saying claimed". So..... Yes, he is quite clearly placed in a very-very specific "school", and that furthermore that his is the most extreme form of writing within said "school". Icewhiz ( talk) 11:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"Surprisingly, in the meantime Chodakiewicz secretly began to withdraw his theses.21 It would be useless to wonder whether it was an example of extreme ignorance or ill will and manipulation since, let us say it right away, the archival materials unambiguously settle the matter of our interest. The course of events in the Zamość fee tail (Ordynacja Zamojska) forest near the village of Rudki and a few other episodes in its vicinity is far more interesting than wondering why the technical standards were breached by the representatives of that milieu, who for years have been shocking readers with pseudo-methodological platitudes.". This is a full length journal article - some 44 pages - exploring both Chodakiewicz's writing on the subject (which are in extreme error or perhaps even manipulation per Libionka), and the events themselves in Rudki. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Are we finished with this? Consensus achieved? François Robere ( talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Francois Robere, can you also explain why you are using alleged issues with MJC to remove OTHER authors from the article? For example in this edit in your edit summary you claim removing MJC as a justification. Yet you also remove several other authors. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
And quite frankly, since this is a very general level article the whole section is mostly UNDUE. The article is about a 1000+ year history, yet this particular section, on a very narrow issue and controversy, is given as much space as other sections which cover entire centuries. Of course this is because there's a current controversy regarding the issue, but per WP:NOTNEWS that's actually not a consideration in how we write the article. The section should be trimmed down to a couple sentences and most of the info belongs in other, more dedicated articles. Then we can argue about stuff there.
Now, I realize that as soon as I say that this section is UNDUE and too long, someone is going to jump in and under a pretense of "trimming" is going to remove just the parts they don't like and keep the parts they like, making the whole thing even more unbalanced. So let me be clear - the way to solve the UNDUE problem is NOT by POVing the section even more. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 11:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Define "valid"? François Robere ( talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Note I've started an RfC on this. [22] François Robere ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
While there was insufficient consensus to adequately draw as to whether or not [the book] falls into WP:FRINGE territory, there is relatively clear consensus that "Golden Harvest" is not a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.François Robere ( talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Mirosław Szumiło addresses this question in the Polish Institute of National Remembrance periodical, Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość (Memory and Justice), no. 2 (32), 2018: 2. https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/periodyki-ipn/pamiec-i-sprawiedliwosc/67747,Pamiec-i-Sprawiedliwosc-nr-2-32-2018.html. Xx236 ( talk) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
History gives support to current political needs. The Institute of National Remembrance is an important tool in the ideological war.. That's Radoslaw Poczykowski, a Polish university sociologist at Biawystok. See also [ Polish paper]. Maybe IPN is not a good source to rely on for scandalous material that was just featured at arbitration.-- Calthinus ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course it is reality, but this aspect of Polish history although well known in Poland is forbidden in the west. There were two communists factions in post war Poland, the muscovites and the partisans. The muscovites held power initially and were majority jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 ( talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Where does this info come from? Polish Jews are not eligible for Polish citizenship if their ancestors left Poland before 1969. The March 1968 crisis stripped Polish citizenship from jews who emigrated and their descendants. Most of the jews who remained were old and at most only 10,000 remained, so how are 1.2 million jews now eligible for Polish passports? Can we either have a source or remove this misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 ( talk) 18:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Woguli ten chajrem jest tak źle że gorsze już nie ma” – pismo Fajwela Manchajma do Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie klątwy religijnej rzuconej na niego przez rabina z Izbicy Isera Landaua jako przyczynek do historii życia społeczności żydowskiej w II Rzeczypospolitej (in recent Glaukopis). Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
A recent well attended RM - Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July#Requested move 5 June 2019 concluded that The Holocaust in Poland should be at that title as a neutral descriptor. As background, there is a POV push in some circles - e.g. this Polish government site - to add "German-occupied"/"Nazi-occupied"/"occupied" to any phrase connecting Poland to the Holocaust. This revert reinstated a form decided against in the RM, and reintroduced an overly verbose section title (as we are already in History of the Jews in Poland, there is little need to repeat "in Poland" or "in X-occupied Poland" in every section title). The revert also reinstated two low level articles ( Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust) which are far from the main articles on the Holocaust in Poland - and inappropriate use of a see also. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
In this revert, after Francois Robere got ahead of himself and broke 1RR [24], Icewhiz comes to his rescue and performs the reverts for him. Additionally Icewhiz's edit summary is just false. "multiple editors agreeing to" <-- these "multiple editors", as can be easily seen from the discussion above are... Icewhiz and Francois Robere (who have reverted for each other on about half a dozen articles in the past two weeks or so). Please don't make false claims of consensus.
Francois Robere's edit summary for his revert [25] also appears to be false "No such commission existed - see discussions in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There's nothing on that page about the source (Lukas) or the commission that I can see [26]. The info is well sourced so this appears to be a phony reason for a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced info. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Francois Robere's edit summary for his revert... also appears to be false "No such commission existed - see discussions in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There's nothing on that page about the source (Lukas) or the commission that I can see... The info is well sourced so this appears to be a phony reason for a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced infoIt was discussed here, and mentioned in several other places, including here, here and here.
on Wikipedia we're not gonna take your own personal opinion over that of a reliable sourceI'm happy you just said that, because it means we can restore Madajczyk. Any objections?
And I haven't cast any "aspersions". On this article Icewhiz reverted on your behalfThat's literally "casting aspersions" (emphasis mine). [37] François Robere ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of the Jews in Poland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Following edit from IP was against source information, provided by historian from the Museum of Polish Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=958493882&oldid=957292533
Therefore information: ", mainly seeking slaves, sold to Muslim countries" - should be returned to the article according to Wiki rules of using that sources.
Thank You Kojoto Kojoto ( talk) 23:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As the edit summary says, the information is ahistorical and lacks historical context. There is no need to add ti back either as the information is repeated later in the paragraph. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 10:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
-- Hold on. Can you please notice what you just wrote? "the information is ahistorical and lacks historical context. There is no need to add ti back either as the information is repeated later in the paragraph"
* so this information is placed later in the paragraph (therefore is NOT "ahistorical and lacks historical context") (it is extended - NOT "repeated later") * this is the information provided with the source, historian opinion. So what is the problem here?
Kojoto Kojoto ( talk) 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, I'm not sure that the text should include collaborators right next to Nazi Germany as being responsible for the destruction of Polish Jewery. Germany was responsible for the Holocaust. You have to remember that there is no universal definition of "collaboration" and most people were NOT willing to collaborate, but were forced to do so by the Germans. This includes Polish railway workers, police, Jewish Judenrat, etc. Even many of the peasants who did not like Jews, did not want to participate in the hunts. I believe it was Grabowski who described how most of them were told to join in or get sent for slave labor to a concentration camp. Btw, recently Yair Netanyahu posted on Twitter that "Germany is responsible for the Holocaust! Not Poland!" [38]. So, in summary, I don't think this is a an undisputed statement, so it should not be presented as such in the intro paragraph, there are varying views on that. -- E-960 ( talk) 10:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
George1738.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
http://www.jhi.pl/blog/2017-09-07-zydzi-w-obronie-warszawy-we-wrzesniu-1939
I don't know the subject, the numbers here are partially different than in the page. Xx236 ( talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Such opinion, based on one US source, is controversial. Polish Jews were aware of German danger and supported the Polish state and army. They were preparing to war together with non-Jews. They contributed to Fundusz Obrony Narodowej. https://sztetl.org.pl/pl/miejscowosci/l/691-lubartow/99-historia-spolecznosci/137597-historia-spolecznosci Xx236 ( talk) 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
From Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6.: "For example, in the annexed western territories, where the majority of Polish Jews ended up after the war, the government allocated “formerly German” property to new settlers making the recovery of their property elsewhere largely irrelevant." What does the law say about receiving compensation and then asking for it again? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Either way you look at it, trying to place more blame on Poles who were victims of the Germans, or diminish the plight of the Jews, is a really unseemly motivation to have for ensuring the POV here be "correct". There is no reason to edit war over this article or, IMHO, to focus on the importance of its content. I'm not saying the editors now edit warring are definitely in one of those camps but even an appearance of that should be enough to consider looking for some other articles to battleground over. And is this fight seriously (partly) over how to mention Argentinian Jew pimping? All the more embarrassing for everyone involved. —DIYeditor ( talk) 07:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" campaign resulted in the removal of Jews from the Polish United Worker's Party Poland was ruled by the Party but you believe that the state removed Jews from the Party. It's absurd. Xx236 ( talk) 10:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
He should be probably mentioned. Xx236 ( talk) 08:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Czesław Śliwa was a Holocaust survivor, who pretended to create an Austrian Consulate in Wrocław. There is a movie based on his case. Xx236 ( talk) 07:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it obvious that it's Polish-Yiddish (not Hebrew)? Xx236 ( talk) 10:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Iran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change dead URL:
To working URL:
TY- -- Green C 03:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Will be in effect once the protection lapses. (And, yes, I realize Poland is in Central Europe, and yet, watch me go!) El_C 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason we are using the definite article both in the title and the prose. It would seem that unless we are discussing specific groups that are recognizable in context we should just use "jews" in the prose and "Jews" in the title. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims.<ref>Paweł Machcewicz and Krzysztof Persak, eds. ''Wokół Jedwabnego'' (Warsaw: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej—Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, 2002) vol. 1, 379–387.</ref> This was one of the edits that we didn't keep as I argued above it is undue. But I'll note I found the claim repeated here: Anna Cichopek-Gajraj (19 June 2014). Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944–48. Cambridge University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-107-03666-6. "Jewish claimants also occasionally abused the restitution process. "News travel to Krakow from smaller Jewish communities that Jaws started to sell houses which were not theirs"... "The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the "racket" of some Jews going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs...". I am still worried that mentions of such events would be UNDUE here, but since we also mentions details such as some other Jewish survivors facing problems due to Polish gangs, or government corruption etc., this appears to be about as relevant. Some survivors were murdered for their property, some tried their luck with the legal system with varying results, others however engaged in less savory activities. As Cichopek-Gajraj notes, greed was apparent on both sides of the conflict. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
A recent discussion prompted me to do some research. And here's what I found:
How to summarize this in this article, and where? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The biggest opressed group of nationalisation victims was ziemianstwo (gentry). They lost their manors and farms and were expelled from their counties. Rich Jews lost their businesses but weren't legally expelled. Xx236 ( talk) 11:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
So is antisemitism. Suggesting that because most properties were Polish antisemitism didn't play a role with those properties that were Jewish is a non sequitur, and hence a straw man. It's like stating the Romani were not massacred for being Romani, because the Nazis "generally" targeted minorities.
Sure, nationalization of Jewish properties was tied to the Holocaust, etc.
? This isn't an offhand fact here, it's the fact. Talking about context..?
the goal of
nationalization in Poland was not primarily to steal Jewish properties. That was just an accidental byproduct
No, it wasn't. The goal (or one of the goals) of the 1945-1946 laws was to expropriate Jewish properties, and we already cite several sources on that. It combined with the larger agenda, but it was very much not incidental - it was intentional.
François Robere (
talk)
10:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Many of the restututed estates are sold by Jewish organisations. Xx236 ( talk) 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
How about something constructive? Polish Jews is a redirect here, which is clearly a problem. We need a proper article that's not just history (see ex. Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Italian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Galician Jews - the last two btw may be relevant to this as subarticles...). I suggest we work on a draft here: Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Polish Jews, with the aim of a nice DYK, at least. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/ksiazki/62410,The-Holocaust-and-Polish-Jewish-Relations-Selected-Issues.html Xx236 ( talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"After 2015 the IPN converted into an institution promoting revisionism in reference to Polish-Jewish relations. Previously open attitudes to research and teaching about the Holocaust were amended., it is has a reputation of promoting revisionism.
"The IPN became famous after heated controversies erupted over its activities, especially between 2005 and 2007, when PiS was in power. It has been at the centre of political disputes about Lech Walesa’s past... ). As a result of these contentious public debates, the IPN has been mainly referred to as a ‘Ministry of Memory’ (Stola, 2012) or a political institution at the centre of ‘memory games’ (Mink, 2013) in the scientific literature.- is is engaged in political propaganda games.
"Hence PiS, immediately after assuming power in 2015, started to redefine the place of Lech Wałęsa in Polish collective memory. Educational materials produced by the IPN, including the already analysed ‘The Unconquered’ animation, erased the figure of Wałęsa from the most recent history of Poland.- erasing history per request.
"the “protection of the reputation of the Polish Republic and the Polish nation” 77 was added to the tasks of the IPN"- thus, by law, this institution is aimed at producing publications favorable to Poland. It is an organ in fulfilling PiS's official polityka historyczna ("historical policy") which per Hackman -
"international scholarly assessment of the historical policy by PiS is widely negative and has been seen, for instance, in an “implicit alliance,” 96 with Russian memory politics.. In short - this is clearly not a reputable publisher.
Yad Vashem... likewise, will focus on researching and publishing on topics regaled [sic] to The Holocaustisn't "bias" or an agenda - it's a field. Your argument could just as well be used against CERN with physics.
it's clear [IPN will]] publish about topics such as Rescue of Jews by the Poles rather than about postwar anti-Jewish violence in PolandThat, one the other hand, is bias. Why wouldn't the Institute of National Remembrance research that? Weren't Jews part of the nation and worthy of remembrance? And that's the difference between IPN and YV: YV publishes all across the field, regardless of the government's - or anyone else's - political position; IPN is obliged to satisfy someone. Is it independent enough to qualify as an RS per WP:BIASED? That's certainly arguable per the above sources.
IPN is reliable. This has been discussed to death. Stop making shit up. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Can we delete this? I really don't see why this needs highlighting, especially given the dubiousness of the alleged event involved? -- Calthinus ( talk) 19:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
With the influence of the Endecja party growing - when exactly was the influence growing? Endecja was dominated by Sanacja since 1926. ONR activists were imprisoned in Bereza Kartuska prison.
The paragraph starts with smaller towns but it describes universities situted in cities. Please learn to write. Ratio of Jewish students in 1937 is quoted, but ratio of Jews with university education isn't. There existed real problem of social advance of peasant children in former Russia, including Warsaw. The Jews lived in Poland among uneducated ethnic Poles. No social group accepts such situation. The governmnet of Poland failed to support children of peasants and workers.
Simon Wiesenthal studied in Prague. The majority of Polish youth didn't study. Xx236 ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This should not be restored to the article. POLIN might have it but it is cherrypicking that reinforces one of the most pernicious anti-Semitic canards around. Jews just like all other peoples in teh period had some involvement in slavery, but the canard ignores the participation of others and focuses disproportionately on the Jewish role to make it seem like Jews ever "controlled" the phenomenon. European medieval sources, typically ecclesiastic, are often insanely biased not only against Jews but also against the pagan Prussians (relevant for
Adalbert of Prague), and are predictably also guilty of this sort of bigoted cherrypicking. Here's one RS [
[9]] : Bohemia, as is wel-known, was one of the principal markets for the sale and purchase of Slav slaves... Poland was also drawn into the net of this international trade. Here too, as in other countries, the church protested not against the slave trade in general, but only against Jews who purchased Christian slaves. In the biography of St. Adalbert Wojtech... declined a post in Prague because ... he was prevented from ransoming Christian captives and slaves, which a [quotes in original] "Jewish trader had purchased for his accursed gold"... Judged by these reports (unilaterally gathered by church chroniclers, incidentally) it was permanently settled, but there were itinerant Jewish traders in Poland who participated, generally with Greeks and Arabs, in the slave trade...
. The source also mentions Christian German rulers taxing "Jewish and other" slave trading meaning they condoned it. This is all dubious at best. Why are we featuring a picture depicting Jews as the enslavers of native Slav Christians when the situation was much more complicated, with slavers of all religions, and participation of native Christians in the market including the apparently hypocritical Prague authorities?--
Calthinus (
talk)
15:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
"These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.". Having the image here basically recycles anti-Semitic tropes of the past to say the least. Resnjari ( talk) 16:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
"These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.". Resnjari ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate explanation of why the following content was removed. I will order this sentence by sentence, and I'd appreciate if anyone who considers a given sentence a problem would explain, properly, why is this so, ex. "Sentence 2 is based on unreliable source", or "quote for Sentence 3 failed verification". I have tried searching this talk for discussion of the following sources, and I couldn't find much or anything on the following. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
1) According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” [1]
References
2) Based on studies of court records carried out by several historians, Adam Kopciowski and Alina Skibińska conclude that "relatively many" Jews were able to reclaim former Jewish properties. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles. [1]
References
"Przykład Szczebrzeszyna w odniesieniu do losów "mienia opuszczonego" wydaje się typowy. Świadczą o tym zarówno badania Grzegorza Miernika, Łukasza Krzyżanowskiego, Adama Kopciowskiego. Ten ostatni zauważa, a jego wniosek potwierdzają również moje badania, "że choć odzyskiwanie utraconego w czasie wojny mienia wiązało się z ogromnym ryzykiem, stosunkowo wielu Żydom udało się je odzyskać. [The example of Szczebrzeszyn regarding the fate of "abandoned property" seems typical. This is evidenced by the research of Grzegorz Miernik, Łukasz Krzyżanowski and Adam Kopciowski. The latter notes, and his conclusion is also confirmed by my research, "that although the recovery of property lost during the war was associated with enormous risk, relatively many Jews managed to recover it.] (p.571)
3) The situation was similar in other towns in the Lublin Province. [1] [2] [3]
"It is difficult to assess how many acts of violence against Jews were motivated economically, Undoubtedly, there was a rise in the crime rate during the post-war period, and the Jews were an attractive target for the many gangs of robbers active at that time."(the courthouse statistic appear as a possible motivation of some robbers - all the rest of the journal article is a long chronicle of anti-Jewish violent incidents in the Lublin region - e.g. the paragraph above is on the murder of Szmul Pelc who was murdered by Belzec extermination camp grave-robbers. The paragraph below discusses antisemitic motives of the perpetrators. You've literally cherrypicked a small fragment of a long article on anti-Jewish violence - which for some reason you're not advancing into the article (e.g. the 118 Jews murdered in the Lublin region 1944-1946 - table on page 203). In addition - this is a very low-level local assessment (the municipal court hourse in Wlodawa - not Poland wide). Icewhiz ( talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
References
4) Historian Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.” [1]
References
Tensions and antisemitism - bias. Quite many Jews were economically, academically, politically succesfull, no such subparagraph here. Compare Raphael Lemkin. Xx236 ( talk) 06:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"were tortured and beaten to death by members of the local population" is extreme ignorance. Most of the Jedwabne victims were burned to death in a barn. You lack respect for them. You probably meant the Wąsosz pogrom.
It's obvious the number of victims at Jedwabne was below 1,000, probably below 400. The only source for the "1,600" number is Wasserstein, who didn't know the local statistics and wasn't an eyewitness; he repeated hearsay. Jan Gross' "1,600" and Jan Grabowski's "200,000" are anti-Polish propaganda. The discussion of how many people could be fitted inside the barn dishonors the victims. The "1,600" number is simply a hammer with which to bash the Polish people.
Probably about 1,600 Jews died in the entire region, but who cares about facts? Who is able to write " Wąsosz" or " Radziłów"? Apparently not the editor. Xx236 ( talk) 07:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Answer, please. Xx236 ( talk) 07:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
How many elementary errors are there here? You discuss details, but you ignore elementary facts. Shame on you. Xx236 ( talk) 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss it not here but at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Golden_Harvest_or_Hearts_of_Gold? where hopefully new, and more neutral voices, will help us reach consensus on whether we can cite this work or not. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Again asking why is this source used if it's so problematic, which is something we're all aware of. Some of you who support this inclusion have in the past fought repeatedly against including Grabowski (who's cited at least a couple of hundred times) and Gross (who's cited well over 2,000 times), but are now supporting this book that was written by a group of authors who, for the most part, are well outside mainstream academia (some of them are so outside of it that they can't even get published in English anymore); which was published by an "easy reading" publishing house and translated by Chodakiewicz's own minor "Leopold Press" (and apparently contains numerous spelling and translation errors); and which is so rarely cited that I can't even find on Google Scholar. It barely even passed WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so why push it? François Robere ( talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
the main representatives of the post-1989 historiography, characterized by prejudicial views and concepts about Jews and other minorities are the late Tomasz Srzembosz, Bogdan Musial and Marek J. Chodakiewicz. These historians belong to the school of (ethno)-nationalist history writing, in which the themes of martyrdom and victimhood of ethnic Poles vis-a-vis other groups play a key role in shaping their arguments and their interpretations.. Start next paragraph:
"Chodakiewicz's works represent the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writings ..... In contemporary Polish historiography Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian who constantly uses conflict in the expanation of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland ..... close to ... the National Democracy's interpertation of anti-semitism in general. Reading Chodakiewicz, one could easily reach the conclusion that the Jews were themselves responsible for what happened to them: "They received the type of anti-Semitism they deserve" (Zydzi maja taki antysemityzm na jak zasluguja), as one of the interwar popular National Democratic saying claimed". So..... Yes, he is quite clearly placed in a very-very specific "school", and that furthermore that his is the most extreme form of writing within said "school". Icewhiz ( talk) 11:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"Surprisingly, in the meantime Chodakiewicz secretly began to withdraw his theses.21 It would be useless to wonder whether it was an example of extreme ignorance or ill will and manipulation since, let us say it right away, the archival materials unambiguously settle the matter of our interest. The course of events in the Zamość fee tail (Ordynacja Zamojska) forest near the village of Rudki and a few other episodes in its vicinity is far more interesting than wondering why the technical standards were breached by the representatives of that milieu, who for years have been shocking readers with pseudo-methodological platitudes.". This is a full length journal article - some 44 pages - exploring both Chodakiewicz's writing on the subject (which are in extreme error or perhaps even manipulation per Libionka), and the events themselves in Rudki. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Are we finished with this? Consensus achieved? François Robere ( talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Francois Robere, can you also explain why you are using alleged issues with MJC to remove OTHER authors from the article? For example in this edit in your edit summary you claim removing MJC as a justification. Yet you also remove several other authors. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
And quite frankly, since this is a very general level article the whole section is mostly UNDUE. The article is about a 1000+ year history, yet this particular section, on a very narrow issue and controversy, is given as much space as other sections which cover entire centuries. Of course this is because there's a current controversy regarding the issue, but per WP:NOTNEWS that's actually not a consideration in how we write the article. The section should be trimmed down to a couple sentences and most of the info belongs in other, more dedicated articles. Then we can argue about stuff there.
Now, I realize that as soon as I say that this section is UNDUE and too long, someone is going to jump in and under a pretense of "trimming" is going to remove just the parts they don't like and keep the parts they like, making the whole thing even more unbalanced. So let me be clear - the way to solve the UNDUE problem is NOT by POVing the section even more. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 11:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Define "valid"? François Robere ( talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Note I've started an RfC on this. [22] François Robere ( talk) 08:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
While there was insufficient consensus to adequately draw as to whether or not [the book] falls into WP:FRINGE territory, there is relatively clear consensus that "Golden Harvest" is not a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.François Robere ( talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Mirosław Szumiło addresses this question in the Polish Institute of National Remembrance periodical, Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość (Memory and Justice), no. 2 (32), 2018: 2. https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/periodyki-ipn/pamiec-i-sprawiedliwosc/67747,Pamiec-i-Sprawiedliwosc-nr-2-32-2018.html. Xx236 ( talk) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
History gives support to current political needs. The Institute of National Remembrance is an important tool in the ideological war.. That's Radoslaw Poczykowski, a Polish university sociologist at Biawystok. See also [ Polish paper]. Maybe IPN is not a good source to rely on for scandalous material that was just featured at arbitration.-- Calthinus ( talk) 18:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course it is reality, but this aspect of Polish history although well known in Poland is forbidden in the west. There were two communists factions in post war Poland, the muscovites and the partisans. The muscovites held power initially and were majority jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 ( talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Where does this info come from? Polish Jews are not eligible for Polish citizenship if their ancestors left Poland before 1969. The March 1968 crisis stripped Polish citizenship from jews who emigrated and their descendants. Most of the jews who remained were old and at most only 10,000 remained, so how are 1.2 million jews now eligible for Polish passports? Can we either have a source or remove this misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 ( talk) 18:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Woguli ten chajrem jest tak źle że gorsze już nie ma” – pismo Fajwela Manchajma do Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie klątwy religijnej rzuconej na niego przez rabina z Izbicy Isera Landaua jako przyczynek do historii życia społeczności żydowskiej w II Rzeczypospolitej (in recent Glaukopis). Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
A recent well attended RM - Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July#Requested move 5 June 2019 concluded that The Holocaust in Poland should be at that title as a neutral descriptor. As background, there is a POV push in some circles - e.g. this Polish government site - to add "German-occupied"/"Nazi-occupied"/"occupied" to any phrase connecting Poland to the Holocaust. This revert reinstated a form decided against in the RM, and reintroduced an overly verbose section title (as we are already in History of the Jews in Poland, there is little need to repeat "in Poland" or "in X-occupied Poland" in every section title). The revert also reinstated two low level articles ( Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust) which are far from the main articles on the Holocaust in Poland - and inappropriate use of a see also. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
In this revert, after Francois Robere got ahead of himself and broke 1RR [24], Icewhiz comes to his rescue and performs the reverts for him. Additionally Icewhiz's edit summary is just false. "multiple editors agreeing to" <-- these "multiple editors", as can be easily seen from the discussion above are... Icewhiz and Francois Robere (who have reverted for each other on about half a dozen articles in the past two weeks or so). Please don't make false claims of consensus.
Francois Robere's edit summary for his revert [25] also appears to be false "No such commission existed - see discussions in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There's nothing on that page about the source (Lukas) or the commission that I can see [26]. The info is well sourced so this appears to be a phony reason for a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced info. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Francois Robere's edit summary for his revert... also appears to be false "No such commission existed - see discussions in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There's nothing on that page about the source (Lukas) or the commission that I can see... The info is well sourced so this appears to be a phony reason for a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced infoIt was discussed here, and mentioned in several other places, including here, here and here.
on Wikipedia we're not gonna take your own personal opinion over that of a reliable sourceI'm happy you just said that, because it means we can restore Madajczyk. Any objections?
And I haven't cast any "aspersions". On this article Icewhiz reverted on your behalfThat's literally "casting aspersions" (emphasis mine). [37] François Robere ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of the Jews in Poland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Following edit from IP was against source information, provided by historian from the Museum of Polish Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=958493882&oldid=957292533
Therefore information: ", mainly seeking slaves, sold to Muslim countries" - should be returned to the article according to Wiki rules of using that sources.
Thank You Kojoto Kojoto ( talk) 23:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As the edit summary says, the information is ahistorical and lacks historical context. There is no need to add ti back either as the information is repeated later in the paragraph. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 10:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
-- Hold on. Can you please notice what you just wrote? "the information is ahistorical and lacks historical context. There is no need to add ti back either as the information is repeated later in the paragraph"
* so this information is placed later in the paragraph (therefore is NOT "ahistorical and lacks historical context") (it is extended - NOT "repeated later") * this is the information provided with the source, historian opinion. So what is the problem here?
Kojoto Kojoto ( talk) 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
François Robere, I'm not sure that the text should include collaborators right next to Nazi Germany as being responsible for the destruction of Polish Jewery. Germany was responsible for the Holocaust. You have to remember that there is no universal definition of "collaboration" and most people were NOT willing to collaborate, but were forced to do so by the Germans. This includes Polish railway workers, police, Jewish Judenrat, etc. Even many of the peasants who did not like Jews, did not want to participate in the hunts. I believe it was Grabowski who described how most of them were told to join in or get sent for slave labor to a concentration camp. Btw, recently Yair Netanyahu posted on Twitter that "Germany is responsible for the Holocaust! Not Poland!" [38]. So, in summary, I don't think this is a an undisputed statement, so it should not be presented as such in the intro paragraph, there are varying views on that. -- E-960 ( talk) 10:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
George1738.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)