![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Volunteer Marek: Please explain these removals. [1] François Robere ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
This article suggests this is an international concept, but where is the Property restitution analyzing this (legal?) concept and country by country situation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
VM removed Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 amd Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany, but I think they can be restored? Oh, I also added a pl interwiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Sigh...I will keep it short as I am undergoing painful medical treatment but to summarize:
I suggest adding information from:
[5] Reprywatyzacja w Polsce i w innych państwach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Piotr Makarzec Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 2 (2003)
[6]
Reprywatyzacja a konflikt interesów ekonomicznych jednostek i państw - Polska na tle pozostałych krajów transformacji . Ekonomia i Prawo, 2012. Anna Moszyńska
[7] Krzysztof Patkowski Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza, Poznañ Realizacja programu reprywatyzacji w Polsce w latach 1989–2001 (aspekt polityczny i ideologiczny)
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprywatyzacja_w_Polsce
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprywatyzacja_w_Warszawie
Interestingly there is a list of all the treaties similar to Polish-US Claims treaty with other countries signed by Poland
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umowy_indemnizacyjne
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"Efforts to restore property often caused a resurgence of antisemitism". Can we have quotations from the cited sources to verify they support this claim? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Avi Beker, The plunder of Jewish property during the Holocaust, 2001. pp. 9-10:
Efforts made to return property in Eastern Europe have caused a resurgence of antisemitism. In Hungary, Romania and Poland this has found expression in the media and in various publications. Quite often, when meeting with leaders of the WJRO, government representatives have excused the delay in negotiations by claiming that antisemitism could erupt if Jewish property were to be restored. It is interesting to note that certain antisemitic elements in Polish-American circles attempted to hinder the process of property restitution by turning directly to Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski, accusing him of being too ‘conciliatory’ to the Jewish groups. The Polish President rejected the accusations and argued that there was no place for racial discrimination and hostility towards religious and national minorities.
Volha Charnysh, Historical Legacies of Interethnic Competition, 2015. p. 1836:
Generational transmission mechanisms can be reinforced by economic incentives (Acharya et al., 2015b). There is considerable evidence that material considerations contributed to the perpetuation of anti-Semitism in post-WWII Poland. As Jews were killed or transferred to ghettos and camps during the war, local Poles took advantage of the situation by expropriating Jewish property (Michlic-Coren, 2000; Törnquist-Plewa, 2006). The share of possessions acquired and the number of beneficiaries were roughly proportional to the size of the local Jewish population. After the war, anti-Semitic attitudes and violence acquired a new purpose—legitimizing the right to the Jewish property and ensuring that the Jewish survivors would emigrate and abandon restitution claims (Gross, 2006).
Property motives have been used to explain the surge in anti-Semitic killings in the late 1940s as Jews returned home from concentration camps or from hiding. Engel (1998) finds written descriptions of 327 Jewish victims of 130 incidents in 102 locations between September 1944 and September 1946 alone.Tokarska-Bakir (2012) chronicles the experience of a group of Holocaust survivors who after the war returned to Klimontów, a village that had counted 4,500 residents in 1939, 69% of them Jewish. Upon examining the records of home ownership from the 1950s, she finds that at least 125 properties changed hands due to the combination of the Holocaust, the post-1945 murder of returning Jews, and the emigration of possible successors.
Törnquist-Plewa (2006), in turn, draws a link between expropriation motives and contemporary anti-Semitism. In her study of Szydłowiec, a town of 15,000 residents where Jews made up 75% of the pre-WWII inhabitants, she notes that some residents to this day worry that Jews will return to claim their property. She also shows that the older generation managed to transmit anti-Semitic prejudice to the local schoolchildren.
Rafał Pankowski, The Resurgence of Antisemitic Discourse in Poland, 2018. pp. 11-12:
According to a widespread view in the Polish media, the Jewish opposition to the Polish history law has been mostly motivated by a hidden desire for financial gains at the expense of Poland. For example, the headline on one of the most widely circulated Polish newspapers, Super Express, proclaimed on February 3, 2018: “What the Jews want from Poland: forests, factories, houses—worth even one trillion.”
Sometimes the assertion was made subtly, sometimes explicitly. One example of a thinly veiled accusation of materialistic intentions at the core of the protests against the history law was expressed in an interview with Patryk Jaki, a deputy minister of justice who spearheaded the legislation. The headline on February 9, 2018 consisted of the Jaki quote: “We cannot call the Israeli embassy before passing each piece of legislation and ask if they kindly agree to it.” In the interview, asked if the reprivatization [restitution] issue is not the main source of the problem we are facing today, Jaki admitted that “there are many commentators, also abroad, who point to the fact these issues can be linked; it is about big money, but it is easier to attack [Poland] from an ethical position than from a financial position, because it is easier to justify such an attack.”
On February 5, in an interview on state radio, Senator Jerzy Czerwiński (PiS) made the assertion more explicit still when he said: “Another issue is the reaction of the Jewish state…and the political circles inside Israel. Maybe you can call it a conspiracy theory, but I think this was a nervous reaction, not signaled earlier; we heard that representatives of Israel were consulted on the bill. I think this reaction results from a hidden agenda, after all we know that Jewish circles, including American ones, but mostly the State of Israel, are trying to get restitution of property or at least compensation.”
The same claim was made by another pro-government MP, Adam Andruszkiewicz (a former chairman of the extreme-nationalist youth group the Młodzież Wszechpolska [All-Polish Youth]), “This conflict is linked with the reprivatization law. There are opinions that it is because Poland wants to finally solve the problem of inheritance. Some circles connected with Israel are unhappy about it.”37 MP Janusz Sanocki made a similar comment for the Russian Sputnik website: “We, the Polish people, cannot allow German guilt to be transferred on to us, especially because it is followed by Jewish property claims. Some Jewish circles abuse this tragedy and try to obtain financial gain from it.”
Significantly, an analogous view was expressed during a press conference given by the chair of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, to discuss the issue of the new history law: “The reason for the controversy is probably heirless Jewish property. Those Jewish organizations…would like to seize this heirless Jewish property for themselves in order to promote knowledge about the Holocaust or implement their programs.” Israeli Ambassador Anna Azari publicly refuted the archbishop’s interpretation by saying that “combining these two issues represents nothing but an antisemitic stereotype, as if the Jew is not able to fight for his honor, just constantly thinks about money.”
The allegation of financial motivation on the part of the Jews is often accompanied by various other offensive stereotypes and accusations, sometimes seemingly unrelated. Another representative of the Catholic Church, the aforementioned Henryk Zieliński, stated during a TVP Info broadcast: “We have to link it all to Act 447 [a US Congress legislative initiative on monitoring the issue of Holocaust-era property restitution] and the topic of reprivatization….The president [Andrzej Duda] has no other option than to sign the [Polish memory] law because it is a question of our sovereignty…. And then there is the question of the biography of George Soros and what he did as a Jew during the war: Can’t he be called a szmalcownik? [an offensive term denoting an individual who blackmailed Jews during the occupation].”
Piotr Semka, a well-known journalist, responded by saying: “The Israel lobby may try to block funding for the stationing of US soldiers in Poland….This pressure is extremely brutal so we must stand firm.” Another pundit on the same program, Maciej Pawlicki, said: “For Poland it is a matter of survival in the year of the 100th anniversary of its independence…. Actually, Israel’s policy is antisemitic in the long term.”40
François Robere ( talk) 11:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The issue of property restitution is not limited to Jewish claims. The article is currently unduly focused on this one aspect (although arguably I'd concur that this aspect is the most visible and controversial, internationally). I've been reviewing Polish language academic literature on this and its much more balanced, discussing problems with restitution to both Jews and non-Jewish parties, and various legal, historical and economic aspects of this issue that generally are not focused on the Jewish claims. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, User:Piotrus: There is a paradox, which is that the WP:RECENT newspaper headlines tend to focus on the claims of families of Jewish Holocaust victims and survivors, while the underlying data shows that there are more non-Jewish claims than Jewish claims. However, some of the news reports also point this out, such as the BBC: "Jewish claims account for just a minority of total claims, most of which have been made by Poles." [8] The article is good, and also points out that the whole process had been mired in corruption and was ripe for reform; it also shows that because most Jewish claimants are outside Poland (and by implication didn't know what was possible, many didn't get round to filing) so it disproportionately effects them. Applying this comprehensive, balanced BBC report may bring us towards a consensus solution, although let's be mindful of WP:NOTNEWS. Btw, I have a question: given over one-third of today's Poland was annexed from Germany in 1945, aren't the claims open to German (indeed Nazi) families whose property was appropriated by Poland's communist state, also? If so, presumably these would also outnumber Jewish claims, based on the number of Germans who left or were deported. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Piotrus:
prefer to see something based on academic sources, [16] and here you use current sources for historical events on which we do have such sources?
François Robere ( talk) 10:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The numbers and their presentations are... from a US DOJ. It’s more or less their wordsYou know what else is "their words"? "The Commission received approximately 20,000 registrations on FCSC Form 708 which had been prepared for this purpose." [31] Does it mean that we should quote it? No, because it's unreadable and uninformative.
There’s nothing confusing to them or most readersSaid the guy who edits on the American economy, when most Americans are barely financially literate. [32]
what’s so hard to understand about the fact that 10,169 suits were settled and out of those 5,022 claims recognizedThe source doesn't say that 10,169 claims were settled, it says that 10,169 claims were filed. If only 5,022 awards were given, then 5,147 claims were rejected. "Rejection" ≠ "settlement".
Where is that in the source, you ask? It’s on page 456 of the given source, first two sentences of the second paragraph.That source was added by Piotrus after you restored the text [33] [34] - the DOJ source says nothing of the sort. Why did you restore an unsourced statement? And while we're at it, why are you relying on a 1961 source when the process wasn't even completed until 1966? And how could you miss the fact that MMA copied a statements almost verbatim from the very paragraph you're now citing? [1] Yes,
please actually read the source before making claims about it.
What are the “linguistic errors” that you mention? I’ll be happy to correct any, if such exist."between People's Republic of Poland and United States", "Poland paid... to US authorities", "the amount... being 33% of principal". These are pretty obvious errors, Marek. François Robere ( talk) 14:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
That source was added by Piotrus after you restored the text" - Dude, no. I *just* provided you with the diff where MMA added it. Here it is again: [35]. See how it says "August 16th". That's two days before August 18th which is when I made my edit and the day from which your diffs come from. Looks like Piotrus just formatted the ref with ProveIt or something.
Notes
After the agreement became effective, the Government of Poland was exonerated from any responsibility for claims covered by the agreement.
After the agreement, Poland was exonerated from any responsibility for claims covered by the agreement.
@ Enthusiast01: In your recent edits you removed a helpful Template:Ill and de-referenced a sentence, splitting it out of a paragraph and re-adding it as a unreferenced sentence. This is not good. Please be more careful in the future. You may want to read this: Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. PS. Here are the refs relevant to this sentence, please add them to the split sentence if you wish to retain two paragraphs (although frankly I don't think this is superior, and MoS doesn't encourage creation of tiny paragraphs). I even indicated in my edit summary that they are relevant to this term... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Even with the law Poland issued about restitution of Jewish community property, they hardly enforce the law. see https://my-property-story.wjro.org.il/2023/02/08/on-the-land-of-28-szeroka/ 173.3.124.117 ( talk) 06:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Volunteer Marek: Please explain these removals. [1] François Robere ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
This article suggests this is an international concept, but where is the Property restitution analyzing this (legal?) concept and country by country situation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
VM removed Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 amd Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany, but I think they can be restored? Oh, I also added a pl interwiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Sigh...I will keep it short as I am undergoing painful medical treatment but to summarize:
I suggest adding information from:
[5] Reprywatyzacja w Polsce i w innych państwach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Piotr Makarzec Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 2 (2003)
[6]
Reprywatyzacja a konflikt interesów ekonomicznych jednostek i państw - Polska na tle pozostałych krajów transformacji . Ekonomia i Prawo, 2012. Anna Moszyńska
[7] Krzysztof Patkowski Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza, Poznañ Realizacja programu reprywatyzacji w Polsce w latach 1989–2001 (aspekt polityczny i ideologiczny)
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprywatyzacja_w_Polsce
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprywatyzacja_w_Warszawie
Interestingly there is a list of all the treaties similar to Polish-US Claims treaty with other countries signed by Poland
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umowy_indemnizacyjne
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"Efforts to restore property often caused a resurgence of antisemitism". Can we have quotations from the cited sources to verify they support this claim? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Avi Beker, The plunder of Jewish property during the Holocaust, 2001. pp. 9-10:
Efforts made to return property in Eastern Europe have caused a resurgence of antisemitism. In Hungary, Romania and Poland this has found expression in the media and in various publications. Quite often, when meeting with leaders of the WJRO, government representatives have excused the delay in negotiations by claiming that antisemitism could erupt if Jewish property were to be restored. It is interesting to note that certain antisemitic elements in Polish-American circles attempted to hinder the process of property restitution by turning directly to Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski, accusing him of being too ‘conciliatory’ to the Jewish groups. The Polish President rejected the accusations and argued that there was no place for racial discrimination and hostility towards religious and national minorities.
Volha Charnysh, Historical Legacies of Interethnic Competition, 2015. p. 1836:
Generational transmission mechanisms can be reinforced by economic incentives (Acharya et al., 2015b). There is considerable evidence that material considerations contributed to the perpetuation of anti-Semitism in post-WWII Poland. As Jews were killed or transferred to ghettos and camps during the war, local Poles took advantage of the situation by expropriating Jewish property (Michlic-Coren, 2000; Törnquist-Plewa, 2006). The share of possessions acquired and the number of beneficiaries were roughly proportional to the size of the local Jewish population. After the war, anti-Semitic attitudes and violence acquired a new purpose—legitimizing the right to the Jewish property and ensuring that the Jewish survivors would emigrate and abandon restitution claims (Gross, 2006).
Property motives have been used to explain the surge in anti-Semitic killings in the late 1940s as Jews returned home from concentration camps or from hiding. Engel (1998) finds written descriptions of 327 Jewish victims of 130 incidents in 102 locations between September 1944 and September 1946 alone.Tokarska-Bakir (2012) chronicles the experience of a group of Holocaust survivors who after the war returned to Klimontów, a village that had counted 4,500 residents in 1939, 69% of them Jewish. Upon examining the records of home ownership from the 1950s, she finds that at least 125 properties changed hands due to the combination of the Holocaust, the post-1945 murder of returning Jews, and the emigration of possible successors.
Törnquist-Plewa (2006), in turn, draws a link between expropriation motives and contemporary anti-Semitism. In her study of Szydłowiec, a town of 15,000 residents where Jews made up 75% of the pre-WWII inhabitants, she notes that some residents to this day worry that Jews will return to claim their property. She also shows that the older generation managed to transmit anti-Semitic prejudice to the local schoolchildren.
Rafał Pankowski, The Resurgence of Antisemitic Discourse in Poland, 2018. pp. 11-12:
According to a widespread view in the Polish media, the Jewish opposition to the Polish history law has been mostly motivated by a hidden desire for financial gains at the expense of Poland. For example, the headline on one of the most widely circulated Polish newspapers, Super Express, proclaimed on February 3, 2018: “What the Jews want from Poland: forests, factories, houses—worth even one trillion.”
Sometimes the assertion was made subtly, sometimes explicitly. One example of a thinly veiled accusation of materialistic intentions at the core of the protests against the history law was expressed in an interview with Patryk Jaki, a deputy minister of justice who spearheaded the legislation. The headline on February 9, 2018 consisted of the Jaki quote: “We cannot call the Israeli embassy before passing each piece of legislation and ask if they kindly agree to it.” In the interview, asked if the reprivatization [restitution] issue is not the main source of the problem we are facing today, Jaki admitted that “there are many commentators, also abroad, who point to the fact these issues can be linked; it is about big money, but it is easier to attack [Poland] from an ethical position than from a financial position, because it is easier to justify such an attack.”
On February 5, in an interview on state radio, Senator Jerzy Czerwiński (PiS) made the assertion more explicit still when he said: “Another issue is the reaction of the Jewish state…and the political circles inside Israel. Maybe you can call it a conspiracy theory, but I think this was a nervous reaction, not signaled earlier; we heard that representatives of Israel were consulted on the bill. I think this reaction results from a hidden agenda, after all we know that Jewish circles, including American ones, but mostly the State of Israel, are trying to get restitution of property or at least compensation.”
The same claim was made by another pro-government MP, Adam Andruszkiewicz (a former chairman of the extreme-nationalist youth group the Młodzież Wszechpolska [All-Polish Youth]), “This conflict is linked with the reprivatization law. There are opinions that it is because Poland wants to finally solve the problem of inheritance. Some circles connected with Israel are unhappy about it.”37 MP Janusz Sanocki made a similar comment for the Russian Sputnik website: “We, the Polish people, cannot allow German guilt to be transferred on to us, especially because it is followed by Jewish property claims. Some Jewish circles abuse this tragedy and try to obtain financial gain from it.”
Significantly, an analogous view was expressed during a press conference given by the chair of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, to discuss the issue of the new history law: “The reason for the controversy is probably heirless Jewish property. Those Jewish organizations…would like to seize this heirless Jewish property for themselves in order to promote knowledge about the Holocaust or implement their programs.” Israeli Ambassador Anna Azari publicly refuted the archbishop’s interpretation by saying that “combining these two issues represents nothing but an antisemitic stereotype, as if the Jew is not able to fight for his honor, just constantly thinks about money.”
The allegation of financial motivation on the part of the Jews is often accompanied by various other offensive stereotypes and accusations, sometimes seemingly unrelated. Another representative of the Catholic Church, the aforementioned Henryk Zieliński, stated during a TVP Info broadcast: “We have to link it all to Act 447 [a US Congress legislative initiative on monitoring the issue of Holocaust-era property restitution] and the topic of reprivatization….The president [Andrzej Duda] has no other option than to sign the [Polish memory] law because it is a question of our sovereignty…. And then there is the question of the biography of George Soros and what he did as a Jew during the war: Can’t he be called a szmalcownik? [an offensive term denoting an individual who blackmailed Jews during the occupation].”
Piotr Semka, a well-known journalist, responded by saying: “The Israel lobby may try to block funding for the stationing of US soldiers in Poland….This pressure is extremely brutal so we must stand firm.” Another pundit on the same program, Maciej Pawlicki, said: “For Poland it is a matter of survival in the year of the 100th anniversary of its independence…. Actually, Israel’s policy is antisemitic in the long term.”40
François Robere ( talk) 11:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The issue of property restitution is not limited to Jewish claims. The article is currently unduly focused on this one aspect (although arguably I'd concur that this aspect is the most visible and controversial, internationally). I've been reviewing Polish language academic literature on this and its much more balanced, discussing problems with restitution to both Jews and non-Jewish parties, and various legal, historical and economic aspects of this issue that generally are not focused on the Jewish claims. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, User:Piotrus: There is a paradox, which is that the WP:RECENT newspaper headlines tend to focus on the claims of families of Jewish Holocaust victims and survivors, while the underlying data shows that there are more non-Jewish claims than Jewish claims. However, some of the news reports also point this out, such as the BBC: "Jewish claims account for just a minority of total claims, most of which have been made by Poles." [8] The article is good, and also points out that the whole process had been mired in corruption and was ripe for reform; it also shows that because most Jewish claimants are outside Poland (and by implication didn't know what was possible, many didn't get round to filing) so it disproportionately effects them. Applying this comprehensive, balanced BBC report may bring us towards a consensus solution, although let's be mindful of WP:NOTNEWS. Btw, I have a question: given over one-third of today's Poland was annexed from Germany in 1945, aren't the claims open to German (indeed Nazi) families whose property was appropriated by Poland's communist state, also? If so, presumably these would also outnumber Jewish claims, based on the number of Germans who left or were deported. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Piotrus:
prefer to see something based on academic sources, [16] and here you use current sources for historical events on which we do have such sources?
François Robere ( talk) 10:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The numbers and their presentations are... from a US DOJ. It’s more or less their wordsYou know what else is "their words"? "The Commission received approximately 20,000 registrations on FCSC Form 708 which had been prepared for this purpose." [31] Does it mean that we should quote it? No, because it's unreadable and uninformative.
There’s nothing confusing to them or most readersSaid the guy who edits on the American economy, when most Americans are barely financially literate. [32]
what’s so hard to understand about the fact that 10,169 suits were settled and out of those 5,022 claims recognizedThe source doesn't say that 10,169 claims were settled, it says that 10,169 claims were filed. If only 5,022 awards were given, then 5,147 claims were rejected. "Rejection" ≠ "settlement".
Where is that in the source, you ask? It’s on page 456 of the given source, first two sentences of the second paragraph.That source was added by Piotrus after you restored the text [33] [34] - the DOJ source says nothing of the sort. Why did you restore an unsourced statement? And while we're at it, why are you relying on a 1961 source when the process wasn't even completed until 1966? And how could you miss the fact that MMA copied a statements almost verbatim from the very paragraph you're now citing? [1] Yes,
please actually read the source before making claims about it.
What are the “linguistic errors” that you mention? I’ll be happy to correct any, if such exist."between People's Republic of Poland and United States", "Poland paid... to US authorities", "the amount... being 33% of principal". These are pretty obvious errors, Marek. François Robere ( talk) 14:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
That source was added by Piotrus after you restored the text" - Dude, no. I *just* provided you with the diff where MMA added it. Here it is again: [35]. See how it says "August 16th". That's two days before August 18th which is when I made my edit and the day from which your diffs come from. Looks like Piotrus just formatted the ref with ProveIt or something.
Notes
After the agreement became effective, the Government of Poland was exonerated from any responsibility for claims covered by the agreement.
After the agreement, Poland was exonerated from any responsibility for claims covered by the agreement.
@ Enthusiast01: In your recent edits you removed a helpful Template:Ill and de-referenced a sentence, splitting it out of a paragraph and re-adding it as a unreferenced sentence. This is not good. Please be more careful in the future. You may want to read this: Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. PS. Here are the refs relevant to this sentence, please add them to the split sentence if you wish to retain two paragraphs (although frankly I don't think this is superior, and MoS doesn't encourage creation of tiny paragraphs). I even indicated in my edit summary that they are relevant to this term... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Even with the law Poland issued about restitution of Jewish community property, they hardly enforce the law. see https://my-property-story.wjro.org.il/2023/02/08/on-the-land-of-28-szeroka/ 173.3.124.117 ( talk) 06:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)