Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

11 million ethnic Poles?

Thought it was higher, no? -188.146.204.85 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

NB this number is what the sourced reference says, and I am cross-referencing with other sources. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference (which btw we cite already, please reuse the correctly formatted cite instead of just linking raw http to a mirror) is wrong. Don't know where he got 11 million from, but Demographic_history_of_Poland gives 20 million for ethnic Poles, and this is roughly correct. That's for 1931, 9 millions did not evaporate in the meantime, and even allowing for few % margin of error etc. this number wouldn't change much. Further, the estimates in the lead are for the total Polish population, higher ones (the 'million') includes ethnic minorities (Germans, etc.). So the number of ethnic Poles is also purely irrelevant. PS. While the specific numbers are subject to dispute, the linked article on demographics is reliably well referenced, and no historian would adjust the number of Poles by more than 4m at most, and that's at the other direction - the disputed range is 20-24m, more or less. 11 million is a clear error. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have seen a figure of 21 million somewhere so maybe it was even a typo in the sourse. I propose to deal with the error we add the figure for the total to the line with an additional reference. Chumchum7 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And what about this: "According to the Israeli War Crimes Commission, during World War II less than 0.1% of Poles collaborated in any way with Germany." ?

We have seen this before, my problem is I cannot find a reference to an Israeli War Crime Commission, except for references to the above work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Some AK units "actively engaged in hunting down and murdering Jews"

Any facts? Xx236 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The phrase is in a wrong place, after NSZ description.Xx236 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Then move it. The reason it's out of place is because I've anticipated another editor will remove it on their whim, as happened several times before [1], so what's the point of going through the work of properly incorporating it into the paragraph? Let them ponder it for a while, then we'll redo the section. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

NB we don't need facts, we need verifiability. More sourcing should be easy to find about these Polish units, I've read several which show they were active killing Jews specifically in the ethnic Byelorusian and Lithuanian borderlands of prewar north-eastern Poland. Some made tactical manouvres to the advantage of German units, I have also read. These were wayward Polish units, ignoring the unambiguous orders of AK central command not to cooperate with Germany and not to murder civilians; they may have been NSZ / ND comepetitors ignoring the authority of the AK. A distinction is made in the sources between engaging in combat and the killing of civilians, both of which appear to have happened. A fascinating aspect is that the British SOE airdropped Polish special forces commandos into this area to link up with some of these units, to fight the secret war against Soviet-backed forces, some of which identified themselves as Jewish. I have not yet found a source showing a British-backed Polish unit fighting a Soviet-backed Jewish unit, but it's plausible and an interesting detail... for a geek.-Chumchum7 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 I would be interested in getting my hands on the credible references verifying Home Army mass murder of civilians, principally Jews. Do you believe you can help? Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I found these [2] (a rather less reliable one) [3] [4] (repeats the last one) [5], is that enough or do we need more? Now to be fair most of them say it was mainly (but not exclusively) the NSZ wing. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/199/piotrowski.html Piotrowski questions the accuracy of the often repeated allegations that the Polish underground, including the Home Army, were guilty of collaboration with the Nazis and of committing anti-Semitic atrocities. Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella you could start with Zimmerman http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/killers-of-jews-or-saviors-of-jews/ Chumchum7 (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven yes the key is that like the wartime Polish government, the AK was an umbrella that included nationalists, democratic socialists, and Jews. It's misleading for us to stereotype or generalise about the record of either. The NSZ however was avowedly antisemitic by its own account, so better differentiate it from the AK where appropriate.

Except (as I said) they sources all seem to be pretty clear that even the AK is not immune form this criticism. Maybe something like "elements of the Polish home army (mainly from the NSZ wing) participated in antisemitic activities".Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And, according to the Piotrowski book, at least one such NSZ leader was condemned to death by the AK and executed for such an action. Nihil novi (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He also seems to repeat the claim that some members of the AK participated too.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Piotrowski quote please, sounds interesting. NB the NSZ unilaterally negotiated a ceasefire with Germany, which they used to relocate to Bohemia to elude the approaching Soviet front late in the war, an overtly collaborative action that the AK completely forbade. And it's even more complicated than that: there were Jews in the NSZ, and communists in the AK. Yet more reminder to eschew the cartoon/Hollywood/simplistic/binary account of history wherever possible Chumchum7 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole NSZ negotiated and one unit evacuted. Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps: "In defiance of orders, some elements of the Polish home army (mainly from the NSZ wing) participated in antisemitic activities". Chumchum7 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we have the quote that says any such order was given? I have tried to find it and cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it would be useful to have, and I too will look for it. It's highly likely that AK military orders prohibiting murder encompassed people, not ethnic groups. The AK was a disciplined army that even went to the bother of trying Nazi war criminals in absentia before assassinating them. Murder of Germans was outlawed by high command because murder was outlawed. Same would therefore be true of every other ethnicity. What we have plenty of sourcing for is non-policy AK murders of Jews along the lines of Croke Park and My Lai (though it seems they may have tended to have been smaller scale, more numerous murders rather than a small numer of large scale massacres). Here is Snyder, mentioning some of them [6]

It would be equally useful to have a quote showing AK leadership giving orders to kill Jews, and I shall look for that too unless you have it to hand and can add. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I introduced some info about Jewish partisans killing Polish civilians with links to Wiki article instef and reference.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This source, afaict, does not say "Some AK soldiers murdered Jews". At best it says that Browning makes this claim, although the reviewer goes on to say that this characterization "does not fit the historical Home Army." So... once again, whoever put that in blatantly misrepresented a source.

(incidentally, in 1941 when the killings in Wierzbnik occurred there was no such thing as the "Home Army" - it's sort of stunning that Browning does not even appear to be aware of this).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And actually, that whole paragraph is chock full of problems, with people pretending sources say something they don't being just one of them. Most significantly, it is off-topic since it's not about collaboration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That was me who put it in because it was my good faith reading of the source, and I am happy to adjust the sentence to address your concern. In return, please don't jump to conclusions bout intent. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This book - The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, by Joshua D. Zimmerman published by Cambridge University Press and fully available on google-books - could be a great source. Some popular coverage/summaries/opinions - [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing and sanitizing of anything challenging the Polish myth

Some editors are actively engaged in sanitizing claims challenging the myth that Poles did not collaboration with the Germans. This has to stop. Some examples:

• Phrasing about German unwillingness to have a collaborationist government, well-sourced, is removed as "speculation" [14]
• Similar edit [15] (fix)
• Role of pro-German Polish politicians is marginalized [16][17]
• Source mentioning assassination and kidnapping of Jewish partisans is changed because "I'm sure the communists/Jewish partisans fought back" [18]
• Despite careful phrasing and a highly-respected source, this claim is removed as "extraordinary" [19]
• And a similar edit, supposedly per source [20]
• Here the editor adds a source that mentions collaboration between AK and Jewish partisans, but what they don't say is that this example is given as an exception to AK's general hostility towards Jews [21] (fix to both these edits)
• Here's a more sophisticated example: The editor adds a "failed verification" tag (presumably misunderstanding the {{r}} template right next to the claim), then change the phrasing to a more lenient one. Then, having found the source, they conclude it doesn't match the text in the article (of course it doesn't - they changed it five minutes earlier), allowing them to keep the "verification failed" tag. The next obvious step would be to wait a couple of days then remove the supposedly "unverified" claim, and voilà - bias introduced!

Some of this work is of such a poor quality, that it just adds work for the rest of us. Take for example this revision: it removed three claims backed by five sources, but didn't remove the sources, so they all clustered next to their immediate predecessor - a claim supported by one source - giving the appearance of a single claim backed by six (!) sources. So who's to deal with it? I commented on it on the talk page, but the editor who made the revision ignored it, and someone else had to do the "cleanup".

And it goes on and on. Well sourced claims are removed if they challenge the popular Polish myth, but questionable and poorly-sourced claims (like the "Israeli War Crimes Commission", that didn't exist; or the unsourced "Volksdeutsche were treated by Poles with special contempt"; or the claim about Jewish collaborators "baiting" innocent Poles, which cites a couple of popular magazines) can't be removed, and sometimes aren't even allowed to be tagged ([22]).

This has to stop. We're not here to indulge some anachronistic myth. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This has to stop - exactly, but the this is the myth. Please define the myth. Is it a myth that Polish troops fought 1939-1945, that Polish citizens and ethnic Poles were murdered by Germans, that there exists common ignorance in the West regarding Polish history, that thousands of ethnic Poles died in Auschwitz but Catholic nuns were expelled from a monastery near the camp? Poland is founded on myths between Germany and Russia, Israel is founded on myths among Arabians. We should revise both myths using similar tools.Xx236 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

German-Nazi occupation of Poland (which wasn't a legal form of occupation but rather colonialism) was based on German terror. Grabowski describes the terror in his Hunt for Jews, but some readers prefer to cherrypick cases of crimes committed by Polish peasants ignoring the first 80 or 100 pages of the book and descriptions of mass killings committed by Germans later. Xx236 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The role of pro-German politicians was almost none. You misinform the readers - Witos was prominent but wasn't pro-German. Andrzej Świetlicki wasn't prominent. Władysław Studnicki was influential in 1910, later he was a writer. Leon Kozłowski was imprisoned and mistreated by the Soviets, so it was obvious that he dreamed about good Germans. Dreamers aren't prominent politicians.The Eagle Unbowed isn't reliable. Xx236 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking seriously I can send you sources, though given that your first message has nothing to do with any of the cases I mentioned, I assume you're not. As for Grabowski: cite whatever you want of his - he's RS as far as I'm concerned. As for rest: I didn't say Witos was pro-German; and Kozłowski was Poland's PM, so "prominent" is proper. Everything else is up for discussion, and has nothing to do with the others editor's pattern of biased edits, which I've demonstrated above. François Robere (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, pending a revue of your diffs I might support your complaint about disruptive editing, and I could support you raising it at an appropriate noticeboard, or take it up myself. At the same time I will caution that you risk coming in for allegations yourself of cutural superiority or ethnic stereotyping by conflating disruptive editing here with what you say is "the popular Polish myth". Moreover, in terms of practical psychology such comments will only make tendentious editors' behavior worse. Please remember that the Geekdom of Wikipedia is not an indication of the real world, let alone what is popular in any given country. It's actually Polish scholars who have been leading the charge against certain myths in their own country. Use Google Translate to contrast content in Nasz Dziennik and Gazeta Wyborcza and you'll see there is no homogeneity. Jan Gross himself advises Israeli students of the Holocaust to go study in Polish institutions, and I can direct you to a Youtube link where he does so. I've been working long and hard on addressing the sort of issues you flag above at the Jedwabne pogrom article. There are ways for you to do the same here, and if you can take my point I might be able to help you. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkig about disruptive editing, tendentious editing and whitewashing crimes, take a look at this Chumchum7:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&diff=833866526&oldid=833864920&diffmode=source

I introduced this info with references it was removed immediately. The same pattern applies to

François Robere, just examine his diffs or both of them. Very similar.

I might show you plenty of examples plus personal insults using "ass" and shouting (capital letter) word directed at me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing Skidel (a pro-Soviet revolt with militants of many ethnic backgrounds) as Jewish or murder (as it was directed, for the most part, against Polish authorities) is highly problematic and should not be done in Wikipedia's voice. Koniuchy has more merit, but is disputed, lacks context (e.g. of Polish-Lithuanian treatment of the Jews), the villagers were armed and AK affilated - in resistence to the Soviet aligned partisans, and should not be in Wikipedia's voice. Nor should we suggest these are parallels in any way to the documented and widespread AK actions. In both cases the use of piped links was inappropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(@ Chumchum7)I referenced this occurrence Koniuchy massacre Chumchum7 as an example, but of course, it has been omitted in their comments above and claimed in the that only Skidel was introduced. If we are talking about tendentious editing and misleading commentary, here you have it. I'll take my time to give many similar cases later but simply take a quick pick yourself Chumchum7. It is easy to spot. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) PS Sorry I just noticed that Icewhiz did mention Koniuchy but of course, this is false accusation according to him, but Ak killings Jews was widespread. See what I'm talking about :). Well, I see that we'll have some fun soon :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not say this was a false accusation.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So why did you recklessly reverted my entry Icewhiz as the countless times before in various articles? I have been documenting everything and will display it in the proper spot. The time to do so has just begun in my belief. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Selective use of sources (when other sources treat this differently), use of wikivoice for a disputed stmt, and inappropriate use of piped links.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I said it before, Bella: burden of proof. Either you back your claims, or don't make them. François Robere (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've consulted with another veteran editor [23] - you can see my position there. If you think this is "raisable", I very much support it.

As for what this myth means, I want to clarify one thing: First, this is not about cultural superiority, ethnicity or anything else of that nature; if anything, it's about the trans-national nature of national memory, or how historiography and education in a nation are tied to its social and political circumstances, and it's as well-documented in Poland as in any other country. We might as well be talking about Confederate statues or the legacy of European colonialism - the issues would be similar. It's not about a people or a country, but about ideas, and how proper scholarship principles can and should be applied to dealing with them.

Polish academics abroad have indeed been leading the charge in the past 20 years or so, but that's (AFAIK) against popular beliefs (especially since the 2015 elections). You can see that in politicians' statements, opinion poles, changes to museum exhibitions and commemoration sites, and elsewhere. I'm sure there's no homogeneity, and I'm sure Polish academia is more varied in this sense than non-academics, but both historiographic sources and current events give me a strong impression that the whole discussion is taking place a couple of decades later than it should've.

I've tried discussing these things both in this article and its parent, but some editors have such tenacity that it's hard to curb. If you believe you can assist, I would most appreciate it. François Robere (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Are charges academic?

Current nationalism in Poland has been generated by charges of Polish media, academy, museums and film industry. The WWII Museum was a political project without any common knowledge/support. Common Poles have been robbed (taxed) to support projects they didn't accept. Polish films have been financed by taxpayers and designed for film festivals abroad, not for common viewers. The obvious reaction is a wave of nationalism.

The roots of the conflict are historical - slavery of Chrisitian peasants. Some of current US problems have roots in Afroamerican slavery and many subjects are politicall incorrect. Criticizing of Polish peasants is politically correct. Double standards.

The Polish academics abroad didn't care about many facts, especially JT Gross, but 200 000 by Grabowski is also a good example.

changes to museum exhibitions and commemoration sites - perhaps 1% of such sites and at least some of them are right. As if everything was O.K. till 2015. It wasn't.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but you seem to be agreeing that there's popular bias.

Whatever your opinion is of G & G, they're trusted by scholars worldwide. You can't use your opinion to censure others when RS disagree. François Robere (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about - please learn.Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing - cont.

Today's crop includes:

1. An editor restored content removed by myself (looks like synthesis, or at least sourced by non-RS on the matter but not presented as such) and another editor (discussed above) without discussion; undid changes to lead, including removal of an estimate of the number of collaborators, called edits "unexplained" [24]
2. An editor removed three RS (one previously removed by another, then restored), instead of just tagging or asking on talk [25][26][27]
3. An editor removed two more RS, claiming "cherry picking" and irrelevance (talk?) [28][29]
4. An editor restored the text now twice-removed about Grabowski, which was then "improved" upon by another [30][31]. Notice the amount of attention given in this paragraph to refute Grabowski's number.
5. An editor again removed a "not in source" tag that's next to a source, claiming "information in following paragraphs". Well it's not in that source, and keeping it next to it means the claim looks sourced when it's not [32]
6. An editor removed a note I made about a claim being supported only by very early (pre-1945), with only one being a scholarly source, claiming "some are new". This is something I asked about several times in the talk page, to no avail [33]
7. An editor removed a well-sourced statement about the German intentions of not setting up a puppet government [34]. They then removed another well-sourced tidbit that challenges the popular perception [35], making way for the restoration of the false claim that the Germans "failed" in doing so [36]
8. An editor made an unsourced edit marginalizing the role of a pro-German politician [37]

François Robere (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the will to review this in detail, but honestly, I want to caution all editors active here to mind their editing and discussing conduct, and to try to reach the middle ground. This has been a problematic topic for months, and there is too much back and forth and not listening to the 'other side here'. I won't be surprised if this ends up in front of an ArbCom, and the usual solution in this case is going to be a bunch of semi-random topic bans and blocks for the less lucky editors. Doubt many people will enjoy the aftermath.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish everyone were as eager to cooperate as either of us. I wouldn't have made this list if I was certain that whatever work I make on the article wouldn't just get reverted on someone's whim regardless of RS. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing somebody else's editing as "Whitewashing" is a severe breach of rules already. Do you mind reflecting and rewording? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5A4:6D89:3A1F:3AE5 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case then half the editors here should've been thrown out already. Mind this substantial truth: When a significant amount of your edits reflects a particular POV and you disregard RS that contradict it (or editors that cite such RS), then that's no longer proper editorial conduct, call it as you will. François Robere (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see "the other half" pointing out to the fact that it appears you are deliberately attempting to assign the responsibility for the Holocaust to the Poles and the Polish State. It's evident, and you should be concerned about the effects it might have on your future editing powers in the upcoming administrative scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:54E2:E190:37F5:8163 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

One editor accused me of "messing with the article text" and "POV pushing" because I tagged a 2003 source that was claimed to refute a source that was only published a decade later [38], and repeatedly accused me of "manipulative language" and "sanitizing" text (which I never have, and never will do). But they haven't been active here (nor making such comments) for some days, so I wouldn't like to draw them here now.

Another's comments towards me were characterized as "[reeking of] bad faith and shade... essentially polite incivility" [39]. They later made personal comments at another user [40].

A third repeatedly accused me of "making stuff up", "making shit up", "dishonest editing" and whatnot (take your pick here); hinted at another user using "sockpuppets" without proof, and even suggested banning two users [41].

A fourth once accused me of "making things up" [42]; that user doesn't usually does so, but in terms of introducing bias to the text - they're pretty about their belief that "there was no collaboration" [43][44], and have made personal accusations against sources that stated otherwise, (eg. that they only write for money and fame).

All of this took place weeks before I opened this thread. I'm not in the habit of making personal accusations or tracking users, or whatever, and I wouldn't have started this list as a first measure. Some of these issues were discussed exhaustively on talk but they just keep popping up again and again, and there's no way of stopping it without first showing who's doing what. François Robere (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of wPolityce.pl coverage of a facebook post as source for history

The following diff, despite multiple references to corroborate some of the claims made in the arguments therein, is sourced entirely to wPolityce.pl coverage of a Facebook post of Jakub Kumoch - Poland's ambassador to Switzerland (who holds a PhD in social sciences, though it seems [45] most of his career was in journalism and foreign relations). The web portal wPolityce has not been discussed on RSN yet for general news (and there are probably some questions regarding its general use), but definitely would not be an acceptable source for history. Nor are Facebook posts an acceptable source for such content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The information is widely quoted. The Facebook page of Poland's ambassador to Switzerland is not being used. All claims to the contrary are usually laughable anyway. Poeticbent talk 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• If widely quoted - surely there is a better source than - Skąd liczba 40 tys. ocalonych z Holokaustu? Ambasador RP w Szwajcarii demaskuje Jana Grabowskiego: Powołuje się na źródła wtórne pasujące do jego tezy from which this argument is sourced (and repeated in Wikipedia's voice).Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The real sources, yet to be acknowledged in here, are: Saul Friedländer who in turn misquoted Antony Polonsky in good faith. Everything else that goes on is icing on the cake. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• But that is OR - the two sources pre-date Grabowski's claim, and claiming that one misquoted the other (and that Grabowski relied on either and not on a collection of sources) is OR. Using wPolityce (or the Facebook post of the ambassador which is covered by wPolityce ) for historical source analysis is a no-go.Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• You are not listening, but I trust in Wikipedia editors' ability to read Grabowski and summarize what they read: https://books.google.com/books?id=oVmSAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 . There’s no anchor in support of his arithmetic at the end of the paragraph. The number has never been repeated in his book again! His source, Friedländer (quoted right above, and named on page 248) reveals itself to be a circular reference: https://books.google.com/books?id=oVmSAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA248 . No original research. Just facts. Poeticbent talk 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting it's WP:OR and you have no scholarly source that you can directly cite that states the same. François Robere (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Poland was designed and implemented by Germans (and Austrians) and their allies (Romania, Hungary). The Germans applied in Poland extremal terror. Some nations (USA,UK) haven't been occupied/terrorised since ages so many editors lack basic knowledge about facts and psychology of terror.

Is Wikipedia a court, where some editors have a mission, pretend to be prosecutors who accuse Poland and Polish people? Many nations were invoolved in the Holocaust - murdering, returning Jewish refugees to Germany, delivering arms or raw materials used in the Holocaust. Is there another case in this Wikipedia against another nation? Your language (collaboration) makes your methodology biased.

Please show me a neutral methology comparing level of terror and survival rate.

No Polish (including Gross and Grabowski) Holocaust historian has any idea about mathematics and scientifical methodology. Both Gross and Grabowski misuse numbers.

Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And even a weird opinion to sentence nations or having such allegations like "Some nations (USA,UK) haven't been occupied/terrorised since ages", especially the core of the modern history of these nations are the conquer of other territories and subdue other people, slavery and many wars as well - among many other nations - however I had no intention to say any recension or any generalizing statement neither of these nations, nor "Germans (Austrians), (Romania, Hungary), just a little bit waking up a bit the necessary objectivity.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

a weird opinion - "Some nations (USA,UK) haven't been occupied/terrorised since ages" - only Channel Islands were occupied during WWII and the behaviour of local population was standard - they wanted to survive. US civilian population wasn't exterminated and robbed the way Poles were during WWII. Only soldiers fighting abroad were traumatised the way many European civilians were during WWII. Both US and UK refused to accept Jewish refugees until it was too late.

This Wikipedia contains only one long page about collaboration (in German-occupied Poland). The template misinforms similarly. Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Cooper, Leo (2000). In the shadow of the Polish eagle : the Poles, the Holocaust, and beyond.

• I have found only one academic review, very critical.
• 60% of Amazon opinions is critical.
• The author published books about Soviet Union, not about Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• The second review, I don't have access. [46]Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There are better or worse reviews of his (regardless of Amazon, which isn't an "RS" on this matter). His is far from being a perfect source, but we have few that are. Each claim should be examined separately. François Robere (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

So let's examine.Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Source's ethnicity

@Amsgearing: With regards to this edit, can you explain how a source's ethnicity or nationality is relevant here? François Robere (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your question doesn't even make sense. I was restoring a large batch of material that an anonymous IP deleted without explanation. If you need clarification, it would be helpful if you were more specific. Amsgearing (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. I assumed you read through the text - the edit was justified. But nevermind. François Robere (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Estimates on the number of Poles who saved Jewish refugees

With regards to this edit - the question of whether to include estimates on the number of heroes among Poles in the GG has been discussed in several places, and the consensus has been against it. One user commented that "some mention of those who refused to be involved in collaboration is important, as it highlights the options that were available to those that did collaborate"; another that a Wikilink to Rescue of Jews by Poles was enough. I think both suggestions are reasonable, while having two paragraphs devoted to the subject isn't. François Robere (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not everyone agrees with it [47], so I'm pinging those who took part in the previous three discussions (there were probably others who opined on this in different discussions). The question is as such: Do estimates of the number of Poles who saved Jews belong in an article about collaboration with Nazi Germany, and if so - why, where, or to what extent. You already know my opinion. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(GizzyCatBella ThoughtIdRetired Slatersteven Piotrus E-960)

spurious tagging

Francois Roberte has inserted numerous and mostly spurious tags all through out the article, generally after statements which they personally WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, but which, because they are well sourced, they can't outright remove. This is clearly WP:TEND and WP:POINT behavior and fails to assume good faith. You can always ask for quotations on talk but in the meantime please stop playing these games with the spurious tags.

(and this behavior where as soon as one quotation is provided, FR comes up with three new ones evidences that the purpose here isn't to actually improve the article. It's also reminiscent of other users who've tried these tactics in the past, though that's been long time ago).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If you do not have access to a source it seems reasonable to ask. But only one at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's really very simple: Some editors have been misquoting sources repeatedly (again, take for example the whole "Polish puppet government" thing), so to make sure this wasn't the case with the already-present non-English sources I just searched through the article, checked which sources I don't have access to, and tagged those. If any editor can provide a quote and/or translation that established the cited claims, then do so and I'll be satisfied. If you'd rather I'd add them at a rate of, say, one every three days, so as not to stress yourselves (or whatever) I can do that as well.

@Volunteer Marek: You know full well that I've asked for quotes on the talk page more than once, and more often than not didn't get them. At any rate, when a quote is provided we might as well add it as an endnote in the article, so an edit will be warranted whether I tag it or not, so tagging isn't really adding work for anyone else. François Robere (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

When an English translation of a Polish text is needed, please email me the text (giving me a Wikipedia email alert) and indicate the required passage, and I'll try my hand at a translation and email it back.

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Social Self-Help collaboration?

The paragraph mentioning the Jewish Social Self-Help cites two sources: The first (Garbarini, 2011) gives general background. The second (Młynarczyk, 2009) claims some members of the JSS took part in the deportations from Warsaw. This isn't enough to cast the entire organization as collaborationist. Any other sources? François Robere (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

'Some members of the JSS took part in the deportations from Warsaw. This isn't enough to cast the entire organization as collaborationist'

Since only 10% of Blue Police collaborated, are you arguing this entity should be removed from this article? Also Mlynarczyk is a respectable well reliable source. Are you disputing Jewish Self Help collaborated with Nazi Germany? Can you present sources saying so?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you need an RS to make that claim. Second, even 10% of 15,000-20,000 is more than "some". Third, we have sourced calling the Blue Police collaborators. We don't have those for the JSS. François Robere (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jacek Andrzej Młynarczyk, Pomiędzy współpracą a zdradą. Problem kolaboracji w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie – próba syntezy, Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość: biuletyn Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej-this is a reliable scholary source. Are you claiming it isn't RS? And yes Mlynarczyk names JSS as collaborating with Nazi Germany. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a peer reviewed publication or an academic publisher, but a government run organization. A better source, if available, preferably in English, would be an improvement.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an academic journal that yes, receives state funding. It's a perfectly reliable source of high scholarly value. If you are claiming it isn't RS, feel free to take it to appropriate board for discussion. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Typically the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include, and I do not see sources presented or previous discussion on this source. One would assume there are English sources on the Jewish Social Self-Help - Holocaust history is a pretty well trodden path.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to claim this isn't a reliable source, feel free to do so on appropriate page.So far you haven't produced a single argument. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: First of all, I'd appreciate complete citations (ISBN/ISSN/DOI would be great), because as it is it makes locating the sources problematic. Second, I haven't seen him name the organization as collaborationist. Quote? François Robere (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote provided.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already seen the one in the article (Młynarczyk, 2009), if that's the one you're referring to. See comment above. François Robere (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand to about one million."

This statement has been attributed to a claim by a researcher.Do we have any more information on these numbers? On what basis does he claim one million? Does it include Ukrainian citizens of Poland, German citizens of Poland and Jewish collaborators as well ? I read on this talk page that actually this is based on Madajczyk. Is this correct?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's Friedrich's ref. I don't know how he reached his conclusion. François Robere (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC):: I

As I am pretty sure we discussed in the past, the million is sourced to Madajczyk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. François Robere-please confirm. Does your source use Madajczyk for these numbers?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It was, and it does. The exact citation is Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitik in Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: Annaherungen-Zblizenia (Dusseldorf, 1996), 146. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And Madajczyk according to this author claims 1 mln Polish collaborators, yes? Is that what your author claims? Please confirm.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is as it appears in the text, with two references - one to Lukas, the other to Madajczyk. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, this is becoming more confusing.First you said it is Madajczyk, now you are saying it is Lukas. Which is it then ? And does it claim Polish collaborators or collaborators in general?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The lower estimate is taken from Lukas, the highers from Madajczyk.

It says "Polish collaborators", doesn't it? François Robere (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You have to be precise, Polish can either mean ethnic Polish or citizens. Without distinction it is meaningless. But you are saying Madajczyk is sourced as source of the 1 million figure? That is highly unlikely because Madajczyk stated that only 5% of population(without dividing into ethnic groups like Jews, Germans, Poles) collaboratored in GG.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is.

Quote? François Robere (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits from the weekend

The weekend saw some 80 edits, about 15 of those mine. I'm not clear on some of the others:

• @Volunteer Marek: you marked this as "POV and OR", but it's all in the source. Friedrich makes a point of the peasantry being the class least injured by the occupation, and perhaps the only one whose economic situation actually improved because of it. Compare with the current phrasing, which uses "even" to suggest estimates that include the peasantry are biased. As for the Baudienst, he makes no suggestion that participation in an akzion was compulsory (and reason alone suggests searching Jews' homes has an element of willingness, as you're not obligated to report something you alone found), so the current phrasing is unduly suggestive. As for the last sentence (Connelly) - it repeats content from an earlier paragraph, so is redundant. Neither of this is "POV" or "OR".
• Here you claimed the tagging is "spurious" - is it? Could Witos had been instated as premier in a purely ceremonial fashion, sans cabinet? Yes. Does the source claim otherwise? No. So this should be edited.
• Again similar claims: first of all, that specific source only applies to Estreicher, so any generalization to other cases is contrived. Second, none of the sources actually claim the Germans "failed" in setting up a puppet government, and several sources suggest they never even tried. In both cases that claim is out of place.
• This has several issues: First, it seems to pull quotes from the source without context, resulting in odd suggestions like "the Poles' main motive [in being armed by the Germans?] was to gain intelligence on German morale and preparedness" (in fact, the sources speak of contacts in this context, not collaboration). Another example is "There were no known joint German-AK operations, and the Germans were unsuccessful in getting the Poles to fight exclusively the Soviet partisans" - that's kind of a stupid statement, isn't it? It either part of it was true, then the AK wouldn't have been a "resistance organization", but it is. Well, the first part is miss-quoted (originally: "at the Germans' behest") and out of context (persecution of Jews), and the second makes much more sense when read in context - that of eastern Poland under a murderous Soviet occupation. So all of that has to be rephrased.
• An IP editor hailing from Poland made several edits, some of which I later reverted.
• This has been discussed before. The population total gives the reader the impression the number of szmalcowniki was particularly small (and, by suggestion, that Warsaw Poles had certain attitudes that were unaccommodating to collaboration); however, you can't really know if the number of blackmailers in Warsaw was high or low without comparing it to other cities. You can also think of it this way: if every city in Europe had the same proportion of blackmailers (0.35%) as Warsaw, would it matter for the sake of the article what's Warsaw's total population? So there's an implicit suggestion here that has to be resolved.
• Another IP editor hailing from Poland made several edits [48]. I reverted some of the changes.

François Robere (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Francois, most if not all of these objections boil down to "the text or sources do not accord with my original research". A good example is your last bullet point. Does it give that impression or is that just your inference? And if it happens to give that impression, well, it's from the source, so what's wrong with that impression? And yes, your tags were spurious and not just borderline nitpicky - they're all "well, I think it could've been different so I'm going to tag the source because it doesn't use the precise wording I think it should use". That's not how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that it's all OR. Can you please tell me how the two source in that point connect? From what I see, the first source doesn't mention collaboration, and the second doesn't give population statistics, so they're really just two unrelated sources, and combining them constitutes synthesis. That much isn't OR, right? It's per policy, it doesn't reach new conclusions etc. etc. Just statements of fact. So now the question is "we've synthesized two unrelated sources - why?" (and here we're still talking about editorial considerations - our actions as editors, what they relay to the reader etc. - so that's not OR either) "What does this synthesis suggest to the reader?" What do you think? I think it implies a certain proportion of collaborators, otherwise why do we need the two numbers side by side if not for comparison? And if it implies a proportion, then it's the definition of OR ("...analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"). Correct?

(And all I've done here is a) make a statement of fact about the sources; and b) discuss editorial considerations, neither of which is OR.)

BTW I'm happy that you said that sources don't have to use an arbitrary "precise wording", because a while ago you complained the statement "As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel", appearing in an article titled "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust", doesn't actually imply "railroad personnel" are collaborators. At any rate, I have a new source that you should review.

Do you wish to continue with the other "OR" points (Estreicher, Friedrich, Radziłowski et al.), or can I restore my changes? François Robere (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Triumphal arches?

Regarding this edit: I only found one source mentioning this, and it's very recent (and I didn't find its references). Anything else? François Robere (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I will add this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, only that one doesn't cite a source and it doesn't seem to be quite RS in its own right, at least not enough to make such a claim. Do you have other sources? François Robere (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, there's a report of Poles doing the same (Tonini, Carla (2008). "The Polish underground press and the issue of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, 1939–1944". European Review of History: Revue europeenne d'histoire. 15 (2): 193–205. doi:10.1080/13507480801931119. ISSN 1469-8293. after Machcewicz and Persak, Woko´ ł Jedwabnego, Vol. 2: 130–47.). François Robere (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski, Snyder and definition of terms

• As I've said above I support the retention of Grabowski with the same rationale that I supported the retention of Ciechanowski. Controversiality is no grounds for exclusion. The solution is balance, and also making the effort to read the source closely to see balance inside the source. If you find Grabowski's criticism of the Polish record unpleasant, look closer and you'll see he is arguably rather measured on the Polish record in the Holocaust: I have seen him saying that 85% of the Jewish population was wiped out with nothing to do with with Poles whatsoever. If you think his figure of 200,000 Jews killed with at least some Polish involvement is as exaggeration, bear in mind that while it's a large number, the size of a small city, it's also ~3% of the total Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. You could ask yourself, given the most Jews lived in Poland, why doesn't he say that percentage was higher? Grabowski's own answer is that Germany, not Poland, was the author of the Holocaust and also that active Polish collaborators were few and far between. Perhaps some of us here need to read more before jumping to conclusions.

• Working towards consensus, Timothy Snyder is useful: "In 1943 the Home Army was even more concerned about communism than it was in 1942. ... Despite its promises to do so, the Home Army never organized a Jewish unit from the veterans of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Over the course of 1943, units of the Home Army sometimes shot armed Jews in the countryside as bandits. In a few cases, Home Army soldiers killed Jews in order to steal their property. On the other hand, the Home Army did execute Poles who turned in Jews or tried to blackmail them." Bloodlands p. 293

• Finally, and this may help bring stability to the article, we urgently need a definition of terms, starting with a mention of what collaboration is in the lede. A good paragraph on it should include the range of definitions, based on various historians' perspective. It is not Wikipedia's place to presume what the definition of collaboration is, we need verifiable sources to do so for us.

• To explain the rationale, and not for this article's content, the term collaboration was first used to describe the specificity of the Vichy French record in WWII, differentiating it from the Axis powers. French collaboration extended to a purportedly neutral French state making a written agreement with Germany, sending Jews to the German authorities, as well as killing American and British soldiers in combat. There has been massive inflation of the concept in amateur parlance since then. Arguably Bulgarian collaboration extended to the purportedly Axis Bulgarian state making a written agreement with Germany, helping German war aims in the Balkans, but not killing Soviet soldiers in combat and actually changing its policy to start saving Jews, in defiance of Germany. Meanwhile Soviet sources say the Americans collaborated with Germany by refusing to conduct D-Day in 1943, and given that more Soviets were killed than Jews in WWII, the general Soviet notion of collaboration has nothing to do with Jewish deaths; meanwhile the Soviets killed hundreds of Jews at Katyn, while in de facto alliance with Germany in 1940. If indifference or non-intervention is the definition of collaboration, then America is guilty of it for the first two years of the war. The first British shots of WWII were fired across Jews in the Tiger Hill, and during the Holocaust the British killed Jews in combat in the Mandate of Palestine: so if our given is that killing Jews is collaboration, then the absurd logic would be that Britain collaborated with Germany in the Holocaust, a formulation that nobody puts forward. This all needs to be clarified, for assumptions to be rooted out, which will help arguments to be cooled down.

• Some say it's a given that Polish killing of Jews is the definition of collaboration, even as collaboration in Poland entailed no state agreement with Germany and no military cooperation. Dozens of Jews were murdered in race crimes in Poland prior to WWII that had nothing to do with Germany, so that definition doesn't work for everyone. Snyder above speaks of the Polish Home Army soldiers' murder of Jews, and he does not name it as collaboration; for us to name it as such is touching on WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we need a good paragraph on a definition of the term showing that some historians don't specify Jew-killing in the absence of Germans is collaboration, other historians do. And that needs to be impeccably sourced.

Chumchum7 (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent points. Would you consider drafting an early section for this article on "Definition of collaboration"?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with "collaboration" as a term is that it is POVish by definition - it can be very narrow, or include Collaboration horizontale or even just nourishing the enemy - and as such, there are multiple sources defining "collaboration" in a different manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That very aspect needs to be spelled out—if nothing else. Nihil novi (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, and I made similar points earlier [49][50]. I have a dozen sources I want to put here on just this subject, but I know from experience that the section will get mangled in less than a day, just like it had in the past - we already had (short) explanations on historiography and semantics in a couple of places, but they were removed time and time again by other editors. We have a decent cadre of editors here, and I think the article can be made excellent; but we also have a handful of editors who habitually disagree on simple questions of fact (see "whitewashing" and "miscellaneous edits" above), and are no more friendly to abstract discussions like this. I'd be happy to work with you on this, I just don't think the text will last unless we can prevent disruptions like that. François Robere (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Dozens of Jews were murdered in race crimes in Poland - your source, please. In the infamous Przytyk pogrom two Jews and one Pole were killed.

The situation in Poland was complicated, Poles murdered Poles, Jews muredered, Jews, Jews murdered Poles. Selecting murdering of Jews is cherrypicking.Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) you have misunderstood. One argument why some Polish killing of Jews might not be defined as 'collaboration' for the purposes of this article (and should therefore be excluded from it) is that the killing of Jews was happening before the German arrival in Poland (on a microscopic scale compared to what Germany undertook, and in incomparable circumstances). Killing Jews is evidently not the universally accepted definition of collaboration. There are many formulations. Therefore we need several sourced definitions of the term in an early paragraph, and a mention of this issue of the scope of the term in the lede. Chumchum7 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There were pogroms in Szczuczyn and Kolno in 1941 without German participatiion.Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Section on definition of collaboration should go to the Collaboration with Axis Powers articles. Or, better, to the article on collaboration. In subarticles like this we should at best have a short summary note saying that definitions differ. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there adequate discussion of the meaning of "collaboration" in the article on "collaboration in German-occupied Poland" right now? It is crucial to define the term that the article is about. Nihil novi (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. All that's required is a paragraph, but it is essential. It also needs to clarify whether Germany's auxiliary troops from Russia, Azerbaijan, Hungary etc stationed in Warsaw 1944 were collaborators or something else. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

they were still "Polish" in at least the geographic sense

Please check your maps 1940-1944, I don't see any Poland there. World leaders moved Poland in 1945, so there was obviously no consensus regarding the geographic sense.

Volksgermans declared they were German.Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether there is a Poland on the map or not is irrelevant. Even if there were not, that doesn't mean that everybody that lived in what had become annexed Poland wasn't Polish. Countries (and national identities, which is what is being discussed here) don't cease to exist just like that, especially as a result of an annexation. If we were to follow this logic, one could argue that the German minority which lived in Poland at the time (before the country was annexed) was not in any way German because they were living in Poland, and hence it would be wrong to say there was even a German minority, since they were all Polish...

That argument, obviously, falls flat. As a matter of national or ethnic identity, then yes it's possible to be Polish without the country of Poland existing, in the same way that it's possible to be German without actually living in Germany. As for this particular situation, some of the conscripts were indeed part of the German minority, some were not (some were forced into signing the Volksliste), etc... Thus, we need a term which includes all of these, and the only one is "Polish", in the geographic sense. Q.E.D. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In the same way, there was a "Polish government-in-exile" without there technically being a Poland for it to govern. Should we rename that page to "Government-in-exile of the former Polish citizens"? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

People still spoke the Polish language and practiced the Catholic faith. Those who signed a Deutsche Volksliste, often reverted to their Polish identification post-war - being offered rehabilitation and citizenship if they spoke Polish - avoiding Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you use Polish nationalistic definition of Polish people, one of many. It's POV.

Please reference the geographic sense. Please don't impose you language and your POV.

People who declared to be German, didn't accept the government-in-exile.

Some people were terrorized and declared German nationality. Such terror was illegal. Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That is irrelevant and we don't care about it - this page isn't a discussion of Nazi war crimes. The signatories of the Volksliste were Poles (in the sense "People living in Poland") and some were conscripted (by force) by the Germans. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If "where a person lives" defines identity, then the German occupation forces in Poland were also "Polish". Nihil novi (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Straw man. I never referred to the occupation forces, and they are a special case anyway since they are military forces. Tell me, are American soldiers in Afghanistan American or Afghan? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

[Polish]: "of, relating to, or characteristic of Poland, the Poles, or Polish". Please, cite a source which says that there was no "Poland" (in any form) during WWII, since this is what is necessary to establish there were no "Poles" (and for it not to be OR). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In English - Poles and Polish would typically refer to the ethnic sense (this, I believe, conflicts with the Polish language use) - not to the government. Defining based on the government of exile (which was not recognized by all nations) would lead to Polish communists being defined as non-Polish, for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually, yes. It can also, and non-controversially, be defined as being people residing in Poland (example, people residing in Canada are "Canadian" no matter their ethnic background (of course, usually it's clearly mentioned if they have a certain ethnic background), and people residing in Poland would all be Polish in that sense) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The conflict in WW2 Poland had uniquely and intensively ethnic character and describing groups, victims and perpertrators based on citizenship alone wouldn't allow for its precise description.Researchers and historians clearly do divide the groups based on ethnicity in order to describe the events that took place during this period. Hence we have historians writing about "German Selbstschutz", "Jewish partistans" and dividing victims of Holocaust into ethnic categories like Poles and Jews(interestngly Szymon Datner points out that some of those who were classified as Jewish victims, never identified as Jews, and were captured by Nazis on basis on old genealogical records from synagogues, even if their whole life they identified as Poles and had no connection to Jewish society).Describing for example Selbstschutz as "Polish organization" would terribly misleading as it consistent of Ethnic Germans hunting down Poles and Jews as part of Nazi extermination plans, even if they held Polish citizenship. In case of Wehrmacht the situation is more nuanced, as not all those who subscribed to Volksliste were Germans, and some were forced to serve, others signed hoping to avoid repressions.The background and the complex situation of those involved should be described.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen. Nihil novi (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So, because people ethnically identify as "not Polish", then they cannot be identified as "Polish" even if they were citizens of Poland before the war? That is an accepted sense of the word, and in English it is only one of many possible senses, and in the context of the article (precisely, the "Poles in the Wehrmacht" section) it is clear that the sense being referred to is the "citizenship" or "lived there" sense of the word, therefore it is unambiguous and it does not imply that the Polish citizens were ethnic Poles. Also, the article clearly states that many were forced into it, saying that "the scale of this phenomenon was much larger than previously assumed". Given that this was a mixed group - unlike the Selbstschutz (and that it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming majority - i.e., Poles forcibly conscripted in the Wehrmacht do not seem to constitute a negligible minority of all pre-war Polish citizens which were conscripted in the Wehrmacht), we need to apply the name that fits the group the best, and this is, as already argued, "Polish", in the clearly understood (from the context of the article) citizenship or geographic sense. Therefore, according to this, there is no need for a change. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Polish can mean ethnic Poles and this could be confusing. Polish citizens would be better.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Already in the article. "can mean", not "must mean", and it is clear from context and from what is already in the article that we are referring to "Polish citizens", not "ethnic Poles". Therefore, better be concise - section titles should be as short as reasonably possible, further details go in the section itself. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Poles can mean ethnic Poles, which is wrong as none of them were.Polish citizens is more precise. Why are you opposing changing the title to something that avoids confusion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it doesn't improve the article? Because we should maintain consistency between articles (the current article linked in the section being Poles in the Wehrmacht)? Because "Poles" can mean "Polish citizens" which is obviously the non-confusing meaning being used (it is only ambiguous if it is not further defined in the article, however the first sentence of the section clearly says that it covers "Polish citizens")? If you want to change to section title, then the corresponding article needs to be moved to that title too, for consistency. As such, I strongly suggest that if you wish to go forward, you use the appropriate procedure.

And if you wish to reinstate your edit, you will have to bring new arguments, because you have so far failed to achieve consensus that the title is inappropriate. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

" Following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, many former citizens of the Second Polish Republic from across the Polish territories annexed by Nazi Germany were forcibly conscripted into the Wehrmacht" ------------ The title should read --} "Former Polish citizens in the German Wehrmacht."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:110f:4505:dc00:150a:272e:6d5:793a (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Many of the Poles in the Wehrmacht were Polish in the ethnic sense. They signed a Deutsche Volksliste during the war, but after the war were rehabilitated as Polish citizens due to their ethnicity and Polish language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Poles were illegally drafted, victims of a crime aren't criminals.

Ethnic Germans run away or were expelled after the war.

The Poles who joined Waffen were considered traitors. [51] Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Victims of a crime aren't criminals" - nowhere is it said, anywhere in the article, that the Poles (ethnic or otherwise) who fought in the Wehrmacht were criminals. Your argument lacks pertinence and is a straw man. The other 2 sentences are similarly off topic, the section is not about the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), nor is it about Poles in the SS, so again this lacks pertinence.

As a reminder, the issue at hand is the section title (and, inherently, the title of the linked article). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

People who left Poland after the war because of their collaboration weren't exactly Polish.

Wehrmacht service was exteremely unpopular in Poland and some people believe that it was the reason why Donald Tusk lost in 2005.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF has Donald Tusk to do with this? (i.e. stay on topic) And, a fact which we already established, most Poles in the Wehrmacht were actually conscripted in it against their will. We don't need to have an opinion on whether the Nazis committed a crime (yes), we just need to state: there were (ethnic and non-ethnic) Poles, usually forced into it (except maybe for the minority ethnic Germans who were Polish citizens at the time), who served in the Wehrmacht. And we are again not talking of the period after the war, I just linked it to show it wasn't related to this.

Get. Back. On. Topic! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Judenrat - when?

First ghettos were created and only later Judenrats. It should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Execution of collaborators: Judicial, extra-judicial, or judicious?

This appears in lead. The latter was the first version used, and I restored it, as one editor suggested the underground's executions were extra-judicial. Anyone? François Robere (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't get into it. Just say "executed by". The question of whether this was judicial depends on the legitimacy of the underground movement in question, and due process in whatever proceeding they used (some sort of in absentia judgement (issuing a death warrant) or quick trial of captured individuals) - whatever term you use will be riddled with POV problems - so it is better not to get into it at all.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly prefer not to, but others have been restoring that to the lead... François Robere (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not "judicious". That was a linguistic mistake. "Executed" works, and reflects the Snyder quote above. Chumchum7 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Per above (by my tally, including myself, 4 for and naught against), removed the word "judicially" from the corresponding sentence in the lead, "During and after the war, the Polish State and resistance movement judicially executed treasonous collaborators." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7:@Icewhiz:@François Robere: Should we remove "treasonous" too? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer adding attribution - e.g. "what they saw as". I think we should be cautious in accepting such political verdicts as wikifact (the verdicts yes, the merits no) - and particularly when done by underground/resistance courts and by the communist regime. I do not think we should remove treason, and endoring the collaborater verdict in our voice has the same effect as treason.Icewhiz (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should. "Treason" in the legal context is a very particular term, which doesn't necessarily describe the sort of crimes they persecuted (both in contemporary and WWII Poland terms), and I'm not sure they themselves actually used it. My stance here, like in several other cases raised here, is to start with the minimally acceptable description of fact, and develop it over time as more and more sources are acquired. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of policemen in pre-war Poland and the implication for the Blue Police section

17,000 policemen in a country of ~30m people is about one policemen per 1,765 people, which is very low [52]. Assuming there were more than 17,000 policemen in pre-war Poland, we need to watch out phrasing to avoid suggesting that the entirety of Polish Police was conscripted to the Blue Police, unless we have sources to the contrary. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

17,000 policemen in a country of ~30m people is about one policemen per 1,765 people Sigh...It is unfortunate how often editors most active in articles demonstrate lack of knowledge on the subject. Blue Police only existed on territory of General Gouvernment which had around 13mln people(constantly changing due to population movements during the war).Pre-war Polish Police had 33,000 policemen. Blue Police was really a token force. The main force in charge of keeping order in GG were stationed German soldiers(circa 400,000 on territory of GG), German police and SS(circa 50,000), and German administrative staff(around 400,000 as well).On studies carried out in regards to the occupation and collaboration GG and Polish territories annexed to Germany are usually treated somewhat seperate as both had different legal and administrative aspects.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You misread. The problem I raised was that the old text implied that all Polish policemen were drafted into the Blue Police, when it's clear it wasn't the case. You agree. Good! François Robere (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

About 3,000 policemen died in September 1939. About 6,000 policemen were imprisoned by Soviets and murdered by NKVD as part of the Katyn massacre. The majority of them was imprisoned in Ostashkov camp, murdered in Tver and buried in Ukraine [53]. It's estimated that generally 12,000 Polish policemen (the number includes the 6,000 killed) were imprisoned by the Soviets, some of them in Gulag camps.

Polish policemen living in GG were drafted. it's clear you make here OR and speculate. Please quote your sources that the former policemen weren't terrorized by Germans. Please name one country where policemen refused to work.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no OR here. Most RS consider the Blue Police as collaborators, and that's that. Everything else should be mentioned in the relevant articles, if it isn't already. François Robere (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The above numbers are available here [54]. The total number was 33,000 , about 800 of them run away to Romania.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Following several disruptive edits by IP editors I've asked the page to be partially protected. I also asked for a "sockpuppet" investigation. In the meanwhile, can we now declare edits like this [55][56] "disruptive"? I've worked several hours on a series of about 20 edits [57], in addition to a previous revision of the "political collaboration" section and some changes to the "background" section, and Marek here decides he doesn't like it, so instead of reading through the changes he'll just all of them in bulk. Notice that most of the statements I added to the text include not only exact references, but also quotes from those references, so no can say "I didn't see it in the source". Also note how the revision tries to keep to the consensus on anything from Grabowski to the JSS; the only opinions I ignored are those that refused to engage on points, those that merely made general accusations, or those that were not supported by RS, or all three.

I welcome anyone to review and criticize any of my edits (today's starting with this one). Looking at other editors' recent work (Piotrus, Nihil novi, Pauli133 and Icewhiz) it seems we're approaching a stable version, and should stay the course. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the pp-protected template (e.g. [58]) does not seem constructive, nor do large scale reversions to a far back past version without addressing any particular point (beyond "whole bunch of questionable POV edits"), reverting what seems to be a few different editors.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above, and you are now edit warring as well. Also it does not matter what others do, we judge you in isolation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz was referring to Marek's edits, Slatersteven, not mine. François Robere (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Your attention to procedure is remarkable, Slatersteven, but it would be nice if you also took notice of content.

Marek's edits from tonight:

1. Undoes my work in bulk [59]. No comments on specific edits, sources or anything. Again note I've included page numbers and quotes for all of the sources that were previously misrepresented.
2. Restores a statistic about rescuers; this and similar statistics have been removed multiple times from both this and the parent article, by multiple editors [60]
3. Restores section on Grabowski that's been removed by multiple editors [61]
4. Restores a sentence that's Bella's distortion of a source I added (originally with quote), that I had to fix multiple times because she kept changing it [62]

All of these are either contrary to the sources or to the consensus, or both, and all of this has been discussed ad nauseum on these pages. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing "disruptive" about my edits. You made a whole lot of POV and controversial changes and squeezed these in in between many minor ones. If you had taken care to get consensus for you edits - which include removal of well sourced info, changing the wording to something which doesn't match sources etc. - then this wouldn't be a problem. Your claims of misrepresented sources are pretty much like your previous WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT tag bombing of the article when you couldn't get consensus for your edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And if I'm not mistaken your above claims of "multiple editors" is just a fancy way of seeing "me and Icewhiz", with perhaps some reverts thrown your way by an IP account or two.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If there isn't anything disruptive with them, then where were you at these discussions? [63][64] You shouted "POV" then went off, without proving anything, and you still haven't. "Removal of well sourced info"? Give me one example of that! "POV edit"? "Changing wording to something which doesn't match sources"? Examples, come on. The onus is on you - I gave plenty of examples already, and this revision also includes quotes. A lot of quotes. [65]

Oh, and other editors have been involved as well. Piotr recently removed a whole paragraph with those numbers. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Done and resolved, no point in inciting further discussion

1. Rename section "Jewish Holocaust" to "The Holocaust" - an unneeded precision 2. In that same section, "and his estimate was been criticized" to "has been criticized".198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I believe I took care of both of these already in my edit (which FR called "disruptive").Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Edit requests are supposed to be uncontroversial (which they were, ergo there's no point in making unrelated claims). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10