Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Some suggestions

I want to revisit some edits I previously suggested. I've been away from Wikipedia for the last three weeks and am still preoccupied, so I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later.

Previous discussion

First, the easiest: We have an RfC stating that Poland's ambassador is not an RS on the subject, and that the content of his criticism isn't reliable in the "RS" sense, so we shouldn't quote it. We can say he criticized Grabowski, but going into numbers or "who said what" is too detailed for something that an RfC explicitly states isn't an RS. We can have criticisms here by RS, but mind they should be concise - we already have a huge section in another article dedicated to similar criticisms of Grabowski, and we don't need another one here. I think we should consider a section on war profiteering. We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies, and they weren't the only one - some aristocracy, businesspersons, industrialists etc. likely profited as well, and of course there's the looting of Jewish property and the despicable "golden harvest". Assuming proper sourcing, do you think we should have such a section here, or should we spin it off to its own article? I think the sections should be reordered, and I suggest the following: Background Political collaboration Security forces Baudienst Individual collaboration Cultural collaboration Collaboration and the resistance The Holocaust Ethnic minorities The rationale here is grouping everything "state" in the beginning, then moving to everything that's individual by nature, and finally to the meta-subject of the Holocaust, and to minorities. It's not ideal, but it's better than the current arrangement. There are issues with the current structure that are beyond reordering alone: the "individual" section is unclear (what's "individual" and what's not? We should either redefine the kind of collaboration it covers or break it up and integrate the parts in other sections); "ethnic" is problematic (do we really want grouping by ethnicity here? It's easy, but it's not necessarily right); the "political" section should be split in two (see the rationale above); and the Holocaust section, which is a massive part of the subject, should probably be pushed elsewhere and better integrated with the rest of the article; but for now, simply reorganizing the sections would be a significant improvement. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC) I think we have discussed this ad infinitum and would rather it was not all gone over again, nothing has changed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Have we? I don't recall anyone making a reasoned reply to #1 and #3, and #2 I'm raising here for the first time. Trust me that if any of this was properly discussed I wouldn't have raised it again, just like I haven't raised any of the other issues that we already settled. And I would like your opinion. François Robere (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Then raise them separately.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Would it make them more readable then they already are?... François Robere (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC) To a degree, but mainly I would not have to wrote "agree to one, disagree with two, unsure about 3 (ect).Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Giving due weight to a non-RS

We have an RfC stating that Poland's ambassador is not an RS on the subject, and that the content of his criticism isn't reliable in the "RS" sense, so we shouldn't quote it. We can say he criticized Grabowski, but going into numbers or "who said what" is too detailed for something that an RfC explicitly states isn't an RS. We can have criticisms here by RS, but mind they should be concise - we already have a huge section in another article dedicated to similar criticisms of Grabowski, and we don't need another one here.

If it is not RS it gets no weight, this was said last time nothing has changed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet we're still quoting him in relative detail:

According to statements by Poland's ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch... "Grabowski admitted that the number of fugitives from the ghettos, 250,000, is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's writings. Grabowski simply accepted the maximum number of ghetto escapees suggested by Datner but rejected Datner's estimate of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski, if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion, only 50,000) from the number of fugitives, you get 200,000. Grabowski therefore stated this number as Jews murdered by Poles."

If he's not an RS, then his methodological criticism is meaningless as far as we're concerned, and should be removed. François Robere (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we can quote an RS quoting him, but not him. But I am not fussed if it is removed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Remove: undue opinion & per the RfC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with removal, provided this criticism is retained in the article about the book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding a section on war profiteering

I think we should consider a section on war profiteering. We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies, and they weren't the only one - some aristocracy, businesspersons, industrialists etc. likely profited as well, and of course there's the looting of Jewish property and the despicable "golden harvest". Assuming proper sourcing, do you think we should have such a section here, or should we spin it off to its own article?

Not sure this is collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not per se, but much of it was due to collaboration, so it wouldn't be out of line with the rest of the article. If we stick to examples that are due to collaboration (and not eg. smuggling of general goods), would it justify a section? François Robere (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What is your source that says any of this amounts to collaboration? Amsgearing (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of these clearly are - for example if you denounced a Jewish refugee in order to gain their possessions then you profited from collaboration. More familiar examples include corporations that supplied the Nazies, like IBM. Other cases, like looting properties owned by Jewish deportees, I wouldn't necessarily call "collaboration", even though they're on the same spectrum of phenomena. But anyway, as I said I'm not in a position at the moment to argue this in depth - I'm just looking for a decision on principal, on whether we should have a section on it if there are enough sources to support it. François Robere (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if RS says X was collaboration so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

One question: Some sources use the phrase "profited from" rather than "profiteered from", which is uncommon usage. I don't see it as a problem, but others would disagree. Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You could've just said, "I don't have any sources." Amsgearing (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't be arguing for it vigorously; but I hope we can agree on principle on these changes, and hammer out the details later... We already have a source stating that a certain class of people (farmers or villagers) benefited from the war economies In addition, there are a lot of sources on looting of Jewish property, denunciation of Jews for money, blackmailing (including of Jews hiding on one's own property) etc. etc., as these were quite common phenomena. What I don't have sources on ATM is more "traditional" examples of profiteering - industrialists, businesspersons etc., but I would be hard pressed to believe these didn't take place. François Robere (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: suggest integrating examples of actions by individuals into the "Individual collaboration" section to start with, and then see if the amount of content warrants its own section. Not sure about corporations. I've looked at War profiteering, and IBM etc. do not seem to fit the model. I.e. their German subsidiaries were part of the German industrial complex. In any case, they do not seem to have been "profiteering"; they were simply going about their business. Although perhaps the parent companies bear responsibility -- need to think about this more, or to be able to review some sources if offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This subject matter is not quite related to collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman your justification of IBM is bizarre, IBM was not profiteering just doing business... seriously. There are so many sources out there that describe what IBM as collaboration, here are just a few articles [1][2][3]. Btw, just looting property is not collaboration, there were many examples of looting, not just against Jews. It seems that you apply a double standard on the issue. This material is not related to collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, don't we already have references to "Szmalcowniks" who were the blackmailers and profiteers, in the Holocaust Section, why do you want to repeate the material on profiteering in the Individual Collaboration sections was well, that's undue weight. --E-960 (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No one said anything about repetition. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this should first be discussed in the article on collaboration with the Axis. A global overview should be created first, before we do something here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

[4]. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• @E-960: Profiteering is about making "unreasonable profits"; it's unclear whether IBM's profits were "unreasonable". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Rearranging sections as a step towards restructuring

I think the sections should be reordered, and I suggest the following:

1. Background
2. Political collaboration
3. Security forces
4. Baudienst
5. Individual collaboration
6. Cultural collaboration
7. Collaboration and the resistance
8. The Holocaust
9. Ethnic minorities

The rationale here is grouping everything "state" in the beginning, then moving to everything that's individual by nature, and finally to the meta-subject of the Holocaust, and to minorities. It's not ideal, but it's better than the current arrangement.

There are issues with the current structure that are beyond reordering alone: the "individual" section is unclear (what's "individual" and what's not? We should either redefine the kind of collaboration it covers or break it up and integrate the parts in other sections); "ethnic" is problematic (do we really want grouping by ethnicity here? It's easy, but it's not necessarily right); the "political" section should be split in two (see the rationale above); and the Holocaust section, which is a massive part of the subject, should probably be pushed elsewhere and better integrated with the rest of the article; but for now, simply reorganizing the sections would be a significant improvement.

François Robere (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support: this structure makes sense to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

NO — THIS IS FORUM SHOP, this discussion is nothing more than an attempt my François Robere to forum shop. Similar section order changes were already suggested a few weeks back and rejected here: [5] (see other disscussion still up on the talk page), where user François Robere tries to push a incorrect POV suggesting that the Polish State collaborated, and make that the opening section. So, user FR makes subtle changes to push the article in that direction, here are some past examples: he changed the section "Political collaboration" into "State collaboration" (placed it first in the order), and removed text to fit that narrative, such as changing "a group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians" to "a group of eight politicians", or re-naming the "Security forces" section which contained a sub-section on the Wehrmacht to "National Service". Other users such as User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Xx236 and User:Piotrus have in the past objected to this narrative. --E-960 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

E-960 your attitude is way beyond WP:AGF, and an admin already warned you (and others) against it [6]. You're assuming everything but good faith, and reading into things things that aren't there. If you recall, I also suggested renaming the section "state non-collaboration" and "state defiance", and I thoroughly explained why splitting the section in two makes sense. As for the "eight politicians" - we already quote a source stating they were low ranking in that very paragraph, so no material was removed - only duplicity. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly an example of Forum Shop, when you keep repeating the same proposals that were not accepted just a few weeks ago. The reason why originally Individual Collaboration was first is because this was the most prevalent form of collaboration in Poland, There was no State Collaboration, because the Polish State went into Exile and fought against the German Nazis, and Political Collaboration was minimal. That's why the order starts with individual collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, forum shopping is taking ti to multiple forums, but it can be seen as wp:tenditious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The suggestion hasn't been previously discussed ("I don't like it" is not a discussion), so I'm entitled to bring it again. Now, from what I can see we have two in support (maybe three, if Piotrus notices it), and one against. François Robere (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Individual Collaboration is first as originally placed in article because it was the biggers form of collaboration, Political Collaboration was minimal that's why it's second. You want to group everything by "State" despite the fact that in previous discussions several editors objected to your POV push, since there was no Polish state collaboration, and that does not change just because a couple of weeks later you reopened the disscusion, their voice is still valid desipte you and user Slatersteven trying to ignore earlier objections This is just an extension of those original discusions and you have no consensus. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually it was mostly arbitrary. You can see in this early revision that what we now have in that section was spread all across multiple sub-sections, and the "background" section (which is the first) actually contains the "political collaboration" material.

If there was no state collaboration, what's the problem with stating that first? François Robere (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you to drop this, that is all I am going to say on it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

To a degree, but not only after a couple of months. This can look like just asking and asking and asking until you bludgeon the opposition into submission, hence what I said above.

Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand. This is surely not my intention - I merely want one serious discussion to be conducted on this, just like other issues I previously raised (and haven't since re-raised). I'm content with whatever the consensus is, as long as actual discussion took place. BTW, do you have a position on this? François Robere (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We have had that serious discussion, and I see no reason why we need another so soon. It does not matter if this is a rearrangement (with a rewording) or not, the rewording has been rejected by consensus before. I am asking you to drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No one expressed any clear objections to re-arrangement until this discussion - only to re-wording, which is why I didn't re-raise it here. This is not a repetition of the previous discussion. At the moment we have two supporters and one objector - I'd rather let this run its course and see where we get. François Robere (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

And I would remind E-960 to AGF to bother to read what people write, ignoring what users say and attacking them for what you think they have said can also be seen as wp:tenditious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, if you did not support this option earlier, than I appologize. --E-960 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. A while ago changes to the structure were already discussed and rejected.I mentioned back then that scholars on the subject divided by General Gouvernment and annexed territories(IIRC Francois Robere back then didn't knew about existence of General Gouvernment and Annexed territories and I had to provide explanation). Basically due to different political and administration organization by German state the forms of collaboration and methods used by German state were different.We should go by what the scholars do and distinguish annexed territories from General Gouvernment-the two were different.Furthermore the proposed sections are giving undue weight to certain topics-for example collaboration of ethnic minorities was dominant form of collaboration but is shifted at the very bottom, while marginal entity like Baudienst which is even disputed as collaboration is given place at the top.Another example:we have some vogue security forces named which might imply wrongly that there was some Polish state operating.For these reasons I do not view the proposal as neutral or contributing to the value of the article. I seems to push forward attempts to reignite discussions that were already on this discussion page and have little to do with the overall scholarly study of the topic like the ones done by Czesław Łuczak or Madajczak--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You comments on the GG in both this and the other discussion is out of place, as my proposal has nothing to do with how article treats that distinction. In other words, you objection is to what is already in the article. As for the "ethnic minorities" section - I already said I do not like that distinction, and would rather incorporate it in the "individual collaboration" section - this should alleviate that worry. As for the "security forces" section - again, that's already present in the article. If you have objections to that, raise them in a different thread. François Robere (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

" do not like that distinction" Wikipedia should reflect scholarly sources not editor's personal symphathies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• @MyMoloboaccount, U, and E-960: I would appreciate if you could point me to the earlier discussion on this topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as a coherent structure organized in a logical manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz I note that you haven't expressed any detailed explanation for this?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Why for example is a small and insignificant entity mentioned as seperate chapter while much larger groups like Trawniki men absent ?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Short re-haul of Grabowski paragraph

This is getting long again [7]. This isn't an article about Grabowski!

Original:

In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles." (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing). The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians and by the Polish Antidefamation League. In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski. Grabowski's statements were criticized by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch. Historian Bogdan Musial criticized Grabowski's work as improperly sourced, lacking in witness statements and archival documents. Historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote in her review that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research. Also, historian Grzegorz Berendt, a member of the Jewish Historical Institute, stated that Grabowski's claim of 200,000 Jews was "hot air" and wrote that it was difficult to accept Grabowski's claim as correct. Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'."

Suggestion:

In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles" (In a later interview with the Gazeta Wyborcza, he clarified that this number included cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths though the Germans did the actual killing). The book won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize but sparked controversy in Poland, and the estimate was criticized by some historians, by the Polish Antidefamation League and by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, Jakub Kumoch. In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw, Poland, co-founded by Grabowski, and a group of international Holocaust scholars published letters defending Grabowski. Piotr Zaremba of Rzeczpospolita wrote that: "Grabowski... has difficulty demonstrating, in his journalistic statements, that every Jew who escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'."

The above keeps all the references, but strips away most of the quotes. Alternatively, we can remove most of the refs and just add a {{main}} pointing to Hunt for the Jews#Controversy. François Robere (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Good catch with this section. I'd suggest it should be removed entirely. Grabowsk's number, in addition be being controversial and disputed, is about killing Jews. Killing Jews was not always collaboration. A greedy peasant murdering a Jewish refugee to steal his purse was just an opportunist war profeetering criminal, not a collaborator. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It was performed in light and in advancement (direct or indirect) of the Nazi agenda (in fact, the title of one of the critiques is "The Polish people weren't tacit collaborators"). The context of the research ("Judenjagd") is also of collaboration. I submit that whether you agree this is collaboration or "just" complicity, it belongs here as long as we don't a separate article on the latter. We should keep it brief, though. François Robere (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The main context of the Judenjagd is German terror, not collaboration. The collaboration is rather Grabowski's opinion which contradicts his own research.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A matter for further debate (personally I think that collaboration requires direct contact; so if one Pole informed the Germans on a Jew in hiding, he was a collaborator; if he just killed the Jew himself, he was not a collaborator, through he was complicit in a Holocaust; i.e. I'd argue that not all Holocaust perpetrators where Germans or their collaborators), but for now I've shortened the paragraph, since we both agree on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with user:Piotrus, reference to Grabowski should be removed all together, his work is controversial and not universally accepted. Otherwise lengthy explanations for both arguments are needed. But, there is no consensus to just removing all statements which explain the objections to Grabowski's figures. --E-960 (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There's not consensus regarding removal either. I think Piotrus's revision was good enough for the time being. We can link to the relevant section as well. Remember - this isn't an article about Grabowski! François Robere (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You cited in the edit summary WP:NPOV - Grabowski's statement is attributed, and we mention the main criticism with three references; this is enough to satisfy neutrality requirements - we don't have to go into methodological details by both sides. As for Grabowski being "controversial" - his supporters from within the field, both in and outside of Poland, far outweigh his detractors. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Piotrs-killing Jews doesn't necessarily mean collaboration with Nazi Germany.Also Borkowicz in his analysis of the numbers points out that they must include people dying from hunger, cold and natural reasons while in hiding[8] and the number covers anyone whose fate is unknown--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC).

Wikipedia policy and guidelines actually makes it very simple: If Grabowski doesn't refer to the Polish killing of Jews as collaboration, then the source has no place in this article. If he does refer to it as such, then he has a place in this article regardless of whether he is controversial or not. That fact that he is controversial would be stated with references to sources. If he has a fringe or minority view, then that would be stated too, with references to sources. François Robere, if you can give me a line of Grabowski that includes the word collaboration, then I may well support you to the hilt; if you are unable to, then I cannot. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It's OR.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A summary of the recent book estimates the number of Jewish victims of Poles to be 40,000. If you quote 200,000 why don't you quote much better sourced 40,000? Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski refers to Judenjagd - organized Jew hunts by the Germans in which Poles participated - collaboration.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

We all know that Grabowski isn't author known for his neutrality and objectivity to say it lightly, I suggest using authors that are more neutral, like Datner or Madajczyk--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski is recognized worldwide as one of the leading researchers in field. Criticism of him has been mainly limited to nationalists in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

The number of "bad" Poles

I found Paulsson's statement in which he states that the number of "bad" Poles most probably amounted to around 20,000. https://isurvived.org/4Debates/paulsson_supplement.html Mat0018 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I note that section on collaboration with Soviets is missing

Currently the article is only covering information on collaboration with Germans in German occupied Poland, but there were also groups collaborating with Soviets on these territories as well and preparing for Soviet rule.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As the PRL is viewed as a legitmate government of Poland, association with it or its precursor is not viewed as collaboration by politically neutral sources. The same applies to areas ceded by the PRL following allied agreement in Yalta/Postdam.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this article can't cover areas after Potsdam or in PRL since this is not the topic of this article, and one seldom states about PRL that there was collaboration. There was however collaboration with Soviets and I hope your comment doesn't mean that The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland edited by Antony Polonsky, Joanna B. Michlic isn't a politically neutral source, since it has a section titled "Polish collaboration with Soviets". There certainly was collaboration with Soviets in General Gouvernment in various forms.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Likewise Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces by Tadeusz Piotrowski has a section on collaboration with Soviets,parts of which include collaboration with Soviets on German occupied areas.

Since these are reliable sources, I am sure the topic of Soviet collaboration is perfectly valid as long it concerns the article area in question.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing the Polish Workers' Party and Gwardia Ludowa in this manner is a slippery slope - by the same token one could say the Home Army collaborated with the Allied powers (who hosted the government in exile, provided some supplies, parachuted in officers). There is a distinction between collaboration with the occupier under occupation and support for a faction supportive of the allies/communists while under Nazi occupation - this article (and similar collaboration articles) deals with collaboration with the occupier.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you no longer stand by the claim that only non-neutral sources talk about collaboration with Soviets.Since Soviet Union occupied Poland in 1939 it was not part of the Allies for several years. You will be also happy to know that the scholarly sources in question cover different organizations from the ones you named.And to clarify this is in regards to the area of German occupation, not Soviet one.Also please remember that while we al have our personal views, the articles need to reflect scholarly sources; and these clearly mention Soviet collaboration--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really. While The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland (a collection of translated Polish responses intended to study the varied Polish response to Jedwabne - said responses are not peer reviewed and are meant to study the inner Polish debate) contains a newspaper item by a well known ethnonationalist with collaboration in the title, the introduction to the section (actually written by Polonsky and Michlic - and the portion here that is academic) says The term "collaboration" is a loaded one and is of questionable use in analyzing .... Then quoting Pinchuk saying this is problematic at best and misleading at worst. Discussing verbiage of zydokomuna supporters is out of scope for this article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised at your comment. The topic in question has little to do with Jews at all and issue of Polish collaboration with Soviets is described in section by Anna Bikont who is hardly "ethnonationalist" being a journalist from liberal Gazeta Wyborcza.It seems we are talking about completely two different things.I have a feeling you are talking about collaboration with Soviets in occupied Eastern Poland, rather than clandestine collaboration of communists in German occupied Poland which this article is about--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Polish Wikipedia article on collaboration with Soviet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Collaborationism

Just a heads up to the regulars, this rather important wikilink in the lede Collaborationism does not even mention Poland and defines collaboration as cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime - (is that description accurate for the topic of this article?) Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this talk page is about this article, not that one..Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. An introductory article to a topic doesn't have to list every subject in that topic. As for the definition - we've had several discussions on the exact definition, including sources mentioned in that article. François Robere (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

PPR/GL denunciations

Regarding this par.:

1. I don't like it that we have this indeterminate form: "they did". Was it over a period of time, or on a single occasion? We should add "at one time" or "overall" to suit the case.
2. The paragraph starts with PPR/GL snitching on AK - their rivals - and ends with PPR/GL getting a Communist printer - one of their own - shut down. Can anyone check the source and verify the identity of the informer and the affiliation of the victim?

François Robere (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Both references list a number of historians who study the problem. Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

[9]

[10]Xx236 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

And they give what answers? François Robere (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Common informants

Many Poles informed Germans either to obtain some bonus (food) or incognito, as vengeance. They informed about hiding Jews, underground activities, crimes like illegal raising of pigs. The Home Army checked and destroied post adressed to German police.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So what do you wish to add?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have just realised that such common collaboration is ignored. References are needed.Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

http://www.polska1918-89.pl/pdf/komorka-pocztowa-p,4674.pdf The text is 21 pages long. Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Deutsche Post Osten and Home Army censoring letters to Gestapo.Xx236 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Kalkstein and Kaczorowska - sourcing

@Xx236: - you added text on Kalkstein and Kaczorowska. For starters, I don't think this needs a sub-heading (could perhaps deserve a sentence somewhere - maybe - not sure). But the reason I'm speaking up is the sourcing restriction on this page (see the top of this page) - and I'm quoting - "Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.". You added this without a source at all. Do you have a high-quality, preferably English, source backing this up? Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, do you have any idea about the subject? It's basic and I don't know why it's not described here, parallely to common informing Gestapo, see above. It's probable that the two helped to catch Grot-Rowecki, which negatively influenced situation of hiding Jews (Zimmermann). There was also Świerczewski in the network. No, I don't have sources in English. Kalkstein participated in catching probably of 500 underground members. I don't think your rules are more important than basic facts, ignored here since ages. Xx236 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW - is the ghetto post described somewhere? The Jews had probably some limited possibility to send letters, even to Switzerland. Xx236 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This should have a source. I am aware of the Grot-Rowecki claim. Problem is that sourcing that I see here is mainly to very marginal sources (though possibly I am missing something). As for mail from the ghetto - that probably varied per locale and time (e.g. - see this for Lodz - but how is that relevant to this article. Unless you have a good source for Kalkstein and Kaczorowska - I would take them out of here (though perhaps you can put Kalkstein in the see also). Much of the sourcing Kalkstein goes back to a FRINGE source that is specifically criticized for this content - "Contrary to what he writes, there is no documentary evidence as to when or how Grot-Rowecki ded or of what happened to his body. The study also contains numerous factual errors and misprints. Space does not allow this reviewer to enumerate all of them.[11] Other sources I see for this are various low-quality pulp publications. Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

David G. Williamson The Polish Underground 1939-1947, page 103Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

https://pamiec.pl/pa/teksty/artykuly/13916,KALKSTEIN-I-KACZOROWSKA-W-SWIETLE-AKT-UB.html Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Zimmermann The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 (you have quoted the book)Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Why was it that only helping Jews scared them?

Any sources regarding only? According to Frydel the Nazi terror system controlled Jews, Roma, POWs, even any newcomers. Are you able to prove that Poles died eagerly helping Roma?

People help people similar tothem, so Orthodox Jews speaking poor Polish had little chance to obtain help from Polsih peasants. Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What passage are you referring to?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Donat

Alexander Donat lived in Warsaw ghetto and later in concentration camps. What is the source of his expertise in Polish behaviour under Nazis? His son was rescued by Poles. Oh those nasty Poles.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The same as most of the sources here, talking to people?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't hiding. He wasn't talking to Poles, because he was inside the ghetto. If he repeats opinoion of other people, it's hearsay rather systematic academic research. Some Poles offered their security to save his son. Not enough? How much is enough?Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

He also did not die in 1945.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Unwanted Collaborators

https://www.academia.edu/1514376/Unwanted_Collaborators_Leon_Koz%C5%82owski_W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_Studnicki_and_the_Problem_of_Collaboration_among_the_Polish_Conservative_Politicians_in_World_War_II Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes this paper exists.Slatersteven (talk)

I hope I don't understand you because of my poor English.Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Then what else are you trying to say other then "this exists"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking to intelligent and cooperative editors.Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NO, you posted a link without explanation, I am trying to guess what you want answered. Care to actually make a point rather then just post a random link without explanation?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Link 108 unsourced

It's from Pomiędzy współpracą a zdradą. Problem kolaboracji w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie – próba syntezy by Młynarczyk. Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be correctly cited, and not just be a wall of text.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

cite quotes

Help when they are brief and give a better understanding of what the cite is saying, they are over used and overly long here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Also quotes that are not in English (not matter how short) are of no use, we are an English language encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Paper by Piotr Madajczyk

https://www.academia.edu/4003043/Bedeutung_und_Nutzen_des_Begriffs_.Kollaboration_f%C3%BCr_Forschungen_%C3%BCber_die_Zeitgeschichte_Polens Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) If you wish to see if a source is suitable for inclusion the correct place is RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Collaboration in German-occupied Poland's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "google":

• From Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust: Richard C. Lukas (1989). Out of the inferno: Poles remember . University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813116929 – via Google Books.
• From Demographic history of Poland: Jerzy Lukowski, Hubert Zawadzki, A Concise History of Poland, Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-55917-0, Google Print, p.6

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski

I'd like to move the discussion regarding Grabowski's 200,000 claim over from User talk:Paul Siebert to the actual article talk page. I also reverted User:Piotrus changes as they need further discussion.

I would argue that quoting Grabowski's 200,000 is problematic, because there were legitimate objections by other historians about his claims, for example historian Shimon Redlich stateded that the careless "claim of 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews seeking shelter among the Polish populace", which according to Redlich cannot be extrapolated to the whole country based on one single area or historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research; for example, by not trying to contact the families of Jewish survivors from Dąbrowa Tarnowska, or the Poles who hid them. Samsonowska argues that, by using broader resources, she could identify 90 Jews who had survived the war in hiding in Dąbrowa County, as opposed to the 38 cited by Grabowski. Yet, Grabowski is cited as an be-all end-all reference, however the debate about the involvement of Poles and the actual numbers is still going on, Grabowski is just one side of the debate, not the undisputed authority. --E-960 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• If anything I would remove the direct reference to Grabowski, and re-write the section in a general voice, and note the wider debate about Polish involvement and the debate about the actual numbers, and open this discussion to other editors who in the past debated the issue of Grabowski on this very page such as MyMoloboaccount or Volunteer Marek because I don't think it was the correct approach to re-open this discussion on a user talk page first. --E-960 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This is what I find most troubling about Grabowski's claim page 2-3 — quote directly taken from his book "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." This is highly speculative statement using words such as "assume" or "could reach", yet user Piotrus re-wrote the section to make it sound like the 200,000 figure is based on hard research. --E-960 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

One can assume that the number was 10,000 or 1,000,000. A serious estimate by Borkowski gives 40,000. Why isn't the serious "40,000" quoted, and why is the fantastic "200,000" quoted? To prove that Wikipedia is biased and based on lies? Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Patterns of Jewish Collaboration

https://www.academia.edu/3881105/_Przeciw_swoim_Wzorce_kolaboracji_%C5%BCydowskiej_w_Krakowie_i_okolicy_Zag%C5%82ada_%C5%BByd%C3%B3w_-_Studia_i_materia%C5%82y_Rocznik_naukowy_Centrum_Bada%C5%84_nad_Zag%C5%82ad%C4%85_%C5%BByd%C3%B3w_IFiS_PAN_Nr_2_2006_ss._202-220

Against One's Own: Patterns of Jewish Collaboration in Cracow and the Cracow Area. by Witold Medykowski. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your suggested edit it?Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an academic source, probably better than some already used. Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Who is Witold Medykowski? Its also in Polish, so again I ask what is it you want to use it for?Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There are people who read Polish.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So? you are supposed to cooperate. Its not an unreasonable question, and you really are supposed to answer. I have no choice but to say without knowing how you intend to use this (or without knowing who Witold Medykowski is) I cannot support the use of this source.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I know who Medykowski is and I know Yad Vashem.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I am asking you who they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Well over at RSN they have said that whilst academia.edu itself, "not reliable", stuff published thre maybe, if it appears in proper journals (this did it seems in Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały, and so may be an RS). Still unsure what you want to use it for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still unsure why do you ask about my motivation. This is an encyclopedia, we write pages. We don't analyse other editors.

"Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały" may be an RS, I bet they celebrate your acceptance. Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not asking for your motivation, I am asking what you want to use this for (read wp:v).Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

II have worked, I have found a reliable source. I'm unable to summarize the text in good English. What do you want from me?Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

An explanation of what edit you are suggesting, what do you want to source to it? Article talk pages are for discussing improvements, not to be a blog for posting links to interesting sites. That is what we are supposed to be doing, discussing how we can use this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wehrmacht is not a "security force"

Wehrmacht is an army.Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I do agree Wehrmacht was a military formation not a police force. --E-960 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The 200,000 war

One quotation of the 200,000 hoax is not enough. More and more pages are being attacked. "One can assume that" lies are lies, even if they are repeated 100 times.Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested edit?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone should solve the general problem of anti-Polish hate speach~in this Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it is not "Polish hate speech", and if that is your "suggested edit" I cannot agree.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And I cannot agree with you. Why doi you start such small-talk discussion? There are thousands of anti-Polish edits and almost none describing German crimes in occupied Poland. If it'sw not a war, what is it? Education, Wikipedia editing?Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not about German crimes in Poland, it is about Polish crimes in Poland. You have failed to identify one anti-polish edit that needs changing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand the problem, so you support my opinion in extremal form. The majority of crimes during the Judenjagd were results of German terror. Victims aren't collaborators. Hostages aren't collaborators. Have you read the book by Grabowski? Not cherrypisked pages but the whole? Have you read Frydel's paper? If you have so you don't understand. Germans defined almost everything in occupied Poland. Germans defined everything in ghettos and concentration camps. Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not about German crimes in Poland, it is about Polish crimes in Poland Let's avoid ethnic attacks here.Collaboration in German occupation Poland which this page is about, was done by all ethnic groups(Ukrainians,Germans,Jews) and applying collective guilt to Poles for all collaboration in German occupation Poland is very biased point of view.I kindly request that you remove this comment.The estimate of 200,000 refers to those also kiled by other ethnicities besides ethnic Poles(which Grabowski mentions once in the beginning and then forgets afterwards it seems, make of it what you will). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Polish" is a demonym as well as an ethnonym. I would AGF that Slater used it as the former. François Robere (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant Polish nationals (as I have always argued, it should not matter what the persons ethnicity is).Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"Stable version" is not a legitimate argument for a blind revert

User:François Robere - "stable version" is not a legitimate argument for making a blind revert, as you did here. First, that is not a "stable version" (why restore "Pauli's version" (whoever that is), why not restore E-960's version? - this is a disingenuous excuse at best). Second, please see "Inappropriate usage" in WP:STABLE, which says "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war.. "Never invoked". "Not a valid reason". "Should never be used".

Additionally, by reverting to that version you've restored content which has been challenged by reversion in contravention of the discretionary sanctions in place on this article.

Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, but it's something both E-960 already agreed on as a base point, so there's consensus for that. François Robere (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to where this consensus was made? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

At the previous discussion E-960 stated that "the last stable version was from June 12... the June 12 is the last long standing and stable version", and both Slatersteven and I agreed to revert to that. François Robere (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

To answer the parenthetical question, pauli is a local wikignome who periodically tidies up the under-the-skin bits of this article, checking refs and cleaning up formatting for ease of editing. Not involved with content choices, curation, or disputes. pauli133 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply any criticism, and thanks for your improvements.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please note that this article is under a consensus required DS provision. @François Robere: should clearly articulate their current objection (and I believe he has- per my recollection - however it seems to be hidden in the wall of text above - so FR - please do repeat the rationale for your objection here) - however if there is a legitimate objection - then yes - we revert the relevant passage to the stable version (for which we last had consensus). Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  I restored John Connelly to the Holocaust section, which was present in the STABLE version. Connelly is clearly on topic (as well as being an academic RS) as he writes: "Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.". The text in our article was not clear that this was "structural collaboration" - so I added that. As an interesting side note - Connelly places the toll of "structural collaboration" at around 5% of Polish Jews - or around 166,667. This estimate was made in 2005 - prior to Grabowski and the Holocaust center - and seems to agree with it. Might be worth adding the numeric estimate (5%) here as well. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

One more time. You are fully and completely aware that claiming something was a in a "stable version" is not a legitimate reason for edit warring or reverting as you are doing here. This has been explained to you on multiple occasion, including just a few hours ago [12].

WP:STABLE clearly states: "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war.. "Never invoked". "Not a valid reason". "Should never be used".

Can you explain why you keep repeating a fallacious argument that you clearly know is fallacious? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Again - I did not invoke stable. I invoked the consensus required provision on this page. As for why I restored - the challenge of this being "off-topic" is clearly irrelevant given that Connelly refers to this as structural collaboration - clearly being on-topic to this article on collaboration in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz1: "which was present in the STABLE version". Icewhiz2: "I did not invoke stable".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Connelly info, which is misrepresented and misquoted, is in two different places, making it redundant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly matches the quote provided above. Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you responding to you in this comment? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz: There's been a lot of changes since yesterday, and VM has removed some content that both E-960 and myself agreed on, so the discussion is somewhat more complicated than it should've been. Nevertheless, I'll try to summarize things with two baselines for comparison: June 12th up to VM's involvement; VM's involvement up to today:

1. Up to VM:
   1. E. objects to adding a quote from Grabowski regarding the risk of saving Jews. We have similar quotes from Winstone and Tec. E's argument is that this would give G. undue weight, and/or that G. is controversial. I believe WP:DUE is generally issue-specific; that is, that quoting an RS on several issues does not necessarily mean they are given undue weight. What's more, G. is eminently notable in this field, so his opinion is clearly DUE.
   2. E. would like to add a bit from G. about the "hostage system"; I do not object to this addition, but insists that it is done in context: G. does not present it as a justification for Polish involvement in the "Judenjagd", and neither should we.
2. VM onwards:
   1. VM AFAICT objects to including Winstone - an old addition of E. which was discussed several times [13][14][15]. Winstone describes the danger posed to Polish saviors of Jews by their fellow Poles, who could - and often have - denounce them to the Germans. Denunciation is collaboration, and clearly belongs in this article.
   2. VM seems to object to including Connelly's "structural collaboration" (another old addition, also discussed several times), not sure why.
   3. VM also mischaracterizes Connelly; at the core of this is the definition of "collaboration", which has been narrowed down in conservative Polish historiography to exclude acts of denunciation; Connelly acknowledges this and "plays along", but nevertheless criticizes Poles for their involvement on the one hand, and passivity on the other, with regards to the Holocaust. This is even evident in the title of the article: "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris". That being said, this is a fairly minor argument; as far as I'm concerned the entire section can be moved to a new article, but I doubt VM would prefer "Complicity" over "Collaboration".
   4. On a related note, VM's approach here is two-pronged: on the one hand he claims this is about "antisemitism" and doesn't belong here; but then he also objects to adding new content to antisemitism.

François Robere (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about here with your "Up to VM" and "VM onwards". The point of this section was that you were using excuses ("stable version") for your edit warring which have specifically been deprecated by the relevant policy.

Now you're throwing in some of your own OR into this and characterizing sources. ??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let me address your "points"

1. Let's see where Winstone actually talks about "collaboration". Otherwise this is your own WP:SYNTH.

2. I don't object to including Connelly. I'm objecting to the gross misrepresentation ("vast!!!!" "ethnic Poles!!!!") misrepresentation of Connelly.

3. Nope, no I don't. The whole freakin' Connelly article is about how collaboration was marginal. Quote (once again, since all the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT makes it necessary): " John Connelly considers the moral and historiographical meanings of "collaboration" and "collaborationism" and suggests that even those cases that Friedrich documents do not make Poland into a collaborationist country. In fact, the Nazis were disappointed that Poles refused to collaborate." Whoever put that in in its present form on the other hand cherry-picked ONE sentence out of the whole article where Connelly says "yeah that *might* be considered collaboration" and included that which does not at all reflect the gist of the article overall. It's classic WP:TENDENTIOUSness. Now, FR, let me see where Connelly refers to "conservative Polish historiography".

4. I've asked you very recently TWICE here and [16] to stop discussing editors rather than content. In particular, I've asked you to stop trying to ascribe to other editors motives and views which they do not have. Stop referring to "your POV" (sic) or "your side of the aisle" (sic) or, as you do here with "VM's approach" (to make things even more absurd you also accuse me of casting WP:ASPERSIONS for a comment which is strictly devoted to content). Just stop trying to put words in people's mouths or thoughts in their heads. That is not "my" approach at all. You've been blocked for this kind of behavior before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Similarly - "Klaus-Peter Friedrich wrote that "most [Poles] adopted a policy of wait-and-see... In the eyes of the Jewish population, [this] almost inevitably had to appear as silent approval of the [German] occupier's actions."" - should be restored (I can not, as VM placed a failed verification tag on text (making my revert a 1RR violation) - on text clearly verified by the Connelly quote above) - as per Connelly leads off his article with "Klaus-Peter Friedrich asks why Poland has witnessed recurring debates about collaboration.", and also writes: "Klaus-Peter Friedrich also takes up an additional form of "structural collaboration" in Poland, namely Polish willingness to assume living quarters and personal property left behind by Jews. Even after the Germans had skimmed off the most valuable resources, Poles still seized the household and business possessions of millions of murdered Jewish neighbors. Though the issue has failed to attract the major study it deserves, it seems justified to state that before embarking on death transports Poland's Jews had performed one more service to a fatherland they had enriched for generations with contributions to culture, science, economy, and politics: they had bequeathed a wealth that kept tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of fellow Polish citizens from starvation under a tremendously destructive German agriculture regime.30" - this is structural collaboration.[17] and on-topic here. The text in the article should clarify this. Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The failed verification tag is required, per discussion above. A more general problem is that Connelly is being misrepresented since the whole point of his article is that collaboration was relatively marginal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The text attributed to Connelly clearly passes verification and is present in the article. If you think other content should be added - that is a different matter - please do provide suggestions. Furthermore (having just read Connelly's coverage of Friedrich) - Friedrich takes a stronger stance than Connelly on collaboration and is clearly on-topic. Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Connelly does NOT write "the vast majority of ethnic Poles showed indifference to the fate of the Jews".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Would seem to be a paraphrase of - "Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful" from the article. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would, the problem is that it's an extremely sloppy, inaccurate and POV "paraphrase" (sic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Can be rectified easily by referring to the Poles as a community, as Connelly does. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm, no. There's no "vast" in Connelly for example. There's actually no 'ethnic' Poles either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec)From the abstract of the article: " John Connelly considers the moral and historiographical meanings of "collaboration" and "collaborationism" and suggests that even those cases that Friedrich documents do not make Poland into a collaborationist country. In fact, the Nazis were disappointed that Poles refused to collaborate." Yet somehow, someone managed to pull out a single quote from the article, "paraphrase" it in a way which misrepresents a source, and portray the source as something which it is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet still seeing some of the behavior as "structural collaboration". Connelly is replying to Friedrich's article in the same journal issue - Collaboration in a “Land without a Quisling”: Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II - whose abstract is - "Astonishingly, we still do not have a history of collaboration in Poland during World War II. Klaus-Peter Friedrich shows that the building blocks for such a history already exist, however. They are scattered throughout the contemporary Polish press and studies on the Nazi occupation regime. Examples include institutionalized cooperation (Baudienst, Polish Police), ethnically defined segments of the population (Volksdeutsche), informal support of Nazi projects on ideological common ground (anti- Semitism and anticommunism), and the stance of the Polish peasantry as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Friedrich concludes that collaboration eludes study because of a mental image according to which ethnic Poles were the foremost victims of the occupiers and heroically resisted them. Questionable views of national self-interest keep Polish society from coming to terms with the past. Nevertheless, debates on “Polish collaboration” continue to recur—as they have since 1939." - Friedrich is clearly on topic on collaboration in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the part which was in the article previously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How about "According to Connolly the Polish "shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful""Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not very grammatical or easy to understand for the average reader.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Do present better wording, then. I also think that Connolly's estimate that this structural collaboration led to the demise of 5% of Polish Jews should be mentioned.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Except Connelly makes no such estimate. And that's putting aside that the section you're referring to is a small part of the overall article which is rather an exception noted by the author to his overall thesis. Which is that collaboration was margina. Please stop trying to misrepresent the source or making up stuff that's not actually in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Competence is required. From Connolly: "Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.". Black on white in Connolly's journal article. Per WP:CALC 90-85 = 5 - is not OR. Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Your questioning of other editor's "competence" is disruptive and insulting. This is not an "estimate". Strike your personal attack please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to remind you, you did just that at a recent ARBCOM workshop.[18] "Disruptive and insulting", you say? François Robere (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the incident where you repeatedly insisted, with a straight face, that the murder of Poles and Jews by Ukrainian cossacks in the 17th century was an instance of ... Polish anti-semitism. You sure you want to bring that one up again?

And I feel compelled to note that here we have another instance where Francois Robere replies to a comment addressed to Icewhiz, just like a day ago, Icewhiz for some reason felt it pertinent to reply to a question asked of Francois Robere. Is this one of those stable version supersets? Or is it a superset of a stable version? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing Grabowski "book review"

The current paragraph on G. reads as follows:

In 2013, historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." The book was praised by some scholars for its approach and analysis, while a number of other historians criticized his methodology for lacking in actual field research, and argued that his "200,000" estimate was too high.

It reads too much like a book review, and one of the sources (Samsonowska) doesn't clearly support the assertion it's attached to. I suggest trimming it to something like this:

Historian Jan Grabowski writes that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." Some historians suggest the real number was lower.

References

François Robere (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your argument that the paragraph "reads... like a book review" is null, since that could be said of any critique found in any source.

Krystyna Samsonowska specifically writes that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research – for example, by not trying to contact the families of Jewish survivors from Dąbrowa Tarnowska, or the Poles who hid them. Samsonowska writes that, using broader resources, she was able to identify 90 Jews who had survived the war, hiding in Dąbrowa County, versus the 38 cited by Grabowski; and that the number of survivors was probably much higher. She also writes that Grabowski understated, by half, the number of Righteous among the Nations from Dąbrowa County.

Grabowski's wording itself – "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000—and this in Poland alone." – makes no sense, if only because, according to the "Hunt for the Jews" article, the book is specifically "about the Holocaust in Poland."

Nihil novi (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

that could be said of any critique found in any source Can it? Is my phrasing of exactly the same criticism ("some historians suggest the real number was lower") reads like one?

Nihil Novi, why are you quoting from a past revision of Hunt for the Jews,[19] rather than describing what Samsonowska wrote in your own words? Recall this page is under sourcing restrictions, and misrepresenting a source could get you sanctioned.

So we drop "in Poland alone". Anything else? François Robere (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

In the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article, in the section on "the Holocaust", paragraph 4, by moving the Krystyna Samsonowska reference to apply more specifically to her criticism of Jan Grabowski's inadequate field research (and by moving the Grzegorz Berendt reference closer to his criticism of the "200,000" number), I hope to have addressed what I am guessing you may have meant in your original comment about Samsonowska.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think this wording would be fine:

Historian Jan Grabowski writes that "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000" in Poland. Some historians, such as Bogdan Musial and historian X, suggest the number was lower.

I made the adjustment to simply "in Poland", and added the names of the historians to avoid wp:weasel of "some historians". I stripped out the references for convenience so that they are not duplicated on this Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I considered something like that. Opted for conciseness, but this is good as well. François Robere (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose this edit.It gives too much attention to Grabowski who is a new and highly controversial researcher. Also it ignores the other numbers and avoids mentioning any other estimate besides Grab's one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It actually gives less attention to G., as it's shorter.

How "new" is new? He's been faculty at Ottawa since the early 90's, and has been publishing on Poland's Jewry since 2004.

The existing version doesn't mention other numbers either, so how is it any different? François Robere (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding your edit summary: To my understanding there's consensus for that change. I haven't seen you comment here. If you disagree, why not comment here instead of revert? François Robere (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for above.As noted previously, we need to give precise numbers if possible and your proposal reduces much needed information on flaws of Grabowskis research.For example historian Jacek Borkowicz wrote in Rzeczpospolita that the actual number of Jewish deaths was much lower, at most 40,000, while around 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Jews were saved by PolesMyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a book review of Grabowski. We don't usually list all the dis/advantages of a source (I tend to avoid even their title if it's a given, eg. an historian writing on history). There's a dedicated article for that.

Borkowicz commented on Dalej Jest Noc, not Hunt for the Jews, and RP isn't a peer-reviewed publication. François Robere (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a question if Centrum books are peer reviewed. This includes Judenjagd by Grabowski with the 200,000 hypothesis and Dalej jest noc.Xx236 (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski used to be an expert in Canadian history. His WWII competences are controversial, eg. his German, not mentioning Yiddish.Xx236 (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Errors...

With this edit, several errors were introduced ... of the type that have been repeatedly been pointed out to User:MyMoloboaccount. Can you please fix them? There needs to be spaces between sentences, and punctuation goes BEFORE the refs. Also, a copyedit needs to be done to fix errors such as "committed numerous atrocities against civilian population" where the articles have been omitted. It gets very old fixing other people's errors .... and when they have been pointed out often enough, it no longer becomes some other editor's job to clean up after such simple things to fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please point to this rule on wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS:CITEPUNCT. François Robere (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)