Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Igo Sym

Igo Sym was an important collaborator, both a Gestapo agent and a Nazi propaganda worker. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Source??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, one actor is hardly anything to focus on, and his impact on the bigger picture was minimal. --E-960 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Was quite big, which made the AK to kill him.Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I still don't get - what should we do with this information? Is he the only one to have been killed by the Polish resistance? Of course no, so why should we start picking examples? Lets cover the topic first in a broader, general, neutral way and then we can start worrying about details such as naming examples of collaborators or people killed because they were allegedly collaborators. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Communist collaboration

The Communists infomed Germans about Armia Krajowa activities. pl:Bogusław Hrynkiewicz pl:Czesław SkonieckiXx236 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but Polish communist collaboration is more notable in Soviet-occupied Poland 1939-41. This could well prompt a change of title and therefore scope from Collaboration in German-occupied Poland to Collaboration in Occupied Poland. I hereby request editors' show of hands about the change.-Chumchum7 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that this topic is part of this particular article, unless you are specifically talking about Polish Communists, but if it's Soviets than it's outside the scope of this article. --E-960 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Polish Workers' Party and it's military division Gwardia Ludowa, Armia Ludowa were Polish Communist organizations. Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Except those organizations are examples of resistance, not collaboration. They don't really go in this particular article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"The Communists infomed Germans about Armia Krajowa activities. pl:„Dezinformacja” Polskiej Partii Robotniczej, pl:Bogusław Hrynkiewicz, pl:Czesław Skoniecki", They informed the Nazis even about some former Communists. According to post-war Communist investigation 200 names were trasferred to Gestapo. Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - and I don't understand Polish anyway. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources in Polish, but I haven't linked them, because you anyway.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Szarota's article in Wyborcza

http://niniwa22.cba.pl/kolaboranci_pod_pregierzem.htm Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You may buy the original copy [1]. Szarota is a respected historian.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So it can be verified as the original good.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

http://niniwa22.cba.pl/problem_kolaboracji.htm Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I commend, to linguistically-misinformed colleagues, journalists, and scholars who write about Polish authors disingenously avoiding use of the term "collaboration" in connection with World War II Polish history, the final sentence in Tomasz Szarota's 1995 Gazeta Wyborcza article, linked above:

"Jeśli się nie mylę, określenia 'kolaborant' i 'kolaboracja', w odniesieniu do sytuacji w okupowanej Polsce, w ogóle nie występowały w naszej prasie konspiracyjnej."

In English:

"If I'm not mistaken, the terms 'collaborator' and 'collaboration', in relation to the situation in occupied Poland, did not appear at all in our underground [konspiracyjna] press."

Cognate words in different languages often carry different denotations. E.g., "konspiracyjna", above, is not "conspiracy" but "underground".

The Underground Poles did not speak of "kolaboracja" but of "współpraca", which, depending on context means either "cooperation" (there's that disingenuous Polish word !) or "collaboration".

Tread carefully in matters of language! And don't obfuscate through ignorance—or malice!

Nihil novi (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"collaboration" does means "cooperation". Collaboration is just a type of cooperation (thus one does not exclude the other).Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously. And "appeasement" similarly means a "pacifying", "placating", or "bringing to peace".

Nihil novi (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

it also means "Appeasement in an international context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an aggressive power in order to avoid conflict.", So it depends on context, what context is współpraca being used in?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the ignorant (malicious?) comments of some "experts" that the Poles refuse to call a spade ("collaboration") a spade and instead use the weasel-word, "cooperation". Nihil novi (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No I saw it, I just ignored it. So I will ask again what kind of "cooperation" was it? Cooperation with a friend?, an ally?, A neighbor? Or was it cooperation with an occupation power?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohh and has any one actually suggested an edit or a way to improve the article here, if so I am missing it? If this is a rename request I see no issue with renaming the page "Polish cooperation with Nazi Germany".Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Except this is an English language article, and WP:TITLE is rather clear that English language usage should be the one we use to determine article titles (per WP:CRITERIA#Naturalness). Given that all other similar pages are titled "[x country] collaboration with [y occupier]" or "Collaboration in [y]-occupied [x]", it would be against current project consensus to use "cooperation" instead (per WP:CRITERIA#Consistency). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reversal?

@E-960: Care to explain this recent reversal? It's not the first time you undo several of my (or someone else's) edits in one swipe, nor the first time you accuse me of removing material I didn't remove. This lack of attention to what you just reverted makes it seem like you didn't even bother to read it through, and just reverted the whole lot on a whim. Would you like to demonstrate good faith by explaining exactly what is it that you object? (with the relevant diffs) François Robere (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You clearly removed content which was, yes, disputed, but without gaining a prior consensus. There are some portions which, I, personally, would have supported the removal of, some which I think is indeed POV pushing (on your part), and some which I am unsure about. Nevertheless, you should have brought up the issue on the talk page instead of being recklessly bold, especially given that this page is the subject of active sanctions and is otherwise controversial (this is in line with the recommendations given in the linked policy). As is stated in header, "If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first." - it would be safe to assume that, since you took part in the discussion which resulted in this page getting that header in the first place (here), you were well aware of this. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think so feel free to take it to ANI. In the meanwhile, do show me where Policy states that if you disagree with some edits you should revert all of them, and without discussion. I didn't only remove content, but also restored content that was improperly removed, and fixed blatant distortions of sources. I reckon User:E-960 should've looked for alternatives to reversion and reverted only when necessary. François Robere (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Its nothing actionable (at this stage), but given that previous attempts ([2][3]) to boldly remove or add such information as you see fit didn't work, you should try the talk page - it actually works (more than once)! Especially if you don't start your comment with a variant of assuming the other is a troll. @E-960: Agreed that you, by this point, should have answered FR's inquiry about this here.

Nevertheless, the onus is on he who wishes a change to be made (FR in this case) to get consensus for it. WP:ONUS could possibly apply, but in a controversial topic, it would be better not to game it and rather go for the usual practice of discussing any disputed change on the talk page instead. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope - WP:ONUS applies to inclusion of material - not changes. Those who support inclusion of some material need to present a case (regardless of when it was added or how "stable" the version) - not the other way around. That being said - I do suggest attempting to make smaller changes - blanket reverts are unhelpful, but smaller steps here might elicit easier compromise.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@198.84.253.202: It's nothing actionable because I didn't break any rule. As for Talk - you've been in this situation yourself more than once [4][5][6], and I don't recall anyone giving you trouble over it.

@Icewhiz: The breadth of changes is a result of not having touched this article for nearly two weeks, during which other editors made some questionable changes, and others were kept despite previous discussions. However, I took care to make the changes fine-grained enough that it shouldn't be a problem for other editors to address specific ones. François Robere (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No. You are performing volume changes, all at once, often rewriting the complete narrative of the sections. Keep in mind that others editors are not agreeing with you. OK? Mass changes? 1 -> discuss 2 -> get a consensus 3 -> proceed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Being responsible for many of those narratives, you should know how wrong they are. I'm happy you mentioned agreement: After the word "failed" was removed during an RfC discussion, you quietly re-inserted it further down the paragraph. It's a particularly sneaky and dishonest change, don't you think? François Robere (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

“Failed” has been changed to “unsuccessful” I think, despite the source cited word “failed”. Somebody else restored “failed", but this is so minor issue that I'm rolling my eyes that you keep wasting your energy on it. There are few actual real issues in the article that I have identified with passing time, but I’ll let you figure it out. If you find it I’ll support you despite all the abuses and insults you have given me. BUT FIRST DISCUSS if you find it. Try also to realize that we are all sinful of being biased and making oversights (yes, that includes you FR). The trick is to be conscious of that fact. This might guide us to reach an understanding and find a compromise much easier.GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Am I to understand you've no objections to this change? François Robere (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The "failure" question has been addressed without use of that word, near the end of the first paragraph of this article's "Political collaboration" section. Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Still waiting on User:E-960 to comment on the rest. François Robere (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

also think that 'failure' is not the best word here --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

FR replace the word “failed” but don’t massively bomb the entire section shifting the narrative 180 degrees ok? Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: Getting the discussion back on point now that you're here, which of the changes starting with this one do you object, and why? You reverted all of them in one go. François Robere (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• François Robere, again how many times were you asked not to make these kinds of MASS changes to the article, and how many times were you asked not to randomly place SHAME TAGS next every statement you have an issue with. Right in the text you asked about above, you have this tag that you inserted: , even though there is a page number in the citation. So, if you question the citation, then the burden is on you to re-confim, not place a tag and expect someone to start looking. --E-960 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tags are not shame tags. And if someone asks for verification - provide a quote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

When you SPAM the article with at least two dozen tags since the article was created, and you are the only editor doing that, the validity of such actions is questionable. --E-960 (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT of the tags doesn't mean they're unjustified. You can't just go about deleting tags without addressing the reasons behind them (which are often explained in the tag itself). François Robere (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been asked not to make them in one go, not not to make them at all. And I've asked others to slow down, but it seems no one took to heart. Imagine my consternation coming back after almost two weeks and seeing what others have done! Would you expect I wouldn't review them? Or spread my edits thinly, when others continue making changes?

What's "shameful" about that tag? It's an extreme estimate that contradicts every other source we have, and could result from a translation error. As cited, the book doesn't appear anywhere, so What's the problem? François Robere (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche

@Nihil novi: This is mostly fine - one problem is "Polish citizens of German extraction who declared themselves Volksdeutsche," - not all Volkdeutsche were actually from the German ethnic minority, and not all of them "declared themselves" - some were simply forced into signing it. See Volksdeutsche#'Volksdeutsche'_in_German-occupied_western_Poland
Another problem is all of the changes in the first and last paragraphs of the Security forces section - either they are not actual improvements either they actually make the text worse. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a general problem - Poland was divided into several parts, the situation was different in Reich than in GG and a little different in Galizien. If we describe Poland in general, we should explain the differences in any section. Maybe a regional division should be introduced? The discussed phrase was generally true in GG and false in Reich.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is that not all Poles who were declared German chose to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's only only this problem, A description of occupied Poland is complicated and any shortcut doesn't work.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What this "Polish citizens of German extraction who declared themselves (or were forced to accept the status of) Volksdeutsche" is too complex?Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, but a non-knowledgeable reader would not know what the Volksdeutsche were. Therefore, I propose we reinstate the previous sentence ("Polish citizens who declared themselves part of the German minority (Volksdeutsche)"), but with a modification, to allow for the fact that not all of them did it willfully. The text in the article would thus read:

"[...] Polish citizens who declared themselves, either willfully or forcibly, part of the German minority (Volksdeutsche), [...]")

198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Edited for wording. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This point has already been clarified in the article's "Individual collaboration" section. Thanks for raising the question. Nihil novi (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous denunciations

Soem Poles informed German police about illegal activities of other people. [7] Anonymous denunciations didn't bring any rewards. The underground collected some letters adressed to the police. [8]Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes?

Please sign your texts with four '~'.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a form of collaboaration, described in an academic book. It was considered a crime by the underground and opposed by collecting the letters. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thought i had.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Baiting? Non-RS

This was reverted. While I am happy to see a fringe conspiracy writer was removed subsequently, this blanket stmt is currently based on:

1. post on a regional musuem's website which describes a single alleged incident and was written by a guide - which would not seem to be a RS and in any event does not make the claim ascribed to it.
2. [9] which is a blog post by this guy in the picture speakin against feminists. I am nkt sure the blog makes the claim ascribed to it (did not bother to read this rant in full) - however this WP:SPS is clearly not a RS.

Unless you have a strong academic level source for this, preferably in English, this sentence should be stricken. Using a blog of the sort of the above is shameful.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is that “fringe conspiracy writer” again?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, your arguments are rather weak, you just want that statement removed because you and FR are trying to sanitize the article based on your POV. So, now the Treblinka Muzeum website reference is not reliable (and WOW, your statement that that this is just "a post on a regional musuem's website" is extremely disrespectful, no that is the muzeum of the actual extermination site). Btw, there are references used from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum all over Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The musuem itself describes itself as regional. The post on the website (and not part of an exhibit or endorsed it would seem) was made by a musuem guide, and not an established scholar. Furthermore, this post describes a single alleged incident - and does not make a blanket stmt as made by the version in the article - so this is a misrepresentation of a non RS. The blog post is shameful. Unless you have an actual RS supporting the text - this goes.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Germans only utilized this baiting method just this ONE time, and never again. I think this incident is most often referenced because of how many Poles were murdered because of a Jewish collaborator. In any case, more references will be added. --E-960 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And throwing in a random IPN document, which woyld ne be considered an unbiased reliable secondary source, which spans several hundred pages without a page number and quote - is unhelpful. Frankly, if you are not able to find a high quality source for this then it is clearly UNDUE beyond the current state of lacking a RS to back it up.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Random IPN document? Uhhh... it is an unbiased academic secondary source (again, every Polish source is bias according to you). Also, I'm pretty sure the citation has page numbers, you just did not bother to even look at it. Btw, on a side note Zbrodnia w Paulinowie here is the Polish WP page on the incident (which includes book references). --E-960 (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is a government agency in charge of government memory policy and prosecution. It is not an academic source. Regardless you are taking one alleged incident and turning it into "One of the Jewish collaborationist..." which is a gross misrepresentation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Yad Vashem academic? Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say, but it is RS for who it gives awards to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yad Vashem was set up by an act of the the KNESSET (Israeli parliament), just like IPN was created by an act of SEJM (Polish parliament). Also, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was set up by an act of US CONGRESS. But to user Icewhiz, it's just the Polish institution that is not reliable. --E-960 (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between being set up by something and being an arm of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pls classic anti-Polish bias (everything in Poland is not reliable, and all sorts of veiled accusations can be made against it), what are you trying to say, that the incidents are fake, that they never happened? --E-960 (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No I am answering the point about Yad Vashem and IPN, is or is not IPN a Polish government agency?Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't even know what RS is according to Wikipedia, read the rules, this is not even an issue, because of the fact that this incident and others like it happened, the IPN simply complied them into one place, if you notice the text they back things up with other references. --E-960 (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Great input, you just went off on a tangent and diverted the discussion Again, you don't argue content, but side issues - a classic case of Red herring approach. The fact is that the incident happened, and this was a tactic used by the Gestapo/collaborators. More sources can be found to augment the subject. --E-960 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Who was it that raised the issue of Yad Vashem in comparison to IPN?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yad Vashem or USHMM are not lustration and prosecution agencies who also carry out the gvmt's history policy. Their reputation is different. BUT, all this is off topic - as you are taking the alleged actions of one Jew and via OR making a general stmt on Jewish groups - which is a shameful misuse of the poor sources presented here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OK back on topic, so is it true, was this only one incident? Do any sources claim this was more then just one isolated incident?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all this was not one Jew, this was a tactic, and this is the most notable example because 11 Poles were killed. In fact, posing as escaped Jews was the only way these agents were able to infiltrate anything outside of the ghettos. BTW, funny how you disparage Polish sources, but ignore the fact that there is nothing about this in the English language academia - as if this subject was a taboo, talk about an academic bias towards such issues of Jewish collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the fringe BLOGs might have. We have yet to see a high quality source for any of this - even on the incident level. When I removed this yesterday the whole thing was sourced to outright fringe.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And given E960's stmt on academic bias leading to lack of sources, we can simply call this UNDUE regardlesd of the poor sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's just you for now, there is no consensus... so slow down, because you're in a real hurry to take this down. Yet, IPN and the Treblinka Museum are reliable sources (ONLY YOU THINK THEY ARE NOT) and if you want additional citations we'll find them, RfC can last for weeks, yet you want to wrap this up in 48 hours? --E-960 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OK so lets have one (RS) source that says this was a repeatedly used tactic. Do IPN and the Treblinka Museum says this was an oft used tactic?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So, why don't you wait a bit, you think that Google Books is all that there is, or if it's not on the internet it does not exist. IPN and Treblinka Museum are reliable because they are not putting forward new claims, simply documenting in one place material that was reaserced over the years and in different locations. --E-960 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you answer a simple question, do they say this was more then just an isolated incident?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As to policy, we do not retain information that is poorly sourced on the promise of better sources, we remove it until better sources are found.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at RfCs, they can take weeks. Also, explain to me in Wkipedia rules why you think that IPN and Treblinka Muzeum are not reliable? So far you only say they are not, but presented no specific arguments. --E-960 (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Did I say they were not reliable, I said they do not say this was a tactic used by any groups, that it was a one off. I have asked you more then one to say they do say it was more then a once off, and you have refused to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this is a fair warning when you reverted and re-added your changes you broke the 1RR as noted at the top of this page. So, until the discussion is in progress you do not make any changes, other wise you will be sanctioned. --E-960 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

AS have you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Now are you going to answer, doc they say this was an oft used tactic?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, stop badgering people and give them time to research. As for your question the other source does say that, but since it has been challenged, one avenue to resolve the issue is to just find a better quality citation.--E-960 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Again that is not how it works, if you do not at this time have sources the material should be removed until such as time as you do. The material has been challenged thus it should not have been reinstated without getting consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You can explain how it works to the admin, because at this point you are vandalizing the article, there is a discussion on the talk page. SO WAIT. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree can an admin step in now please?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You are simply disrupting the discussion, where does it say outright in the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources that a muzeum (IPN or Treblinka Muzeum) is a dubious source of reference for statements of fact (not original research) as you claim? In fact, no where in there is there any thing of the sort, that you claim disqualifies the citations as dubious. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not (yet again how often do I need to say this?) said that. I have said they do not support the text as you have written it (they do support the text as I wrote it). the Dubious tag means the statement is disputed, not the source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Both IPN and Treblinka Museuem are reliable, scholarly sources. There is absolute no justification if their removal.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Puts on her admin hat). I'll remind folks that this article is under ArbCom remedies - only one revert per 24 hours. The idea is that if you're reverted, you go to the talk page and try to understand the point the other side is making. Yes, that means you need to AGF. Please don't make me have to lock this article... Now, taking off the admin hat - let me see if I can summarize the problem. Per Template:Dubious, the tag can be used for many purposes - one of which is "to express concerns that the source may have been misinterpreted". It appears that Slatersteven is challenging this statement in the article: "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help; if they agreed to help, the household was reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family." which is sourced to three sources. The first two sources appear to refer to the same singular incident, and the third doesn't appear to mention any sort of baiting technique at all, at least according to my google translate skills. So, yes, it appears that there is a problem, not with the reliablity of the source, but with one incident being used to support a sentence which generalizes. This is a proper use of the dubious tag in my mind. On the other hand - the people adding the information are pleading for time to find further sources, which seems reasonable. If we can all agree that what Slatersteven is saying isn't that IPN and the Treblinka museum are not reliable but that the problem is that they don't support a generalized statement, we can then move on to finding sources that support the generalized statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: More time here is not reasonable. This was initially added to here based on fringe blogs. As it stands Wikipedia is collectively blaming Jews, based on a single poorly sourced incident allegedly involving one Jew - there is a term for that as I am sure you know. This content possibly should be revdelled, and whomever added it in the first place and/or decided to revert this back in should have their conduct examined. Wikipedia should not host such content.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I first flagged those statements over two months ago [10]. There was plenty of time to find better sources. François Robere (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The idea is to NOT turn things into a battlefield. That means ... not escalating things. Let's ratchet down the rhetoric on all sides, and try to solve this amicably. There does appear to have been one incident... that seems reasonably sourced (if not as well as I might wish). The problem is that you can't go from one incident to a generalized statement. Reading through the above, I saw that E-960 did not seem to be getting what Slatersteven was saying - and others also seem to be still arguing that Slatersteven was arguing that IPN and the museum were not reliable sources. Let's try to get everyone understanding what the dispute is ABOUT, please. Can the people opposed to Slatersteven's edits please acknowledge that it isn't an issue of the reliablity of the IPN/TM sources, but an issues of generalizing from one incident? I really prefer to avoid locking the article or seeing yet another WP:ARE request. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thanks for stepping in and giving everyone a bit of berthing space to do the research, the second source does say "The Jewish agents of the Gestapo from Żagwia pretended to escape from the ghetto Jewish refugees, to give the Germans Poles helping Jews, partisans and authentic Jewish fugitives." but it's also being challenged that it is a blog, but it does reference that this was a tactic not just one incident, we are looking for other sources to back up the statement in real books not the internet or Google Books. Btw there are similar provocateur actions such as the 'Hotel Polski' incident, but no surprise there, you are not going to find this info in English sources, and though there are individual examples we would like to find a statement that summaries everything. --E-960 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gestapo were not a Jewish organisation. I also have to say I am having trouble finding a reference to Żagwia on the second source (it is the Treblinka one we are talking about?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand that even if the second source says that ... it doesn't support a general statement that "One of the Jewish collaborartionist groups' baiting techniques" ... because that's a statement that says the technique applies generally. The statement in the article is a general statement applying to more than one Jewish collaborationist groups. (The "groups'" means plural ... i.e. more than one... groups). The sources given support that this happened one time in one particular incident. Unless there were multiple groups involved in this one incident, the sources given cannot possibly support a generalized statement. Unless I'm missing something in what I read. Also - in general... it's best to take out contentious information that has been challenged rather than insist on leaving it in while sources are sought. It's much more collaborative to do so, rather than fight a battle over retaining it. It shows a collaborative attitude, rather than a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The absolute best practice is to not put anything in an article that isn't supported in all particulars by a reliable source. Especially for something on as touchy a subject as Jewish collaboration with the Nazis - it really is poor form to not have the information properly sourced when first inserted. It would be a good gesture for future collaboration to remove the information pending on finding sources that support the generalized statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The idea that a blog post by this guy in the picture speakin against feminists would be used as a ref for the Holocaust and advance an arguement on talk is quite mind boggling.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"The sources given support that this happened one time in one particular incident. Unless there were multiple groups involved in this one incident"

There were several cases like this, and this is the largest incident but far from single one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, touchy subject it is, and so are the deaths of Poles who were turned (personally, I would like to see a bit more sensitivity toward that matter as well). The first source talks about two Jewish provocateurs in village of Paulinów, the other about Żagiew (a group in Warsaw), and the third incident bit different but still related based on deception, Hotel Polish was done by yet another group call 'Group 13' in Warsaw, so this was a pattern. We are just trying to find a source that says that this was a "common tactic" done by the Gestapo and Jewish provocateurs. Even on a TV news discussion in Poland this was raised recently, so this is not some theory, and we would like to just find a solid source that confirms that. --E-960 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

From the second source "On the night of February 23-24, 1943, the Germans organized a raid and surrounded the Paulinów village", its the same incident.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a list of the sources as you are referring to it. I think the issue maybe what you call "the second source" is not the second cite. Which source are you calling "then second source"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

if you mean the Hotel Polski incident - that does not appear to fit the definition of a Jewish group baiting a Polish rescuer ... that incident was where the Germans duped the Jews. There do not appear to be any Polish rescuers involved in that incident. This is why it is discouraged to use primary sources on Wikipedia because it becomes too easy to start doing WP:OR and drawing conclusions from incidents. That's the very definition of what historians do, but we are not historians. We need secondary sources that draw these conclusions. And from what I read in the IPN and Treblinka Museum sources, they refer to the same event in Paulinow. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I briefly mentioned (incident used deception), the Hotel Polski incident did not include a Polish rescuer but used a baiting tactic - so this item just points to the fact that baiting was used in several forms by Jewish collaborators against Poles and fellow Jews. In any case, I think we can find sources to back this up, but it will come form real books not Google. --E-960 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added two highly reliable ad scholarly sources

• One is an article in scientific journal about Holocaust studies by Witold W. Mędykowski Against One's Own: Patterns of Jewish Collaboration and in Cracow and the Cracow Area by Witold W. Mędykowski who mentions baiting and gives an example of such operation by Jewish Gestapo collaborator Marta Puretz

• The other is from Acta Poloniae Historica:published by the Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN). Publishers, the semiannual Acta Poloniae Historica (APH) ranks among the leading Polish historical periodicals in international circulation. Founded by the outstanding Polish historian Marian Małowist (1909–1988), APH has been published since 1958 under the patronage of the Committee for Historical Sciences. The magazine deals with problems and issues reflecting the most recent research findings and the output of Polish historians covering the historic periods spanning from the Middle Ages till the present, as well as offers a representation of the mos--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)t important currents of world historiography in the Polish – and, more broadly, Central European – historiography(...)ssued for several years now in an English-language version, in its entirety, APH has for more than twenty years now been featured with the Master List of Philadelphia (without the impact factor [IF]) and with the ERIH (INT-1) list[11].

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a translation, as I a having trouble finding anything about stoolies (or what ever you with to cal them on page 206. I can find a reference to informers (its a bit hard to follow), but not for what it is being used to source, entrapment of civilians.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it also is only talking about German employed agents, not organised Jewish actions. Also it seems to be talking about Jews asking for forged papers, not poles helping them. It seems to be about Poles (I am not sure if Jewish or not) informing on Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is telling that all we have here are Polish sources and that they themselves are describing individual incidents. This may have been a general Gestapo technique, not related to Jews. The section as is is OR (and offensive at such), and quite clearly UNDUE given the rather limited and biased sourcing here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

All the sources describe this a more than singular incidents, these incidents are used to show examples of this being used. This is given as example of collaboration by these highly reliable and scholarly sources of highest quality, there is no OR as these are very reputabe academic publications.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is far from highly reliable sourcing. Exact quotes please supporting the generalization please. Then we will discuss UNDUE - which at this level of sourcing this is.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"This is far from highly reliable sourcing". "Witold W. Mędykowski is a historian, political scientist, born in Lublin, graduate of the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Tel Aviv University (Jewish and general history) and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Contemporary Jewry). Received his Ph.D. degree in political science at the Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw and Ph.D in contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem"[12].

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Again what is being challenged is not the source, but what the source is claimed to say. As I have said what seems to being talked about is individual Gestapo informers, not some concreted tactic used by organised Jewish groups (and at least one source seems to be talking about Jews being shopped, not polish families).Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it says about provocations and how they were organized.The cases serve as examples of wider problem.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and others -> these agents of Gestapo-sponsored “Żagiew” are correctly called “Agents provocateurs” in English.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Which part of "gestapo" means "Jewish"? So I ask again for a translation, as all I am seeing is a lot about Jews denouncing other Jews as individual acts as agents of the Gestapo. Not some organised Jews betraying Polish families helping Jews. I think we should give this a rest until such a translation shows up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We are still in OR - no quote supporting the generalization has been produced. It is also UNDUE given that the refs, such as they are, are from regional Polish journals, not from top tier publications, and from authors who while they have some credentials are not well known in the field. In such a widely studied field, one would expect strong sourcing and not such grasping at straws.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Tadeusz Bednarczyk in "Życie codzienne warszawskiego getta" [13] writes about Żagiew taktics.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, stop making up your own WP:RS rules on reliability, such as "top tier" or "are not well known". Before you argued they need to be academic, when folks produced academic sources, now they are not famous enough. Also, the references provided by MyMoloboaccount, seem to document a persistent patter of such provocations. --E-960 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. The generalization in our current text is still based on offensive OR. As for WP:UNDUE - passing some semblance of V with a RS (though at this level needing attribution) - is a neccessary but insufficient criteria for inclusion. In this case we have far right fringe claims in blogs and possibly two mentions in fairly low impact journals (on the world scale) - making this UNDUE, regardless of the OR.Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Are publications of the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) “far right fringe claims, blogs, and low impact journals Icewhiz?

Low impact publication.Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

E-960 Can we please have one source from a well-known university, who's widely cited and widely acknowledged for their scholarship? You repeatedly argued against Jan Grabowski, a widely cited, award-winning scholar from a leading national university, and now you want us to accept sources like these? Show some consistency. François Robere (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, how do you figure that what History of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) publishes is of "low impact", this is one of the main academic institution in Poland. At this point your bias is becoming clearly evident, every time there is a reference provide you automatically say it's low-quality or un-reliable. Yes, we know at this point this is a standard line, unless a source is from the US or Israel its junk. --E-960 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Per scholar this paper was published in 1997 and cited since twice. Low impact QED. Please WP:NPA - I have introduced Polish sources to articles when of sufficient quality. In this case the text inserted is making a sweeping generalization, with hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering based on cherrypicked incidents from low impact, and mainly ignored, publications. This is the definition of UNDUE, couple with OR for the generalizations.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz when you said "hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering" WOW, more disrespect and ethnocentrism! I'm pretty sure that such baiting practices were common, whether directed at Poles or other Jews, you are trying to fight this on technicalities, because you know this stuff happened. Your comment is so out of line! --E-960 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

ONUS is on those who wish to include. There is clearly no consensus for this. I suggest you launch a RfC if you think the community at large will support such gneralizations based on this type of sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to divert the discussion by hiding behind a RfC. Just like the phony Admin Reports filed by you against myself and user GizzyCatBella (both of which were dropped after review). You Wikipedia:Forum shop to see if you can get the outcome you want, this RfC is an example of it. --E-960 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 I'm sure it happened, but there's a difference between sporadic occurrences and an organized phenomenon like you're describing, and what you're describing isn't backed by RS. Instead of insisting on it, either find other sources or drop the claim. You and several others fought tooth and nail against inclusion of Jan Grabowski - a widely cited, award-winning scholar from a leading national university - and other sources like him - and now you want us to accept authors that are literally cited by no one? We've had these discussions several times in the past two months, and every time it got to RSN/RfC the source got kicked out (and on one occasion - the editor), and for good reasons. I can understand your frustration, but the bottom line is that statement just isn't well-founded. Maybe later it will be, but at the moment it isn't François Robere (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets step back, await the translations we have been promised and come back after the bank holiday to shout at each other again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Guys...and any gals...

Above, I warned y’all that this needed more discussing and less reverting. I see we’re back to the reverting behavior. Its getting a bit silly. I really would prefer to not see this article locked up, but it’s heading in that direction, or worse. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, just want to bring to attention a remark by user Icewhiz about Poles, when he made this statement "hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering". I personally object to this type of language, and I don't think that someone who makes such a cynical and belittling statement should really get involved in an article such as this one. This display of ethnocentrism is very troubling. --E-960 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going to address any sort of "so-and-so said something" right now. From reading the talk page and it's archives, there are no clean hands in the discussion. Everyone has strayed to a greater or lesser degree from the best practices of collaborative editing. I didn't let my children play "brother said a bad word" games, so I don't see why I should do that sort of thing as an admin. Let's everyone try to behave on our best behavior.. model the behavior that we want to see from others. Less discussion of the other editors as people and more discussion of sources and quotations from sources would go a long way to defusing the acrimony on this talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As much as I agree with your assessment, I wonder what would be the reaction if an editor just blurred out a similar statement, but form the other perspective, such as "hagiagraphical depictions of Jewish suffering". I think the reaction would have been swift. In this case we are not talking about in your face comments about the content, this comment went a bit past that, touching on possible biases which may make a compromise impossible. Also, in the case of user Icewhiz this is someone who filed two Admin Reports against myself and GizzyCatBella, both of which were dismissed as groundless. This type of behavior is quite unnerving. --E-960 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Both you and Bella filed ones against me, if I recall correctly, and both were dismissed. This is less a characteristic of Icewhiz, and more an artifact of the way the community is organized.

As for his comment: Here's a couple of recent edits that you reverted: [14][15]. These segments have little to do with the subject of the article - collaboration - yet editors keep adding them back. Why? What do they contribute to the text? François Robere (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I will note that both filings against E-960 were not "dismissed". As for my comment - the myth-making and PR in this regard is well documented, e.g. in this Routledge book. Constructively, going forward, I suggest a RfC be conducted if those who wish to include this insist on it.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Change in editing restrictions - please read

I've fully protected the article for two days to let these changes sink in. For those of you not familiar with "consensus-required", edits refer to the addition of new material, removal of long-standing (four to six weeks) material, and changes to existing material. If someone challenges an edit via reversion or a similar mechanism, no one may restore it or make a similar edit (no game-playing!) without getting consensus first on the the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Translations

English translations have been requested for two Polish-language texts found in footnotes to paragraph 3 of the "Collaboration by Polish Jews" section.

I have provided a translation for the Kierylak quotation.

However, I have been prevented from introducing my translation of the Mędykowski quotation. Accordingly I am providing that translation below, as it should be embedded in paragraph 3 of the "Collaboration by Polish Jews" section:

Nihil novi (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Aha. So this one does not support the text at all - describing usual activities of the "Jewish Gestapo" agents in Wrsaw which we already describe in the beginning of the paragraph. No mention here of households or escapees.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, there are other references that confirm that wide spread tactic Icewhiz.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a tragic story. Thank you for the translation, Nihil novi.

@GizzyCatBella: If you don't find those references, or they're not RS, then from Wiki's standpoint they don't exist. We can only add text based on RS. François Robere (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the text needs to be re-worded

Perhaps the statement under the RfC discussion should be re-worded so it does not specifically refer to "collaborationist groups", in this source "Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal" located here: [16] there are many examples of individual Jewish agent provocateurs, and simple snitches. It is also very well referenced in the foot notes. Here are some examples, but the paper cites numerous others:

Historian Elżbieta Rączy identified a number of cases in the Rzeszów region where Jews apprehended by the Germans or Jewish agents provocateurs—as in the case of a group of Jewish prisoners from the Pustków labour camp sent into the countryside to search out Jews in hiding—betrayed fellow Jews and their Polish benefactors.

A Jewish partisan group led by Edmund Łukawiecki, which operated in the forests north of Lubaczów (Puszcza Solska), executed a young Jewish woman who had betrayed at least one family of Jews in hiding and tried to infiltrate the partisan group.

A Jew from Wołomin named Rubin, who was captured by the Germans after joining up with a band of fugitive Soviet soldiers, betrayed numerous farmers who helped the Soviet partisans in that area. As a result, more than a score of Poles were executed in the villages of Brzóza and Zarzetka near Łochów. Some of the Polish victims were beaten and shot by Rubin himself.

In a few cases Jews were killed before they could bring ruination to their benefactors and their families. After his capture in Polichna near Brzozówka, a Jew by the name of Icek Wagman identified various peasants who had sheltered him. A sergeant at the police station killed Wagman before the arrival of the German gendarmes. Another Polish policeman reacted similarly when a weary Jew appeared at an outpost near Tarnów and incriminated many Poles who had assisted him. The Jew was executed before the return of the German commander. After the war, the Polish policeman was sentenced to death for his misdeed.

In the end it is also very important to know who unleashed this hell, the Germans, and who played everyone:

The Germans played a large part in encouraging and exploiting friction between the conquered peoples, and pitting them against each other. In November 1939 in Łódź, the Germans conscripted some Jews to help destroy the Kościuszko monument in Wolności Square. The Germans then set fire to two synagogues and blamed the Poles for burning them down in retaliation for the destruction of the Kościuszko monument by the Jews. (The Germans, of course, were actually responsible for the destruction of the monument.) In the spring of 1941, the Germans ordered the Jews to demolish the Catholic church in Sanniki. They took photographs of this and used the incident to foment anger among the Poles against the Jews

The impact of German propaganda on Jewish attitudes is not widely acknowledged, however, it was significant. According to one Jewish survivor, “We also did not think about why they [the Germans] wanted to kill us. We knew that we were like rats. Their propaganda not only influenced the Gentiles, it also influenced us Jews. It took away from us our human dignity.”28 The German-sponsored Polish language press claimed that the closure of ghetto in Warsaw “was the wish of the majority of inhabitants of Warsaw.” Jews played into this strategy by spreading anti-Polish propaganda, going so far as to claim that the Poles were inciting the Germans.

Not surprisingly, as Emanuel Ringelblum notes in his wartime journal, hatred towards Polish Christians grew in the Warsaw ghetto because, incredible as it may seem, it was widely believed that the Poles were responsible for the economic restrictions that befell the Jews.

--E-960 (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This WP:SPS by Mark Paul has been described in RS (very briefly) as an anti Jewish tract and as propagating a myth. It is not an appropriate source. This attempt to draw generalizations about Jews at large from poorly attested incidents (in some cases, from the words of those who killed Jews and attempted to justify their actions) - is not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a self-published book, this is just a PDF document which summarizes other RELIABLE sources (it does not bring forth "new claims" or "research", in any case every one of the examples is heavily sourced, by reliable main stream books and works. In other words, we can just cite those individual references in the article. --E-960 (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a highly inappropriate self published document. You actually suggested above to blame Jews of collaboration based on the say so of Polish murderers, who were collaboraters serving in the blue police, who attempted post war (prior to their conviction) to claim they killed the Jews to defend Poles. Aha. If this is an example of anything (with a better source) - it is an example of something else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Then go and find those RS yourself. There's plenty of space for introducing biases by merely "summarizing" RS sources, as you well know. François Robere (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here is one; Simon Lavee (Łukawiecki), Jewish Hit Squad: The Łukawiecki Partisans Unit of the Polish Armia Krajowa, 1941–1944 (Jerusalem and Springfield, New Jersey: Gefen, 2015), 3–18. [17] --E-960 (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardly mainstream - held by four libraries world wide. And from Google Books, it appears that two of the subject's sons object to the portrayal. And from the author's description on Google Books - he's an attorney - does he have any qualifications as a historian? Nor is the book cited in Google Scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether RS or not, this still fails to support the generalization in the RfC, i.e. the use of "Jewish collaborationist groups" for such "agents provocateurs" missions, given that it again discusses individual cases... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, you are doing mental gymnastics trying to discredit the source, just looking at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I'm not seeing criterial such as 'number of libraries' or 'Google Scholar'. --E-960 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

please do not ascribe motivations to other editors. One way to identify if a work is mainstream is how many libraries hold it as well as how many other scholars cite it. The authors qualifications also have a bearing on how mainstream a work is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really, as that can be manipulated by sending copies to libraries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: While one can, perhaps, easily (at some cost, and assuming the libraries are amendable to cataloging anything - and many aren't, as they do not want the overhead of on-going mgmt of the book and want to maintain their own reputation) - inflate library holdings by sending out freebies...... It is difficult to manipulate libraries so that they will not hold a book (what would you do? start a smear campaign via e-mail? Go to each library and steal the books?) - so while wide holdings might not be a sufficient indicator of notability/reliability, very scant holdings of a book is a pretty big red flag regarding reliability and undueness.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll also note that Google Scholar IS a citation index, which are mentioned in WP:IRS as an important part of identifying reliable sources. The lack of citations to a work in Google Scholar, combined with the lack of qualifications of the author and the lack of holdings in libraries does indeed make a work less than mainstream. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

[18]. So yes books do get banned from some libraries.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand that library count and Google Scholar, are not determining factors if a source is reliable per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the only thing you managed to confirm is that the book is not widely circulated, it does not mean, though, that it is an unreliable source. This is so pathetic, at this point you basically hold to the view that if Google does not have it, it does not exist, so Google is now the decider what people will see and consider real or not. --E-960 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop with the ascribing of motivations and thoughts to other editors. I've asked you before, please stop. Note that I did not say a word about reliable. My point was that a lack of library holdings and a lack of other scholars citing a work makes it likely that the work is not mainstream in the scholarship. I do not agree that what I was pointing out was "that if Google does not have it, it does not exist, so Google is now the decider what people will see and consider real or not". That's not what I said or meant and it is not helpful to the conversation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement again

There is another thread over at WP:AE, shall we at least wait for that to conclude before making anymore changes?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we switch the reference format to use Template:sfn instead??

Since there are a lot of books/academic publications cited, and Template:sfn is really much cleaner and more readable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As you know I use {{r}} myself. I've been advised on the template's TP that {{sfn}} is somewhat fragile, but if the citations are checked after insertion there's no reason not to use it. François Robere (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski (again)

This is what Grabowski said: (quote)

• "I never talked about 200,000 Jews murdered by Poles themselves...I said that according to my estimates, Poles might be responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of most of these people - and this is an important distinction.”

Not this

• ”In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths by collaboration, even if the killing was done by the Germans"

So you might want to either self-revert, adjust text to reflect what he actually said or just leave the quote itself (probably the best option).GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Both those mean the same thing. I understand English might not be your first language (neither is it for me), but its not a valid reason to claim that some text which is already repetitive enough lacks clarity. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

They don’t mean the same thing. I’ll explain why but please self revert first so we stick to the rule. We’ll find the compromise. Thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clarifying, "I said that according to my estimates, Poles might be responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of most of these people" vs "In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths by collaboration" - that means exactly the same thing, just worded differently. There was also no consensus for your change. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Also, there is no ground for self-reversal, since I validly challenged your edit (by reverting), see top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not how I understand the rule imposed, but whatever, I’m here not to pick up the fight but make something good. So do you want to just leave the quote to make it simple or not? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I am against adding an additional quote since it repeats (maybe with a very tiny variant [read: insignificant hair-splitting]) material which is already (and even, already repeated!) in the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, then this is what he said in other words:

• In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles might be responsible for these deaths, even if the Germans made the actual killings.

Not this:

• In a later interview, he clarified that this number includes cases where Poles were co-responsible for the deaths by collaboration, even if the killing was done by the German.

MIGHT, “might be responsible” not “were responsible” do you see the difference? Also where do you see the word COLLABORATION in his quote? It is not insignificant hair-splitting. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's hair splitting, the difference in meaning is so minor its negligible - the only part which differs in exact meaning is "might be responsible for these deaths" vs. "were co-responsible for the deaths by collaborations", but that again is so similar its not worth making a fuss over it - I have slightly adjusted the article in consequence. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this works halfway so it is a compromise. DONE GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

They are the same. And both are unneeded, as we do not actually cover the distortion of his words in some Polish outlets - which is why he was asked the question (as is clear in the question asked). The bigger issue is that we still have criticism of this estimate sourced to a Facebook post of a Polish ambassador - which a shckingly poor source, UNDUE, and highly POVISH - and was edit warred into the article without consensus (as seen in RSN and talk).Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:AE seems rather clear that we will from now on require academic sources... Also, the above RfC (which was undertaken because of those facebook posts) will solve that issue too. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the ruling reg. only academic sources already in place? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, because the discussion isn't closed yet. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As per Icewhiz. Let it go. François Robere (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)