Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Military C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Military history: Asian / South Pacific / Balkan / Baltic states / British / Dutch / European / French / German / Italian / Japanese / Nordic / North America / Polish / Russian & Soviet / South Asia / United States / World War II Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) Baltic states military history task force British military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Japanese military history task force Nordic military history task force North American military history task force Polish military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force South Asian military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Poland Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Judaism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Is well known that many bussiness men and bankers help the Reich financing the rise and take of power of Hitler and the construction of its industrial and militar empire. This aid was not something atypical, it was one of the fundamental reasons Hitler could get his country out from a Crisis and a post-war era without problems. Harriman, Bush, Sullivan & Cromwell, Kuhn and Loeb families and banks and the General Motors of JP Morgan, IBM, Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and Ford Motors companies help the economical grow of the Reich substantialy Someone who speaks better English than me could talk about it? See: Anthony Sutton

This article is about, post Sept. 1939; do you have referenced materials to add from that period of time? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This country is not mentioned yet but is very important to know the total collaboration of Swiss banks in the removal of holocaust victims bank accounts and other indirect collaboration with the nazi regime. That's because Hitler didnt invade Switzerland. The neutral nation was not so neutral. Nestle also collaborates from Switzerland with the nazis.

Many used neutral countries as a way of doing business with the 'enemy'; Sweden is another example, but it was the business community doing it, not the governments. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's truly interesting to see the country that produced collaborators only on the individual level has the most prominent notice in this article. This is truly astonishing. I was striving to find well-known names of Polish collaborators but was capable to find only 3 deserving any attention. I've included these individuals along with the related pictures. CheersGizzyCatBella (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve closely reviewed some references provided in the Caveats part of Poland section and regrettably, have to say that some don't match writing that was inserted. I’ve fixed some of it but now I’m contemplating if we really need Caveats segment at all? This division has been created very recently and doesn't deliver any worthy data to the article. Any thoughts?GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to incorporate it into the main section body. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. The whole paragraph is how Poland was innocent and provided resistance, when the title of the article clearly says Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and that is what the whole section should be focused on. With all due respect, it should be completely rewritten.Ernio48 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Poland section of the article the sentence recently introduced reads: ”The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself” It is backed by citing 2 media articles. One from the American LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/13/local/me-9923 and one from the Israeli Ynet news: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4745850,00.html How do these 2 foreign media publicists prove Polish "complicity" in the Holocaust being controversial in Poland itself? There is not a word about it and I have read the articles entirely. On top of that, it is linked to the expression “controversial” to "Polish death camp" controversy article. This doesn’t make any sense and needs to be corrected.

Related discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:François_Robere#Let’s_rest_a_little_Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording has been changed from what it originally was, by yourself, and François Robere (talk · contribs). I find it perplexing that one would take this to talk in that regard since you made some of the changes, but that's just me, I guess. The wording was originally attempting to be supported by the source, and the changes moved it away from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825865100

First version:

Indeed, there is widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825917115

Second version, (which confused The LA Times with Bloomberg):

Some media outlets such as Bloomberg and BBC suggested a widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825865100

Third version:

It is believed by many that the Poles are complicit in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&type=revision&diff=826057499&oldid=826052393

Fourth version which added the Ynet link:

The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself,

This answers why it doesn't connect to the current wording.

R9tgokunks :✡ 08:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s is apparent to me also why the fourth version developed to something bizarre as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=826056976&oldid=826052393

Every time I fix it, soon it is being turned into something different, without citing proper references.

So this time again, I’ve modified it to reflect the sources supplied:

The issue of Polish collaboration with the Nazis and complicity in the murder of Jews during and after the Holocaust has been addressed by the global media and historians alike, including Poland itself...

I also correlated the Kielce Pogrom as well as Jedwabne Pogrom into the entry. And here is my plea to you people, if you choose to modify it again please, please support it by proper references. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R9tgokunks: I'm certain in my original wording, I've only softened it up to try and get everyone in consensus. We have sources suggesting denial on all levels, from the commoner on the street to government officials and researchers in key positions. If this isn't "denial" I don't know what is, but User:GizzyCatBella seems to prefer we didn't mention any of it as such. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look R9tgokunks, I’ll allow myself to be straightforward here.

No, you haven’t softened anything, neither you achieved everybody

consensus, nor introduced any proof that Polish “complicity" in the

Holocaust is being controversial in Poland itself.

All you have performed is a bold reversal to the bizarre phrasing. Consider reviewing the references given again and I'll get back here at the later time.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please indent your text properly on talk pages.

2. You're not following who writes what.

3. You say there's no controversy. What is the common perception as you understand it, then? François Robere (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thoroughly explaining that the fact that there is a level of controversy surrounding alleged Polish complicity in the Holocaust throughout the World, especially within Israel and Jewish American groups, but in Poland itself this is not an issue AT ALL. Poland at at-large denies any involvement in the Holocaust other than sporadic acts of violence on the individual level. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point about Poland, and hugely ironic at that. Nevertheless, you bring us back to my original phrasing: "Indeed, there is widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust". Are we now in agreement? François Robere (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No François, you see by wording it this way the entry implies that Poland denies without any evidence an indisputable fact of Poland’s collaboration in the Holocaust. But in reality, these allegations are being challenged by Polish historians who support that view by their own historical study. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First - no, it's not. I've used the phrase "any complicity" rather than "the complicity", which is neutral. Second, I provided multiple recent sources disputing your scant early sources that claim the opposite, plus sources that explain how denial and revisionism are manifested in Poland and why research is so lacking. You've provided nothing to counter any of it. If I were less of a gentleman I would call you out on your own denial - "it didn't happen, but don't say I said so. And by the way - it's Only Israelis, Americans and Jews who claim otherwise, but here's a Jewish-American source that agrees with me, so I'll take it." François Robere (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: You provided two 2003 with limited scopes (one about Warsaw, one about post-war events) to contradict a 2013 sources with a broader scope (multiple areas, across several years). This suggests both WP:RS AGE may be an issues, as well as WP:RSCONTEXT. That's why I asked for specific quotes or page numbers that show contradictions. It shouldn't be so difficult, as we're dealing with numbers orders of magnitude apart. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you being a gentleman François :) but I insist that

the original wording was misleading, I believe unintentionally

but it was. Anyways, I think we should take a break from updating

this article because I'm sensing some anger developing between

you and some other editors. You guys have very strong opinions

on this sensitive issue, so I somehow understand that. That's, why I think the pause is needed to cool things down.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strong subject backed by strong evidence, from historical studies to very current affair, and they all scream "denial" for anyone who's not deeply in it already (a law? seriously? what normative government with nothing to hide does that?). There's also that magic word we haven't mentioned - "antisemitism" - which is prevalent in Poland since days immemorial, and underlies all of the issues this article is about, but less directly relevant to some of the arguments made here. At any rate, I'll leave that sentence for the night; in the meanwhile tell me how do you prefer to address denial in a non-judgemental way. "Addressed by global media" and the like is non-informative. By the way - my intent is and was to incorporate the "caveats" section in the rest of the section, which seemed apologetic to begin with, but some consensus has to be reached first about this content. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About "prominent": I usually agree (in fact, in a previous revision I've removed some titles you gave to some people), but in this case there's a reason for that: You're quoting the Schudrich in his capacity as Chief Rabbi, which I contend isn't in a position to convincingly refute specific claims made by Grabowski et al. We don't need the "prominent", but we don't need the Rabbi either. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

@E-960: It's a 2003 book about Warsaw that supposedly refutes a 2013 one about Poland - it's legitimate to ask for a clarification. Also, your reversal undid more content than just the tag. François Robere (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why right in the article text you have this statement "...disputed by prominent researcher Efraim Zuroff." So, the sources are valid, and the differences in estimates are highlighted. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to read, man. Zuroff disputes the Rabbi's statement, not the 2003 book. And you removed the Zuroff reference when you undid the revision. François Robere (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read the criteria for a Dubious tag, because you are misusing it. --E-960 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella it is clear that François Robere is messing with the article text, by shorting some section and placing dubious tags on legitimate sources he does not like, at this point the behavior is becoming disruptive and appears borders on POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Shorting some sections"? I didn't remove any unnecessary information, and the tag in question is there so we can keep the other editor's sources. If I had removed material without any consideration you would've had a case, but thus far I kept everything both GizzyCatBella and yourself added. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I even sent you a "thank you" after you reviewed a change and added a translation. I'm surprised you're finding this an issue and not the two vandalism attempts from earlier this evening. Rude! François Robere (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am. I believe the other editor may have misrepresented the source with no ill intent, which corresponds to "an editor's interpretation of that source" in Template:Dubious. If you prefer any other template take your pick, just keep the reason parameter. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella, @E-960: I searched for the two 2003 books in two university libraries here and abroad, as well as online, and they're not kept anywhere (the Grabowski book is available in both libraries). I did find reviews of both books, and they're not stellar (Chodakiewicz's in particular looks shoddy). Put simply, they don't seem notable, so I repeat my request for specific quotes or the removal of both citations. François Robere (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section

@E-960: Why did you undo this] change? The two paragraphs are about the same body and some of text is redundant, plus two separate citations of the same book. François Robere (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, The Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police are two separate entities, why else are there two separate Wikipedia article about them? --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a source for Wikipedia... If you want, we can merge the two articles tomorrow, I have some spare time on 17:00.

Both articles make clear the connection between the two, together administering the daily affairs of their community: "The Judenräte also directed the Jewish police" and "auxiliary police units organized... by local Judenrat councils". This results in redundant material between the two paragraphs, not to mention generally bad style. What's your particular issue with the revision I made? François Robere (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, just stop with the manipulative language, I'm not using Wikipedia as a source, and there is no need to merge the two paragraphs because each discusses a separate topic, one Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What manipulative language?

The articles themselves maintain that one was an extension of the other, and both are discussed here in the same contexts and in similar capacities, which again results in redundancy and bad style. Do you want specific examples? François Robere (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: I will be restoring the change later today if you've no further objections. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do object, because your behavior shows that you are POV pushing and already two other editors objected to your editing, which included adding 'Dubious' tags to other statements in the section, and trying to minimize the details included. --E-960 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for your exact objections two comments above, and you didn't give any. If you're unwilling to substantiate your claims, don't make them. As for the books, I've explains my objections in the other section, and again you made no attempt whatsoever to counter them. The other editor indeed objected, but as you can see has already given ground on several issues. If this goes to arbitration, you will lose. Do you want to substantiate your objections, or shall we continue? François Robere (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is simple and is based on the fact that there are two separate articles in Wikipedia one for Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police... those are two separate entities, and have two separate paragraphs in this article — nothing wrong with that — so your edits are nothing more then a 'preference' to shorted the text and I object to it because it is not a substantive change.--E-960 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But again, Wikipedia isn't a source for itself, so who cares? And I've shown you these weren't separate entities any more than a nation's police and its government, and if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant. In addition, and that is substantive, it gives the wrong quantitative impression. In fact, I suspect whoever added the paragraph about the Ordnungsdienst did indeed intend on referring to the Judenrat there as well. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, btw, pls stop making empty threats that "I will lose", because all along it's clear you are POV pushing and other editors are also questioning your edits. Also, even if you do merger those two paragraphs anyone can come in and just add more detail and references to them, so that will be like a pyrrhic victory. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not making threats, I'm telling you you haven't fulfilled your burden of proof. You called my behavior "disruptive" - suggesting ANI and the like - but you've done nothing at all to carry your claims. You can't go about accusing people without proof. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, two separate Wiki articles — Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police — thus two separate paragraphs to show the distinction. After all, you are advocating only a cosmetic change, so this is not such a big issue. --E-960 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are we in agreement now? I'll go ahead and do it, then. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No we are not in agreement, my gosh!! Where do you see that I inserted a Wikipedia page as reference (please point it out in the article). What I'm saying is that these are two separate entities, the simple fact that there are two names - Judenrat and Jüdische Ghetto-Polizei — shows these were seperate things, they served different functions, just like in a country there is the "parliament" and "police", it's not just the "governemnt" one single entity as what you propose. --E-960 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, BTW, the Jewish Ghetto Police also took orders from the SS and Ordnungspolizei, and the Judenrat was not involved, this shows the separateness of the two entites. --E-960 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that I inserted a Wikipedia page as reference - I didn't, I said you're using Wikipedia as a source to justify what you think we should do: The Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police are two separate entities, why else are there two separate Wikipedia article about them, My objection is simple and is based on the fact that there are two separate articles in Wikipedia, Again, two separate Wiki articles.

just like in a country there is the "parliament" and "police" - but we're not talking about a parliament and a police, we're talking about a government and a police.

it's not just the "governemnt" one single entity as what you propose - if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant François Robere (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and what about Jewish Ghetto Police working directly with SS and Ordnungspolizei???? --E-960 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add that reference and see how it combines with the rest. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal for some cooldown period and brief departure of your valuable experience and enthusiasm towards editing other articles. Sadly, I'm sensing some hostility developing among you that may lead to undesirable conflict and inevitable administrative intervention. Thank you guys for your time and see you here in the future. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know how to slow down a tsunami (?), because I don't. Fortunately, we do have a WP:BRD rule here in Wikipedia meant to alert other Wikipedians to extreme partisan editing going on. I used the WP:BRD principle to direct your attention to WP:REDFLAG material inserted into this article lately, which I described in my summaries as follows: "all of that "orgy" is utter nonsense → there was no "study", just brief mentions lumping Auxiliary Police Battalions with the locals of all possible ethnic makeup, WP:RECENTISM, hostile commentaries from dailies without research... wrong article" and later: → "another hostile case ready for WP:ANI and spilling out from the "Polish death camp" controversy battleground". — Did any of you actually researched further the following statement in this article? "A 2014 study by historian Jan Grabowski found that in regards to Polish cooperation, "there were no bystanders." His study purports that around 200,000 Jews were kiled directly, or indirectly by Poles during the Holocaust." — Do you know what 200,000 means? There were 110,000 Polish Jews the Lwów Ghetto, in Tarnopol: 20,000 in Stanislawów: 30,000. The author is probably quoting numbers established by the Holocaust historians for the grand total of Jewish victims of shooting operations carried out by indigenous Auxiliary Police Battalions, estimated by Alexander Statiev at 150,000 Jews in Volhynia. Sloppy workmanship in the brief introduction there, with preposterous results in here. — Further information: Statiev Alexander (2010), The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands Cambridge University Press. page 69. Poeticbent talk 21:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Actually, if you read very closely that little paragraph in his book to see how he arrived at that number, you will invariably realize that that number is a fabrication with no source of any kind beyond his personal interpretation of someone else's comment. ‘Poeticbent' talk 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comment. I'll take a closer look at Grabowski's study soon because I'm not familiar with his book. I can only tell you right now that I'm amazed that he came up with such a large figure. Garbowski’s claim is as unique as Gross’s claim that the “Poles killed more Jews than Germans". Although Gross is known for making absurd statements as he also did in his work on Jedwabne, I know very little of Grabowski. Nevertheless, heavy highlighting the extreme claims of carefully selected scholars is disturbing indeed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (!) I just looked at Grabowski’s "discoveries": quote - in regards to Polish cooperation there were no bystanders - end quote. What does that suppose to mean? All adult Poles played some role in the killings? Elderly and woman also? Children as well? At what age, 12 and up? another quote - Poland is probably the only country in the world where practically the whole society betrayed and handed over to the Germans every hidden Jew - end quote. You know what?... this is as far as I’m willing to go, after reading this nonsense I don't think I'll be continuing sorry... I’m withdrawing my earlier pledge I’ve done and I strongly believe that Grabowski and his ridiculous and totally untrue claims shouldn’t be included in this article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, his work has been cited by numerous outlets recently. Haaretz, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, and the United States Holocaust Museum use his data.(EDIT: Yad Vashem, the world Holocaust Memorial in Israel, cites his numbers as well,) and in fact he was awarded by them in 2014. Just because you've done WP:OR and personally decided that you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it should be banned from Wikipedia, on the contrary, all sides should be included, especially if it was a rigorous study.I think we should all be a little more self-aware about our edits appearing as not meeting WP:NPOV. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Poeticbent:, for what it is worth the Haaretz piece on the book states this: "Grabowski cites a huge figure: more than 200,000. Precise numbers are very hard to come by, he observes, but immediately goes on to explain his calculations. One can start by saying that about 35,000 Polish Jews survived the war in Poland (excluding those who fled into the Soviet Union and returned after the war). We also know that close to 10 percent of Jews fled the liquidated ghettos in 1942 and 1943 – which would give you a number of about 250,000 Jews who tried to survive in hiding. Subtract the first number from the second and you will see the scale of the dark territory, in which the Poles, for the most part, decided who lived and who died." R9tgokunks ✡ 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. No other historian has ever said anything remotely similar to the above wayward claims. Read also WP:REDFLAG, please. Wikipedia is nobody's garbage dumpster. Poeticbent talk 00:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The extraordinary claim here isn't Grabowski's, but "Poland didn't have any collaboration", which is what the article stated before I made my original changes (in fact, you can see it was heavily biased: "Poles did not collaborate, those who did did so reluctantly, and the rest were heroes. Oh, but Jews collaborated."). That's an exceptional claim to make considering rates of collaboration across Europe during the same period of time; and when you dig deeper you realize it was only made possible because: a) the definition of "collaboration" was narrowed down so much you it excluded every possible case of collaboration; b) research was scant and politically biased for decades, both during and after the communist era; and that is hardly enough to prove and exceptional claim like "Poland was the only nation that didn't collaborate at all." François Robere (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@R9tgokunks If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella:, I've warned you once about assuming good faith in others, now you insult me? Please go to [1] where this will be dealt with. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R9tgokunks, I don't think that being on a short fuse and setting up an Admin Incident report is the best approach here, because it just turns up the mayhem. Discussions can get heated, and incident reports are for more serious personal attacks, not simply because someone just used an edgy reference, though an additional warning from your side is perfectly acceptable. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. This user has been here for over 3 years and should know how to conduct themselves by not making personal attacks. R9tgokunks ✡ 20:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can understand you warn the user, but based on this one crude comment, to go to Admins right way is a bit much. --E-960 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As one editor suggested we all do, I took a day's break from this article. Unfortunately, others have continued editing it, some adding dubious or irrelevant material. I've decided to take a "snapshot" of the article with my suggested revisions as well as some of the others, before more changes pile up. I'll explain my changes below momentarily, please be patient. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material with a reference source is not dubious, your only motivation is to create confusion with these misleadings statements. If you do not stop with this POV pushing, I will open and Admin Incident report against you. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Included a second source in the article, which confirms the material is not dubious, it states: pl: "Żydowscy agenci gestapo z Żagiwi udawali poza gettem żydowskich uciekinierów, by wydawać Niemcom Polaków pomagających Żydom, partyzantów i autentycznych uciekinierów żydowskich." en: "Jewish Gestapo agents from Żagiew pretended to be escaped Jewish refugees from the ghetto, in order to denounce to the Germans, Poles who helped Jews, partisans and authentic Jewish refugees." --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-960 Please stop being a douche. I asked for your patience and stated I'll explain everything soon. Would it kill you to hold down for an hour? I've waited a day while you were doing your changes. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, as I previously noted (both here, on my talk page, and in the ANI), the article in its original form seemed to reflect the contemporary Polish position, and read more like an apologetic press release than a critical historical review; that is, except when it came to Jewish collaborators, which are rightly but singularly castigated. Others noticed that as well ([2]).

Summary of the edits:

• No need for the Boguslaw Pilnik mention. This isn't a timeline.
• "however whether [statistics based on resistance death sentences] are indeed reflective of the actual number of collaborators is still debated" is extremely relevant and properly sourced
• Mentioning the national Righteous Among the Nations statistic in the Blue Police paragraph is out of place, and I think in general is out of place in this article. It implies Poles were particularly righteous, when there are adequate alternative explanations to the number - such as Poland having the largest pre-war Jewish population, and the fact most of the atrocities took place on its soil. So without supporting sources implying the above is misleading, and we shouldn't mislead the reader.
• Several sources were supplied both here and on other pages to support numerical estimates that are frankly just ridiculous:
  • Tadeusz Piotrowski's book is 20 years old. We have more recent sources that dispute his numbers.
  • Hans Furth's article is from 1999. Same comment.
  • Richard Lukas's books are from 1989 and 2001.
  • Paulsson's book is from 2001 and of limited scope (see discussion above). I asked for direct quotes or even page numbers and didn't get a reply.
  • Chodakiewicz's book is from 2003, of limited scope and reviews suggest is pretty bad (see discussion above). I asked for page numbers or quotes here as well.

If 2003 is the most recent estimate you can find to support your thesis in a field that's constantly advancing, then you have a problem with your thesis.

• Another quoted source is Poland's Chief Rabbi (see discussion above). I don't think he's relevant here, for two reasons: First, he's not actually a researcher AFAIK, so there's no paper we can look for to find how he arrived at his conclusion. Second - and you can view it as OR, but it's relevant nonetheless - he sits in Poland trying to lead a tiny, historically-persecuted minority in an age of rising antisemitism, including from members of government (I've given sources elsewhere); he has all the motivation needed to try and avoid friction with the Polish majority, regardless of whether he believes that estimate or not.
• Having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and Jewish ghetto police causes unnecessary redundancy (see discussion above), as they both had some shared functions and one was accountable to the other. In addition it creates a wrong quantitative impression, that is that there were more Jewish collaborators than there actually were. If this was an apologia like some other editors are trying to make it for Poles, then we would mention how many of them viewed their role as the "lesser evil" and hoped that they could save some of their fellow Jews by answering to the Germans despite all ill fate, but it isn't. We're not here to protect anyone's emotions, we're here to create a comprehensive, accurate and readable account of events.
• Some editor removed the section I added on caveats regarding the Polish narrative. This is unacceptable. The current Polish narrative is so full of holes it's impossible to find an article from world media or a foreign researcher that doesn't address at least some of them. As I commented earlier, my intent is to incorporate that content in the article body, but consensus on existing content has to be reached first.
• The opening sentence in the "denial" paragraph is meaningless (see discussion above). What does "addressed by global media" even mean? The fact of the matter is some of editors here want to avoid us even mentioning the possibility of Polish complicity, so we can't use "denial" (because only the guilty deny), and even "controversy" is too much (because, as one editor suggested, in Poland it's not controversial at all that it didn't happen). This is ridiculous, and has no place on Wikipedia.
• An IP editor changed the reference to the IPN law twice. "Contrary to the facts" doesn't soften the blow - the contrasts "the Polish nation" with "the actual perpetrators" (ie. the Germans) later in the paragraph - and the "artistic or scientific activity" exception is plain nonsense, given how censorship laws like this are usually applied. The law also extends IPN's mandate to "protection of reputation of the Republic" and "crimes of Ukrainian nationalists", in a clear attempt to shift the blame further. It's a bad law, and everyone knows it, and no reason to dance around that fact here.

François Robere (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on Boguslaw Pilnik (I’ll remove it since it’s my entry). FrançoisI'll go through the rest of your list tomorrow.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, I don't agree with most many of your proposals because they are designed to push a particular POV. For example your critique of Tadeusz Piotrowski, Cheif Rabbi, etc. and their estimates. It does not matter what you what to think, Piotrowski's book fits the criteria of a reliable source and this is just one example where scholars have conflicting estimates regarding an event, just look at the estimates proposed regarding troop strengths in the Battle of Grunwald. They are all included, not hidden because an pushy editor does not agree with some of them — btw, I was able to find a second reference source which quotes similar numbers and added it to the article. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Seperate Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police paragraphs do not causes unnecessary redundancy. This is nothing more then your personal preference to merge and thus shorted the text. In fact the two paragraphs show the reader that there was a distinction between the two. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Polish narrative paragraph, I'm a bit lost on this one, but this article is about collaboration not Polish attitudes. Just seems redundant if you ask me if it's out it should stay out. --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't remove the Piotrowski reference, unlike others that should be removed (like Paulsson's, Chodakiewicz's and one of Lukas's - a book thirty years old, from before many archives even opened up to the public). My reservations about the Rabbi's estimate pertain both to WP:RSOPINION (he didn't publish anything, so go figure how he reached that number) and WP:BIASED (not implying ill intent, but he is in a vulnerable position [3]). Conflicting numbers aren't the problem, the sources they're claimed to derive from are.

I've shown you these weren't separate entities any more than a nation's police and its government, and if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant

You're apparently lost on most of it. The fact of the matter is that many, many Poles collaborated on many levels with the occupiers, yet it's denied wholesale using word games and fallacies like no true Scotsman. That's how this section could state that "there was very little collaboration", or no "true" collaboration, that it was "marginal" and so on and so forth. I've given plenty of sources showing the depth and even timeline of the politization of history in Poland as it pertains to antisemitism, WWII and the Holocaust, necessarily leading to a skewed historiography - hence the relevance here. François Robere (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand... it's not for you to decide which source to keep, if a reference is a reliable source and these are reliable sources. It's becoming clear you are pushing a POV, by insisting that this material should be removed. Again look at other articles that include many estimates. --E-960 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, your argument provided no concrete merits, just a bunch of chatter saying that you want to remove various text and reference sources. Also, I'm going to give you a fair warning, to watch how you talk to other editor, you calling me this "E-960 Please stop being a douche." or making repeatedly rude statements such as this "You're apparently lost on most of it." is adding up. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Polish National Institute of Remembrance PDF: [4] also states the number is around 120,000 in 2008 is that too old as well? --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've accused me of POV and destructive editing several times here and here, without doing even a minimal effort to prove it, right up to the point I mention Moderation and other "procedures"; then when I asked for a bit of patience (top of this thread) you went ahead and reverted my changed without even waiting for me to explain. So you're a douche.

Second, it is up to us to decide which is a relevant source, and if you can't demonstrate that an estimate from 30 years ago is still relevant, or that the Rabbi's number is anything but a personal opinion, or that the 2001 and 2003 books actually say what you claim they say, then they're not relevant. And you haven't. Curiously, I do not remember you defending relevant and up-to-date sources that contradict your position, like Gross and Grabowski, sometimes (as with Zuroff) removing them yourself. BTW, what's with the Polish financial magazine that you added? Or "Salon24"? What the hell are these?

Third, I explained the historiography issue several times already (on several talk pages) as I have several other issues like "using Wikipedia as a source for itself" and "merging paragraphs with redundant text". One can only be patient for so long.

Fourth, I don't know what you're referring to in "concrete merits", because your one-liner isn't clear on which of the other seven points it's meant to address. As I said, you seem uninterested in discussing any material point that doesn't support your story.

Actually the IPN booklet says 30,000-120,000, without citing sources (one of which may very well be Piotrowski), and you added it as if it unequivocally supports the higher estimate. Are you trying to cheat? François Robere (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are so glib... For some reason you keep using this term "relevant sources" to describe reference material (and you want to decide on what's "relevant"), while in fact, per Wikipedia guidelines its RELIABLE SOURCES not relevant sources, i.e. material which has been published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses. Both Lukas' and Piotrowski's works were published by reputable publishers University Press of Kentucky and McFarland & Company. Also, per Wikipedia guidelines, age by itself is not a disqualifying factor of reference sources, in fact Wikipedia guidelines say that both new and old sources may have drawback and benefits to them, and one does not automatically take precedence over the other. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expected them to be? Depressing? This topic is depressing enough as it is.

As for "relevant sources": We rarely quote all sources or all claims on a matter, especially when they're dated. We could quote Gray's Anatomy from 1858 - I mean, it's from a reputable publisher, isn't it? Only knowledge has progressed since. Some of the newer sources give wildly differing opinions than the ones quoted above, some of which make "exceptional claims" (Three million Polish savers? Who are you trying to kid?). All of this is to say, in short, that we have some degree of editorial discretion in picking sources. Thus far my concerns about some of the sources haven't been answered (as have several of my concerns in general), and I'm far from convinced they're either relevant or actually supportive of the claims they're supposed to back up. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Gray's Anatomy from 1858"? Really, great example... can you find a more unreasonable and childish comparison? So, based on your criteria books by Steven Hawkins form the 1990s are unusable as Wikipedia references, also based on this dumb criteria of yours, apparently we can't use anything of Einstein because his junk is over 30 years old and completely useless. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Gray's from 1984? There were over 40 editions to pick from, and most wouldn't be quoted here as current.

this dumb criteria of yours - you mean WP:RS AGE? François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring and cleanup

As I mentioned earlier, this section was heavily biased, and read like an apologia to the bravery of the Polish nation rather than an account of collaboration. The exception, of course, was Jews - that tiny minority of Jews who collaborated was not shown the same lenience some other editors gave the Poles. One cannot but ask the question what this article is about: Is it about the relationships of occupied nations with the Nazis - the collaboration, the resistance and the passivity - or just about collaboration? The article's lead makes it clear that it's the latter case, and indeed there's not a single section in this article that reads quite like the one about Poland. As mentioned earlier, other editor took notice of this; this clearly has to be fixed. The stories of bravery and resistance will have their place elsewhere.

Major changes:

• This continues from where I left last time (above see change list above). However, I've incorporated some of the later changes made by others.
• I've restructured the section. It was disorganized, and now it's (hopefully) clear and readable.
• I've removed some of the photos. We had 5 photos of collaborators, 3 of which of Jewish collaborators. Jews did not constitute 60% of collaborators, so that is misleading.
• We need more information on collaboration in the "Blue Police". Between the mounds of text meant to extoll them there's surprisingly little about what they actually did.
• The same goes for the collaboration within the resistance. The one unit that did collaborate (according to the cited sources) is qualified as doing so "tacitly", and there's no mention anywhere of the interactions between the resistance and Jewish fugitives, which was at times... problematic. We need more information about it.
• The sections on the German minority are problematic: The statement implicating them in collaboration is unsubstantiated by the cited source, the statement on Volksdeutsche listing considered a "high crime" contradicts is not in line with the following paragraph, that casually mentions that "some estimates are higher... including the 'Volksdeutsche'". If there are three million such people and they're all collaborators, then the other estimates are significantly higher than Lukas's "several thousands", and something is seriously amiss. When you remove those bits along with the irrelavant apologetic ones ("were treated with particular contempt") you're left with very little. We can add back some of material if we have some supporting sources and can incorporate it with the rest of the text properly.
• I've rephrased the paragraph on the "Żagiew" and Group 13 to reflect the fact they were criminal groups rather than "mainstream" organizations.
• Details that do not bear on collaboration were removed. For example, the "Righteous Among the Nations" count has no little relevance in demonstrating collaboration, and in addition it's misleading (providing just the count without context gives the impression of particular "righteousness" on behalf of the Poles despite there being alternative and equally valid explanations for the that), so it was removed
• Most references remain, though I've reformatted some using citation templates.

François Robere (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your massive and disruptive edits; blatant POV pushing, removing reliable sources and long standing material, all the while adding one-sided statements, which create issues of un-due weight within the Poland section. Also filed an ADMIN'S NOTICEBOARD/INCIDENT report, to prevent further disruption of such massive proportions to the article [5]. --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now that your ANI ended with the determination that it's a content dispute; I've done nothing wrong; "books a third of a century ago probably won't say what they do today"; and comments by others that "[I] might actually have a... basis for [my] changes" and that the arguments I've made "seem reasonable", as well as a reprimand of User:Poeticbent for his uncivil comments - can we go on with the process? François Robere (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go on with what? It's still just you pushing your POV, as a matter of fact a new comment by Slatersteven below stated that if RS are reliable removing them and the statements supported by them can be considered as vandalism. --E-960 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it carried on and is done against consensus yes it might well end up being viewed as disruptive. Also (François) The ANI did not say you were right, it said that this is a content dispute (it made no judgement as to which of you ism in the right). Please be aware of WP:TE, this is heading that way.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which, at the moment, is User talk:E-960's problem, not mine. If a vote was taken now, I suspect, there will be 4-5 editors for my changes, and only two against.

As for Policy: I knew what I was doing when I made those changes, and I knew the other user will have no reasonable claim against me. While it is about content as far as I'm concerned, the fact the other editor has reversed my changes time and time again with no substantial discussion has certainly moved it to WP:TE territory. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as I replied to Slatersteven: Unfortunately for User:E-960, his ANI complaint against me resulted in nothing, so you can take that off the table.. Stop making accusations and start making arguments for your claims. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do or do not the sources support what is in the article, and do you have any sources that contest the claimS, did you or did you nor remove sourced material?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources do, some sources are questionable - I've asked for clarifications about those, but didn't get them - and some do, but the content itself isn't relevant for the article (that is, not about the subject of the article).

I sourced everything. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to discus an edit when it removes so much. As you admit here some of it was sourced, yet you still removed it. Can you please make a separate section for each sources or fact you think should not be here, and we can discus each one without trying to guess what material you think is irrelevant (as opposed to poorly sourced (for example)).Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. I didn't even intend on making this edit until after we agreed on some of the major parts (and I told as much to one of the editors when they messaged me), but it was impossible to achieve one, and not for lack of trying on my part. What I eventually decided to do is to make the edit and thoroughly explain it, then let discussion proceed from there whether it's reversed or not. Unfortunately, as you can see throughout this page, User:E-960 hasn't made an effort to engage on most of the points.

As for your suggestion: I'm sorry, but I won't. I know it'll save you work, but I've already listed all of it on this page, and more than once (see the bullet points above for a start), and a summary of my position was given on the ANI. I'll happily go along with what you're doing below, but I've more than fulfilled my burden of proof already, and it's becoming bothersome to repeat it again and again. François Robere (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting text from the Poland section that you don't like — it is sourced material. At the same time you added details that you see as important, but do not allow other to included material with reference sources. Over the last few day, you are POV pushing and you need to stop. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for your patience while I was writing all of the above, but obviously you can hold it. Read first, react from your gut later. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-960 You're making it impossible for others to work on this article. By the time I explained my changes above, in goodwill and with the intent of promoting discussion, you made three changes in six revisions, and like your previous edits they're solely focused on Jewish collaborators, while rolling back any change implying (non-Jewish) complicity. I don't think you're actually interested in achieving consensus, and it smells badly. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please... what about all your questionable edits and the arguments with GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent. All the dubious tags and text on Polish collaboration. Seriously, your content was allowed to stay, do the same for others. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of my edits is explained on this page, and everyone can see exactly when I added or removed material and why. It's also clear when you you decided to engage (when Arbitration was mentioned), and questions I asked that didn't get answered (like the tag - singular - you keep complaining about without explaining). Are you going to start discussing changes, or not? François Robere (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are arbitrarily removing RELIABLE SOURCES of mainstream academics—whose work was published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses—which don't fit your narrative. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IF rs say it so can we, removal of sourced material can be seen as vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for User:E-960, his ANI complaint against me resulted in nothing, so you can take that off the table. François Robere (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, despite your delusional thinking, the conclusion of the ANI did not say it's ok to remove reliable sources (Wikipedia rules are still in place), but to return to the article talk page. Also, you still need to gain consensus. So, if you think that the Admins gave you a carte blanche, keep dreaming. --E-960 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recall the administrators' warning that "Everyone mind their words, though. Behavior's still on the table."? Watch it. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that should give you a moment of pause, since twice during the course of these ongoing discussions you called ma a derogatory word:

• Please stop being a douche. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• So you're a douche. François Robere (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to: a) count how many times you made baseless accusations against me of "POV pushing" before I made those remarks? b) quote my entire message, to clarify what you did that entitles you to that particular brand? François Robere (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can the pair of you stop talking about each other, this is about discussing the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Beauty and personal hygiene have nothing to do with it, and I'm not one to gossip anyway. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... so funny — not --E-960 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the Poland section which reads: "Yehuda Bauer calls the claim that 60,000 Poles saved Jews 'a blunt lie': There is no doubt that a very brave minority amongst Poles aided Jews. But if it was 60,000, the history of the Holocaust in Poland would've looked completely different." should be removed, as it is cited from the Hareetz newspaper article clearly marked as OPINION, offering no evidence or explanation as to why other research conducted on the subject is wrong (just using weasel-words and rhetoric calling everything a "blunt lie"), yet this statement is presented in the Poland section as if it was a reference to an academic work. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is an opinion and it is cited as such already. Second, you defended keeping the Chief Rabbi's opinion - an opinion not backed by sources, by someone who isn't a scholar, who both himself and his community are under threat of physical violence (encouraging bias); then referenced a Polish financial newspaper and a magazine called "Salon24" as proof of what looks awfully like a blood libel, with no additional sources; now you have a problem with an Israeli paper of record quoting one of the world's leading Holocaust researchers? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh okay, so you do agree that this reference is just an OPINION piece form a online news website, and I'm just going to make a wild guess here that this one lowly statement is what you are basing your opposition on to actual academic works by Paulsson, Lukas and Piotrowski. --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with a well-respected scholar expressing an opinion in his field of expertise?

I'll assume you're hard of reading if you still think I made no case for my objections:

@GizzyCatBella: You provided two 2003 with limited scopes (one about Warsaw, one about post-war events) to contradict a 2013 sources with a broader scope (multiple areas, across several years). This suggests both WP:RS AGE may be an issues, as well as WP:RSCONTEXT.

@E-960: It's a 2003 book about Warsaw that supposedly refutes a 2013 one about Poland - it's legitimate to ask for a clarification.

I believe the other editor may have misrepresented the source with no ill intent, which corresponds to "an editor's interpretation of that source"

I searched for the two 2003 books in two university libraries here and abroad, as well as online, and they're not kept anywhere (the Grabowski book is available in both libraries). I did find reviews of both books, and they're not stellar (Chodakiewicz's in particular looks shoddy). Put simply, they don't seem notable, so I repeat my request for specific quotes or the removal of both citations

If 2003 is the most recent estimate you can find to support your thesis in a field that's constantly advancing, then you have a problem with your thesis.

a book thirty years old, from before many archives even opened up to the public

if you can't demonstrate that an estimate from 30 years ago is still relevant... or that the 2001 and 2003 books actually say what you claim they say, then they're not relevant

You, on the other hand, haven't:

In addition, and that is substantive, [having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and ghetto police] gives the wrong quantitative impression

Having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and Jewish ghetto police causes unnecessary redundancy... [and] creates a wrong quantitative impression

what's with the [citations of a] Polish financial magazine that you added? Or "Salon24"? What the hell are these?

Actually the IPN booklet says 30,000-120,000, without citing sources (one of which may very well be Piotrowski), and you added it as if it unequivocally supports the higher estimate

you defended keeping [...] an opinion not backed by sources, by someone who isn't a scholar [...] then referenced a Polish financial newspaper and a magazine called "Salon24" as proof of what looks awfully like a blood libel, with no additional sources; now you have a problem with an Israeli paper of record quoting one of the world's leading Holocaust researchers

And you have the nerves to accuse me of "POV pushing"...

François Robere (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this chatter don't change the fact that you are pushing un-due weight onto the article by placing over-emphasis on this one OPINION piece from an online news website, not even using it as a simple reference, but quoting it word for word at length in the article, as if it was an academic work. --E-960 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're really quite impervious to discussion, are you? One who can't change their mind through discussion is redundant in it. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cause your rants consistently miss the point:

• This OPINION statement should be removed all together because it does not talk about instances of Polish collaboration, but it talks about how many Jews were saved by Poles, this is not the subject matter covered in this article, So, why did you add it in the first place? --E-960 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree, after all many Germans saved Jewish lives, I doubt anyone would use that as evidence that Germans did not also help the Nazis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly my point regarding Lukas, Piotrowski, Paulsson and all of the other sources E-960 argued for keeping. If we agree on this, we can just as well restore the changes I made and be done. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What they have argued that because some Germans helped Jews the Germans did not help the Nazis', can you provide the quote for this please?, and if you cannot then how is my point exactly the seam as yours?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. These sources (apart from Lukas, actually) provide estimates of the number of Poles who helped Jews, which in the context of this article is both apologetic and irrelevant. That's one reason I suggested removing them. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is how you blur things and sow confusion, the statement by Paulsson is long standing—it was on this page way before you started objecting to it—and it provides a comparison of numbers between who collaborated vs. who assisted. --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not say that we cannot imply it (that is OR), so do the sources make that link?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source states exactly that, these same figures by Paulsson were actually used by the Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki during a recent discussion with foreign Journalist on the issue. The whole meeting can even be viewed on online.--E-960 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, Italian historian of Jeiwsh background David Cesarani in an old interview stated the "the level help given to Jews in Poland was large" --E-960 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that does not say anything about comparing this to Polish collaboration, so if you think nit does I think we need the quotes form the sources saying something like "thus it is clear that polish help for the Jews implies a low level of collaboration". If the sources do not explicitly say something of the kind polish help for Jewish refuges is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing blurry about it. First, to quote from the ANI discussion: User:E-960 appears to be making an argument that because it has existed unaltered, that it's right. Although that supports an argument to seek consensus before changing it - it doesn't support the argument that it is right.

Second, as I've said over and over again, that comparison is irrelevant both here, and in general. It's posed here along with many other statements as sort of a "counter" to the issue of collaboration ("some collaborated, but look! so many people were just!") which is so irrelevant that it isn't done anywhere else in this article; and as it's provided without any context it also biases the text towards your narrative. And then you go and accuse me of "sanitizing" the facts? Shame on you. François Robere (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This last note is not intended as reference in the article, just a note to user François Robere, that Yehuda Bauer's opinion is not an authoritative statement, that's all. --E-960 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bauer's opinion isn't the issue. Get over it.

OK, so we all agree that we can take out that statement. --E-960 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that. I see no reason why a leading Jewish opinion is irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust. I do have issues with including statements about the number of Jews saved without an indication that this is a counter point to collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait a minute, so you have an issue with the statement that Poland never surrendered, because it does not talk about collaboration, but in this case you want to keep a statement form a how many Poles saved Jews, even though this is not a topic of collaboration? --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After all this is your first comment: "Tend to agree, after all many Germans saved Jewish lives, I doubt anyone would use that as evidence that Germans did not also help the Nazis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)." Seriously, this is causing serious confusion. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said lets try to keep arguments in one thread at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, as a start, can we all agree on removing Bauer's statement and estimates that follow it? --E-960 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been removed - which I support. This statement might be relevant to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, but not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of that Polish statesman who in 1930/40 was offered by Hitler to establish the collaborative government in GG? He declined and then was shot by the Germans a few months later? I totally forgot the name of that politician, such an embarrassment ..(my old head refused to cooperate :) ) There were two of them, both refused and got killed. I can't remember names of either of them. I need this information to amend the article. Appreciate it.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Kazimierz Bartel GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about we challenge on source and statement at a time, rather them mass edits. So

"Unlike in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany—where the Germans sought such collaborators among the locals—in occupied Poland there was no official collaboration either at the political or at the economic level. Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans."

What do users say is wrong about this, and why are the sources suspect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is generally correct. The second statement is irrelevant to this article. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why such a huge revert was problematic, it is hard to find what you left in and took out. So care to raise a specific objection to another part you did remove?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a long standing text that was on this page for years and no one objected, it states what is generally regarded as true, on how little collaboration took place, nothing wrong with it, should stay as is. --E-960 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant, text can always be challenged. It is down to you to make an argument based upon more then seniority. Why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, what exact part is irrelevant, user François Robere writes the entire paragraph down, than says only a part of it is irrelevant. Can you be more specific? --E-960 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no I wrote it down. I am thinking you both have issues that may need dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to confusing, sorry, and this is the problem when you try to challenge and re-write everything in an article. Note to everyone, if these are long standing statements they have been viewed for months if not year by other editors, who did not have a problem with it, so there is a level of validation through it, unless there is clear and compelling evidence it is wrong. --E-960 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, are we going to go statement by statement and discuss everything? What happened in the last few days is an example of how basically one editor challenged huge sections of the article and wants to change them. You have to understand that Wikipeida is a long term process with a collective wealth of input, so when someone just want to challenge large portions of the text it raises questions marks. --E-960 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about disusing why the material about Poland not surrendering is relevant to an article about collaboration, and not a user or their actions. Do you have a valid justification for including that statement?Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing initially that statement about not surrendering was added long ago to highlight the difference between Poland and France which surrendered and then gave support to Nazi Germany. --E-960 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it is (in essence) OR via synthesis. "The poles did not surrender so they did not collaborate as much". This is not demonstrated as collaboration is often an individual (rather then collective) act. This sentence should be struck.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, remove this statement and that of Bauer, we can all agree they miss the mark in this article? --E-960 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some tit for tat bargaining, this is blatant or.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the logic, so you have an issue with the statement that Poland never surrendered, because it does not talk about collaboration, but in this case you want to keep a statement form a how many Poles saved Jews, even though this is not a topic of collaboration? --E-960 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I have said that if we include statements about the holocaust his opinion is of note. I think I also said I do not see the relevance of the number of Jews saved.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all random statements on the Holocaust should be removed if they do not specifically adresss the issue of collaboration, this would include Bauer's statement and estimates that follow it. --E-960 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And about a quarter or a third of the content I already removed. Another third is non-random statements that do the same. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One statement discussed at a time François Robere. None of that lets remove a quarter here or a third there. So, do we agree on removing Bauer's statement and the estimates after it? --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day all here is my general opinion. The article is way too long, François Robere made a solid effort into improvement of the article. There is too much weight on Jewish collaboration and too much weight on eccentric conclusions such as one of Grabowski. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the article is too long, and as you mentioned there is too much emphasis placed on some statements such as Grabowski and Bauer. Also, what is the point of the three pictures of individual, none of who are actually mentioned in the text. --E-960 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this is not necessary in my opinion:

Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans. Under German occupation, the Polish army continued to fight underground, as Armia Krajowa and forest partisans – Leśni. The Polish resistance movement in World War II in German-occupied Poland was the largest resistance movement in all of occupied Europe. As a result, Polish citizens were unlikely to be given positions of any significant authority

If there are no objections, I’ll remove it and proceed to the next item. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only objection to the current effort is that it's essentially repeating what I've already done (remember that it's not only removing sentences, it's copyediting all around it to make sure you're not left with something that just looks like this. An easier thing is to decide all of this categorically (with discussion of exceptions where appropriate), for example: "we don't need 'number of saved Jews' estimates" - several statements in the section fall into that category, and we can just remove all of them (again, discussing exceptions or examples where appropriate).

As for pictures: the poster ("report to your Vogt!") is not mentioned in the article, but I think it's worth keeping if we add context (it looks like an interesting, potentially significant story), so I tagged it. The other ones - we can have some images of significant collaborators, but they're not a necessity - it really depends on how we structure the article later.

Stuff we do not need in any case:

• Estimates like the above, whether Paulsson's, Piotrowski's or Bauer's
• Emphasis on people who didn't collaborate. Note: I say "emphasis", because in some cases it's worth noting, but not in a way that shifts the focus from the main issue. The whole subject is extremely nuances: If you were an officer of the Blue Police, for example, you may have been forced into service, but whether you were "reluctant" depends on the case; and even if you were, perhaps you were satisfied with the antisemitic aspects of it, or with harassing civilians? And you could still spy for AK. So which is "collaboration" and which is not? My way of resolving this here is to simply avoid qualifiers and tell the story as plainly as possible: "There were so and so Blue Police, this is what they did, you be the judge."
• Qualifiers that "soften the blow" or harden it: "reluctantly", "special contempt", "tactically" etc., for the same reason as above.
• Violence porn - excessive descriptions of violence (for example Rumkowski's). A good enough impression can be had without resorting to vulgarity.

Stuff we do not inherently need if the article is properly written:

• Most of the historiographic background, ie how and why the different estimates differ (but not all).
• Mentioning of the new IPN law.

These are things that can be cut categorically as far as I'm concerned, and probably not an exhaustive list. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, François. Now, please make one or two alterations, commencing below my entries. Not all at once, just one or two entries for everyone to absorb, very important. This way slowly but surely we'll get there. PS My appeal to all Polish editors, PLEASE do not revert François edits no matter how controversial they may look to you, we need to discussed everything first. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GizzyCatBella for organizing the editing approach. Also, I would question the need for Connelly's entire quote related to "...accused of shared indifference". This is in line with Grabowski's "there were no bystanders", both very circumstantial and problematic claims. --E-960 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one of the first things I did when I made my changes was reorganize the paragraphs so the subjects are clearly separated (eg. a different section for the German minority, which is now mentioned in several places). This makes later work much easier. See the recent revision for a rough reordering of exactly the same content as the previous revision. The next step would be to simplify the text (mainly editing out irrelevant content) and restructure the paragraphs themselves. François Robere (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice François Robere in my view. Now, lets this sink in a little and we’ll proceed. Any comments on François change so far?GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point: Estimates like the above, whether Paulsson's, Piotrowski's or Bauer's — agree we can take out Paulsson's, Piotrowski's and Bauer's statements. Now, regarding Connelly's statement in that one paragraph, I agree that many Poles were somewhat indifferent to what was happening, but at the same time there were many Poles who were helpless and lacked any means or a plan to assist (example: Germans in the countryside confiscated millstones to grind grain on individual farms, so if someone wanted to stash extra grain and grind it to feed additional people they would not have been able to do so, you had to turn in all your grain to a central collection point and got a small ration of ground flour for own use). So, perhaps instead of quoting Connelly word for word maybe we can just summarize this though and cite the reference. --E-960 (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I've had with citing Connelly rather than quoting him, is that he's very, very concise. You can summarize or rephrase many sources and end up with something better; with him you can barely add or remove a single word without ending up with something worse. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ve made an amendment to the first two lines in the following section. Please correct or comment, if there are no objections we'll move forward. There is no rush, please take your time, one of you guys should make subsequent entry following my change. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more crucial point, we are kind of turning this article on Collaboration into specifically Polish Collaboration, quoting authors is fine if the entire article is related to a specific subject, but in this case there is stuff about each country and this is just too much detail about Poland. I honestly would just get rid of this entire paragraph with stuff form Paulsson, Connelly, Bauer, Lukas and Piotrowski and that note on Yad Vashem (the entire Heroism and betrayal section). Also, issues raised by Connelly, such as "shared indifference" can be applied to every country in this article (including the US for not bombing the railroads, etc.). So, just like in the other country sections in this article focus should stay with active and conscious collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree, thought both Paulsson and Lukas have relevant numbers on collaboration (though Lukas's is an old and clearly limited estimate from what we know of his methodology). Connelly is a different matter, because he gives both a context to and a summary of this whole thing; and regarding other countries - other countries aren't still claiming no collaboration took place. Put differently: What Connelly says is that Poland wasn't any different from the rest because it didn't have a government, so it can't be used as an excuse for anything. François Robere (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see this sentence has been rewritten into a paragraph in Poland#Background, which reads fine. I've added a sentence that explained what happened to Polish territories in lieu of having a Polish collaborative government, I hope it is fine. Note that in GG the administration was run by Germans, through low to mid levels were staffed by Poles. Those mid to low level clerks are, for example, among the 'collaborators' counted by the wider estimates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pushed myself into reading Grabowski, and I have to tell you that I’m more and more wondering about his work. I speculate that he is doing it for publicity and money. Anyway, that’s just my personal opinion, irrelevant after all. "200,000 Jews were killed directly, or indirectly by Poles during the Holocaust". What does he mean by “indirectly killed”?? People denounced by Szmalcowniks? GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, if there was a Polish fellow who murdered a Jew to rob him, meaning he killed a man for personal gains. Is that Pole a collaborator and if yes, why? Now, what if there was a Jewish person who killed a Pole to take away his...food for instance. Was that Jewish person a collaborator since Poles were also oppressed by the Nazis..?? Now, what about a Pole who killed another Pole for personal gains, was the killer a collaborator? What about a Jew who murdered a fellow Jew? Sorry, I’m still trying to wrap my mind around all of this. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he does, and his estimate doesn't at all looks exaggerated to me. Bear in mind when dealing with Gross and Grabowski that they've both been targets of smear campaigns in Poland, up to and including death threats, all the while being well respected abroad [6][7]. Put differently: I wouldn't trust Polish dailies for a fair critique of either.

It's a perfectly acceptable question, the answer to which lies in a different question: "would the crime have been committed regardless of the Nazi presence?" If it would, then it's "regular crime" (eg. robbery of an anonymous person) and doesn't belong here; if it wouldn't (eg. blackmailing a Jewish family), then it does. One can also form more precise questions instead ("...regardless of the Nazi racial agenda", "did the crime align with Nazi racial policy" etc.), but you get what I mean either way. I tried to circumvent the whole issue of motive - which as you note is highly nuanced - in my (now reverted) revision by using the phrase "crimes against the Jewish minority carried in the context of the Nazi occupation" instead of just "collaboration". François Robere (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross lost his credibility following his actually not bad book about Jedwabne that has been confirmed to be overblown. And his latest statements such as "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" don't help. But Grabowski and his findings is a mystery to me. I need to see a scholarly response to his work first to properly assess him. But for now, I'm just using my knowledge and simple logic such as this: The mass killing of Jews started about 1942, that's roughly 900 days until the time of Red Army arrival. Which indicates that Poles themselves had to kill more than 220 Jews a day. Such mass slayings would have to be noticed and reported or documented somewhere. There is NO WAY that the Germans or Polish Home Army wouldn't identify that happening. So now, why there are no German reports on it, photographs, a film? Why there are no Polish underground reports on it? Why Żegota didn't know and didn't stretch its help to protect Jewish citizens from the Poles? Why there is no 70 years old written official records of any kind? None. And now, 70 years later we have Grabowski and his 200.000 ... Anyways, let brush this aside, historians should sort that out not us. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read his book, but the claim 200,000 needs to be sourced. Our article notes that few thousand is the number of people sentenced for said crimes. There are, of course, some, who escaped. Our article does explain that higher estimates are "counting in all members of the German minority in Poland and any former Polish citizens declaring their German ethnicity (Volksdeutsche), regardless of their support for the Nazi cause, as well as conscripted members of the Blue Police, low-ranking Polish bureaucrats employed in German occupational administration, and even workers in forced labor camps (ex. Zivilarbeiter and Baudienst)." Maybe this is how Grabowski arrives at 200,000. Does he ever explain that his book? Btw, here's another newsy shocking statistic from recent days: [8]: "According to one scholar at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, of the 160,000-250,000 Jews who escaped and sought help from fellow Poles, about 10 percent to 20 percent survived. The rest were rejected, informed upon or killed by rural Poles, according to the Tel Aviv University scholar, Havi Dreifuss." Wonder what their sources are? (also, ping User:Poeticbent, User:Nihil novi)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the article states is not a proof of fact, as was previously noted (see WP:CCC). Grabowski simply used a different method than Lukas, which is related to the particular statistic you quote. There's an explanation somewhere above. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know IPN and many Polish historians disagree with Gross, but as I said - abroad he very much maintains his credibility (including that statement of his, which two historians interviewed in the context of his persecution said "may end up being true"). Everything else is WP:OR, so not for us to promote. Again I reiterate: put aside much of what you've heard in everything relating to Grabowski and Gross. Countries like their national myths, and react strongly when they're challenged. I can show you recent examples of this from Polish media, but I'd rather not do it on this talk page as it's WP:FORUM. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard that other scholars questioned Grabowski's estimates and particularly the method of how he arrived at that number. So, I would not consider his research as settled history and more like an ongoing academic controversy. So, in this instance omitting his quotes in the article would be a preferred. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not. I'd venture a guess that he's just the first to provide an estimate this order of magnitude, given the historic and historiographic reasons we already discussed. What specifically would you omit? François Robere (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just like with the Heroism and betrayal section, I would get rid of the entire paragraph with stuff form Grabowski, Paulsson, Chodakiewicz, Schudrich and Zuroff. Because the number of Jews killed by Poles is not necessarily related to collaboration. But, perhaps more to do with local anti-semitism, banditry and lawlessness (unless like in Jedwabne, Poles were encouraged by the Germans). Also the graphic details is something that can be done away with just like in the Judenrat section. We really need to think how to trim the Poland section and keep material that is related to collaboration, and what is settled history, instead of listing point vs. counter point, because Poland is not the only country in this article. --E-960 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's, again, the usual Polish heap of justifications (along with "they thought they were communists" and a few others). You can spin in a thousand ways 'till Sunday and you won't escape one simple fact: Polish Poles gladly turned against Polish Jews, and they only needed an opportunity to do it, not a justification. The Polish war and post-war myth is full of these, and we're way past it. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it an adjustment to the Polish WW2 story. Nevertheless, since there are no volunteers, I'll eliminate the line concerning the Blue Police and Dąbrowa since this is covered in the section dedicated to the Blue Police below. I think this is self-explanatory anyway. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fact, it is your opinion, controversial and debated among historians, and very much WP:FORUM. Anyway, even if we accept the highest, i.e. 200,000 collaborators claims, you get something like 1% of Polish population of that time. Hardly sufficient to justify any claims that 'Poles were collaborators'. Some, of course, were, and we should certainly provide number and analysis here. But we should be careful of NPOV. Anyway, I think it is fair to cite Grabowski, but we should not give him WP:UNDUE weight, his estimate is just one of several, and absent other sources, it is no worse or better than those of his peers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grabowski states that the entire Polish society collaborated Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and there were no bystanders, Grabowski's 200 thousand figure is the number of Jews killed by the Poles, not the number of Polish collaborators.(225 people a day I calculated). GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen to have a full quote, preferably online (GBooks?) so I can look at it? It is clearly an exaggeration, because saying that entire society collaborated denies the indisputable existence of Polish Righteous Among the Nations. Not to mention that Polish Jews were part of the Polish society and such a generalization accuses them of collaboration against themselves... I'd hope historian like Grabowski would not make an identical mistake as the one that got the recent Polish PM in hot water, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Quote "Poland is probably the only country in the world where practically the whole society betrayed and handed over to the Germans each hidden Jew..." end quote. Quote "The entire Polish society is to be blamed" end quote. Word "probably" applies to "the only country in the world," everything else, according to him is a fact. There is much more if you want? The retardation of this two claims alone intimidates me into silence, no more comments. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@GizzyCatBella: Thank you (page number / GBook direct page link would be nice for the future). And yes, this is pretty bad, showing that instead of being a neutral historian, he clearly has (an anti-Polish) axe to grind. Setting aside Germany itself, there is Lithuania (from The Holocaust in Lithuania: "More than 95% of Lithuania's Jewish population was massacred over the three-year German occupation — a more complete destruction than befell any other country affected by the Holocaust. Historians attribute this to the massive collaboration in the genocide by the non-Jewish local paramilitaries...". (through destruction of the Polish Jewery at over 90% is not that far off). In Estonia (from The Holocaust in Estonia), "virtually all of those who remained (between 950 and 1,000 people) were killed by Einsatzgruppe A and local collaborators before the end of 1941". (Yes, those were small countries...). The Holocaust in Luxembourg suggests that that entire city Jewish population was cleansed too... I don't have time to look at others but clerly, Grabowski is generalizing because he wants "sound bites". And I already addressed blaming 'the entire society' (which, nomen omen, includes Grabowski's Jewish family too...). I wonder if he has some personal reasons, or if such authors just hope that controversy = high book sales.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While reading Klaus-Peter Friedrich. Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II (remember, folks, Library Genesis is your friend - I am a scholar but when I am at home even I can't be arsed to log in to uni network, all those hoops...). It is an interesting article, not particularly friendly to Polish cause, but I think reasonably neutral, more so than some studies done by scholars affiliated with the Polish or Jewish side (IMHO, one's national and family ties are paramount here, Poles will try to minimize the issue, and Jews will exaggerate it - perfectly normal in any similar debate). Interestingly, he states: "Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand197 to about one million.'198". He cites for 197 Lukas, Forgotten Holocaust, 117, a work we already cite, and for 198, Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk,"' 146. That spiked my interest, since Czesław Madajczyk is a respected Polish historian, who did a lot of work on WWII casualty estimates, and furthermore, as an old-date scholar I would not expect him to be in the 'high' estimate camp. Unfortunately, he quotes a German translation or original work of Madajczyck: "Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitik in Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: AnndherungenZbliienia (Diisseldorf, 1996), 24-39, esp. 33" [9]. I don't speak German so hunting for verification for this is beyond me, and as the book is not free online, I cannot access the page 146 to translate and verify. The title suggests it may be a translation or summary of his earlier (1970) Polish work Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, but as an old Polish book, it is not digitized, legally or otherwise, and I am not in Poland to look this up in a library. Frankly, it would best if someone in Germany could help by checking the exact page in German version, but anyway, since we do have a reliable source, I will update the high-end estimate in text to one million. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, so if you are ready to move forward, I'm suggesting to eliminate the entire segment of "Heroism and betrayal" because the whole chapter discusses how Poles saved Jews versus charming opinion of Bauer. That has nothing to do with collaboration with the Axis Powers but belongs to Righteous article and related. If anyone thinks otherwise, please comment. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but the real problem is of balance. At this stage, something like 17% of the content of this article is about Poland. It is surely obvious that a new article should be written about collaboration in occupied Poland and the content in this article to be a simple precis of that longer article.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And the text should be copyedited further for clarity and English usage. Furthermore, the present article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" is entirely missing a section—on Jewish collaboration with the Axis in World War II. Nihil novi (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that almost all collaborating Jews of the time, as well as their victims, were Polish citizens. Most Jewish collaborators were well integrated into the Polish society. The State of Israel didn't exist at the time. Very crucial points to recognize and remember in light of the latest Polish-Israeli dispute. These Jews, their dirty laundry, their Jewish or Polish victims and everything else associated with these people, and I mean everything, belongs to Poland. Therefore Jewish collaboration should remain within Poland's section. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that almost all collaborating Jews were Poles, in Poland maybe, but throughout the occupied territories?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a striking Jewish collaboration with the Axis Powers outside the pre-war Polish territory?

Well ignoring the idea that attacking the enemies of the Nazis might be seen as collaboration (or fighting alongside them), we have this claim [10] (In am trying to find information about the Russian Jewish police units. Ahh found something about one of them [11]> This was not unique to Poland, and some of the "Russian" units saw deployment outside their "parent" ghetto if I recall correctly. So what we need is an RS saying that most Jewish collaborators were Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised by Nihil novi's and Slatersteven's comments and completely back GizzyCatBella's reply. Are we do discern now by nationality and religion, rather than state? Let's lump Europe under "Catholic" and "Protestant" instead of "Netherlands" and "Bulgaria".

As for copyediting, I refer again to my revision of the article, now reverted. François Robere (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, I do not object to removal of material about the Holocaust, just the idea that Jewish collaboration was a mainly Polish thing.Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree, though both Paulsson and Lukas have relevant numbers on collaboration (though Lukas's is an old and clearly limited estimate from what we know of his methodology). Connelly is a different matter, because he gives both a context to and a summary of this whole thing. François Robere (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if there are no objections, I'm eliminating that entire segment. Let this sink in a little and then move forward. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the above. We may need the Paulsson and Connelly refs ("3,000–4,000 szmalcownik" and "structural collaboration", respectively) later in a different section. Otherwise fine. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed, we'll include that somewhere later. Please remember.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that section was somewhat non-neutral, a WP:COATRACK. I've however added the see also link for Rescue of Jews by Poles. I think it is sufficient reference to this topic, a link will suffice instead of a section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to re/incorporate

We can discuss each in turn, in the meanwhile just adding a few:

• Paulsson, Gunnar S. (2003-01-14). Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20477-3., review available in Marci Shore. "Gunnar S. Paulsson Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940–1945". The American Association for Polish-Jewish Studies. Retrieved 17 February 2014. - on the number of blackmailers ("szmalcownik") in Warsaw
• John Connelly, currently cited as <ref name="JC" /> - on the lack of solidarity between Poles and Jewish escapees, and what he calls "structural collaboration"
• Friedberg, Edna (2018-02-06). "The Truth About Poland's Role in the Holocaust". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Retrieved 2018-02-28. - interesting reading, could be useful in several places
• Connelly, John (2012-11-14). "The Noble and the Base: Poland and the Holocaust". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2018-02-28. - same

"Collaboration is "a co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power"", so POW's of a still resisting nation cannot be collaborators according to the definition in our lead (even if they join the other sides army). So the BFC has no place here as Britain was not defeated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I question the suitability of the definition used. The OED has "collaborate" simply as "To co-operate traitorously with the enemy". I would have thought the fellow prisoners of war of those who joined the BFC would have described them as collaborators - I think there needs to be a trawl through relevant sources for their usage on the subject.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the definition we use, so we either need to rewrite our articles lead, or leave out material not about occupied areas or nations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: "is this a good definition; is it used in reliable sources?" There is only one ref supporting it (as is normal in Wikipedia) - what do others say? (And I think the OED stacks up alongside other potential reliable sources.) I don't think anything in an article can be considered immutable - especially if it is wrong.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, and I doubt RS will disagree. Frankly, it's a "common sense" question, not an RS one. The primary questions here are the same as in criminal law: was there intent, was there a result, etc. If either holds, then the term "collaboration" is appropriate for the case. François Robere (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively agree, also a section about 4-5 people is WP:UNDUE. British Free Corps does not use the word collaboration. I'd remove this section. A few individuals joining an foreign army is not collaboration. At worst, I'd suggest moving this into a section titled 'others' where we would list very small scale instances of such collaboration from other countries. Australia having its own sections is, again, UNDUE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the British Free Corps is that it was, at one stage, widely offered to British POWs. Those POWs who understood what was going on had a substantial level of contempt for those who took up this offer - I guess it is all down to the sort of sources you read but a number of books on and by POWs mention it. This overall situation is available for comparison with others who found themselves under Nazi control and accepted a job as a collaborator.

Also, there were 54 members of the BFC, not 4 to 5. (Not sure how many were in Quisling's government, but probably fewer than this.)
The article British Free Corps compares it to "...a French collaborationist force...". In the context, it would be easy to believe that the editor who wrote that felt that the British equivalent was also made up of collaborators. Even if that editor did not think so, that is only one opinion among those to be considered. The correct guidance is from a number of reliable sources, not one Wikipedia article.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were never more then 27 at any one time, and some of those (2 or 3) joined with the express purpose of sabotaging it (a d a few others seem to have no understood what they were doing). Strictly speaking they were (those that joined for the "right" reason) traitors rather then collaborators (and I think it is that they were tried for).Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a number where not from the UK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "ultranational" organization that cooperated or collaborated, we can have an "other" section. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what if all of its members did not collaborate?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, I just noticed now there is a discussion about this. You should not remove the picture without any new consensus, as per status qou ante principle. Regardless of the definition you cited from the lead also to the edit log, it is true that practically Britain was not defeated, but the term "collaboration" is totally viable and true for every non-German collaborators. As well the British Free Corps are notable, having as well an own page, and not all the collaborators were from "defeated countries" or could be treated as "representatives of the victorious powers". Could seem like some don't like the fact some British were also collaborating. However, I agree, there are different levels of collaboration that could be separated as mentioned others above. However, whatever section it would be , the British Free Corps should be mentioned along with the photo. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Odd then that I left stuff in about Britains who did actually collaborate due to occupation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point on the list: Mentioning of the new IPN law in the 'Recent legislation' section is just too much, I would get rid of the entire sections, simply no need for such detail in an article like this. --E-960 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to give it a little thought. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Let's wait for judgments of others and if there are no objections please discharge it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing the section, adding a see also to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that entire section exists is to explain the discrepancy between different estimates as a politicization of Polish historiography (which it is, as previously explained). When the article reflects all relevant sources it can be removed; the article isn't there yet. François Robere (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain my judgment that this is out of place being here, "see also" is more than sufficient. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do other countries in this article have sections comparable to Poland's "2018 legislation" section?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed [12], it's unreliable - non-peer review publication, and the author (not Andrzej Sławiński, economist) is a chemist and hobbyist historian ([13]). In either case, I don't think this piece is reliable and it doesn't add anything to the article. We should remove low quality sources like that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a section ([14]) that claimed that most Polish collaborators were German minority. Couldn't verify it in the three sources linked (one is a book with no page number). It is a controversial claim and needs a solid source to be in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We give to much attention to Germany, and non e to the other Axis nations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]