Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 11

Księgarnia Akademicka is an editor
We don't translate editor's names, eg. Hatchette - Small Axe.Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference 97. Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not translate any names, it is rendered in Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It might be duplicated too - but I fixed the translated title and replaced it with Polish.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Jewish Baiting Techniques
Should the text inserted by this diff be present in the article? Previous discussion in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 1. Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * No, and revdel per WP:RD2. This was initially in the article sourced to fringe far-right blogs (and possibly misrepresenting those). Sourcing was updated to 4 different refs, which are:
 * IPN (a political lustration and memory policy government agency) - index of incidents. Borderline as RS, very low impact factor. The cited document itself describes a single incident in Paulinow (which involved an alleged Jew, and not "Jewish collaborationist groups") and does not make the generalization in the article.
 * Kierylak - a museum guide's web post (museum endorsement uncertain, credentials of guide uncertain as well). Borderline as RS, and certainly no impact factor. The post itself describes the same single incident in Paulinow and does not make the generalization in the article.
 * Prekerowa - Published in a Polish journal in 1997, two citations since. Very low impact factor. The article itself describes the same single incident in Paulinow and does not make the generalization in the article.
 * Mędykowski - describes Gestapo agents' operations in Warsaw. The text does not make the generalization ascribed to it, nor does it describe an incident that supports the text.
 * Thus, the text itself is OR - as no source supports the sweeping generalization. Use of these obscure documents is UNDUE in any event - this is a widely studied topic, and if this is what the an extensive search for sources drug up (to replace the far right BLOGs) - it is clearly UNDUE. Finally, the sweeping generalization, based on OR, towards "Jewish collaborationist groups" (as opposed, to say the German Gestapo) based a single possible incident (which did not seem to involve a Jewish group) - is grossly offensive - Blood libel in Wikipedia's voice that should be WP:RD2ed.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User Icewhiz, pls stop with the mischaracterizations of reference sources (they can be viewed on this talk page, below this discussion), and making questionable statements such as this: "involved an ALLEGED Jew", it's not an allegation, but a fact that the agent-provocateur in this case was Jewish — his name was Szymel Helman. Also, the term "Jewish collaborationist groups" is not "grossly offensive" as you state it, but a fact; here are two of such groups Żagiew and Group 13, where the Jewish agents working for the Gestapo were volunteers. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure why user Icewhiz took down my comment to his statement and moved it to a lower section, yet he himself critiques other voters directly underneath their votes. Pls keep this comment where I initially placed it. Thank you.--E-960 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me, per my possibly faulty reading, whether this was someone who said he was Szymel Helman (something the villagers attested to) or whether there was an actual identification of this individual beyond that. Hence, I am using alleged Jew (as the agent certainly presented himself as such). Futhermore, this particular Helman, again per my possibly faulty reading, is alleged to be a Gestapo agent but not part of Jewish group.Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing for sure, we know that some Jewish agents (whether working in a group or individually) used various entrapment methods against both Poles and Jews; the Paulinów incident, the Hotel Polski affair, and the fake resistance movement set up by Józef Hammer. So, as user GizzyCatBella suggest we can revise the wording to re-state that such groups used various entrapment methods against Poles and Jews, and provide the three examples. That would be a valid COMPROMISE solution to this issue. --E-960 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * YES, for now at least, the original discussion was only initiated the day before this RfC, I'm afraid that user Icewhiz is trying to take advantage of WP:FORUMSHOP, and trying to just remove the text, instead of allowing other editors to find additional reference sources which may be back up the statement. Also, we do have 4 references now, which list individual examples of this particular tactic:   . --E-960 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been up for two months. How much more do you need? We're getting into WP:SPECULATION territory. François Robere (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am not sure if the 'baiting technique' is a correct (best) translation, and Icehwiz makes a valid point about generalization, but the general facts are not disputed. Some Jewish agents, working for the Germans, did indeed try to entrap Poles willing to help the Jews. While it was likely a very small scale pheromone, a single sentence mentioning this, among many other examples of collaboration, seems totally justified. We could rewrite the sentence to be specific ('A technique used in Paulinow involved Germans using Jewish collaborators to...'). All the sources cited seem reliable, written either by historians, and/or published on pages of reliable institutions. I don't see why this would cause any significant debate, outside possibly being politically incorrect ('but Fooian nationality was the victims and never did anything wrong!' - WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). Again, I'd oppose making a big deal out of it (WP:UNDUE), but the one sentence currently present seems totally fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Some, as being possibly one incident, which is what the refs support. If we are entering singular incidents into this article (that just barely, possibly, scrape by V) - there's plenty of incidents to enter.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No None of the sources say (as far as I can tell) this was organised or operated by Jewish groups (they all say it was a Gestapo operation). Also whilst they do say there was more then one of this type of operation they are all individuals shopping (with the exception of one incident) individuals (and as far as I can tell those looking for help, not those giving it, again with one exception). Thus the text does not match up with what the sources are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. While I have no doubt things like that did happen, the suggestion that it was a common MO of Jewish collaborators is not supported by RS, and as such is in violation of WP:NOR. François Robere (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I see no controversy here. These techniques are described by very reliable and high profile academic sources.I don't see any particular reason why this information should be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the content of the addition is true.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC))
 * Yes, references are clearly confirming that tactics being used, but personally, I would reword the sentence a little, just the way it was before May 26th Icewhiz ’s removal of it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella has been topic banned for gross violations of WP:NPOV on June 25th . François Robere (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No As the moment - there is a single alleged incident that is somewhat reffed - and from which they are making a broad generalization. The source is from a blog post by a blogger that wrote about "Jewish Nazism"... not reliable by any standards.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but augment with more complete information on the agent-provocateur methods used by the Jewish Gestapo to ferret out fellow Jews who were in hiding, and the Poles who rescued Jews being hunted by the Germans. Nihil novi (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with a brief, precise statement of the evidence. Jzsj (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, or "why the hell not?". Despite Icewhiz's mental gymnastics and false assertions in his !vote, it's very well sourced. I mean, seriously the objection is that one of the sources is a Polish academic journal. This is part of a now well established pattern where Icewhiz tries to remove any Polish sources from articles on Polish history. This is a ridiculous and frankly offensive argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz doesn't object to that source - he just says that the source does not support that statement (by not making the generalization. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about his #3 not his #4 (which is a separate issue).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the low citation count of Prekerowa in regards to UNDUE. This source also does not support the generalization. It is (with minor variations - farm, additional stuff going on in the farm)) an example perhaps (there is an issue of Jew vs. Jewish group, and identification issues) of the generalization - but it does not make the generalization.Icewhiz (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, unless a reliable, academic source which directly supports this generalization and does more than describe single incidents can be found. Otherwise, the generalization is WP:SYNTH. For the specific sentence targeted by the RfC, No, but an amended sentence (after review of presented sources) which properly describes the events would be acceptable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, only very poor sources appear to even begin to support the generalisation - but including the generalisation appears from discussion above, to be what some editors insist on, regardless of the low number and quality of sources. That there may have been individual incidents appears to be generally agreed, but no evidence of a pattern - as stated in the disputed text - is offered in the discussion. The generalisation is a fairly extraordinary claim and much better sources - which actually support the claim - are needed. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, I'm not sure if some of the generaliztions result form an unconscious bias against Polish sources, or just not being familiar with the institutions, how can we say that Treblinka Muzeum is a "poor source", yet I see United States Holocaust Memorial Museum webside references all over Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the discussion above is that this is not the museum, but an individual guide - I've been a museum guide, and believe me no expertise in the field is required. I also understand that the guide refers to an incident - not a widespread, common phenomenon - which is what the disputed text states. At one point in the above discussion you try to argue that if it worked for the Gestapo once, they are bound to have repeated it - that is so WP:SYNTHy that I was left speechless. If this was anything like a common phenomen, we would reasonably expect numerous historians to have documented precisely how widespread the phenomenon was - they haven't AFAI can see. Poland, and the Poles suffered greatly under Nazi occupation, no one disputes that, but that does not mean that we lower our sourcing standards to justify fairly extraordinary claims. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, but what about the other two sources, IPN and PAN, both are academic institutions, operating under government charters (who in this case only stated the facts of the even, the IPN text even has citations of other academics). It seems that in the Anglo-Saxon world the only way you are considered a "quality source" is if you write a book, and get an interview in NYT and do a segment on CNN - so basically if you have a good publicist he'll get your research to be noticed, everything else is unreliable, because it's obscure. --E-960 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

 * NOTE: What user Icewhiz is doing by setting up this RfC is WP:FORUMSHOP. In the preceding discussion (above), which was only set up by user Icewhiz at 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC) the day before this RfC, a couple of editors asked for time to find additional sources and work on translations because there are already reference source citations in the article which document individual examples of "baiting" but do not provide a description of the scale — here are the 4 current references which document individual cases (including translated text):   So, instead of WAITING on the results, user Icewhiz is trying to game the process by setting up a RfC, hoping that he can attract enough votes to REMOVE the text before any new references are found. --E-960 (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Or someone who identified himself as such. What is grossly offensive here is not "Jewish collaborationist groups" (though that is a minor misrepresentation of the primarily criminal enterprises headed by Gancwajch) - but ORish assignment of an alleged wide spread technique based on a single incident, with an alleged Jew, which the sources themselves do not ascribe to any group. Assigning collective responsibility to Jewish groups for widespread murder of families - based on a single incident with an alleged Jew - that is the definition of offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what you are saying is that the Germans only employed Jewish collaborators to carry out this tactic, just this one time, (just this once), and never again. Any reasonable person would doubt such a conclusion, in fact because INFILTRATION of the primary task of such groups, posing as escaped Jews was the only way to get access. Also, you removed the text on Józef Hammer-Baczewski who worked for the Abwehr, and set up a fake resistance group to lure unsuspecting polish resistance fighters. There you removed the text by claiming that Józef Hammer-Baczewski was "not a Jew during Abwehr service", what does that even mean "DURING Abwehr service" was he Jewish before, but just not during?  --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A single source says Hammer-Baczewski came from a family with Jewish roots, other treat his background as unknown. This does not make this very long-term Abwehr agent (possibly back to WWI) Jewish.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As for "time to find references" - that is an admission this text is based on OR and/or extreme fringe sources that are unusable as sources (some of which were present in the article until yesterday) - content is added to Wikipedia based on sources, not the other way around. Nothing precludes adding a properly sourced text (in an encyclopedic tone as opposed to a hagiography of victimhood) at a later date. Furthermore, this was discussed two months ago - in a discussion where the consensus was to take remove this unless it was taken to RSN (being based on fringe BLOGs). It seems this text made its way back into the article despite that discussion, based on the same blogs, and without taking it to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What “fringe BLOGs” are you talking about Icewhiz? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * this one for instance - which was in the article until yesterday. You might see coverage of this fellow here:, , .Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please... you just provided articles about "this guy" that show he is an pro-life advocate, and has a conservative political view point. Wow, you are right he is extreme "far-right". Btw, this reference was removed because it was a BLOG not becasue the author is a pro-lifer... seriously!! --E-960 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This was a blog. His views on feminists are quite illuminating- Jan Bodakowski dla Frondy: Feminizm - nowy sztandar skrajnej lewicy - comparing feminists (the banner of leftism extremism) with the Bolsheviks who were responsible for the death of millions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you present few unchallenged pieces of evidence (not left-wing press reporting on his pro-life stand) that this historian is “fringe” and should not be accepted as a credible source? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you present evidence that he is a historian? I do see RS coverage of him as a blogger, with some treatment in research level literature - e.g. for more extreme statements made on blogs - in this particular case comments on "Jewish Nazism". It does seem that the "Jewish Nazism" piece (and similar items) is (rather scantily) referenced in some scholarly publications, however it is done as an example of a manifestation of such views and not as a reference to a scholarly publication.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz you seem to be misreading the source given, do you dare to translate this source here? Word by word, the whole thing please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest this text

The gestapo used entrapment techniques such as sending agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for (or offer) help; if they agreed, they were reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews.

This reflects what the sources actually says, and does not try to imply that a one of incident was a standard operation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - the "executed the entire family" is not supported by the references given (or any of the rest of the generalization - as we have sources detailing a single incident - not covering Gestapo techniques in general). At the current level of sourcing - this is WP:UNDUE - and there is not particular reason to single out the Jews - The Gestapo operated plenty of non-Jewish agents for entrapment - are we going to break down gestapo agents by ethnicity?Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is 14 people in fact. Moreover this is the section about Jews, so it seems valid to discuss the actions by Jewish collaborators. Now if this was a tactic (and it seems it was) also used by Polish collaborators hen we can also have that as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

, I’m sorry, German Gestapo didn’t send Żagiew or “13th” agents “out". These organizations were sponsored by the Gestapo but operated separately, they had its own agents, firearms, dwellings and jail system inside the Ghetto. These characters were also crooked to the bone (they even ran a brothel in the Ghetto, yes!) No, your proposal would not reflect the exact accuracy of the matters. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources mention them, as none of the provided text seems to, in the context of the text we are debating.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided sources earlier, but they were removed. You could study on Żagiew and “13th" on your own if you have the energy for it. The only challenge in your case is that most of the material will be in Polish. I’ll dedicate more time to the matter later, too busy right now. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You could provide the translation you know, you can clearly write English?Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven, I think this is a right step forward, but your proposal would suggest this was done by Gestapo, while sources state this was a technique used by Jewish collaborators(who according to sources often had significant autonomy, sometimes surprisingly so, I guess there are nueances here that come from our generalization of Second World War. I can also add that according to Mędykowski Gestapo sometimes protected its Jewish agents, while SS was interested in killing them, there was conflict between these two organizations, but I digress.)

I suggest the following: The Jewish collaborators used entrapment and provocation techniques such as sending agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for (or offer) help; if they agreed, they were reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No source has been advanced to support such a wide generalization - to date - you've brought a source supporting, a single alleged incident.Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All the sources we have say it was one used by Gestapo agents. Your text implies this was done on the orders of Jews, no source that we have given a text of so far has ever said that. Also as far as I can see there was only one instance of them possing as escapees. Every other instance if them posing as the underground to trap escapees.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will also note that " who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews" - is WP:SYNTH in this context.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Prekerowa and Medykowski mention this is a general technique, and not an isolated incidents--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Do they Prekerowa seems to be talking about one incident, as far as I can tell Medykowski seems to be talking about multiple individual incidents, as well as this one, again can you please provide the quotes where they say this was used more then once?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Report from the Cracow Home Army (number 15; 23 January 1944; AAN-AL. Archiwum Akt  Nowych, Government Delegation)


 * ''Our Cracow cell has been completely broken ... The arrests are the result of several months of systematic Gestapo work. The provocateurs were organized by the Jewish Gestapo confidant Diamant and his people’'” GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Err who was arrested, what work did Diamant and his people do?, also who is the Diamant, I can find no reference to him. In fact this is a primary source anyway. This says (and no one has disagreed) that the Gestapo employed Jewish agents. The dispute is the modus operandi. The dispute is over whether or not more then one family was entrapped in this way (assuming this was the methods used).Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh found him, he was not the head of a Jewish organisation, but was the heard of about 30 Jewish informers working for the Gestapo (Department No. 3). There is (as far as I can find) not evidence they were a formal unit or organisation. Also (as far as I can tell) they operated against the Jewish underground, not Poles. But the main point is they do not appear to have used entrapment (as far as I can tell) so much as infiltration of the Ghetto underground in Krakow.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So what it does not support "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups'", it was not a formally organised group, any more then any other department (and we are still lacking a source this was a standard tactic by formal Jewish groups). "the household was reported to the Germans", and we still only have one instance of this being done (in fact it does not even say they sought help from Poles, and I am jot sure any of the presented sources do). "as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family", again we only have one instance of something close to this (and it actually does not seem to be talking about a family, but a group of people form one village).Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "it was not a formally organised group" <--- hmmm, somehow this part must've been missed: "The provocateurs were organized by"
 * Note that the single example, attested to in rather low impact sources, is not about a "Jewish group" either.Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By which you mean to say it's rarely cited, if at all. Correct? François Robere (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. 2 cites per scholar.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something and "impact factor" (which is a fairly recent metric and one which is mostly particular to English speaking countries (did someone say SYSTEMIC BIAS?) somehow became a mark of reliability? Nahhhh... it's just Icewhiz and Francois Robere inventing new ridiculous excuses to remove sources they don't like again, per usual.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, how do you get "single example"? There's at least two - Prekerowa (and Kierylak) references an incident from 1943, Medykowski another one from 1942. The second one even makes it clear that this is just an example and that there were other instances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Medykowski references "regular" Żagiew/Group 13 agents. He does not mention entire families. He does not mention requesting help (it mention purchasing illegal services). This does not support - One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help; if they agreed to, the household was reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews. It does support (in this case) Jewish agents (not quite presented as ghetto escapees) trying to purchase false documents, and then turning in their contacts. What is lacking here in terms of WP:V is the generalization that the sentence in the article is presently making.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if I understand you correctly, the examples cited by Medykowski do not refer specifically to Zagiew/13 and "organized groups" or to the execution of families, right? That's true enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having caught up with some of the reading (both discussion here and sources) it seems that the Medykowski reference is talking about an organized group or at least an association of around 30 Gestapo agents in Krakow (so obviously not Zagiew/13) who mostly targeted hiding Jews, members of both Jewish and Polish Resistance, people (possibly both Polish and Jewish) who were trying to help Jews escape to Hungary, as well as Poles who forged documents, in addition to using their position as Gestapo collaborators to settle personal scores or enrich themselves by getting others sent to the camps. In addition to operating as a group in cooperation with Gestapo, some of them, particularly the two women noted in the quotes below, sometimes operated on their own initiative. And they did use "provocateur" tactics of pretending to be from the resistance or similar, though not necessarily the tactic of pretending to be ghetto escapees (at least I have't come across that being explicitly mentioned). I mean, these kind of "provocateur" tactics were SOP for Gestapo agents. So yes, this source is related in general (and the stories behind it are fascinating) but not specifically to this text.
 * A source which is probably more related directly to this text would be Jonas Turkow's C'était ainsi: 1939-1943, la vie dans le ghetto de Varsovie but I can only find quotes from it and it's in French, but it does appear to discuss the activities of Leon Skosowski and others which are in line with what the text says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Analysis and suggestion
The statement the RfC is about is this:

Neither the existence of Jewish collaborationist groups, nor the Nazis' violence towards "helpers" are in dispute (although the details and exact phrasing of the above are not necessarily accurate), nor is the employment of entrapment ("baiting") by colloaborationist groups of all colors, as well as their Gestapo and police operators. We'll focus on the following:

This text suggests that:
 * 1) These groups targeted Poles as part of their usual modus operandi
 * 2) That they had multiple tactics for entrapping the Poles they targeted
 * 3) They alone used those tactics

We have no RS to support either of these statements. What do we have? This statement was first entered into the article over two months ago, backed by a blog called "Salon24" and an article at the finance magazine "money.pl". Only this past week were these sources finally get replaced with four new sources, who by and large do not support the generalization (not to say accusation) made in the text.

My suggestion is this: Scrap the text and start over, this time in a way that doesn't look like it tries to implicate Jews in what was probably a widespread phenomenon. Does anyone here really think Jewish collaborators sat through he night thinking how to incriminate Polish families? Does anyone really think collaborators of all colors did not incriminate their own when the Gestapo asked them to? Does anyone doubt the Gestapo did do all of that and more to stop, deter and punish resistors? Scrap the text and start over. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Come on, quit playing.
 * 1 Of course they targeted Poles, who else were they suppose to target in order to arrest Poles? This is a absurd objection.
 * 2 This is your own personal inference which is not actually implied by the text. If it's such a huge deal we can change it from "One of" to "One". Done.
 * 3 What? How the hell do you get that from the text? And what does it mean? This objection makes no sense and pretty much betrays that the purpose of these objections is not to improve the article via substantive and constructive critique but to simply remove some text according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
 * Try harder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Drop the attitude, Marek.
 * Who targeted Poles? Which groups? Who led them? Who were their members? Who were their contacts? You're speculating about something you have no proof of whatsoever. The only groups we do know of - the only ones we have enough RS on to have included in the article - operated within ghettos, against Jews - they didn't roam the countryside looking for Polish families to entrap.
 * Of course it is implied by the text - it literally says "one of the... groups' baiting techniques" - meaning there were several.
 * Well, the text ascribes it to "Jewish collaborationist groups", not "collaborationist groups" in general. If it wasn't "uniquely Jewish", then why frame it as such? Why not present it as a "general purpose" collaborationist tactic?
 * François Robere (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're doing it again. Constantly changing topics and questions as a way of deflecting and destroying productive discussion. Who targeted Poles? That wasn't your previous objection. Your previous objection was that the text claimed the Poles were targeted. Now you're trying to change what your objection is after I've pointed out how absurd your original statement was. But hey, I can answer this too:
 * Who targeted Poles? A group of about 30 agents working with Gestapo, whose members included Diament, Appel, Puretz and Brandsetter.
 * Who led them? Well, they all worked for Gestapo. The commanding officer for the group was Rudolf Korner. Diament appeared to be senior in this group, although Brandsetter was involved with Korner and that gave her considerable power.
 * Who were their members? Already listed above.
 * Who were their contacts? What does this even mean and why is it relevant? You're inventing arbitrary criteria.
 * So no, I'm NOT speculating. And yes, there is "proof" (in terms of source material). And no, this group did NOT operate within the ghetto. It operated mostly outside of it and targeted both Poles and Jews. Same was true for Zagiew/13 in Warsaw.
 * And this group was indeed uniquely Jewish. As was Zagiew/13 in Warsaw.
 * All of this is pretty straight forward and has already been said. So once again I find myself in a position where I have this very strong feeling that I'm not in a discussion with someone acting in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't change the subject. If you claim to have knowledge of a group, then you ought to know things like "who leads it" or "who are its members". If you know none of those things (and remember we're talking historical, not current events), then your claim of "knowing of a group" is questionable. Also, notice your previous answer ("of course they targeted Poles, who else were they suppose to target in order to arrest Poles?") is an example of circular reasoning.
 * Regardless of whether all of them were part of a single group (and from what I'm seeing the author doesn't make that claim), it's still just one group, mentioned in one source (an "isolated study", per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It's hardly enough to establish what the text claims. François Robere (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "If you claim to have knowledge of a group, then you ought to know things like "who leads it" or "who are its members". If you know none of those things " - listen fellah, I already answered these questions repeatedly and you could have answered them yourself if you had actually bothered looking at the quote from the source already provided. This is exactly the kind of behavior that derails these discussions. That and inventing absurd requirements like "isolated study", whatever the hey that's suppose to mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you had kept your temper in check, you would've been much better at this. The flow of the above is as follows:
 * "they" targeted Poles -> Who targeted Poles? -> You're... changing topics and questions -> I didn't change the subject. If you claim to have knowledge of a group... etc. etc.
 * As I said, "isolated study" is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. François Robere (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making passive-aggressive personal attacks and taunts such as "If you had kept your temper in check, you would've been much better at this". You've been warned about this kind of behavior before. And it is yet another way which derails productive discussions.
 * And no, that was not the flow of discussion:
 * Initially you objected to the assertion that groups which tried to get Poles arrested ... targeted Poles.
 * Then I pointed out the absurdity of such an objection.
 * So then you changed it from "whom did they target", to "who did the targeting". Hence me pointing out that you changed the nature of the objection, which you did. Nonetheless I answered your new objection.
 * You then asserted that you did not change the objection and proceeded to completely ignore the fact that your new objection had already been answered, more than once.
 * And here, rather than admitting that this objection has been answered you instead resort to sophomoric personal attacks about my temper (not sure how you can have knowledge of what my temper actually is).
 * And this isn't an "isolated study", but nice try.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a taunt, it was a comment on how you got lost in the flow of the discussion for no reason except your temper. If you weren't so busy looking for bad faith and making tasteless comments towards others ("Sigh. Come on, quit playing... Try harder" and so on) these discussions might've actually been amicable. Instead we're again at an impasse, as you're so preoccupied with reading things into what I wrote that you're not reading what I actually wrote. That's unfortunate, but not unexpected . François Robere (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a taunt and a PERSONAL ATTACK. Look, it's simple - quit making snide comments about your perceptions of my "temper". Whether here or at some ANI discussion (what does that have to do with anything?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

continued from the discussion in the survey above.

Let's look at what the sources say, shall we? Prekerowa (as quoted) says "The gravest provocation involving Jews took place in 1943, some 100 km east of Warsaw; a Jewish Gestapo agent posing as a fugitive was given, or promised, help by 14 inhabitants of the village of Paulinów." No direct evidence that this was a systematic trend: at best, it is very subtly implied in the first part of the sentence, but using this source to support the claim in the article would be WP:SYNTH since the author doesn't state it directly.

Kierlyak isn't much better. Ignoring the reliability problem, "[In a] large-scale German operation... use was made of provocation." does not support saying "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help;", because: a) it does not ascribe this tactic to "Jewish collaborationist groups", but rather to a "German operation". Assuming that the Jews who were involved in the operation were part of a larger collaborationist group is blatant WP:OR. b) it does not support this being a recurring pattern. The text only says that "[as part of a larger] German operation [...] use was made of provocation". As far as we know, this could have happened only once, and any claim that this was a general pattern is WP:SYNTH.

Next, if I trust Google translate, Medykowski doesn't say this tactic was used to target ordinary Polish families. Rather, "It happened, however, that provocations were arranged to arrest people having contacts with the underground, mediating the production of false documents or dealing with human smuggling and illegal trade." Again, a) the tactic is not attributed to a "Jewish collaborationist group", but to the Gestapo itself! b) Apparently, the text doesn't make the direct link that the agent was posing as a ghetto escapee (though such a conclusion would not be totally illocigal, but it would remain WP:SYNTH. Quoting the rest, from Google translate again, (segments in brackets [] corrected for grammar): "For example, in 1942, to Elżbieta Jasińska, who had contacts with the conspiracy, came Marta Puretz, asking for the creation of a Kennkarte. Jasińska agreed to get her this document for PLN 2,000. Puretz was to report to her in two days. However, when she came to her at the appointed time, the Gestapo came under the house, Jasińska was arrested and then deported to Auschwitz. When later Jasińska's brother-in-law met Marta Puretz on the street without the armband, he ordered her to arrest her. However, [when she was] at the police station [on] Franciszkańska [street] identified herself with the document of a Gestapo collaborator and was released."

Finally, and trusting Google still, the IPN document does not make the above generalisation either, and it again says that the tactic originated from Germans, "The Germans were very active in combating all forms of violation of occupational rights, often using provocation." This is the nearest thing to supporting the disputed text, but again since most of the "Jewish collaboration" is described as coming from individuals, to be acceptable, the text would need to read: "Use of provocateurs, agents posing as Jews and seeking help from Polish inhabitants, was one tactic used by the Germans to combat resistance." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment above. I agree that the Medykowski source discusses a different but similar phenomenon from that described in the relevant text - that of Gestapo using Jewish collaborators to target Polish and Jewish underground and Jews who were attempting to escape to Hungary (the two were obviously connected since you needed the former to do the latter). I think the best way to deal with it is to have a separate sentence about this Krakow-based group and its activities, while we figure out the best way to deal with the "one of the tactics" sentence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Which would be UNDUE and also ORish (though an improvement) - as we're making the extension from a set of described incidents to some sort of tactic (in this case Germans using Jews) - without a source actually saying this - over several years and millions of people one could find an example of almost anything (If I find a few examples of a Jewish gestapo agent raping a Polish women - does that become a tactic too?). Germans also used Polish and other non-Jewish agents.... As for how we got here - we started with this sentence sourced to a far-right blog on salon24 - and then when that was challenged - some effort was made to find any source possible mentioning Jewish+agent+gestapo (and we ended up with 3 marginal sources describing Paulinów, and Medykowski describing something else) - and sticking this set of references onto the previous BLOG sourced (and copied) text. This isn't how we develop articles - we're supposed to WP:BALASP per the sources available, not start out with a fringe narrative and attempt to stick onto it any marginal source we can find.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be neither. It would not be UNDUE because this is an article ... about collaboration. And it wouldn't be OR because we have sources which state this explicitly. We have source which calls it a "tactic". And no, the Medykowski and IPN sources are not "marginal". And just because a "far-right blog" once wrote about it, doesn't mean that there isn't a reliable academic literature on the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As for how we got here - we started with this sentence sourced to a far-right blog on salon24 - and then when that was challenged - some effort was made to find any source possible mentioning Jewish+agent+gestapo (and we ended up with 3 marginal sources... and sticking this set of references onto the previous BLOG sourced (and copied) text. This isn't how we develop articles - we're supposed to WP:BALASP per the sources available, not start out with a fringe narrative and attempt to stick onto it any marginal source we can find.: That's an important observation, Icewhiz, and one that marks a pattern: We've seen it with the previous RfC discussion, on RSN and AfD - contentious, poorly-sourced or synthed statements, who their proponents hold as authoritative and insist should be kept for weeks or months; until an RfC ensues, whereupon they (often) quickly capitulate and start a hasty search for better sources to support the same problematic statements. This violates any number of policies (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:DGF), and isn't how an encyclopedia should be written. François Robere (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to me specifically? If so, I'm going to ask you to strike that completely false assertion. And the purpose of this false attack appears to be to distract from the fact that the current text, whatever it was at some point sourced to, is currently sourced to reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia
into Czechoslovakia - it was the Protektorate at that time, or occupied Czechoslovakia.
 * Noted. François Robere (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictl y Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, as Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1939, as well the first Slovak state came to existence that was not under occupation, so "occupied Czechoslovakia" is totally false.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC))
 * This was just a few days before the war, when fronts were constantly changing, so we're at risk of introducing WP:SYNTH if we use specific terms. At risk of inaccuracy but not falsity, I'd rather just use the current wording which some of the sources use. François Robere (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the relevant section, it is definetly not before the war - anyway if it would my argumentation still hold since the transformation would not happen a "few days before" - it is in 1944, when such like "Czechoslovakia" is non-existent as a state, it is not just an inaccuracy but a relevant falsity...WP:SYNTH does not come here, if a source has a blatant mistake such things may be corrected. I will take the initiative, I've met with such problems very often, this is not the first time...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I meant "a few days before the end of the war." François Robere (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

NSZ antisemitism
Per the sources presented in this discussion, I'd like to ask for short vote on whether the proposed change should be accepted. This isn't an RfC, but the previous discussion stalled and it's unclear what's the consensus at the moment. François Robere (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Before:

After:

Yes / No / Yes, with modification:
 * Yes, per sources. François Robere (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes no sources have really been produced that dispute this. The text reflects accurately what the sourcing says.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - a clear reflection of what the vast majority of mainstream sources say about the NSZ.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment — No to these changes. Pls, stop with the WP:FORUMSHOP, this issue was discussed just a couple of weeks ago, on this very talk page here: Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, your suggestion François Robere did NOT gain consensus and other editors including GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Xx236 and Nihil novi did not agree in varying degrees with your text which pushes POV. This issue was discussed numerous times and several editors concluded that your proposed text pushes POV and carries un-due weight. --E-960 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And none of their arguments were based upon what sources actually said. So I am asking for DS to come to play now. Can an uninvolved admin look at the arguments to see if in fact the for (or against) arguments are enough to challenge the other sides arguments? Consensus is not a vote, and if one sides arguments do not stand up their votes can be ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you don't understand, most of the editors are against making such MASSIVE changes because what François Robere is proposing is a complete rewriting of the entire section with his POV narrative — they and myself are against this, period. And this 'informal' survey can be considered as WP:FORUMSHOP, because only a couple of weeks ago several editors where against the proposed re-writing of this text. --E-960 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not assume that "do not understand" and "do not agree" are the same thing. I know what the objections are. They are just not valid based upon policy which requires us to reflect what the sources say. As I have said (and this will be my last comment about it here) I think that the tendentious objections to this edit are in breach of the DS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to make such MASSIVE changes as proposed by François Robere, several editors already stated this and are concerned with the POV that's clearly visible in François Robere's text. --E-960 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) This isn't "forum shopping", this is the relevant forum; 2) The discussion "died out", not concluded, because one user stopped replying; 3) Bella's opinion is irrelevant, having been blocked from the entire topic area for egregious violations of WP:NPOV; 4) This isn't a "MASSIVE" change, it's only a couple of paragraphs. See Slatersteven's comments for the rest. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It did not die out, other editors were against your MASSIVE changes, no need to re-write the entire text, that was the final word, now you just decided to re-open this discussion, trying to get a different result. Also, given that user Bella has just been blocked, and you are re-opening this issue, this even more comes across as trying to take advantage of WP:FORUMSHOP, so now one less editor who opposed your text is gone and the same disscussion is being re-opened after the text you proposed was turned down — very concerning. --E-960 (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report it if if you so wish. François Robere (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, pls note that page is under Discretionary Sanctions, and also recall what admin NeilN said in response to your question during the last AE about what "consensus" is : "François Robere... editors agreeing and one editor disagreeing in a conversation spanning two hours isn't going to be accepted as consensus either." This "vote" appears as just a alternative way of trying to push through MASSIVE changes without gaining consensus — I'm very worried about this approach. Pls, see top of this page: "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page..." --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about. Now, what about your vote? François Robere (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you what the biggest issue with your sweeping text changes was/is, below are the quotes from the sources user Icewhiz and you provided — they first and foremost emphasize that NSZ was anti-communist (that's where most of the limited collaboration occurred), and some of the sources do indeed say that factions within NSZ held anti-semitic views. Below are some of the few excerpts regarding NSZ being anti-communist:
 * "Fanatically anti-Communist."
 * "NSZ was directing it's guns not at the Germans, but at the members of the Polish communist underground — the People's Guard (AL)."
 * "NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists..."
 * "It was an implacable enemy of the AL, as it had decided that it's main enemy were the Russians and the Polish communists."
 * However, you want to remove the focus of the text form NSZ being anti-communist, and just focus on anti-semitism, that's Civil POV pushing. Input from other editors during the last discussion Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, which occurred just 2 weeks ago should be considered as valid, despite the fact that you, Slatersteven and Icewhiz don't like that outcome. --E-960 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Constructively - we can certainly point out that the NSZ was a fascist, anti-communist, and antisemitic organization. This is a case of "all of the above".Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Right. Slatersteven left an (unsigned) suggestion below (I've trimmed the second paragraph, which is the same as above):

I suggest the following:

Neither suggestion reads well, but if we can agree on the facts the rest is editing. François Robere (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This newer version is reasonable if the second paragraph is also included, also I would use "captured" instead of "kidnapped" a term more suitable when referring to combatants, and regarding Chodakiewicz, I would drop the reference, below is the revised text with some additional wording changes:
 * --E-960 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may have "captured" in addition to "abducted", so I don't want to use just the former. What we can use is "delivered to the Germans", which is also accurate per the source:
 * It may have "captured" in addition to "abducted", so I don't want to use just the former. What we can use is "delivered to the Germans", which is also accurate per the source:


 * François Robere (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine, however I would keep "perceived to contain anti-Semitic elements within its ranks", if you recall Volunteer Marek, provided some depth to this topic, where it was not necessarily the entire unit(s) that collaborated, but some of the local commanders, who through their initiative aligned their activities with what the Germans wanted, but that was not known to the rest of the members. --E-960 (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the image was of the entire organization. Plus, this is already a very careful - maybe too careful - phrasing, as several of the sources say outright that it was anti-Semitic, not just "perceived as". A future editor could characterize them as such (or use something like ""often characterized as anti-Semitic...", or "who according to many sources was anti-Semitic..."), and they won't be wrong as far as RS are concerned. François Robere (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, final changes I would adjust the final statement "NSZ units also frequently skirmished with partisans of the Polish communist People's Army." This is their ideological arch enemy, so we should just say that that. Also, I would just merge the two paragraphs into one, not separate the text since it all talks about NSZ. --E-960 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Made an edit. Everyone are invited to review and adjust. François Robere (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the final two adjustments that were listed above before the final version was approved — it's important to highlight that NSZ fought primarily with AL. Also, I removed "far" from right-wing, this wording was not in the above version. --E-960 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was per Zimmerman, but it's not a crucial addition. I changed "left wing" to "communist", but I thought it was important to keep the general statement ("other groups") and put the AL highlight in parenthesis, as they did "skirmish" with others as well. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Reliable sources
Are the Polish's ambassador Facebook posts, as reported by wPolityce (pl), a reliable source? 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Reporting on Twitter and/or Facebook comments is standard practice in mainstream news, as seen in this example here: --E-960 (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment: the issue is not that the comments were on social media. Generally, even though mainstream news report on such comments, the comments themselves usually fail to be a reliable source on anything but what they say (i.e. they are a primary source), per WP:FACEBOOK. Also, we must give due weight to differing viewpoints. The opinion of the Polish ambassador might be worth mention since it is after all from the Polish government. However, it also has a lot of issues since it comes from a politician (who might have all sorts of reason to slightly "modify" the truth to fit his agenda - but its not like somebody ever did that..., right?). Also, we are using a self-published statement on Facebook (WP:SOCIALMEDIA) to support a controversial claim - the Polish media might have covered it since it is from a locally important political figure, but WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies and we have no obligation (or really, good reason) to give anything more than a passing mention, since the comments were not published in a reliable, academic-level journal or book (which is where Grabowski published his estimate...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * No Per previous discussion in the "Editorializing" section. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wpolityce newspaper is an entirely reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Polish ambassador Dr. Jakub Kumoch  is a political scientist.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No. While Wpolityce (which I think would fail RSN generally) would probably be reliable enough for the existence of the Facebook posts (which can be verified on Facebook as well) - the Facebook posts by a non expert political person (with a phd in pol science and experience in politics and communication) are not a RS for WWII history in general. We also have a censorship/legal issue since these posts were made after the 2018 law limiting discourse on Polish Holocaust complicity - though that is overshadowed here by this being a non-expert, on Facebook, which is UNDUE and is not a RS for anything beyond their non-notable opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. The wPolityce news online portal is reliable, with it's weekly news&opinion magazine available in all newsstands nationwide, generating profits through advertising and sales, it's staff has credentials working previously for other mainstream news media outlets such as Newsweek Polska, Rzeczpospolita, TVP Wiadomośc, etc.  it also hosts interviews with conservative mainstream academics and politicians (including ministers, ambassadors and professors). To argue that this is a "fringe" outlet (like some blog done out of a basement) is misleading. Also, Dr. Jakub Kumoch's statements (who is the Polish ambassador to Switzerland, and an academic before taking over the role of ambassador), are reliable, and can be used to highlight criticism of Grabowski's research. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How much of it is also true for the Daily Mail? François Robere (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A manipulative statement made only to perpetuate the perception that wPolityce is some kind of a tabloid. But, yes in today's media environment anything that's conservative is labelled as fringe, tabloid or fake news. --E-960 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. There's a host of reliable conservative-leaning outlets . François Robere (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hahaha... funny, that chart has CBS as neutral, in one CBS Evening News broadcast they started out the program with news that President Trump got in a Tweet exchange with Rosie O'donnel... again, see here: . So you see, reporting on Facebook or Tweets is common practice in "mainstream' news. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been off-topic on this for a while. The question isn't the reporting itself, but the "who" and the "what" of the claims. Trump wasn't reported as an RS on O'Donnell, and were he not who he is he wouldn't have been reported at all. François Robere (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * yes & no. The facebook posts are not RS for facts (he is not an expert inn the filed), the report of them is RS for the fact he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He is an academic (political science) and was involved in topics related to WWII, here is an interview with PolskieRadio regarding another Holocaust related topic . Also, here is an article in [Rzeczpospolita]] one of the oldest and most established news papers in Poland, which notes Dr. Jakub Kumoch's comments, and also states about Grabowski "Grabowski also has difficulty in proving in his journalistic statements that every Jew who had earlier escaped German transports was murdered because of Polish 'complicity'."  --E-960 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "academic" does not mean "expert is all fields". Is he a recognized expert on WW2 (oh and writing about WW2 does not make you an expert of the holocaust, as I think David Irving might be able to demonstrate)Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We're focusing too much on the internet portal wPolityce. What is relevant is whether the facebook (or random saying otherwise) sayings of a Polish diplomat are relevant. Frankly - even if these was a reknowned holocaust scholar making a facebook post (not peer reviewed) we should be having a discussion on whether to include. In this case we have a nobody in ww2 history making a facebook post - it is not a RS for anything beyond the ambassador's opinion, and the ambassador's opinion as a nobody in the field - is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * CBS Nightly News reported as the first story of the program on President Trump's Tweet to Rosie O'Donnell, see here this is a legitimate mainstream practice. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lest we get sidetracked yet again - Kumoch is not Trump. Kumoch has no credentials in historical research, and holds a mid-level diplomatic post. Had he published this as an oped in some mainstream newspaper - it still would not merit inclusion, as the ambassador's opinions on the Polish role in the Holocaust are irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Wpolityce is a reliable source of information and statements of the ambassador are reliable in regards to his position as a notable representative of Polish government in context of debating of Grabowski's exaggerated allegations(which frankly shouldn't be on this page, but this is a seperate matter).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No (do not include): a WP:UNDUE opinion by a political appointee and not an expert on the collaboration during WW2 or the Holocaust. Given the high profile of the book, surely expert opinions published in peer-reviewed publications are available. My suggestion would be to use them instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not include: The RS question is a bit of a red-herring, the first source probably generally is RS, whilst Wpolityce is probably RS that a Facebook post was made by the Ambassador. However in so far as these are criticisms of historical methodology and content, better sources should exist from historians published in one of the two relevant topic areas (WWII Poland or Holocaust). I am persuaded by the arguments of Icewhiz and K.e.coffman that inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Pincrete (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. an ambassadorship is a formal government post, statements made by an official have a degree of credibility attached to them--91.90.182.130 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — 91.90.182.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * They have a degree of credibility attached to them as a governmental opinion. However, it is only "a degree of credibility" and it largely depends on a lot of other factors (i.e., it is not an automatic pass). Furthermore, being in a government does not make a person who says something an expert on the matter (or even a reliable source - politicans are sometimes not really honest, especially when it caters to their voter base) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, because the speaker is not an authoritative source. Sentiments like "Wpolityce newspaper is an entirely reliable source by Wikipedia's standards" are irrelevant, and fundamentally misunderstand our core content policies. There is no such thing as source that is categorically reliable for thing.  Newspapers are presumptively reliable for secondary-source material of a journalistic nature, nothing more.  Many things published in newspapers are not secondary but primary, and are not reliable for anything other than "the person who wrote this piece expressed this particular view" (WP:ABOUTSELF) (editorials, op-eds, opinion columns, subjective book reviews, advertisements, humor pieces, and various other things found in newspapers – even some feature articles, if they are highly personal investigative journalism pieces with a slant and which cannot be fact-checked beyond what the author wrote). Some newspaper material is also tertiary, e.g. sidebar tables of regurgitated statistics – we would not cite those, but the original source(s) of the stats. The ambassador's posts are a primary source, not secondary. The newspaper can confirm that they were made (as can Facebook itself, so whether they exist was never in question, ergo we need no newspaper source for them – it's a redundant cite). The paper cannot confirm the veracity of their message, the correctness of the ambassador's assertions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, not with respectto what happenned in the Holocaust. Yes, with respect to the current views of the Polish government about the Holcaust.  DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Technically this should be at RSN, it might get more feedback.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the ambassador's position as such that makes it particularly reliable in the context of historical research. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also see Reliable sources/Noticeboard where uninvolved editors (there are involved comments in the end) thought this was reliable only for the ambassador's opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RS for what?. Also if you are sourcing a report of the posts, it is that source (not the posts) that would be the RS (or not) not the thing they report on.Slatersteven (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a similar article about ambasador's comment found on MSN Wiadomosci, now you can't argue that MSN collects news from "fringe" sources. --E-960 (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I will also point out that notability and reliability are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed
I am sure there are still things to tweak, but I don't think the article is, in general, not neutral. Please tag issues in text using POV section or preferably the most precise POV statement for a particular sentence or paragraph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would say that just yet, but I'm certainly more confident that we can resolve these issues than I was a month ago, when it was more... crowded. François Robere (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Baudienst - source
It's Antoni Mączak: Encyklopedia historii gospodarczej Polski do 1945 roku. O-Ż. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna, 1981, I haven't verified.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Szklarski
Szklarski has published probably only romantic and erotic stories and texts about fashion. It was a form of propaganda but differen't than the political or antisemitic one. I doubt that French fashion journalists were opressed after the war. Jean-Paul Sartre has published a number of his texts in German editions. Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Józef Mackewicz
According to the removed source Mackiewicz was sentenced as a Volksdeutsch, but he wasn't one. Mackiewicz was hated even after his clearing. I don't know the details, which are described on hundreds of pages. Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gazeta Codzinna was Lithuanian and Goniec Codzienny Nazi. So the current information is wrong.Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Individual collaboration" section
I'm edited the section on "individual collaboration". It's mostly copyedit, but I know not everyone will agree to some of the changes, so I'll explain them here:
 * Some of the specifics of the estimates are too much for an opening paragraph. For Gondek we can just state that he extrapolates from existing data; for the "Volksdeutsche" we can go into the specifics in a separate paragraph.
 * The statement on "Polish functionaries" reads poorly, and has a minor WP:SYNTH ("lower levels"). I think that the phrase "employed by the German authorities" is enough to convey the same sense of organizational hierarchy the previous phrasing conveys, but in better style.
 * There was no "Israeli war crimes commission", and the statistics quoted by that source are pretty dubious to begin with. It was previously discussed on this talk page.

I'm not yet happy with how the text looks. I think there needs to be a dedicated section for definitions (or, more broadly, for the historiography of the issue), from which we can branch to the different types and groups of collaborators. Gondek's usage of "marginal" is another example of why we need a more thorough introduction, as it may be misleading if given without context. I may write that section later, but in the meanwhile I'm putting forward these changes so others can comment. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Close of RfC
Noting that I have closed the archived RfC on "Jewish baiting techniques" Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

List of organizations and individuals at end of article
See this edit. Opinions? François Robere (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit reverted. François Robere (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have categories for that. Important people/organizations need to be discussed in prose. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Who sent the 1940 memorandum?
Referring to this:

Who were these eight? François Robere (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede, again
Am puzzled by this:

Due to differences Germany's aims in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe – specifically, Adolf Hitler's Lebensraum ("living-space") plan, emulating Germany's historical Drang nach Osten ("Drive to the East") – collaboration in Poland was much less institutionalized and widespread than in Western Europe.[1]

Does the source specifically link German Lebensraum to comparatively less collaboration in Poland? If not, that's WP:OR.

To my mind this would be a better line:

Collaboration in Poland was much less institutionalized and widespread than elsewhere in Europe, due to Germany's racist regime classifying Poles as subhuman and because Poland fielded what some historians describe as the biggest and most effective anti-Nazi resistance in WWII, supported by the general Polish population.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one source. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If there's no objection to this paragraph replacing the current second one in the lede, I'll go ahead and make the change. -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)