Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 13

Some things that need to be done
Continuing from the above discussion:

Split the "political collaboration" section
The "political collaboration" section should be split: "state" (or "uncollaboration", or "defiance" or whatever you want to call it) and "political". The current section mixes several things: I suggest splitting the section more or less along these lines, as it makes little sense to keep it all under one section. You can see a specific revision here.
 * Attempt by Germans and attempts by Poles
 * Attempts to preserve the state and attempts from when it no longer existed
 * Attitude by heads of state and attitudes by lower-level politicians
 * This was explained to you François Robere and three editors disagreed with your reasoning, pls see above discussion for reference. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't condescend, E-960. You never explained what's wrong with my suggestion other than objecting to the term "state collaboration", which doesn't even appear here. Kindly reply to the point. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pls review my earlier comments which you continue to ignore, also I think further down one of the other editors also re-stated their concerns that you are pushing POV with these changes, and they are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Diff of the the relevant comment? François Robere (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this, instead I see two problems: first, in your revision, political collaboration is a section stub, second, state collaboration section title suggest collaboration on a state level. Which, pray tell, Polish state, collaborated with Germany? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about state collaboration, but about collaboration (or lack thereof) at the state level: Attempts to preserve the state and attempts from when it no longer existed... Attitude by heads of state and attitudes by lower-level politicians. That's why I don't care so much for how the section should be named as long as it's split to better organize the content. François Robere (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As for "section stub" - you know as well as I do there's enough material to go there, so that won't be a problem if we agree on the structure. François Robere (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename the "cultural collaboration" section
"Cultures" don't collaborate - people do. We can be more specific: "Collaboration in film and media", "collaboration in the media and the press", "collaboration in the arts" etc.
 * Again, as noted earlier, a case of I just don't like it, replacing a long staining section title. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. There's a really semantic problem here, and "longstanding" won't cover it. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree I doubt this really is going to cause any confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about confusion, it's about style (or more clearly: linguistic conventions). I'm not going to argue about it because it's technically correct, but it's uncommon usage and reads oddly for a native speaker. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker I would say it makes perfect sense, I know exactly what is meant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No objection, but it is really a technicality. We should discuss headings in one section, all of them. They should be standardized. So no cultural collaboration, but you are ok with political collaboration heading? How about security forces heading, which doesn't mention that word at all? This mess needs cleaning, but we should fix them all at once, not one by one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I tried to do that in a series of edits, some of which now reverted (you can see the result here). The usual copy considerations apply: readability, style, conciseness... but also interest - avoiding patterns that might bore or distract the reader (eg. repeating the word "collaboration" for every section head). François Robere (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove details of Kumoch's critique
We have an RfC stating the Polish ambassador to Switzerland isn't an RS on these matters, yet he's quoted in the article on matters of methodology. If he's not an RS, we shouldn't quote him on methodology. We can say he criticized Grabowski's methodology (or just G's work), but there's no reason to quote the explanation. It's like quoting someone who isn't an engineer (or expert, or otherwise well-informed) on the specifics of the construction of some bridge.
 * This was explained to you François Robere earlier, pls see above discussion. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. You said the RfC doesn't necessitate removing that reference, you didn't explain why it is WP:DUE. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Grabowski lacks basic arithmetical skills so his numbers and his methodology don't deserve to be discussed here. Jacek Borkowicz summarises the recent book "Dalej jest noc" giving 40 000. Why the 40 000 isn't quoted here? Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The IPN opinion .Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mention Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It mentions Datner, misquoted by Grabowski. Don't you really know it?Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't mention Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are reliable mainstream sources that mention Kumoch's critique and they can be added with explanation what it is.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't with mentioning it, it's with quoting him on methodology. He's not an RS in this field and we shouldn't quote him as if he is. François Robere (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Below you said Generally building articles by adding quotes after quotes doesn't seem good form to me - why are you willing to accept Kumoch, but not three senior researchers from a world leading institution who are actual experts on this subject? François Robere (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I support removing Kumoch WHILE AT THE SAME TIME significantly trimming this section. All trimmed stuff, including Kumoch, should go to Hunt for the Jews. Seriously, we don't need to plug for Grabowski advertising that his book won some prize here, etc. I'd suggest the following to be left here: "In 2013 historian Jan Grabowski wrote in his book Hunt for the Jews that 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles. The book estimates, however, sparked an ongoing controversy." This is neutral and to the point - in coming months and years we can update this with reliable sources, for now, with many historians speaking through online media or media in general, this is the best we can do, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Move the Gorals and Kashubians into the "ethnic minorities" section
This isn't "individual collaboration" in the sense that the section uses, but collaboration aimed at particular ethnic groups (with a political element, which means it could also belong at the "political collaboration" section). And yes - we have multiple sources referring to those groups as "ethnic minorities", though we can use other definitions as well (eg. "regional minorities).
 * This was also explained earlier, pls see above discussion. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. I gave you two sources that state they are "ethnic minorities", which you ignored in favor of your own opinions. You did not provide alternative sources. That's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not an explanation. François Robere (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It a valid point, if RS say they are an ethnic minority we have no reason to ignore this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the RS inform about WWII or today?
 * The Nazis considered ethnic Poles racially lower than Gorals or Kashubians (they murdered however educated Kashubians at the beginning of the war). Do we accept Nazi ideology? Or rtaher should we carefully quote Nazi opinions?Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * However as noted above, both Gorals and Kaszubs consider themselves Poli7sh, and Goral and Kaszub is their regional sub-identity (just like in Scotland there are variations to Scots depending on the region — Southern Scots in comparison to Highlanders). While Germans, Ukrainians or Belorussians (living within the borders of pre-war Poland) considered themselves only that. There is a lot of history behind this which user François Robere is just not aware of, and crudely tries to oversimplify things. --E-960 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia. Bring sources. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, since you are the one trying to change long standing text, the burden is on you to properly justify you suggestion, we know that Goral and Kaszub are an ethnographic group, but they identify as Polish. So, what source compels you to move that text to "ethnic minorities" which did not identify themselves as Polish like Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually he does not have to provide sources that disprove long standing content, he just has to show there are no sources supporting it. Unsourced content can be challenged no matter how old it is. So What do the RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the text is sourced, you are arguing text placement within the article something completely different, stop mixing stuff. So, François Robere needs to justify that Goral and Kaszub did not see themselves as Polish. Again, read Wikipedia rules the burden of proof is on the person trying to make the changes. --E-960 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Errr, Being an ethnic minority has nothing to do with not seeing yourself as part of a larger national, group. He is not arguing they did not see themselves as Polish, just that they were an ethnic minority (are you really saying that Jewish Poles did not see themselves as Polish, really?).Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh and its not an RS but Ethnic minorities in Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I still see no compelling evidence for the change, this is not about sources, but text placement, and if that's the argument we can simply change the title form Gorals and Kaszubs to Polish ethnographic groups, and make if a full section split into Gorals and Kaszubs. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So why not Jews? As to sources, , both are distinct ethnic groups.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the section on Jewish collaboration was titled Polish Jews and for a time it was a full section not a sub-section as it is now, do you think we should return to that format? --E-960 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No as the same can be said of Germans and Ukrainians, if we have an ethnicites section then all ethnicities should go there. Or in the same section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you notice, that Górals and Kaszubs are a bit of a special case, and I would argue that Polish Jews as well. --E-960 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then rename the section, either it is about ethnic minorities or something else, if it is something else say it. Now I haven provided sources, either provide counter sources or accept they are distinct ethnic groups and move them to the correct section (or sugeect a rename, and take out the Jews).Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiki guidelines: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, you are trying to make this matter black and white, while it is clear the issue about Gorals and Kaszubs is not, since they self identify as POLISH in the 2011 Polish Census for example. So instead of treating this as a special case you just want to oversimplify the topic. Also, if you want to return the section on the Polish Jews as before, I have no problem since this is also a special case. --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was seriously contested you woulds have an RS that contests it, what you have is a census, so did it ask?Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked for RS they have been provided, now it is down to you to do the same.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

2011 Polish Census Kaszubs 232,547 of which 215,784 identify as Kaszub-Polish, Góral 2,935 of which 2,824 identify as Goral-Polish. --E-960 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've lost you here. You're claiming that because they self-identify as Kash.-Polish or Goral-Polish they're only Polish?
 * By the way, worth noting that this whole discussion is off-topic, as the question isn't to what degree they're ethnically-distinct or indistinct. Not sure why you insist on having it. François Robere (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the RS inform about WWII or today?
 * The Nazis considered ethnic Poles racially lower than Gorals or Kashubians (they murdered however educated Kashubians at the beginning of the war). Do we accept Nazi ideology? Or rather should we carefully quote Nazi opinions? Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misinform, it's unethical. Ethnic minorities in Poland doesn't list Gorals nor Kashubians.Xx236 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a link to a sources, it is a link to this discussion. And even if it was a link to a source (again I would ask what question was asked in the census) they identify themselves as their ethnic identity, but also Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

First, it's not move, but move back. This section was there before, as I moved it there myself. While I see how one could nitpick ethnic minorities, this is really just that, nitpicking. Lead of Gorals states they are an "ethnographic (or ethnic) group" (unreferenced, of course). Lead of Kashubians cleary states they are an ethnic groups. I fully support the move of this section back to the ethnic minorities part of the article. I don't know what weird point whoever is trying to make with the "Regional ethnographic groups", but it doesn't belong here. At best, we could compromise and call the section "	Collaboration by ethnic minorities" "	Collaboration by ethnic and ethnographic minorities" instead, but since ethnographic minority is not even defined, I call this term OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I previously suggested "ethnic and regional minorities". François Robere (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I dislike inventing terms (or using synonyms while suggesting they differ). Regional minority, alike, doesn't even have a redirect, and currently I am not willing to accept (pending somebody presenting reliable sources) that ethnic, ethnographic and regional minority are not simple synonyms (sorry, as a social scientist, I am quite irked by how many of my fellows try to build careers calling established social facts by another name and trying to say they invented them anew). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename it as you will. In the meanwhile... François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The section title as suggested should be adjusted. However, I don't agree with the suggested view, since as noted by user Xx236, reclassifying Gorals and Kaszubs was part of Nazi ideology, and in 1931 Polish census, you did not have people identifying as such, So, even though Gorals and Kaszubs self-identify as Polish, we will include them in the same category as Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc. who did not identify with the Polish nation. That's not correct either. --E-960 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again RS please, and can we see if they were given a choice?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, the 2011 census results, where they were able to just identify with one ethnicity or two ethnicities. Kaszubs 232,547 of which 215,784 identify as Kaszub and Polish, Góral 2,935 of which 2,824 identify as Goral and Polish. So, only 16,763 Kaszubs identified themselves as only that, and a staggering 111 Górals. If you identify with the Polish nation, you would not have been in the same category as Germans, Ukrainians or Belorussians, who did not. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Err I think that in the same census Germans Poles and Ukrainian Poles also identified as Polish. Besides which (as I have said) you can be black American and still be a minority. This does not say they identify as Polish but as "X Polish".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Some notes on the above:  François Robere (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The entire discussion is off-topic. The question isn't about their identification or self-identification, but about how we ought to classify them in the context of the page structure. In this context, they obviously go to the "ethnic minorities" section, however we choose to name it.
 * 2) I'm not at all sure we should have such a section.
 * 3) Ethnicity is only partly determined by one's self-definition.
 * 4) The 2011 census lists thousands of Germans, Ukrainians and Belorussians who self-identify as "Polish-something" or "something-Polish", as well as Kashub. and Gorals. If the census was our sole RS here then we couldn't ignore the first, and no argument has been presented to ignore the second.
 * 5) The census is from 2011, we're discussing the 1940's. It's irrelevant.
 * 6) Furthermore, it's shallow. There's a lot of history there (that's what we're writing about) and going "No they're not! The census said so!!!" sidesteps the actual story we should be concerned with.
 * It;s also irrelevant as they still identify as Kaszub & Goral, this is a bit like saying they if you self identify as black American you are not part of an ethnic minority because you self identify as American.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your RS regarding WWII period? Any discussion about contemporary Poland is irrelevant, ahistorical. There was a basic difference between the Ukrainians controlled by OUN-UPA, Gorals who killed their collaborationist leader, Kashubiabs decimated by Germans and Jews isolated in ghettos. What does the label etnic minority explain?
 * Nazi politics in occupied Poland should be precisely described. The Germans implemented "Divide et impera". How far may one copy the Nazi propaganda in 2018?
 * Jan Grabowski in his "Hunt for Jews" describes extensively Nazi politics in occupied Poland. No reader and no editor is able to understand anything if s/he doesn't know the basic facts. Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Form Kashubians:

During the Second World War, Kashubs were considered by the Nazis as being either of "German stock" or "extraction", or "inclined toward Germanness" and "capable of Germanisation", and thus classified third category of Deutsche Volksliste (German ethnic classification list) if ties to the Polish nation could be dissolved. However, Kashubians who were suspected to support the Polish cause, particularly those with higher education, were arrested and executed, the main place of executions being Piaśnica (Gross Plassnitz), where 12,000 were executed. The German administrator of the area Albert Forster considered Kashubians of "low value" and didn't support any attempts to create Kashubian nationality. Some Kashubians organized anti-Nazi resistance groups, Gryf Kaszubski (later Gryf Pomorski), and the exiled Zwiazek Pomorski in Great Britain.

So the Nazis didn't care about Kashubian nationality.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit
eg. undo this reversal and reordering (and possibly renaming) some of the sections so that everything makes sense. For a revision that includes all of it, see here. François Robere (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This was also explained earlier in conjunction with POV discussion, removing relevant detail for no particular reason. --E-960 (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. You merely said it was "longstanding", but "longstanding" has no meaning in the English Wikipedia. Plus, they're only "longstanding" because I was the one who ordered them so. So please explain the rational behind the current structure, and why it shouldn't be changed. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The renaming seems highly POV and doesn't add to the value of the article.It would actually make the article make less sense and push some fringe claims not supported by sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, François Robere you need to stop with the forum shopping, your suggestions above were rejected by 4 editors earlier and the reasons explained , so now instead of accepting that your changes were inaccurate and not warranted. You just opened up a another discussion hoping to get a different outcome. Several editors already noted that you editing approach carries a POV and is inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. You objected all of them but only explained two objections, and didn't bother with sources or actual discussion. User:Nihil novi came in and claimed I removed material, but didn't say which or why I was (hypothetically) wrong to do that. User:MyMoloboaccount said he "reviewed the discussion", then said he objects to something that wasn't even discussed. Neither of you engaged in actual discussion or made a minimal effort to achieve consensus, and I trust Molobo didn't even read the thread before he commented. Either you're willing to commit to an actual discussion or your objections remain in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in which case we'll have to look for some alternative route. Remember this page is under WP:DS, and we've already lost four editors for this sort of behavior, three of which espoused the nationalist narrative. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, no. Your suggested changes are inaccurate and very questionable, when you change section titles from "Political Collaboration" to "State Collaboration" and "Security Forces" to "Security Forces and National Services" than under the pretext of 'copyedit' you change text from "group of eight low-ranking Polish politicians" to "group of eight Polish politicians" it raises a red flag, that there is a push to insert a particular and historically inaccurate narrative into the article, suggesting the that POLISH STATE collaborated with the Germans, which it did not, instead going in to exile to London. Also, your suggestion to move the text about Gorals and Kashubians shows that you simply lack a full understanding of subject matter, and trying to push an inaccurate understanding of the topic. Also, in regards to Kumoch you refuse to accept that the RfC was inconclusive and instead, after it was closed you are trying to remove the text anyway as if the RfC reached a consensus, which it did not. --E-960 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is your responsibility as an editor to make the extra step beyond "it raised a flag" and check what the edit actually meant to do. I'm here, I'm offering explanations, I'm willing to answer questions, and you insist on blocking because of "flags"? Get serious, man. François Robere (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You just latch on to some word or a phrase, there are several editors who objected to you changes you just conveniantly ignore or dismiss their comments. --E-960 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, give me something better to latch on to, like sources or rationals. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "I trust Molobo didn't even read the thread before he commented" This is a show of very bad faith and a personal attack. I always read on what I comment.I kindly request that you remove this personal attack.As to the rest I have to agree with E-960, you continue to ask the same questions where numerous editors reached consensus that is against making highly POV changes not supported by sources that you have proposed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So how did you come to comment on something that wasn't even part of the discussion? François Robere (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Murdering of ethnic Poles
Trawniki men: Some officers of the Nazi German Ordnungspolizei felt uneasy about killing non-Jewish Poles. Their unit shot 4,600 Jews by September 1942, but disproportionately only 78 ethnic Poles. In contrast, the Hiwis, saw the Christian Poles as equal opportunity offenders. When they got too drunk to show up in Aleksandrów, Major Wilhelm Trapp ordered the release of prisoners rounded up for mass execution. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What has this to do with Polish collaboration?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to teach you, sir. Read books.Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but you are here to argue your case, if you are unable to answer ab simple question in a courteous manner I must assume there is no connection and so must oppose any addition of material relating to this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but some of your comments are hostile (Szare Szeregi as a Nazi formation). Please learn if you want to control the page.


 * USA Today describes Palij as Polish born. It's a literary translation from German media (here Deutsche Welle). This text doesn't mention Palij's ethnicity. Palij was accepted by the USA as an Ukrainian, not as a Pole. The German phrase is Der gebürtige Pole Palij .


 * This page should inform about Trawniki men, who accepted some former Polish citizens of non-Polish ethnicity. According to Browning such formations were used to murder ethnic Poles, because some German policemen didn't like to kill Poles. This information is important to oppose stories about Polish wardens in German camps.

Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We do already mention Ukrainians (and one man does not an organisation condemn, and it only "oppose stories about Polish wardens in German camps" if it actually says anything about the subject.), and what the hell has Szare Szeregi got to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you have already forgotten? You have offended thousands of heroic Poles.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not about me, so lay of the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wiesenthal list
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=9356941&ct=14848993#.V1kyQU1JmbM

List of Nazi War Criminals Slated for Possible Prosecution in 2016:

4 of 10 are listed with the word Poland, which is probably a place of crime. However Helma Kissner worked in Auschwitz and Natzweiler-Struthof, so maybe rather Poland/France?Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, as far as I know this article is about collaboration, so was she not German?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean sommeones ideas about Holocaust Geography - Auschwitz was in Poland but Natzweiler-Struthof in Germany. The French name of the village is Natzwiller but Kulmhof KZ is called Chełmno, even if 95% of the readers don't know how to say Chełmno. Double standards. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Return to the subject of Collaborationist forces in occupied Poland
While Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'd like a show of hands to gauge what the consensus is on including Collaborationist forces such as the Russian S.S. Sturmbrigade R.O.N.A. and its rape, torture and murder of 10,000 people in the Ochota massacre, etc. There were notable Azeri and Ukrainian units, too.

Poll, Yes/No: Should Collaborationist forces be included in the article 'Collaboration in German-occupied Poland' ?


 * Yes. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC))
 * No. Although the article's title is "Collaboration in Poland", it seems it is about collaboration of Polish population with occupants. If I understand it correct, collaborationism is "cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime". All foreign units acting in Poland can hardly be considered collaborators, because they were acting against another country, not against their own country. Ukrainian auxiliary police battalions acting in Belorussia were collaborators, because they were acting against their country (USSR). However, Russian (Ukrainian, Azeri etc) units acting agains Poles/Jews in Poland were not acting against their own country. I don't think their status was different from the status of French Foreign Legion or Spanish Blue Division members: they were just foreign citizens at Nazi service.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This page does not define its subject. Your opinion should be included in a basic discussion of the subject, not here.
 * If we accept your opinion, crimes of the mentioned formations committed in Poland should be described in Collaboration in Spain (?), Collbaoration in France... (There are no such pages after ages of creating this Wikipedia).
 * Please remeber that some Ukrainians from Poland joined Hiwi (volunteer) (Trawniki men), Palij isn't the only case.Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * NO Agree with Paul Siebert. Also, you can always add links to the other topics in the See also section at the bottom of the page. But, adding this new subject matter would make the article go off on a tangent. --E-960 (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem of this Wikipedia is that it shows Polish people as main collaborators of WWII. There are plenty of explanations why such bias is legal here, they don't however make the problem less important. It's a part of Western cultural collonialism. Wild natives are banned or subject banned when they feel offended. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not a surprise that the article devoted to collaboration in Poland focuses of Polish collaboration. However, I am not sure your impression that Poles, according to this article, were main collaborators of WWII is correct. I saw much less articles (I mean really good scholarly articles) about Polish collaboration than about collaboration of other nations, so even Western sources give quite an adequate picture. The problem may be that manifestations of Polish anti-semitic, which had its own roots, unrelated to German Nazism, is interpreted as collaboration, although that was not necessarily the case.
 * I see the problem not with this article, but with the articles about other occupied nations, because the articles about activity of Ukrainan, Baltic and other collaborators (who were collaborating at much, much larger scale) are trying to understate the scale of that activity, mostly m=because they are based on local sources and are being edited by local editors. One of the mosh shocking articles in that aspect are the articles about UPA.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you are concerned about the undue emphasis of collaboration of by ethnic Poles, why cannot we expand the section devoted to collaboration in Kresy? Most non-Polish collaborators, including Bandera himself were from that region, and there is a lot of material about their collaboration with Nazi. The story of Galichina division, Battle of Brody (1944), etc definitely belongs to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose AS others have this this page grew out of a desire to have a more detailed discussion of collaboration in Poland by Poles (of whatever ethnicity).Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. A brief mention should be fine, but this article is not the best place of in-depth discussion of those formations. That said, this is a good illustration of why the name of this article shouldn't have been changed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, we do not have this problem in (say) Collaboration in German-occupied Soviet Union.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's face it, all of such renames are a result of few people who don't want to heal a phrase "Fooian collaborator" (let's not talk about the concept of "Polish collaborators", that's offensive, let's weasel word this term into "collaborators in occupied Poland", then dilute this topic by talking about those evil minority collaborators). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your template Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country summarizes perfectly the bias of this Wikipedia, a small number of collaborators and a longer absence list. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it is just a WIP, so lay of the accusations of bias. This is not a forum to discus Wikipedias problems, it is a forum to discus how to improve this (THIS) article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Result: TBC

Włodzimierz Borodziej
https://www.focus.pl/artykul/hitlerowi-nie-zalezalo-na-polskich-kolaborantach Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * YEs?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To be corrected
During and after the war, the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators.
 * Who did execute whom after the war?
 * Some forms of collaboration were punished by flogging or cutting hair or boycotting. The cost of an execution was high, sometimes death of many Poles.Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert
This - discuss? It's a straightforward copyedit - nothing changed in terms of meaning, except for one sentence that was redacted for brevity (the one about the ghetto's liquidation). François Robere (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus it was not just a CE, it removed material. Also you did make more substantive changes (such as changing " In a smaller incident" to "In another, smaller incident"). It was not just a CE.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you change to let it pass? François Robere (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure it needs changing, so I am not going to offer an alternative text.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This?
 * François Robere (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * François Robere (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting writer rather than venue
We currently quote "an article in the Polish nationwide daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita (The Republic)"; any objections to attributing it instead to its writer, Piotr Zaremba (ie. "an article by Piotr Zaremba...")? Also possible: "An article by... published in...". François Robere (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the statement as is, again François Robere you are making massive changes to the article (you were asked by several editors to refereing from such editing, including admins) — highlighting some detials while diminishing others, just like with the above section. All quite confusing when all these changes are being pushed on the article at once. --E-960 (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See no reason why not, we often do it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, because you are stripping the detail. Rzeczpospolita is one of Poland's largest newspapers, so it should be mentioned. And your statement, "we often do it" comes across as I just don't like it, not you or François Robere provided any legitimate justification for the change other than just want to change it. How about acticle in Polish nationwide daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita by Piotr Zaremba. --E-960 (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it is about being consistent. also it was published in it's Plus Minus weekend magazine, not in the newspaper itself. One reason why we might want to attribute it to the writers rather then the publisher.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, write that in, New York Times also has a weekend edition. It is important to show where this interview appeard. I find you recomendations rather incosistant in one disscussion you argue for showing reliable sources, now you want to remove mention of them, absolutle no consistancy whatsoever, just sloppy arguments that fit your fancy. --E-960 (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the weekend edition, it is a separate magazine.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit
This change was previously rejected. The reversing editor believe the removal of "low ranking" was removal of content; in fact, it is stated in the same paragraph that: "in view of the low profile of the Poles involved...", so "low ranking" was a duplicity, and removing it was a matter of copyedit. Nevertheless, I'm suggesting two alternatives, both I believe read better than the original:

Original:

Alt. 1:

Alt. 2:

Which would you use? François Robere (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the original should not be changes. Just like earlier in the same discussion you brough up a few weeks back, which did not gain consensus, no need to change anything. The long standing statement "low-ranking Polish politicians" is appropriate and provides a more details description and should stay. --E-960 (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then you have alternative #2. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No to alternatives, I said no change needed. --E-960 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the importance of mentioning they met in Lisbon? François Robere (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversal
You say "functionary is more accurate" - is it? A functionary is "one who serves in a certain function" or "a person who has to perform official functions or duties; an official"  - both of these say almost nothing. "Guard" is clearly more precise, as it adds information on the function those people perform. As for accuracy - the description of the image says nothing about functionaries, guards or anything else, so you've no source to say one definition is more accurate than the other. We're left with two options: Either drop the file, as its relevance here may be nothing but RS; or prefer the more precise, and hence concise description, which is "guards". François Robere (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about " Two Jewish Ghetto policemen guarding the gates of the Warsaw Ghetto, June 1942]] "? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, François Robere is back trying to massively change the article to fit his POV, this is nothing more than an attempt to SANITIZE the article text, and the term "functionary" a person who has to perform official functions or duties is quite accurate, since the Ghetto Police were formally tasked with policing duties (not some security-guards), yet they were not "policeman" in a traditional manner. --E-960 (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem arose because the other common term - "police officer" - I find distasteful in this use. We should use "policemen" instead. François Robere (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What was their official name, use that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Polizist" - policeman . We should use that. François Robere (talk)
 * A Wikipedia photo caption is not an RS, so I ask again what was their official name?09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia that's the source, it's the Bundesarchiv:  François Robere (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your link takes me to a search page, not a result. I would have though you could find a better source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird. It should link directly to the item. You can check this link as well, but you'll need to click it for the description. François Robere (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Definition of the term, again
Look at the exchange above:

''Killing Jews was not always collaboration. A greedy peasant murdering a Jewish refugee to steal his purse was just an opportunist war profeetering criminal, not a collaborator. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)''

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

We have been here over and over again, and we will return ad infinitum with an ever unstable article until we add a line in the lede with citations which states that some sources differ on what collaboration was. It's really not for us to decide what collaboration is. Per WP:NOTTRUTH, what do the various sources say: Is the killing of a Pole by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is the killing of a Jew by a Pole during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is working for the police - whether Blue Police or Ghetto Police - during the German occupation of Poland defined as collaboration? Is declining to fight against Germany collaboration? Is profiteering collaboration? Is selling goods to Germans collaboration? etc etc. Please let's discuss proposals for the line, below. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Connelly's quote on "structural collaboration" would've solved this for now, but it was removed by one or more editors at some point. By the way - as I said before, I've no objection to having a separate article: Complicity in the Holocaust covering all aspects of the discussion Re:Poland, but I guarantee you it will be even less stable than this one. François Robere (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chumchum7, this is going over board, and that's also the issue with Grabowski's statement, how much of this was criminal activity vs. actual collaboration. Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to imposing the most broad definiton of the word... was just living and going to work "structural collaboration" because in effect you were still a cog in the German war time economy. I criticized user François Robere approach before as it is very one sided and bias leaning to the most broad defininion of collaboration to the point of extreme. --E-960 (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I previously noted that that is not my approach, but I value you taking the time to explain it. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yes, not necessary all killings are motivated by collaboration, I think instead of arguing on the meaning on the term, every individual case has to be judged properly if it may be counted as a form of collaboration or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR that would be a breach of WP:NOR. And per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability in reliable sources, not what random Wikipedia editors think is true. So the bottom line is: unless a reliable source refers to something as collaboration, it is a breach of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia for this article to say that something was collaboration. That said, there's still a place for definition of the term higher up the article; and I will support François Robere restoring the Connelly quote per WP:PRESERVE if he could propose a line here. But it should not be added in isolation, especially if it isn't referring to specifically Polish collaboration; there should be other definitions of the term alongside it, including that of the previously discussed Israeli historian who said Poles who killed Jews during the Holocaust tended to be considered murderers rather than collaborators with the Germans by the wider Polish population (and there is indeed a logical problem in whether one can label a Pole who killed Poles, Jews and Nazis a collaborator). One could also add content about the history of the word as used in the WWII context, that it was used by a Frenchman to discuss specifically Vichy French problems in WWII and has since been inflated and extrapolated (there was even differentiation between collaborateur and the collaborationniste, and Vichy arrests of unauthorized collaborators because they wanted to monopolize collaboration, a phenomenon with no parallel in Poland); that context doesn't necessarily fit with the very different complexities of wartime Poland.  -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any responses to my request for content proposals here, per WP:BOLD I have gone ahead and added the Israeli-American scholar who specifically discusses the notion of Polish antisemitism vis-a-vis collaboration . That would also be the place to add the balancing Connelly quote adjacent to it, provided Connelly does actually name Polish collaboration, per my comment above. François Robere you say "I've no objection to having a separate article: Complicity in the Holocaust covering all aspects of the discussion Re:Poland". There's already the perfect place for that: The Holocaust in Poland. Working on that section might be a way of helping us improve article stability in general. We can also link that section to this article and vice versa. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Chumchum7, I did not give any recommendation to breach any WP rules, I just said in any individual case or debate it has to be checked carefully if it may be treated as a collaboration or not, of course in accordance with the rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC))
 * To clarify, I entirely agree with you that every individual case has to be judged properly if it may be counted as a form of collaboration or not and my point was only to state for the record that we can't be the ones who make that judgement, that it has to come from the sources. I apologize for my imprecise phrasing which might have looked like I was suggesting you were advocating OR, which you were not. That was not my intention. We're on the same page. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also to clarify, judgements are considered to be made in accordance with the WP rules, and some cases could much more complicated and widespread just to have one source's statements, etc. There are multiple sources, multiple approaches, in what case what source we may use, what would be relevant, decisive, correct or could treated in general for something, sythesis, etc. I think I don't tell you anything new, more or less even if all the WP rules are regarded and applied, many times the users decide in what form or how we apply them, since numerous constellations are possible, so anyway most of the cases the user's collaboration regarding consensus is also inevitable.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

Żbikowski
http://www.historyczny.uj.edu.pl/documents/41611/136756408/Recenzja_2.pdf/4824d11f-c48f-4871-8efc-92a8ecaec5c2
 * The reviewed book Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration

 * Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to complete a task or achieve a goal. :Moral degradation under Nazi terror isn't collaboration.
 * High criminality during the war isn't collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally people misuse outlawed people, eg. illegall immigrants. It's opportunism rather than collaboration with the state which doesn't alllow the immigration.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

the Polish State and the Resistance movement executed collaborators

 * Different punishments were applied: head shaving, flogging.
 * The price of an execution was too high to be frequently applied.
 * Some people were falsely accused (Józef Mackiewicz).
 * Many people were punished after the war frequently on the basis of so clalled August decrees. The quality of law at that time was controversial. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

citation needed

 * Does the template apply to the whole lead, the second paragraph or the last phrase?
 * Any lead should summarize the page. Many leads don't quote any sources. This one quotes two sources, which is not enough. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Winstone quotation
The first paragraph of this article's "The Holocaust" section includes the following:

"Regarding the purported low Polish resolve to save Jews, Winstone writes that this tendency may be partly explained by fear of execution by the Germans. He nevertheless notes that the Germans imposed death sentences for many other acts and that "it may well be that the risk of hiding a Jew was greater, but that is in itself suggestive since the Germans were not the only danger"."

Could somebody please explain the meaning of the second sentence in the above quotation? I have never been able to understand it.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He is implying that the fear of firing squad may not have been the only factor.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He's referring to the risk posed by fellow Poles (denouncers, blackmailers and mobs), as noted in a previous discussion. Earlier this week I've called Mr. Winstone, who kindly agreed to clarify this by email. I am now awaiting his reply. François Robere (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is if a 3rd party can verify the email is indeed from the source. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And if they can verify it has not been altered in any way. And I suspect also there may be other needs (such as the third party must themselves be a reputable source, not Bert from down the pub or just another blogger). Thre is also the question of copyright (and SPS). It might pass muster, but may well not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've received Mr. Winstone's reply, which I will quote below. For the purpose of verification, I suggest forwarding the message to an admin of your choosing. François Robere (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ...or to Bert down at the pub. François Robere (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read (I don't rememeber where) that Winston criticized that Poles accepted to die for Poland or for food (illegal pigs) rather than helping Jews.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Per the above, Mr. Winstone's reply:

François Robere (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot forward the e-mail, I do not have access to the original. Moreover there is no way to verify if this is an accurate or complete rendition of the text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm offering to forward it myself. If you think it's altered (the nuclear secret that it is) there are other ways to do it. Just pick a Wikipedian you trust who's willing to help and I'll handle the rest. François Robere (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then forward it, and ask an admin to confirm this can be used.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I did not really need the email to understand the quotation. It seems pretty straightforward to me: (1) death penalty was imposed for many acts of resistance, including, but not limited to, hiding the Jews; (2) the danger to those aiding Jews in hiding did not only come from the Germans. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * coffman, you are just way smarter than me. I did what all the above editors could have done: found the book in Google Books, and edited accordingly. Not quite sure why we would ask the author to explain. But it's an interesting passage, that's clear. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm happy to see that my reading of the book seems to agree what the author said in further commentary, which indeed we are not going to cite. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the previous two discussions on the matter (the first linked above, the second immediately follows the first), some editors took issues with actually reading the text and writing on what we read, insisting on as obtuse an interpretation of the text as possible - creating the need for clarification.
 * If the commentary resolves this on the TP, that's enough. François Robere (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t exactly see any point in the quote here.That people reported hiding Jews to German authorities is well known. It doesn’t come off as any revelation to anyone who studies this subject. Irregardless of problems veryifing the quote it had other problems, for example the broad term Poles doesn’t specify if they Germans with Polish citizens, ethnic Poles, Ukrainians or so on. I don’t really see any value in this quote, the general information can be added, if it isn’t already but it isn’t any breakthrough or revelation on its own.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that many Poles informed the Nazis but certainly not only about hiding Jews. They informed about criminal activities, underground. Some used the Nazis against hated neighbours. Many Poles were born in Germany or Austria so some of them accepted German rules. There is a book about Poles who informed Nazis in Warsaw region 1940-1941 and about post workers who captured such letters.
 * Denouncing deserves detailed description. Now there are only two atypical cases mentioned - a Jew and Communists. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Baudienst as collaboration
The text doesn't even mention the Poles who worked as foremen, they were probably collaborators. I'm not sure if conscripted terrorised teeneagers were collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are several suggestions how to edit this page (I admit, I have copied them, if the author claims his authorship - be welcome):


 * Wikipedia being what it is, I'm urging editors to stay focused on the text. The way the Wikipedia community usually handles edit wars and personal animosities is by throwing the belligerents into a well and seeing who comes out first. It's nasty.
 * Whether the passage belongs in this article or in some introductory or background text depends on whether the source presents it as a reply to criticism, or whether we're presenting it as such on our own accord.
 * If the source presented this as a response to criticism, then it can be placed either immediately following the criticism (where it is now), or in a dedicated "responses to criticism" section. If the source did not present it as such, then it is WP:OR and should be re/moved. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered! François Robere (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,could you explain your comment? What are you flattered by?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He is the author. I hope he'll obey the rules in the future.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust section-important parts missing
The current version for some reason was focused on Poles helping Jews. It lacked infroamtion on paramilitaries engaged in Holocaust and collaborative local administration assisting Nazis. I added some sections divided on phases of Holocaust in occupied Poland. I believe this could be further improved. Collaboration in Holocaust in occupied Poland mainly involved: I guess this could be divided in these sections if needed.The previous version was seriously lacking,since there was no mention of such important grups as Trawniki men who were intensely involved in Holocaust as organized collaboration paramilitary. I guess copying information might be not ideal, but it is a good start to build up the section in line with historical research and importance on this subject.
 * Ukrainian and Lithuanian auxillary police units
 * Trawniki men
 * Judenrate
 * Pogroms

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that this article is under a restriction to use high quality sources - we really shouldn't be adding unsourced information ... please make sure its sourced before adding. If copied from another article, it still needs to be sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I will add sources later today.I merged your subsection with mine. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Information sourced to Trunk...
"Persecution of Polish Jews by the German occupation authority began immediately after the invasion, particularly in major urban areas. In the first year and a half, the Nazis confined themselves to stripping the Jews of their valuables and property for profit, herding them into makeshift ghettos, and forcing them into slave labor for public works and the war economy. During this period, the Germans ordered Jewish communities to appoint Jewish Councils (Judenräte) to administer the ghettos and to be "responsible in the strictest sense" for carrying out orders." is sourced to Trunk's Judenrat pp. 3, 172, 352. I have the Bison Books edition, which is basically a reprint with a new introduction, so the pagination should be the same. I cannot verify the information given from those pages. I note that this is actually a word for word copy from The Holocaust in Poland here "Persecution of Polish Jews by the German occupation authority began immediately after the invasion particularly in major urban areas. In the first year and a half, the Nazis confined themselves to stripping the Jews of their valuables and property for profit, herding them into makeshift ghettos, and forcing them into slave labor for public works and the war economy. During this period, the Germans ordered Jewish communities to appoint Jewish Councils (Judenräte) to administer the ghettos and to be "responsible in the strictest sense" for carrying out orders. " where only the LAST bit is sourced to Trunk. Why were the correct citations for ALL the information not copied? And when it was copied over, did anyone actually check the sources to make sure they supported the information? Trunk's citation is actually to page 2, not pages 3, 172, 352, and it's not quite true to say that Trunk supports the statement "the Germans ordered Jewish communities to appoint Jewish Councils (Judenräte) to administer the ghettos.." because later in the work Trunk makes it clear that the Germans usually appointed the leader of the council and often chose the members from a list put forth by the newly-appointed chairman/leader - see especially pages 22-25. Trunk also makes it clear that there was no orderly proceedure for chosing the councils - it was pretty much left to local German officials to do whatever they wanted. But that's a problem for a different article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is possible for two editions of the same book to have different page numbers. But I think this still needs verifying.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that case with this one - there is no new copyright in the Bison Books - it's still the 1972 copyright from the Macmillan edition. The title page says "Originally published in 1972 by the Macmillan Company. Reprinted by arrangement with Scribner, An imprint of Simon & Schuster Inc., New York". Bison Books generally specialised in paperback reprints prior to the 21st-century. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all thank you Ealgyth for pointing out possible improvements to the article and pointing out how the sources and citations should be included.If you look at my edits in the article, I openly stated that I copied information from Holocaust in Poland article. I did it in good faith as it seems good written and has reliable sources.The reason that I didn't included all citations is because that would require coding in Wikipedia language which requires me to copy it bit by bit, I intended to do it gradually. Perhaps a better option would be to copy it alltogether and then fix broken citation code(as I am not a programmer this always gives me a headache-I know how to do references in Wikipedia, but more advanced functions are simply very difficult for me). I note that you mention fixing some page references and certain information.I confess that some of the information you pointed out I don't see as controversial, like statement that most extreme phase of Holocaust was done in six extermination centers, but I understand that my perception might be wrong, and others might be of different view. I certainly agree that this can be improved and we can refine the sources and the text, as long as the vital information remains.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Based on your comments I have decided to self-revert for the time being and will rewrite the sections so they can be more spotless..--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"tens of thousands"..
"operated behind front lines, systematically shooting tens of thousands of men, women, and children, independently of the army." is sourced to this exhibit page, which doesn't say "tens of thousands" ... it says "Between 1941 and 1944, Nazi SS and German police forces, German military units, and locally recruited collaborators killed more than 2 million Jews residing in the Soviet Union (borders of 1941) in mass shooting operations." The bit in this article is supposed to be about "former Polish territories" but the exhibit page doesn't break that information down into former Polish territories - it just talks about the Soviet Union's 1941 borders ... which did include some formerly Polish areas I believe, but the source doesn't support the information it's attached to. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Trawniki ...
"Between 1942 and 1944 the most extreme Holocaust measure, the extermination of millions of Jews from Poland and all over Europe, was carried out in six extermination camps. There were no Polish guards at any of the Reinhard camps, despite the sometimes used misnomer Polish death camps. All killing centres were designed and operated by the Nazis in strict secrecy, aided by the Ukrainian Trawnikis." is sourced to this USHMM entry (which does support the rest of the information it is sourcing about the killing that the Trawniki men took part in). However, the source says nothing about six extermination centers, nothing about the "Between 1942 and 1944 the most extreme Holocaust measure, .... was carried out" nor anything about "no Polish guards at any of the Reinhard camps, despite the sometimes used misnomer Polish death camps". It appears to have been copied from The Holocaust in Poland, but without the citation used in that article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The extermination centers - it's Operation Reinhard.
 * I have been told by a historian that a number of ethnic Poles were among the Trawniki men. I belive that the number was small. Similarly there were few ethnic Poles among Lithuanians in Ponary. They were imprisoned in Poland after the war. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Belarus...
"and the remaining subcamps of KL Lublin/Majdanek camp complex including Poniatowa, Budzyń, Kraśnik, Puławy, Lipowa, and also during massacres in Łomazy, Międzyrzec, Łuków, Radzyń, Parczew, Końskowola, Komarówka and all other locations, augmented by members of the SS, SD, Kripo, as well as the reserve police battalions from Orpo (each, responsible for annihilation of thousands of Jews). Mass executions of Jews (as in Szebnie) was part of the regular training of the Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division soldiers from the SS-Heidelager troop-training base in Pustków in south-eastern Poland. In the north-east, the "Poachers' Brigade" of Oskar Dirlewanger trained Belarusian Home Guard in murder expeditions with the help of Belarusian Auxiliary Police. By the end of World War II in Europe in May 1945, over 90% of Polish Jewry perished." is sourced to Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship by Andrew Wilson. Again, however, this appears to have been lifted word-for-word from The Holocaust in Poland, but without all the citations that were there - "and the remaining subcamps of KL Lublin/Majdanek camp complex including Poniatowa, Budzyń, Kraśnik, Puławy, Lipowa, and also during massacres in Łomazy, Międzyrzec, Łuków, Radzyń, Parczew, Końskowola, Komarówka and all other locations, augmented by members of the SS, SD, Kripo, as well as the reserve police battalions from Orpo (each, responsible for annihilation of thousands of Jews). Mass executions of Jews (as in Szebnie) was part of regular training of the Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division soldiers from the SS-Heidelager base in Pustków in south-eastern Poland. In the north-east, the "Poachers' Brigade" of Oskar Dirlewanger trained Belarusian Home Guard in murder expeditions with the help of Belarusian Auxiliary Police. By the end of World War II in Europe in May 1945, over 90% of Polish Jewry perished.". Were these citations checked before importing the information? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Note that I have mentioned this article and the suspension of my contributions to it, at this noticeboard: All the best, -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)