Talk:Dina Porat

Controversy over Jewish Nazi collaborators?
I've moved this newly-added section to the Talk: page for discussion:

Controversy over Jewish Nazi collaborators
Dina Porat expressed controversial idea that Jewish Nazi collaborators should be at least partially absolved and not unequivocally condemned together with all other Nazi collaborators (i.e. opinion expressed by Polish PM), as they betrayed or turned in other Jews to Germans being threatened with death if they didn't. However, other historians claim that some of Nazi Jewish collaborators went as long as to identify themselves closely with their Nazi masters. Although Porat did express a view on this topic when questioned by a newspaper reporter, it's unclear that this is a particular "controversy" related to Porat; this is quite clearly a WP:UNDUE problem. Moveoever, she certainly did not say that they should be "partially absolved" etc.; rather she said, to quote the newspaper, that comparing them to Polish collaborators “is morally and historically false also because of the complex spectrum of collaboration,” Porat said. This complexity does not apply to Polish collaborators, few of whom were threatened with death if they did not betray or turn in Jews.

“The indictment against all of those collaborators may appear similar,” Porat said, “but the context in which they acted is radically different.” This is a WP:BLP, so we must edit very cautiously; I've therefore brought the proposed section/addition here for discussion. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For me it is partial absolution based on the fact that they did evil acts under threat of death. If you understand her words differently, please explain to me.
 * The main problem that she deviates from individual responsibility, because threat of death or alleged lack of it, is based on group membership. Jewish individual might not face imminent death threat and also he may not perceive it this way. Opposite is true for non-Jewish collaborator, who could be motivated by perceived death threat.
 * What needs to be underlined, she voice her opinion over moral issues, even if she is historian.
 * Please do not remove, try to find the best version.
 * Cautious (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but you haven't addressed any of the policy issues I've raised above. You've put your own interpretation on her words, which is WP:NOR, and you've highlighted one statement she made when asked a question in a newspaper article; where is the secondary source indicating that this is some sort of controversy? Again, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. This is a WP:BLP, so we must edit cautiously . That means we immediately remove to discuss, and only include when there is agreement. Don't restore this to the article until agreement is reached, or I will have to take much more serious action. Jayjg (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the statement you keep adding at the bottom of that section "It is interesting to note that Head Historian of Yad Vashem is answering moral questions, the role usually reserved for priests of organised religions." -is pure unsourced original research, your own opinions about her statements. I am astounded you would even think you could add that. Jayjg (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again you did removed the content, instead editing it to be better. Please help formulate it better.Cautious (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I removed the content. You don't seem to understand how serious WP:BLP is. Because it is negative original research and WP:UNDUE, it cannot be "formulated better". Bring better and different sources, but don't restore before agreement. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)