Talk:History of the Jews in Gdańsk

name
The title "Jewish community of Danzig" is clearly in violation of the Gdansk/Danzig vote. I noted that Herkus artificially restricted the article scope for the period 1308 to 1945 - in which case Danzig would apply - but there's no reason what so ever why this should be the extent of the article. I've expanded the information on both pre 1308 community and post 1945 community. Hence the article very clearly belongs under "Jewish community of Gdańsk"; this should NOT be a controversial move and in fact the very purpose of the Gdansk/Vote is to quickly settle such disputes without move warring. So I'm moving it back to Jewish community of Gdańsk as there appears to be no reason (and none has been given) for making an exception to the vote in this case.radek (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the article back and I am going to restore changes to make it Gdansk/Danzig vote compliant. Please do not move the article again without providing a really really really good reason for why an exception should be made in this case. Repeated violations of the Gdansk/Danzig vote are a sanction-able offense.radek (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The scope of the article was supposed to be the history of the pre-war community as desribed by the Jewish Museum (New York) in its exhibition "Danzig 1939: treasures of a destroyed community" . The article ended with WWII because the traditional community ceased to exist due to the emigration of 1939/40 and the Holocaust. Their history was described and I think it's justified to create an article about that period instead of an "artificial" expansion with the purpose to bypass the extinction of a complete culture.HerkusMonte (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Jewish community in the city. There's no reason to restrict it artificially to only those periods of history during which the Gdansk/Danzig vote implies the naming "Danzig". The article already had information on the community well before the interwar period. There's no reason why the entire history of the community, as well as it's present day status cannot be described in this article - it's not like it's too long or something - especially since that kind of information is well within the scope of the article's title.radek (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here because someone had been moving around islands and provinces. I thought moving Province of Saxony to Saxony Province was about the stupidest thing possible, but then I saw this! I would be rolling on the floor laughing if only the subject was not this serious. While there could be some arguments for German community of Gdańsk, this must be about as clear cut in favor for Danzig as any affected by the Gdansk/Danzig vote. You have not provided a single source that the community predates 1308, nor that any "community" – apart from the 22 Christianized individuals – existed past 1945. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. That's why you came here. Why do I feel like I'm being stalked and why is it happening now? You haven't read the Gdansk/Danzig vote and you haven't really read the article, which is still in midst of an expansion.radek (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about the community that organizes an annual festival of Jewish culture?radek (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, if you really need to know, I came here because of this bot edit to an article I had created on the Finnish Wikipedia. I then commented on the issue here, here and here. While looking for the most irrational move, I checked this log. I thought moving New East Prussia to New East Prussia Province was ridiculous, but then this really dropped me to the floor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the name should be Jewish community of Gdańsk because the article covers a period that spans the Danzig period. Similar to History of Gdańsk. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it does not! Or if it does, the material is unrelated to the subject of this article, and was most likely inserted to subvert the Gdańsk vote. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Malik meant "because the article covers a period that spans the Gdansk period". Which the article obviously does cover. What I think happened here is that Herkus wound up writing a different article then he originally intended. It sounds like he originally wanted to write an article just on the inter war community and maybe specifically on the Jewish Museum Exhibition that focused on it. But instead he wound up writing an article on the entire history of the community - hence the article title "Jewish community of (insert name here)". The article on the history of the community, including present day, should be under the title "Jewish community of (insert name here)" and the name should be "Gdansk", per Gdansk/Danzig vote, as in the existence of such articles as History of Gdańsk. In fact this should be a trivial and non-controversial application of the vote and reversions of it, per G/D vote instructions, could be regarded as vandalism.

What I think Herkus can do however, and I would be willing to help, is to write a different article specifically on the Jewish Museum of New York exhibition; how it was organized, what did it include and of course what was it's scope (Jews from the Free City of Danzig). In a similar manner, the article on Lesser Giełdziński (whom I added to this article) needs to be stubbed and expanded - also from what I understand a good portion of the exhibition consisted of Lesser's collection. Unless I'm seriously mistaken I don't think there's enough material to justify a full fledged article on just the inter-war community, but there probably is enough to write one on the exhibition which dealt with the community.radek (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Jewish community in Gdańsk is a present, not only a historical, phenomena. As such, the article should be using the Gdańsk name, just like an article about, let's say, Polish community of Gdańsk, or roads in Gdańsk, and so on, would. I hope this move is not controversial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Split
The article implies a continuity that does not exist. The Jewish community was destroyed in WWII, their members emigrated in 1939/40 or were murdered in the Holocaust. All property, including any kind of ceremonial objects and memorabilia, was sold and parts of it can be found today at the Jewish Museum (New York). The Danzig Jewry was probably the only community to organize their own emigration and this makes their fate a special one. The emigrees mourned the community as destroyed, an extinct society (Erwin Lichtenstein, Samuel Echt, Gershon C. Bacon:”For all practical purposes, the Danzig Jewish community was no more. But Danzig Jewry lives on in the memories of survivors scattered across the globe,”). A new community exists today and it would be of interest to know more about their background (when did they arrive, when and where was the first Synagogue opened), but this community is not a remain of the old German - language, liberal community, it’s a different one with different traditions and background. For this reason we should treat them in different articles: "Jewish community of Danzig" for the historic period, "Jewish community of Gdansk" for the modern community. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for that. Everything above can be included in a single article. If you want to add stress to the end of the pre war community be my guest - though it's important to note I think that not only did a portion of this community emigrate, but another significant portion was murdered during the Holocaust. I would also like to point out that you initially included the pre-Prussia story of the Jewish community which was not German - but somehow it was fine to have it in here, as long as the story started after 1308, even though the continuity wasn't all together there.
 * Unfortunately, pretty much any Jewish community in Poland will not have much continuity with the pre-war period, but generally we cover them in single articles (for example History of Jews in Poland) - though several organizations are trying to re-establish such a connection - and this also needs to be covered in this article and is another reason why the entire community, past and present should be in a single place.radek (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. However, until someone creates a proper Jewish community of Gdańsk article, what little there is to say about the present community can well be said in the Danzig article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you at least please hold off until I'm done expanding the article? You're jumping in way too early and too aggressively.radek (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Undoing some edits
Specifically these ones,. Re first one, the source is talking about the years 1945-50, not 60's or '68 in particular. And it does explicitly use the term "Stalinist terror" ("po części zaś z atmosfery narastającego stalinowskiego terroru") and it is talking about general persecution of religious life (whether Jewish or Christian) during this time ("jednym z jego wyznaczników była wszak odgórna laicyzacja") rather than anti-semitism, which is a different thing. I realize my original wording wasn't exactly clear either.

In regard to 1968, the source explicitly states that the impact of the '68 March Events on the Jewish community in Gdansk still need further study ("Wypadki marca'68 na Wybrzeżu to problem oczekujący wciąż szerszego omówienia") and gives one name, Wiktor Taubenfigiel, of a prominent member of the community who was repressed in '68. In other places I've seen material on Jakub Szadaj, already metioned in the article, also being arrested and imprisoned for 10 years in connection with '68 events, though specifically for anti-communist activity (however, apparently during his trial the prosecutor or the judge or somebody made some anti-semitic remarks to him to the effect that Jews could never be real communists). Hence, I'll also expand this section - but please keep in mind that so far I only got up to 1950 or so, and then picked up in 1999, just due to the availability of sources. There's still a large hole in the middle that needs to be filled.radek (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a clarification tag to the statement that no member of present community is related to the pre-war community. I realize that's what the source says. But Jakub Szadaj is apparently the son of a Danziger from before the war, so that's a pretty obvious and glaring counter example to the claim made by the source. I'm guessing that the source is just generalizing and probably used stronger language than intended. Not sure how best to deal with this.radek (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Petri Krohn has taken upon himself to revert my edits without discussion. The only explanation is an edit summary in which I honestly have no idea what he's talking about: "Please do not use degrading epithets – even if you find a source for them, or I may call you a Fascist or something". I think, but I'm not sure this is a reference to the term "Stalinist". Ok. "Stalinist" is not an "epithet". It is not "degrading". There also appears to be some kind of insinuation that I am using this term in regard to somebody specific - maybe Petri himself. This is of course false. The term "Stalinist" is used in the source provided to describe the nature of the government of the People's Republic of Poland in the period after World War II. It is a descriptive term used in the source provided as well as other sources.

I also find the threat to call me "fascist" disturbing and incivil.radek (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of the Stalinist as an epithet as in your preferred version is evidently intended to degrade the internationally recognized government of Poland. It is little different from calling someone or something Fascist. Even if it was used in some source it is inherently WP:POV and should not be used in Wikipedia. You are welcome to discuss the nature of "Communist Poland" in the related article, but please do not try to push your POV here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the "threat to call you a fascist" – I have no intention of calling you so and I know you are not. I am sorry for my remark, it was not well thought through. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, accepted, thanks. Now to the topic at hand. You want me to list a dozen sources which describe Poland of this time as "Stalinist"?radek (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sure you can, and they would make good source material for an article on Stalinism in Poland or History of Poland (1945–1953). The issue at hand is however whether every Wikipedia article should call Poland Stalinist, instead of using some neutral term to refer to the time period of form of government. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Stalinist" IS a neutral term in this context (just like calling Italy under Mussolini "fascist" is neutral), as it is purely descriptive. It is also relevant to what the text is discussing. It is also what the source says. This just sounds like a bit of IDON'TLIKEIT on your part. And obviously no one's saying that "every Wikipedia article should call Poland Stalinist", just that the articles that deal with the Stalinist period should use the term, when the sources use it.radek (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Communist is a neutral term. The analogue for Stalinism would be calling Italy under Mussolini "Hitlerist". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no it wouldn't. I have no idea where you got this one from. There's no sources (or not many at least) which refer to "Hitlerist Italy". There's a ton of sources which talk about "Stalinist Poland" (for this period) and "Fascist Italy". In fact I don't think there's much use of the term "Hitlerist" in English language literature over all. "Stalinist" is a NPOV term when the country is in fact Stalinist and when sources refer to it as such.radek (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The internationally recognized government of Poland WAS Stalinist in this period and is described as such in the sources, including the one provided here. It is the same, in fact, as calling Italy under Mussolini fascist. In both cases, NOT including the fact that that is how these regimes are described in sources is POV; it excludes a prominent theme in the literature. I have no idea where you got the notion that the term "Stalinist" is "inherently POV" - of course it can be used in an inappropriate POV way, but that is not the case here. Please do not remove sourced information. Please do not accuse me of pushing POV as I very strongly resent the accusation.radek (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Or are you of the opinion that the articles on Italian Fascism or Stalinism are "inherently POV"? If so, I suggest you nominate both of these articles for deletion, though I expect that you will find little agreement among the Wikipedia community.radek (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-semitic campaign of 1968
The anti-semitic policy did not end in the 1950ies, the events of 1968 are usually described as the peak of that trend. Interesting to know modern Polish sources narrow it down to an “anti-religous” climate in the period of Stalinism, however talking about the post-war situation should include a link to the anti-semitic campaign of 1968. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ummm, no. First, you are conflating two distinct phenomenon; one, the general persecution of religion (whether Christian or Jewish) during the Stalinist period in Poland, roughly 47-53, and two, the anti-semitic campaign launched by a faction within the Communist party in 1968. With regard to the statement "The anti-semitic policy did not end in the 1950ies, the events of 1968 are usually described as the peak of that trend" - no, that's not how it was. There was no "anti-semitic policy" in the 1950s, although of course there were anti-semites (like anywhere else). Anything resembling "policy" did not come about until '68 (maybe a bit earlier). The events of 1968 are NOT usually described as the peak of a trend - source for that claim? Maybe the end result of power struggles within the communist party but that's something else. So your understanding that "Interesting to know modern Polish sources narrow it down to an “anti-religous” climate in the period of Stalinism" is mistaken - Polish sources about religious persecution in 47-53 talk about religious persecution in 47-53, and Polish sources about anti-semitic campaign of '68 talk about the anti-semitic campaign of '68. Two distinct things so they are treated distinctly. You misunderstood the text and the source that was in the article (which is an understandable mistake given it was in Polish) but now you are ascribing the same implicit misunderstanding to "Polish sources".
 * I agree that '68 needs to be mentioned, but see my comment above. The source provided indicates that there isn't much written specifically in relation to Gdansk about them. I found some leads but I'm still working on it. But I will include something in soon.radek (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully agree that the two things are different. However, form the way you first wrote the sentence this distinction was not clear. You should have been more explicit in narrowing this down to the time Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union. This exactly the problem with derogative epithets, the reader will newer know what is the intended meaning. In modern East European usage "Stalinist" seems to refer to anyone who rejects the "Red equals Brown" analogy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph begins with "Jewish life in Gdańsk began to revive as soon as the war was over". The sentence preceding it says "Jewish Religious Organization of the (Pomeranian) Voivodeship (Wojewódzkie Żydowskie Zrzeszenie Religijne) was created in October of 1945". In the explanation I provided above I state " the source [4] is talking about the years 1945-50, not 60's or '68 in particular". So I think it was pretty clear the info was referring to the period immediately after the war, while Stalin was alive, which is usually referred to as "Stalinist". I have no idea why Herkus decided to change that to '68 which is an altogether different topic.radek (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Lead section
Please respect Manual of Style/Lead section.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Grass' article
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02695271#page-1 Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Proportions in the lead
An editor writes in the lead more about persecutions of several individuals in Communist Poland than about the Holocaust. Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing info about discrimination and attacks in 20s
The article currently is missing information about discrimination and attacks on Jewish community in the interwar period before Nazis took power. This should be corrected. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We did mention the growing anti-semitism in the 1920s. If you know any details, please add them - within the main body. Your online source doesn't mention such details (at least per google translation) HerkusMonte (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Death march should be mentioned
Stutthof prisoners were evacuated, many of them murdered.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

shoah.de
Which pages are referenced? It's very difficult to check the references.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems something has changed, the side is not even called shoa.de anymore. Needs to be checked. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

racialist Nuremberg laws
racialist, racist or antisemitic?Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you like. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

called the Polish Anne Frank
I'm happy to consider her Polish, but she was a citizen of the Free City. She was shortly imprisoned in occupied Poland as thousands of European Jews.Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You probably refer to Rutka Laskier, who was born in 1929 but moved to Będzin (where her father originated) "in the early 1930s". If reliable sources describe her as "the Polish Anne Frank" it's not up to us to argue. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right.Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)