Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Archive 5

"Known as paradisus iudaeorum"
This reversion restored text in our voice sourced to a musuem exhibit's description (undated, no author). This exhibit has been widely criticized - e.g. in this collection of works. This term has been described as an antisemitic phantasm, and other sources make clear that while this is accepted terminology by many Poles, most Jews view Poland as one of the most anti-semtic countries, to the point where "conventional wisdom of contemporary Jews, which has it that the terms Pole and anti-Semite are synonymous;". David Engel, in ''Engel, David. "On Reconciling the Histories of Two Chosen Peoples." The American Historical Review 114.4 (2009): 914-929'', enumerates how this notion of "paradisus judaeorum" has been promoted by various Polish historians and state institutions - while being rejected by most in the field. "It was known", perhaps, per actual academic sources as a "Jewish Paradise" by Catholic clergy who found the Jewish relationship with nobles as "offensive".. Other sources abound on how this is at the very least an "exaggeration". I will note the discussion in Template:Did you know nominations/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews in which the nominator himself struck the suggested hook of "known as". This is clearly a contested term, and we should not be stating this in our own voice. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "and other sources make clear that while this is accepted terminology by many Poles, most Jews view Poland as one of the most anti-semtic countries" - way to misrepresent sources Icewhiz. Again. The whole freakin' point of that article is that these kinds of stereotypes are wrong. So I'm not sure what your point is.
 * In a similar manner, the source you provide to claim "it has been widely criticized" also does not support that claim. That's a collection of various thoughts and evaluations on the exhibit, some critical, some positive, some merely reflective. I guess if you're reflexively see only those parts that fit with your POV and miss the rest, it may appear to be that way. But that's your problem, not Wikipedia's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And oh yeah, you also shamelessly misrepresented the Trevor-Roper source by changing wording which was pretty close to the source to some WP:WEASEL version you yourself invented. And there does not appear to be any reason for this change of yours except that, it seems, any text or source which has something even mildly positive to say about Poland, offends you personally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Contemporary Polish-Jewish relations resemble a vicious circle. On the one hand, most Poles firmly believe that Poland has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and that antiSemitism has existed only on the margins of Polish society. As far as they are concerned, there has been no such phenomenon as Polish anti-Semitism, for Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum. On the other hand, most Jews, especially those on the American continent and in Western Europe, claim that Poland is one of the most anti Semitic countries in the world. Jews have often shared the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's belief that virtually all Poles received their anti-Semitism "with their mothers' milk."" - Piotr Wróbel in . Yes indeed - the view that most Poles are anti-Semites or than Poland was a "true paradisus Judeorum" - are the two polar opposite views here (Wróbel attempting to strike a middle ground) - that doesn't mean we take a highly contested view - paradisus Judeorum - and state it as fact in our voice. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But we DON'T state that "Poland has always been a true paradisus Judeorum".Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * "David Engel, in Engel, David. "On Reconciling the Histories of Two Chosen Peoples." The American Historical Review 114.4 (2009): 914-929, enumerates how this notion of "paradisus judaeorum" has been promoted by various Polish historians and state institutions" <-- No, he doesn't.
 * "while being rejected by most in the field" <-- Nope. He doesn't say that either.
 * You're once again trying to misrepresent a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No - this is a rather basic summary of Engel. Promoting, in wikivoice, a viewpoint described as an "antisemitic phantasm" which is clearly disputed (and covered as a disputed viewpoint by RSes) runs counter to a whole raft of Wikipedia policies (NPOV, V, promotion of fringe material, etc.). Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not anything like a "basic summary of Engel". For example, provide the part of the Engel article which supports "while being rejected by most in the field". It's just simply not in there. You made it up. And nobodys promoting any "antisemitic phantasm" in Wikivoice or otherwise, so stop insinuating personal attacks. You keep drudging out one cherry picked source by a photographer who went to an exhibition and it didn't quite like it but ... so what?
 * Provide text from Engel source which actually supports the stuff you're trying to add or stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise. Icewhiz, your proposed change—"considered by some as a tolerant society"—is simply not supported by the sources. Your focus and chief complaint, however, seem to be the 20th century. The sentence is not about 20th-century Poland but 16th-century Poland. During the centuries in which country after country in Europe expelled the Jews, Poland welcomed them. That's a fact not disputed by any reputable scholar. Yes, things weren't perfect, and many people look at the past with rose-colored glasses, but for centuries Poland was the best place in Europe—perhaps the best place on earth—for the Jews. Poland and Lithuania were the center of the Jewish world for centuries. Things got bad during the 20th century, but it's absurd to rewrite the lead section to conform to your obsession with recent history.
 * "The sentence is not about 20th-century Poland but 16th-century Poland" - EXACTLY!!! Icewhiz is trying to pull a little bit of false equivocation here. He's pretending, falsely, that the text under dispute makes claims about 20th century Poland, even though he knows damn well that the text is about 16th century Poland. He then trudges out sources about 20th century Poland, misrepresents them in more ways than one, and then pretends that this allows him to remove info about 16th century problem. WP:TENDENTIOUS to a, well, a "T".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, my suggestion is that we remove the phrase "Known as paradisus iudaeorum" from the subsequent sentence until the conflict at that article settles, at which time we revisit the question of whether the phrase belongs. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The origin of the 1606 "paradisus judaeorum" is an antisemitic polemic saying Jews had it "too good". I am OK with your suggested compromise.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to remove it just because Icewhiz manages to engage in disruptive behavior on more than one article at a time. He's wrong about it there. He's wrong about it here. Shrug and move on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided. We can not say in our voice what some see as an antisemitic phantasm, and when it is clear this Polish POV is opposed by most Jews. Using a much maligned exhibit - Emblematic here is the criticism against one of the most distinguished experts on the history of Jews in Poland in the modern period, Moshe Rosman. He was accused of “Polinizng” the history of Jews  in Poland by promoting a false and ideologized version of it with the myth of Poland as  a “paradise of tolerance.” The criticism pertaining to the somewhat unfortunate name of  the gallery dedicated to the history of Jews in the 16th and 17th centuries (until Khmel-nytsky Uprising), “Paradisus Judeorum,” is justifed. The name “Paradise for Jews” is given  without quotation marks there. Visitors to the Museum do not have an opportunity to learn from the exhibition that its title is taken from an anti-Jewish text, which claims  that the good living conditions Jews enjoyed in Poland were something that should  change (Tokarska-Bakir, 2016, pp. 49–58). - as a source is obscene. "was known" is WP:WEASEL phrasing. To whom was it known as such? Not to Jews in Poland. In the 16th and 17th centuries it was described as such by antisemitic clergy that argued Jews had it "too good" and who saw the Jewish position as offensive to the church.Icewhiz (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * " Sources have been provided." - if by that you mean that you added citations which referenced some sources - like for example David Engel - which do NOT say anything like you claim they say, then yeah, I guess so. But here's the thing. It's not enough to "provide sources". The source you provide have to actually say what you claim they say. You made stuff up about David Engel's source. In that source he actually agrees with the description of 16th century Poland as paradisus iudaeorum, although he notes it was an exaggeration. Yet, you've been pretending, falsely and dishonestly, that Engel says the opposite.
 * Like wise - here you use a false edit summary. No "sources" do not refer to it as an "antisemitic phantasm". ONE, single, cherry picked source, from a photographer refers to it as such. The author is not notable for matters relevant to history. And it's just one source. It is also false that "Other sources clearly assert most Jews disagree with this Polish POV". You're equivocating (and what the fuck is "Polish POV" anyway? is there some manual or something? You are once again engaging in ethnic attacks and giving free rein to your prejudicial proclivities) between the 16th century and 20th century. Yes, I'm sure most Jews, and many Poles don't think of interwar Poland as "paradise for Jews". But that is NOT what the text claims. We are talking about the 16th century! And most sources, including most Jewish ones support this description in some degree (as Malik already informed you).
 * As for your opinion piece about Polin or the fact that the phrase has its origins in an anti-semitic poem - you do realize that you are trying to (mis)use this source to accuse Jewish organizers of the exhibition of propagating "antisemitic phantasm" (or whatever you call it), right??? And this isn't an article about the Polin exhibit. It's about History of Jews in Poland, including in 16th century. And that phrase, regardless of its origins, came to mean something else over time. That's what happens to phrases over hundreds of years.
 * Please stop misrepresenting sources. Please stop using false edit summaries. Please stop making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted per WP:BLPREMOVE, as Engel says nothing of the sort. He quotes Kutrzeba as well as saying that "Kutrzeba and his colleague Franciszek Bujak may have been among the first modern historians to employ the expression seriously as a more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation in old Poland". He does not reach such a conclusion himself - in fact, he provides several opposing views by historians. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Engel says almost EXACTLY this. Indeed, I had trouble writing the sentence in a way which would satisfy a high standard of being true to the source (since I anticipated that you'd come and try to make up some false excuse to remove it) while at the same time not repeating it word for word.
 * Engel (not Kutrzeba, please stop pretending otherwise!) says in reference to the label that it was a, quote, "more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation in old Poland"
 * Article text says: "Historians, such as David Engel have described the label paradisus iudaeorum (Latin for "Paradise of the Jews") as a "more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation" in Poland at this time"''
 * This is about as close as you can get to the source without committing copyvio.
 * Stop making stuff up and using false edit summaries. Stop trying to misrepresent sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And again - how many times does it have to be pointed out before you at least acknowledge it - he does not "provide several opposing views by historians" in regard to WHETHER the label was true or not. He does discuss the disagreement between various groups of (Jewish) historians as to whether the fact that it WAS a "paradisus judaeorum" was due to "proclivity of the Polish nation for tolerance or liberty" or due to "mutual advantage stemming from meshing of interests". Neither side disputed - nor does the general literature on the subject - that the term reflect reality of 16th century Poland, even if it employed some hyperbole. This has already been pointed out to you repeatedly, most recently by Malik above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Only a minority of scholars find this term problematic. That said, it's likely more neutral and clear to use the term "Golden Age of Jews". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

substantially poorer and less integrated than the Jews in most of Western Europe

 * The phrase is typical for this page - an unexplained detail, out of its hitorical context, poorly sourced.


 * This statement is unsourced.
 * It's generally true but it suggests that the Poles made the Jews poor and didn't allow them to integrate.
 * The Jews were less integrated because of history of Poland - during the division Greater Poland Jews Germanized and Lithuanian Jews Russified. Many Jews were Orthodox, who refused to integrate.
 * Polish people were substantially poorer than people in most of Western Europe, because of the above mentioned history of division of Poland. The Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was one of the poorest regions of Europe.
 * The Western Europe included Nazi Germany, with its anti-Semitic legal system. Austria and Czechia were annected by Germany. Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Aliyah Bet
Is this a correct title for the section? That article states that it was a name for "illegal immigration by Jews, most of whom were Holocaust survivors[1] and refugees from Nazi Germany[2], to Mandatory Palestine between 1934-48". And our article is about Poland. At the very least, this section should be renamed to English (only Jewish historians and history geeks know what Aliyah Bet was). I propose 'Immigration to Israel'. Or 'Immigration to Mandate Palestine', perhaps. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aliyah Bet is the COMMONNAME. However our section also describes "A second wave of Jewish emigration (50,000) took place during the liberalization of the Communist regime between 1957 and 1959 (which is not Aliyah Bet - which ended in 1948) and Some Polish Communists of Jewish descent actively participated in the establishment of the communist regim..., For those Polish Jews who remained, the rebuilding of Jewish life in Poland was carried out between October 1944 and 1950 .... - which is not about immigration. Pre-1948 immigration is to Mandatory Palestine (Israel did not exist - nor was it clear that Israel would be the chosen name - it was far from an obvious choice pre-1948 (irony of history - Jews prior to 1948 identified as Palestinians, while Arabs were more likely to subscribe to a pan-Arab (non-local) identity - post-1948 the meaning of Palestinian switched) - not Israel. Post 1948 immigration is to Israel. All this being said, I would retitle the section to 1945-1966 or something similar (since it isn't just immigration). Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubinstein - UNO
I believe that Rubinstein's 1945 UNO performance deserves to be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Polish and Jewish views regarding one another
This article suffers from a framing problem, as Polish Jews redirect here. But as long as it is 'history of', we should stick to history. I have moved Polish and Jewish views about one another to Polish-Jewish relations. It's notable information, but it doesn't belong here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a proper spin-off article, some content should remain here as Polish-Jewish counter-views are obviously relevant to the History of the Jews in Poland (being the two major protagonists in the historical narrative). Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland
Seems like a notable topic that currently just redirects here. This illustrates the problem with this article - a number of 'big issues' redirect here, instead of having their own articles. This is just a history of article. Polish Jews or such is another big topic that begs to be created and has been doing so for years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Polish Antisemitism is a major issue in Jewish history in Poland. In any event - significant content would remain here. As long as we don't spin this article off - and they remain merged - historical antisemitism should remain here. Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What about Jewish anti-Polonism/Anti-Christianism? An example:
 * https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/yehuda-bauer-and-laurence-weinbaum-on-polish-jewish-israeli-relations-1.459418
 * Jonny Daniels is described as an useful idiot. Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ann Applebaum defends Poland in a strange way How come this poll didn't include *western* Europe? More Jews murdered in France lately than Poland - but no Jew has been murdered in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are quoting Applebaum from, but one would have to adjust such rates per the presently (very small) population in Poland (some 3,200 souls in 2016, compared to some 460,000 in France). As for the cited JC source, I'm uncertain what you are referring to, the sole reference (I see) to this there is - "To be sure, certain elements in Poland were delighted to receive this ammunition from those misguided Israelis, as it only reinforced their twisted theories about some visceral Jewish “anti-Polonism” and could be used in their own anti-Jewish screeds." - which refers to twisted theories held by certain Polish elements. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it reliable?
http://www.taubephilanthropies.org/files/assets/pdf/2012/Timeline_1000years.pdf Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A publication by Taube Foundation for Jewish Life & Culture. Probably ok, but not as good as proper academic research. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Since 1989
This section is very poor. Of course, writing about modern history is not easy, but I think there are some decent sources out there. At the same time, since Polish-Jewish relations are occasionally (...) controversial, there's lot of biased stuff that we have to be careful on whether to include here. Some of this is related to recent Israel-Polish relations. The main elephant in the room is the discourse on antisemitism in Poland. I strongly recommend that editors interested in the latter issue first help to create this badly needed article instead of using this 'history of' as a POVfork. Now, instead of polemic about how much antisemitism there is in modern Poland (which our discussions too often dance around or turn to), I'd like to ask editors to list good sources that we could use to expand this section. Academic studies of modern, post-1989 community would be best. Neutral international news pieces like are ok, but newsPiotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Events since 1989 are historical as well, and some content should be here as well. Mainline English sources writing on post-1989 Polish antisemitism are quite obviously relevant to this article - as well as possibly other articles. Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are unrelevant because of their obvious bias. There are people who instrumentally use antisemitism and other minority issues. Recent research shows that antisemitism exists in Western Europe, rather than in Poland. The only antisemitic attack in Poland was done byt a mentally ill person. Thousands of Israeli citizens ask for Polish citizenship and/or visit Poland. Israeli youth is indoctrinated and terrorised by Israeli guides/bodyguards to prevent informal contacts with Polish youth. Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "There are people who instrumentally use antisemitism and other minority issues." Why do I get the feeling that you are justifying the mass deletion of sourced content by expressing your distaste for minorities? Does "these people" refer to Jews? Jonney2000 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean people, who "instrumentally use antisemitism and other minority issues' in Poland, in media, politics and academy. Examples I know - Stefan Zgliczyński, Grzegorz Krzywiec. Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So - two historians, based in Poland, that subscribe to the mainstream historical view on minorities in Poland? Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the 'mainstream historical view on minorities in Poland'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No "people" are perfect and unbiased. Just something to keep in mind. Jewish POV needs to be represented in this article, obviously. But it is still a POV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "People"..... Is far from unbiased. That aside - Polish antisemitism is not a question of POV, but an historical reality (pre and post 1989) - the sole disagreement between mainstream scholars being the extent. WaPo is most certainly not a "Jewish POV". For recentish events - news coverage is often OK, and for events within the past 5 years - often the main available source. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree up to WaPo, because - what is WaPo? I don't get this abbreviation :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WaPo is The Washington Post. NYT is The New York Times. WSJ is The Wall Street Journal. BBC, well, they just just go by BBC most of the time (and not The British Broadcasting Corporation) - perhaps their trend will catch on. :-). Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I tentatively agree - with a note that such writing has been and is still missing from this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Jews who somehow survived the Holocaust often discovered that their homes had been looted or destroyed

 * Who looted or destroyed Jewish homes? It was in Poland so a non-Polish reader may belive that only Poles did it. The biggest ghetto (Warsaw) was looted and destroyed by Germans, like many others.
 * Sometimes Polish refugees inhabited Jewish homes. German transferred millions of Polish gentiles, both long distance and inside cities. The biggest expulsion was in 1944 from Warsaw, about 500 000.
 * Jewish belongings were confiscated by Germany. Looting of Jewish belongings was generally illegal, looters were imprisoned or killed. ~
 * Hundreds of thousands of gentile homes were looted or destroied. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Polish passports
I'm not sure if the passports are issued to 1968 emigrants only. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Only Russian Partition is mentioned-since 2009 this issue hasn't been addressed
As I mentioned already in 2009 we don't have a section on Prussian Partition  --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that may be a better fit in History of the Jews in Germany - which already covers Jews receiving Prussian citizenship in 1812. Poland's borders obviously have changed quite a bit - e.g. I don't think we should discuss in this article Pinsk (in the Kresy) after 1945. The Polish partition in the Russian empire had some unique characteristics keeping it apart as a political/administrative entity (Congress Poland) - the Prussians folded it into their empire.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Tensions and antisemitism
This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda office. Please stop.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * With the influence of the Endecja party growing - with the number of imprisoned Endecka politicians...Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jews were often not identified as Polish nationals - please explain how the Jews identified themselves.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Matters improved for a time - 9 years of about 20 is for a time.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

SYNTh
These sentences:

"Hundreds of Jews were murdered in anti-communist violence.[236] The best-known case is the Kielce pogrom of 4 July 1946..."

constitute an improper WP:SYNTH. The Kielce pogrom had nothing to do with "anti-communist violence". It erupted on the basis of a blood libel. So you can't say that it is a "best-known case" of "anti-communist violence" as the two sentences suggest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that we're labelling the massacring of Jews as "anti-communist violence" - while some very nationalist sources use this language, the anti-Jewish violence is generally referred to as anti-Jewish and not anti-communist. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the Engel source does discuss "anti-communist violence". But the whole point is that Kielce wasn't. Do you think David Engel is a "very nationalist" source? Really? Wow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Killing policemen or informants was "anti-communist violence". Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Engel refers to anti-Jewish violence. He mentions anti-communist feelings as one of many possible causes, but uses anti-Jewish throughout.Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property
The majority of Jews survived the war abroad and they returned after the war, so they weren't exactly survivors of Holocaust. They were surviviors of war exactly like millions of Poles were. Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point. Jews who left Poland before the WWII started should not be called Holocaust survivors. But we need a source to discuss the demographics of surviving Polish-Jewish population. I think one is in the text, at least I've recall adding something on this few months ago. If anyone wants to continue this, numbers are needed so we can consider if this generalization is correct or not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's actually not a fair point. First off, since sources generally refer to them as Holocaust survivors. Sources might be doing so since while they fled (or were deported) in the early phases of WWII (1939-1941 - in and of itself Holocaust related)) - they often fled not so far away - often into Western USSR - and were affected by the subsequent German advance. The Holocaust occurred throughout German occupied Europe. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally the term "Holocaust survivor" does indeed include those individuals who managed to flee German occupied Poland and survived either in USSR or in Soviet occupied Poland ("Western USSR" lol!). The usage of the term in literature however is by no means uniform.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In Western USSR I was referring not to the Kresy (whose classification here may be debated given the annexation to the USSR) - but to pre-1939 USSR (Ukraine, Belarus, parts of Russia) - in which there was widespread shooting of Jews (e.g. Babi Yar near Kiev), Maly Trostinets extermination camp near Minsk, internment in ghettos, and transport to extermination camps. Jews who managed to escape Poland (as opposed to those deported to Siberia) often did not escape far enough to leave the area that would become German-occupied Europe throughout which the Germans and their accomplices carried out the Holocaust. The survival rate outside of Poland was, however, generally higher due to local Polish particularities (e.g. see this piece by a USHMM historian).Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This piece, which does make a genuine attempt at balance, mentions neither survival rates nor any "Polish particularities" (sic) behind these. It's unclear what your purpose in linking this article is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Anything ever came out out of this? "Israeli Parliament is now considering a bill that would criminalize minimization of Polish collaboration in the Holocaust." Did this law pass or is still under debate? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, quoting such extremely biased text is shooting in your own foot. It's a shame to be so dumb to write such trash and to quote such trash. The writer ignores German terror and Jewish collaboration (if we accuse the Blue police, why not the OD?). All Americans lack knowledge about Europe and the writer seems to be a perfect American ignorant. BTW - The Atlantic isn't academic.Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ghetto inmates are generally seen differently. The writer is a historian at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - and would seem rather qualified.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "seem rather qualified" - you don't dare to support her, you use "seem".Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Death punishment
Since October 15, 1941. https://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/kara-smierci-za-ukrywanie-zydow-wywiad-z-prof-andrzejem-zbikowskim Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"traditional religious Jew-hatred" ?
Ritual-murder beliefs are not part of the Christian religion, but rather a superstition. Pope Innocent IV took action against the blood libel already in 1247. According to Marcin Zaremba, Jewish organizations reclaimed Jewish children from Christian helpers, which may have created anti-Jewish beliefs. Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a pretty weirdly (and very non-neutrally, not to mention non-precise - at the very least, I don't think that we find Jew-hatred in Judaism, for example...) worded phrase. Would need an inline cite and a quotation, IMHO. For now I concur we should remove it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the traditional nature of the post-war blood libel claims should not be removed - this is supported by cited mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "blood libel" is not "religious". The Papacy generally opposed them, although it had problems in enforcing its opposition. Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Papacy has never exclusively defined what beliefs might be related to Christianity. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is "blood libel" part of Christianity? Sources, pleaseXx236 (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Jewish organizations reclaimed Jewish children from Christian helpers, which may have created anti-Jewish beliefs, your own words, mention Christianity in this context, so maybe you should ask yourself. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If Jewish organisation reclaimed children from helpers, it's rather obvious that it generated conflicts. It's not a religious problem, but human. I haven't invented the fact, it's decribed in Zaremba's book. Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And as you admit the pivotal difference between the groups of people in question is their religion. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. The pivotal difference is between loving and offering your life for a child versus an organization. Generally adoptions are valid. Sometimes birth parents try to revert them, but I don't know any law allowing organisations to do it.
 * There existed a parallel problem - Polish children were adopted by German families, sometimes Nazis. Some of the Germanized children were returned to their teribly poor families, demoralized by the war. Other children weren't returned and some of them are unhappy about it.
 * Let the childrren speak: http://www.dzieciholocaustu.org.pl/szab51.php?s=index3.php Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Komisje Specjalne
After the Kielce pogrom Jews organized armed militia Komisje Specjalne, about 2500 members. The Komisje are described by Alina Cała. I don't have access to the original text. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=561576Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject has to be mentioned. If you don't, I'll do it myself using my poor English.Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Kielce - fathom.com
- please provide a rationale why this source is reliable. After you do that, please provide quotations that support: " response to the Kielce atrocity was rapid", "sentenced to death on trumped up charges within 7 days;". Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, your bias is a big as Mount Everest. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't care to google an academic source, which takes 1 minute. https://www.academia.edu/29540235/Cold_War_History_The_Kielce_Pogrom_1946_and_the_Emergence_of_Communist_Power_in_Poland Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even larger than K2? There is an abundance of sources on Kielce pogrom. Any quotations supporting the language and assertions here? Particularly "trumped up"?Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally people reject the truth about them, they need a therapy to accept it. See Freud. Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are Jewish victims more important than ethnic Polish ones? The "case" would be revised in USA or Israel. Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz, please my edit carefully and don't misrep what I did. This is what I restored: "The Communist government's response to the Kielce atrocity was rapid. Special investigators were dispatched and military tribunals formed." This what I added: "within 7 days." So obviously the words "trumped up" are not mine. I would've used different words like "sham trials." The reliability of the source (again not mine) has been addressed. These facts are so well known to historians and beyond dispute that I'll simply set out what is found on the website of POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, which is produced by scholars and researchers -- and tell me if 5 days for a trial and 3 more days to execute 9 "randomly chosen" people is too slow to count as a "rapid" response, and whether this measures up to any remotely reasonable standard of due process:
 * https://sztetl.org.pl/en/towns/k/399-kielce/116-sites-of-martyrdom/46870-kielce-pogrom:
 * "Several dozen people were arrested in Kielce in the wake of the massacre, including policemen, soldiers of the Internal Security Corps, civilians and representatives of the local authorities. Twelve of them were hastily tried on 9 July 1946 – nine were sentenced to death and executed on 12 July 1946, and the remaining three were given long prison sentences."
 * Bibliography:
 * Antyżydowskie wydarzenia kieleckie 4 lipca 1996 roku. Dokumenty i materiały, eds. S. Meducki, Z. Wrona, vol. 1-2, Kielce 1992-1994.
 * Szaynok B., Pogrom Żydów w Kielcach 4 lipca 1946, Warsaw 1992.
 * Wokół pogromu kieleckiego, vol. 1, ed. Ł. Kamiński, J. Żaryn, Warsaw 2006.
 * Zaremba M., Wielka trwoga. Polska 1944-1947. Ludowa reakcja na kryzys, Kraków 2012.
 * Żyndul J., Kłamstwo krwi. Legenda mordu rytualnego na ziemiach polskich w XIX i XX wieku, Warsaw 2011.
 * https://www.polin.pl/pl/aktualnosci/2017/07/04/71-rocznica-pogromu-w-kielcach-4-lipca-1946:
 * "Po krwawych zajściach aresztowano kilkadziesiąt osób, w tym milicjantów, żołnierzy Korpusu Bezpieczeństwa Publicznego, cywilów i przedstawicieli władz lokalnych. Spośród nich dwanaście przypadkowo wybranych osób zostało pospiesznie osądzonych już 9 lipca 1946 r. – dziewięć skazano na karę śmierci, którą wykonano 12 lipca 1946 r., a trzy otrzymały wyrok długoletniego więzienia."
 * GOOGLE TRANSLATION: "After the bloody incidents, several dozen people were arrested, including militiamen, soldiers of the Public Security Corps, civilians and representatives of local authorities. Of these, twelve randomly chosen persons were hastily tried on July 9, 1946 - nine were sentenced to death on July 12, 1946, and three were sentenced to long-term imprisonment."Tatzref (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So - they were not executed within 7 days (I count 8). Nor is trumped up charges supported. The cited source says "was initially decisive" - not "rapid". The communist authorties justice was certainly selective - they did not try all the perpertrators for murder - just a few selected people - their response was certainly far from comprehensive - or as the cited source says "Despite the authorities' inadequate response to the pogrom". And why is this source, misrepresented in your edit, even reliable?Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting me or the sources cited. As I pointed out already, the words "trumped up" are not mine, but could well be supported by the fact that the persons the authorities prosecuted were "randomly chosen" from among the crowd. The other source cited, historian Anita Prazmowska, is quite explicit: "The PPR's response to the events in Kielce was swift." Is there a difference between "rapid" and "swift"? See https://web.archive.org/web/20090307025436/http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session3.html Tatzref (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ryszard Śmietanka-Kruszelnicki, recognized as a leading historian on the Kielce pogrom, clarified the following in Wokół pogromu kieleckiego (Warsaw: IPN, 2006):
 * 37 Jews and 3 Poles were killed;
 * the trial of 12 accused Poles started July 9 and ended July 11, with death sentences against 9 persons who were executed the following day (p. 42);
 * it appears that the 12 accused were selected randomly (p. 42);
 * both the charge and the justification for the sentence alleged a conspiracy by the anti-Communist underground, even though that charge was never proven (p. 42 & 45) – so calling the charges “trumped up” has a basis in fact. The person who entered this text knew their facts, the person who removed it didn’t.
 * The article can be found at: https://www.academia.edu/38542263/Smietanka-Kruszelnicki_R._2006_Pogrom_w_Kielcach_-_podziemie_w_roli_oskarzonego_in_Kami%C5%84ski_%C5%81._%C5%BBaryn_J._eds._Wok%C3%B3%C5%82_pogromu_kieleckiego_Warszawa_p._25-74.pdf

Tatzref (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doean't support trumped up. Merely supports authorities were not close to comprehensive in trying all the members of the murderous mob (which was much larger than 12).Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we mention the Jews who were part of the "authorities"? A reader may believe that the "authorities" were Polish nationalists.Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "the Jews who were part of the "authorities"" - what pray tell are you suggesting precisely? Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please learn history of Poland to discuss it. Jakub Berman, Józef Różański,Roman Zambrowski, Hilary Minc. Adam Humer was a bystander of the Kielce pogrom.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the people you mention weren't Jewish (nor quite bystanders), and others had little to do with Kiecle. I fail to see how mentioning random Jewish (and not Jewish) members of the communist party is relevant here. Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * weren't Jewish - wow!
 * They weren't members only, they ruled Poland together with Bolesław Bierut (Berman, Minc), controlled the terror system (Różański). Humer participated in the events.Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster defines "trumped up" as "fraudulently concocted". The charge included the allegation that the accused were part of an anti-Communist underground conspiracy, which was bogus and never proven yet appeared in the reasons for verdict. It is apparent, therefore, that at least that aspect of the charge was fraudulently concocted, i.e. trumped up. Moreover, not everyone in the crowd was a murderer. Most were gawkers. At least one of them was shot by officers or someone else in the building before the rioting started. By selecting person to charge from among them randomly, there is a very high risk of being wrongfully accused. When you add this to the sham trial and lack of due process, it moves closer to a certainty. End of discussion.Tatzref (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Cited source (reliability of which I am uncertain) says "Despite the authorities' inadequate response to the pogrom". The more significant aspect here being that most of the Polish killers were not punished at all.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not OR, it's paraphrased. Just like arguing over whether it was 7 or 8 days is a pointless distraction. It's entirely possible that there was an inadequate response to the pogrom AND that the people who were "punished" were "randomly chosen" innocent bystanders. It was Stalinism. Not exactly unheard of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong structure
Current issues are discussed in Communist rule: 1945–1989.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

One bias is OK, any other is wrong
Stola, the director of the POLIN Museum, a biased person, is quoted, no other opinion is available. On emay believe that there is an anti-Semitic anti-reprivatisation conspiracy. What about Aleksander Kwaśniewski veto? Doesn't it deserve to be mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stola is biased? How so? Sources? He is fairly widely cited (gscholar profile), publishing journal articles and books - in Polish and in English.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You bias is OK, any other bias is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of anti-reprivatisation - I personally found this speech in Washington DC (in English) interesting - "giveway of ... 300 billion US dollars .... Not just the money, this is also an attempt to take over our country by certain groups that would be benefiting from this giveaway", as well as  - "Based on this precedent, where Jewish tribal law replaces international law"... However (going back to your comment on Stola), what I do not understand from your comments is in which direction Stola is allegedly biased and what sources support said alleged bias.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RS please, not Washington speaches. As far as I know Washington isn't located in Poland. Is it our ambassador? Doesn't look like him .Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Quotation request for "unproductive and parasite factors"
Please provide the original paragraph, translation and sources for "unproductive and parasite factors". The source references a Hebrew-language PhD thesis for this. In any case, I don't think a PhD thesis research should be used for such claims. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The peer reviewed journal article reads ""The severe limitations placed on the possibility of reclaiming private property only further emphasized the extent to which the new legislation affected the status of Jewish property. In contrast to the pre-war law that allowed second-degree relatives the right to claim property, under the new, postwar regulations only the original owners or direct heirs could ask for restitution.22 In light the scale of the destruction of Polish Jewry, regaining Jewish family assets was to become an almost impossible task. Jewish leaders understood this problem very well and led the protests against the new legislation.23 Polish officials did not try to conceal that the change in the inheritance laws were aimed mainly at preventing the restitution of Jewish property.24 As the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945: ‘We will not permit some foreign Jews, for instance Argentinian Jews, to inherit property in Poland.’25 In internal discussions regarding the formulation of the new laws, some of the participants argued that their purpose was to prevent the concentration of too much wealth in the hand of ‘unproductive and parasite factors’ and to preclude the inheritance of property by ‘distant relatives in Argentina who engage in despicable jobs.’26". This is a secondary, peer reviewed paper in an academic journal. The request to verify a source's citations is without a policy basis - the peer reviewed journal verified this (journal articles may reference primary material - e.g. archives, speeches, and do their own research). I will note that similiar quotes appear in other sources - particularly quotes referencing Argentenian Jews (at times - calling them pimps) to inherit.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For a controversial, red flag and likely undue quote like this, please cite the work cited in the journal, i.e. the PhD thesis. I would like to see what sources does it cite for that quote, of any. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing red flag in that quote. While we could cite the PhD thesis as a source (allowed per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - reputable academic institution) - a journal article in English is very much a preferred citation (both in general, and due to WP:NOENG - preference of English language sources) - there's really no reason to cite the PhD thesis. Furthermore I'll note that you are requesting here not a quotation (I think it is fairly safe to assume to quote was copied correctly from A to B) - but citations inside the citation (which could possibly lead us to a chase multiple level down - contents of the citation of the citation of the citation of the citation.....) - which is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Results of WP:OR (citation hunting) - thesis - The specific quote is from AAN, KRN 9, sesja 7, 3-6.5.1945, pp 240-241 (there is also a "despicable Argentinian" quote on page 249 in the session - a motivation which was subsequently repeated by the Polish Foreign minister in New York on October 1945). This is the protocol of the session of the State National Council from 3-6 May 1945. KRN = Krajowa Rada Narodowa, AAN = Archiwum Akt Nowych. The thesis discusses the May meeting (leading to the 1945 decree) in pages 238-240 (246-248 in the PDF). The protocols of the KRN should be easy to verify, though I am unsure they are available online in digitized form. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest that the KRN was Polish? It was Soviet, with a small contribution of useful idiots.Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll AGF that the quotations are correct, but it is indeed worth to discuss whether we can describe KRN as Polish government without any qualifiers to it being effectively a Soviet puppet government. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - however you describe KRN - legislation/decrees (and nationalization) by KRN was accepted by subsequent Polish governments - the communist authorities (we can debate when they became "Polish" (1944-46? 1948? 1956? 1968-70? or perhaps not all per right-wing Polish historiography) ), and following 1989 the post-communist government (which retained property laws and judicial decisions of the communist regime - with some limited restitution possible). Since the legal framework was applied in succession (modifying/introducing reforms - as opposed to wholesale repudiation), this is less significant than it would've been otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945 - the Polish government was imposed to Polish people by the Allies. The other Polish government exited in London.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of Jewish property? Nazi Nurimberger Law? Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Academic review of Krzyżanowski's book - "The lost chance"
http://dn-ihpan.edu.pl/images/DN2018-50-1/16_Kosinski.pdf Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz about the restitution
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-restitution-both-in-poland-and-israel-1.7250323?fbclid=IwAR1vNCbXzrBEnqnMMXq-b1NH085FQVQJKvan7V6KbWbaKI2TIq-40Dw2wmE Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is biased
Please compare categories
 * Category:Antisemitism in Poland - hundreds of pages
 * Category:Antisemitism in Slovakia - 7 pages

Slovakia was idependent during WWII, it deported all its Jews to gas chambers. Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Slovakia is also much smaller... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of times smaller?Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write about Slovakia if it bothers you. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Numbers of Jews in Poland since 1920
Why the number from the last census, which is the only legitimate data based on auto identification, is not used? Instead some estimation from the unknown source is presented. I propose to put the value from the census. Cautious (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Link? François Robere (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Un-academic comments on law and politics
in some cases Poland approved - what is Poland here? Serious people write Communist government of Poland, the Communist party, Polish nationalists, courts in Poland but Poland? Xx236 (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Outside of Polish nationalist circles (supposedly, Polish airmen in the UK even plotted flying to bomb Buckingham palace and parliament, per this possibly unreliable source) - as of 1945 the majority of the international community (Soviets of course - but more notably the UK, France, the US, and of course the United Nations (Poland is considered one of the original 51 signers of Charter of the United Nations - even though they signed two months after everyone else) - considered the communist government of Poland to be Poland. We generally follow mainstream viewpoints. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, my comment was about unprecize language . What was Poland in the context? Do we say Isreal approved, US appproved or rather Israeli government did, US administration, US congress?Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Poland did but sometimes Nazi (not German, do you know any Germany different that the Nazi one? Poland had two governments after the war.) concentration camps. https://www.bbc.com/timelines/z86nfg8 Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. https://www.ushmm.org/learn/introduction-to-the-holocaust Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)