Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Archive 7

1939 army numbers - Ringelblum
http://www.jhi.pl/blog/2017-09-07-zydzi-w-obronie-warszawy-we-wrzesniu-1939

I don't know the subject, the numbers here are partially different than in the page.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.tygodnikprzeglad.pl/bronil-polski-1939/ Gąsowski The Jews ... fought well.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

hostility...continued until the German invasion of Poland
Such opinion, based on one US source, is controversial. Polish Jews were aware of German danger and supported the Polish state and army. They were preparing to war together with non-Jews. They contributed to Fundusz Obrony Narodowej. https://sztetl.org.pl/pl/miejscowosci/l/691-lubartow/99-historia-spolecznosci/137597-historia-spolecznosci Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/3823/Tr%C4%99bacz_Zag%C5%82ada.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Double payout?
From : "For example, in the annexed western territories, where the majority of Polish Jews ended up after the war, the government allocated “formerly German” property to new settlers making the recovery of their property elsewhere largely irrelevant." What does the law say about receiving compensation and then asking for it again? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "There was generally no property in former Germany, only "opłata wieczysta".Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What law are you asking about? Who supposedly received compensation and asked for it again, and when did they supposedly do this?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am curious if there are any sources on whether people who are asking for compensation now are required to prove they did not already receive it in the aftermath of WWII? The quite I cited below seems to suggest, for example, that majority of Polish people, including Polish Jews, received compensation in the form of "formerly German" property already. So the argument about 'most Jews couldn't recover their wartime property", seen in the light of "but most received compensation in form of different property", is worth considering.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of Jews in Recovered territories left Poland either shortly after the war or around 1968. I'm not sure if they owned anything there. Only now property is introduced. Perhaps workshops were owned.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's "scummy" to focus on this article for POV
Either way you look at it, trying to place more blame on Poles who were victims of the Germans, or diminish the plight of the Jews, is a really unseemly motivation to have for ensuring the POV here be "correct". There is no reason to edit war over this article or, IMHO, to focus on the importance of its content. I'm not saying the editors now edit warring are definitely in one of those camps but even an appearance of that should be enough to consider looking for some other articles to battleground over. And is this fight seriously (partly) over how to mention Argentinian Jew pimping? All the more embarrassing for everyone involved. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That Poles were victims as well, does not mean we shouldn't present the Polish role in the Holocaust (which per mainstream historians was not insignificant) and post-war anti-Jewish violence and takeover of Jewish property. Both of these aspects are the topics of full-fledged academic studies, and are present in any serious history of the Jews in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We should remeber also that the main nationalisator was Hilary Minc, listed by the Jewish Historical. Institute. https://www.jhi.pl/psj/Minc_Hilary Do you want to tell that Poles dramed to loose everything? One of main criminals was Józef Berman.
 * Polish role was parallel to Jewish role. Judenrats cooperated (collaborated) isolating the Jews.
 * Tomasz Frydel described situation of Polish peasants. Eithe ryou are ignorant or biased to write about Polish role.
 * You have a role in transferring ressonsibility from Germans to Poles. It's Holocaust revisionism.Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And there you have it. François Robere (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jakub Berman, not Jozef. And DIYE, yes, it is said to see people pushing fringe views. But these days, as too often, fringe views are popular, even in some mainstream media or scholarship calling itself such. Centrists aiming for compromise are, in turn, derided by both factions as traitors... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which views are fringe? Icewhiz produces thousands of edits criticizing Poles as participants of the Holocaust and only few regarding German, Austrian, Romanian, Hungarian, ... responsibility. Is it neutral? I'm editing a number of WWII and Holocaust pages and I have never met the majority of you.
 * The Judenrats were created in 1939 and participated in creation of ghettos producing lists of Jews. This Wikipedia says that Germans created ghettos and only later Juderats were created, which is false.
 * The definition of The Holocaust (the lead) is biased, it doesn't include allies of Nazi Germany. If you don't know the subject, why do you discuss with me? Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Upside down
The state-sponsored "anti-Zionist" campaign resulted in the removal of Jews from the Polish United Worker's Party Poland was ruled by the Party but you believe that the state removed Jews from the Party. It's absurd.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Stefan Michnik
He should be probably mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should be be mentioned. Do you have a source that puts him in context of Jewish history in Poland.  It would be easier if you added sources and proposed text.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a general level article. There's no reason to mention him. Same goes for a lot of other stuff though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So let's name the other stuff, discuss it and remove. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Czesław Śliwa
Czesław Śliwa was a Holocaust survivor, who pretended to create an Austrian Consulate in Wrocław. There is a movie based on his case.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What are your sources and proposed text?AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Polish films about Jews should be described? Both Jewish filmmakers and Jews as subject of the films belong to the history.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

which is bilingual
Is it obvious that it's Polish-Yiddish (not Hebrew)?Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Change dead URL:
 * https://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5727.htm

To working URL:
 * https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5727.htm

TY- -- Green  C  03:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 06:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

1RR DS
Will be in effect once the protection lapses. (And, yes, I realize Poland is in Central Europe, and yet, watch me go!) El_C 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why "the Jews" and not just "jews"
Is there any particular reason we are using the definite article both in the title and the prose. It would seem that unless we are discussing specific groups that are recognizable in context we should just use "jews" in the prose and "Jews" in the title.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This &#129065; . François Robere (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is weird, but it seems this is a Wikipedia wide convention: History of the Jews in Germany, History of the Jews in Spain, History of the Jews in Greece, History of the Jews in England, History of the Jews in China, History of the Jews in Galveston, Texas, etc. On the other hand, History of Jews in Denver. No idea if this has ever been discussed or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jews is always in uppercase — I find lowercase "jews" is immediately suspect. El_C 07:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two issues - using an article and using a capital. AlmostFrancis is right on the first, El_C is right on the second. Should be just "Jews", as is "Christians", "Hindus" etc. François Robere (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Fraudulent property claims
Given the lax criteria, there were a number of cases of Jews advancing fraudulent property claims. This was one of the edits that we didn't keep as I argued above it is undue. But I'll note I found the claim repeated here:  "Jewish claimants also occasionally abused the restitution process. "News travel to Krakow from smaller Jewish communities that Jaws started to sell houses which were not theirs"... "The Polish courts have become increasingly alerted to the "racket" of some Jews going around making a business of making claims for the restitution of property belonging to people they know or did know, alleging that they are relatives or that they are the persons to whom the property belongs...". I am still worried that mentions of such events would be UNDUE here, but since we also mentions details such as some other Jewish survivors facing problems due to Polish gangs, or government corruption etc., this appears to be about as relevant. Some survivors were murdered for their property, some tried their luck with the legal system with varying results, others however engaged in less savory activities. As Cichopek-Gajraj notes, greed was apparent on both sides of the conflict. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no problem having this discussion and adding this info if it's due, but let's please finish the previous discussion before moving to this one. We can only conduct so many contentious discussions in parallel... François Robere (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you mean by "both sides of the conflict"? Poland's Jewry was decimated. François Robere (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that puts this information in any kind of context. Also please be more careful with quotes.  You are not distinguishing between quoting the author and quoting the author quoting someone.  This makes your source seem much more definitive than it is.  Also, unless you can source "greed" please strike.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Historically, how many Polish Jews spoke Polish?
A recent discussion prompted me to do some research. And here's what I found:
 * Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.
 * Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."
 * Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)
 * Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".
 * Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"
 * Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment.
 * But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well"
 * Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."
 * Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""

How to summarize this in this article, and where? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kurek and Pogonowski are entirely unacceptable sources for this topic area. You are truly suggesting Kurek? She's known for being a "Holocaust revisionist or distorter" Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She is described as such... by news media with a clear agenda of their own. There is little difference between ToI or Tablet calling her anti-semitic, and Polish far-right media calling Gross or Grabowski anti-Polish. But I am happy to not cite them since we have better sources, unless you are suggesting that Davies or Dawidowicz and the rest are also controversial revisionists? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ToI or Tablet (or the Associated Press for that matter - who also carried this) are not far-right media - they are mainstream publications. As is Gazeta Wyborcza which profiled Kurek extensively in 2006. There is a huge difference - Kurek is not an accepted scholar in any academic circle (it seems even the Polish government recognized the faux pas here - not that the Polish government's views are of great historical weight). I suggest you look up Kurek's views on fun and ghettos as well as comparing Jews to a pack of lions in relation to their young, as well as her publications (at times, self-publications) and citations thereof. Gross and Grabowski - on the other hand - while they may face some criticism by far-right circles in Poland (which generally carry very little weight in the academic community) - are award winning scholars and both are among the most cited scholars in the field. Gross's works have hundreds of citations each - you can't write a serious work on the period in Poland without citing him. We use mainstream sources - which Gross and Grabowski both are. If you are unable to differentiate between far-right media in Poland and mainstream scholars - well - we have a problem here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy listed NINE sources and for the two you CHOOSE to focus on, he explicitly noted they are controversial. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed out two glaring issues - doesn't mean there isn't an issue with the other seven. Citing Kurek - in a self published book ( iUniverse) is utterly inappropriate - even on a talk page. This is beyond "somewhat controversial". The moment such a source is cited - really - this paints the entire discussion here. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It does no such thing. But feel free to keep pretending otherwise. Nine sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For this discussion sake, I am happy if we disregard Kurek. It is not clear to me why Pogonowski should be unreliable, through as a amateur historian with mixed reviews, I would agree he should not be a sole source for any potentially contentious claims, so we can ignore him as well. Now, can we go back to the topic at hand? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pogonowski was a writer for the far-right Radio Maryja/Nasz Dziennik - widely reported to be antisemitic and linked to the rather fringe "closed church" - source. (The "closed church" or "radical traditional Catholicism" - being designated by the SPLC in the US). Anyone associated with the enterprise is highly suspect - this is a huge REDFLAG - particularly given his non-professional credentials. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said... I agree. So, discounting Kurek and Pogonowski, can you finally answer the question in the OP? Feel free to present more sources, btw. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain what this clear agenda is and which parts of the media have it? Also can you explain how it relates to Kurek and the Holocaust?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which texts by Gross or Grabowski describe creation of ghettos or conflicts between rich and poor Jews inside the ghettos?
 * Many Jews spoke poor Polish and didn't know world outside shtetl. Is this opinion non-academic? Some writers with Jewish roots bemocked poor language. Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Nationalisation and its victims
The biggest opressed group of nationalisation victims was ziemianstwo (gentry). They lost their manors and farms and were expelled from their counties. Rich Jews lost their businesses but weren't legally expelled.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source you want to use and a location to place this information in mind?AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many books about the nationalisation and destruction of zimiaństwo as a class.
 * I mean that the nationalisation of Jewish posession should be described in the context of the whole nationalisation. Now the page suggests that Polish nationalists persecute Jews. There were Jews in the government and everyone was oppressed.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very good point. The section on nationalization should avoid an impression that Jews were the only group targeted, or even that they were the main group targeted. I don't think there's even a source that states that the Jews were the main group targeted and hurt by communist nationalization. A note that effect, i.e. that Jews were only a semi-accidental victim of policy that hurt many other groups much more, is in order. But sources, of course, are needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No-no, we're not going to reduce this issue to that. How Polish society and governments dealt (or refused to deal) with Jewish property is both more complex and much more significant than how you two just presented it, and we have plenty of sources to that effect. I've no problem stating the Communists nationalized properties for their own agenda, but we're not going to reduce Jewish properties to just that. If you want to make an addition do make it here so we may discuss it before it is made in the article. François Robere (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources, please. Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please prove that any Jewish organization opposed the nationalisation.Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure majority of property in Poland was non-Jewish.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Straw man. François Robere (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's context. Romani genocide is usually discussed with a reference to the (Jewish) Holocaust, and is situated within that broader topic. Sure, nationalization of Jewish properties was tied to the Holocaust, etc., but the goal of nationalization in Poland was not primarily to steal Jewish properties. That was just an accidental byproduct (which perhaps made a few antimsemites happy, but that again was incidental). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got the context wrong. Or rather - half wrong. For medium to large businesses - you are somewhat right (they were mostly nationalized, though there are some caveats here). For housing real estate in Warsaw you are half right - right in the sense that it was all nationalized, but that wrong in the sense that Poles got an apartment out of the common redivided city - whereas the heirs of Jewish victims (who fled Poland) - did not). For housing real estate elsewhere - you are dead wrong - it wasn't nationalized - just the "abandoned" Jewish (almost entirely Jewish) property was. Furthermore, in all 3 cases (medium-large business, Warsaw RE, RE elsewhere) - Jewish property was stolen and re-allocated during the Nazi occupation - and then passed into the Polish state - this Nazi theft is absent from most nationalized Polish property. Jewish property is generally, in mainstream academia (and news orgs), treated as a distinctly different topic than Polish nationalization. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Millions fled Poland or didn't return, Jews were a minority among them. Gentry families were robbed and expelled from their counties. Kresy Poles run away or were expelled. Owners of houses had to accept state defined rents, so they weren't able to maintain them. Owners of flats had to accept state imposed tenants of rooms. Peasants were forced to join cooperatives, some of them killed, thousands imprisoned. So who exactly were the lucky Poles? Political police officers? Communists living in state buildings with cantines and wardens? Army officers like Jaruzelski, who robbed a house. Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * News orgs don't get their story right too often in such intricate topics. As for academic sources, well, we need specifics. You may be right, or not, but TBH this is something to be discussed, with references, in nationalization in Poland article, not here. FYI, here's a source that discusses some of this (but I cannot get access to more than just few pages: ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So is antisemitism. Suggesting that because most properties were Polish antisemitism didn't play a role with those properties that were Jewish is a non sequitur, and hence a straw man. It's like stating the Romani were not massacred for being Romani, because the Nazis "generally" targeted minorities. Sure, nationalization of Jewish properties was tied to the Holocaust, etc.? This isn't an offhand fact here, it's the fact. Talking about context..? the goal of nationalization in Poland was not primarily to steal Jewish properties. That was just an accidental byproduct No, it wasn't. The goal (or one of the goals) of the 1945-1946 laws was to expropriate Jewish properties, and we already cite several sources on that. It combined with the larger agenda, but it was very much not incidental - it was intentional. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The goal (or one of the goals) of the 1945-1946 laws was to expropriate Jewish properties". Who passed the alleged anti-Semitic laws? Hilary Minc? Please remind me Jewish protests against the nationalisation. Facts, please. Xx236 (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Restitution of synagogues and cemetaries

 * English language
 * http://jewsinpoland.org/pl/node/31 Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * http://jewsinpoland.org/en/content/en/are-jewish-communal-funds-poland-being-mishandled-jan-jaben-eilon Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Many of the restututed estates are sold by Jewish organisations.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.forbes.pl/wiadomosci/kadisz-za-milion-dolarow/wyyhzrl Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.forbes.pl/opinie/kim-sa-nasi-przywodcy/7mvsl6x Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * http://jewsinpoland.org/pl/content/pl/kim-s%C4%85-przyw%C3%B3dcy-polskiej-gminy-%C5%BCydowskiej-pisze-nissan-tsur?fbclid=IwAR1b9sJSLVlHY9_lDZSQcDlEY20nkSWbH32wLCjXCnjnD-Ge5KKlx0k9_EE Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Polish Jews needs an article
How about something constructive? Polish Jews is a redirect here, which is clearly a problem. We need a proper article that's not just history (see ex. Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Italian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Galician Jews - the last two btw may be relevant to this as subarticles...). I suggest we work on a draft here: Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Polish Jews, with the aim of a nice DYK, at least. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Translating some bits from the Polish article, which I assume had locals work on it (and shouldn't be as controversial as this one), could be a good start. François Robere (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

An IPN book
https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/ksiazki/62410,The-Holocaust-and-Polish-Jewish-Relations-Selected-Issues.html Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an unreliable source. It is published by the IPN, which does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To the contrary:
 * per Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22.: "After 2015 the IPN converted into an institution promoting revisionism in reference to Polish-Jewish relations. Previously open attitudes to research and teaching about the Holocaust were amended., it is has a reputation of promoting revisionism.
 * Furthermore per - Behr, Valentin. "Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland: a sociological approach to the narratives of communism." European Politics and Society 18.1 (2017): 81-95. - "The IPN became famous after heated controversies erupted over its activities, especially between 2005 and 2007, when PiS was in power. It has been at the centre of political disputes about Lech Walesa’s past... ). As a result of these contentious public debates, the IPN has been mainly referred to as a ‘Ministry of Memory’ (Stola, 2012) or a political institution at the centre of ‘memory games’ (Mink, 2013) in the scientific literature. - is is engaged in political propaganda games.
 * They operate under political direction - Mazzini, Mateusz. "A Three-Dimensional Model of Enlarging the Mnemonic Conflict: The Case of Poland Under Second Law and Justice Government." Slovo 31.1 (2018): 45-67. - "Hence PiS, immediately after assuming power in 2015, started to redefine the place of Lech Wałęsa in Polish collective memory. Educational materials produced by the IPN, including the already analysed ‘The Unconquered’ animation, erased the figure of Wałęsa from the most recent history of Poland. - erasing history per request.
 * Per - Hackmann, Jörg. "Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation: Politics of History as a Battlefield in Poland, 2015–18." Journal of Genocide Research 20.4 (2018): 587-606. - the "Holocaust law" states that "the “protection of the reputation of the Polish Republic and the Polish nation” 77 was added to the tasks of the IPN" - thus, by law, this institution is aimed at producing publications favorable to Poland. It is an organ in fulfilling PiS's official polityka historyczna ("historical policy") which per Hackman - "international scholarly assessment of the historical policy by PiS is widely negative and has been seen, for instance, in an “implicit alliance,” 96 with Russian memory politics.. In short - this is clearly not a reputable publisher.
 * Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Icewhiuz is fighting his war.
 * It's not a forum to discuss eg. Wałęsa. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but IPN is still considered a reliable (if biased, recently) source. If this wasn't discussed at WP:RSN you can bring it there, but, as long as we realize that yes, the IPN publications from the last few years will have a pro-Polish (but not anti-Jewish) bias (the 'Defending the good name of the Polish nation', yes), it's a reliable source. IPN does a lot of good historical research, but it's clear they'll publish about topics such as Rescue of Jews by the Poles rather than about postwar anti-Jewish violence in Poland. Having a bias is nothing new. Yad Vashem (a research institute established by the Israeli government...sounds similar?), likewise, will focus on researching and publishing on topics regaled to The Holocaust. We could argue that YV bias is nobler, but it doesn't change the fact that it too has an agenda. As long as IPN is not falsifying sources or such, and I don't think it was ever accused of that, it's not a bad source. None of the sources you cite give any indication it has problems with 'fact-checking and accuracy'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yad Vashem... likewise, will focus on researching and publishing on topics regaled [sic] to The Holocaust isn't "bias" or an agenda - it's a field. Your argument could just as well be used against CERN with physics.
 * it's clear [IPN will]] publish about topics such as Rescue of Jews by the Poles rather than about postwar anti-Jewish violence in Poland|undefined That, one the other hand, is bias. Why wouldn't the Institute of National Remembrance research that? Weren't Jews part of the nation and worthy of remembrance? And that's the difference between IPN and YV: YV publishes all across the field, regardless of the government's - or anyone else's - political position; IPN is obliged to satisfy someone. Is it independent enough to qualify as an RS per WP:BIASED? That's certainly arguable per the above sources.
 * Overall you make an excellent case for why IPN might be reliable, but certainly isn't balanced, and should be used with care and attribution as per WP:UNDUE and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. François Robere (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It should only be used with care and attribution when it comes to viewpoints that may be relevant to fringe and controversial claims. Just like any other source. And the bias of YV (and IPN) can be very nicely seen in the bio of Shmuel Krakowski, where IPN sources focus on his early life as the agent of Polish secret police, and YV conveniently omits that instead focusing on his later career as a historian. You need both sides to get the full story, otherwise you'll be just getting state propaganda. With best intentions behind it, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So if an editor publishes here about anti-Jewish violence in Poland but doesn't write about Rescue of Jews by the Poles nor anti-Jewish violence outside Poland, it means that he is biased and that he makes some pages biased.
 * IPN is a big organisation, divided into many departments and local divisions. You assume that IPN is a German type organsation, which makes exactly what it's ordered to. The IPN is however a Polish organisation, which tries to do something but obtains something different.
 * IPN is influenced by its presidents. Leon Kieres supported fundamental book (two volumes) about Jedwabne crime. Janusz Kurtyka was integral and even his opponents respected him. He died in 2010. Łukasz Kamiński was liberal. Jarosław Szarek is a president since 2016, so probably some books were prepared before he came.
 * You idea about the IPN is very primitive - they are bad guys. Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yad Vashem is involved in a dirty conflict regarding Aleksander Ładoś. They misrepresent both his last name and position. Their opinion about 2018 Polish law was idiotic.

IPN is reliable. This has been discussed to death. Stop making shit up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop telling people to "stop making shit up". François Robere (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. When they stop making shit up and derailing discussions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Academic name is Assertiveness. Assertiveness people were told to do some pretty obnoxious things in the name of assertiveness. Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Picture of Adalbert freeing "enslaved" Slav Christians from the evil Jewish merchants
Can we delete this? I really don't see why this needs highlighting, especially given the dubiousness of the alleged event involved? --Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noticing. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tensions and antisemitism - Manipulation
With the influence of the Endecja party growing - when exactly was the influence growing? Endecja was dominated by Sanacja since 1926. ONR activists were imprisoned in Bereza Kartuska prison.

The paragraph starts with smaller towns but it describes universities situted in cities. Please learn to write. Ratio of Jewish students in 1937 is quoted, but ratio of Jews with university education isn't. There existed real problem of social advance of peasant children in former Russia, including Warsaw. The Jews lived in Poland among uneducated ethnic Poles. No social group accepts such situation. The governmnet of Poland failed to support children of peasants and workers.

Simon Wiesenthal studied in Prague. The majority of Polish youth didn't study.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Adalbert redux : ethnic cherrypicking should not be promoted by Wikipedia
This should not be restored to the article. POLIN might have it but it is cherrypicking that reinforces one of the most pernicious anti-Semitic canards around. Jews just like all other peoples in teh period had some involvement in slavery, but the canard ignores the participation of others and focuses disproportionately on the Jewish role to make it seem like Jews ever "controlled" the phenomenon. European medieval sources, typically ecclesiastic, are often insanely biased not only against Jews but also against the pagan Prussians (relevant for Adalbert of Prague), and are predictably also guilty of this sort of bigoted cherrypicking. Here's one RS [] :. The source also mentions Christian German rulers taxing "Jewish and other" slave trading meaning they condoned it. This is all dubious at best. Why are we featuring a picture depicting Jews as the enslavers of native Slav Christians when the situation was much more complicated, with slavers of all religions, and participation of native Christians in the market including the apparently hypocritical Prague authorities?--Calthinus (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Worse - we do not discuss this "incident" in the text of this article nor in Adalbert's article either... illustrations should illuminate things discussed in the text of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the sorry situation on the administrators board about two editors and going through the difs, it led me to here. The image is WP:UNDUE. Toch, p. 181 states in relation to Adelbert and the issues we are discussing: "These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.". Having the image here basically recycles anti-Semitic tropes of the past to say the least.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The photograph in question has been part of this article since at least 2012. It is directly related to the text, namely the activities of Jewish traders. The evidence of their involvement in the slave trade of Christian Poles is indisputable. According to the YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe: “The first information about Jewish merchants in Eastern Europe dates from about the tenth century. In this period, Jews took part in the slave trade between Central Asia, Khazaria, Byzantium, and Western Europe (in particular the Iberian Peninsula). Important stopping points on the trade routes included Prague, Kraków, and Kiev, towns in which Jewish colonies developed.” (http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Trade). There are numerous sources that deal with this matter such as Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History (Hippocrene, 1993), pp. 257-266; H.H. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A History of the Jewish People (Harvard University Press, 1976), pp. 394-398, where the photograph in question is reproduced as Plate 31; Joseph Adler, “The Origins of Polish Jewry,” Midstream (October 1994), pp. 26-28.


 * The photograph in question is part of a core exhibit at POLIN The Museum of the History of Polish Jews POLIN in Warsaw (https://culture.pl/en/article/a-virtual-visit-to-the-museum-of-the-history-of-polish-jews). The matter of Jewish traders is dealt with in an official publication of that Museum from 2014 titled Polin: 1000 Year History of Polish Jews, edited by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett & Antony Polonsky, both of whom are associated with that Museum and are hardly in the business of "recycling anti-Semitic tropes." Slaves are said to be the "main 'commodity' of this trade." (p. 57)


 * It is not true that the Catholic Church did not protest against the slave trade per se. According to historian Zofia Kowalska: “In the early Middle Ages the Jews kept a high profile in various branches of long-distance and overseas trade, in which slaves were, for at least three hundred years, the chief commodity. … The accounts of travellers (Ibn Kordabheh, Ibrahim ibn Yacub), passages in the works of other Arab and Jewish authors (Ibn Haukal, Ibrahim al Quarawi, Yehuda ben Meir ha-Kohen), documents issued by ecclesiastical and secular authorities, charters of municipal privileges and customs tariffs build up a massive body of evidence corroborating the involvement of the Jews in the slave trade. Their “goods” came mostly from the Slav nations; their trade routes led to and crossed in Eastern and Central Europe. Slaves of Slav origin would be taken westwards across the Frankish lands to Arab Spain and from there to other countries in the Mediterranean. The main centres of the slave trade were Prague (from the 10th century onwards); Magdeburg, Merseburg, Mainz and Koblenz in Germany; Verdun in northern France and a number of towns in southern France. In spite of the vociferous debates that the slave trade provoked in both secular and church circles, the Jews were undismayed and went on with their business.” Kowalska's article “Handel niewolnikami prowadzony przez Żydów w IX-XI wieku w Europie,” is found in Danuta Quirini-Popławskiej (ed.), Niewolnictwo i niewolnicy w Europie od starożytności po czasy nowożytne (Jagiellonian University, 1998), at pp. 81-92. The abstract set out above appeared there in English.Tatzref (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that St. Adalbert, the bishop of Prague, was banished because of his opposition to the slave trade--a trade in which only Christians were the slaves. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalbert_of_Prague)Tatzref (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's consolidate Calthinus' arguments: (1) the picture shows a dubious alleged event; (2) POLIN Museum is a controversial entity; (3) the restoration of the photo is an intentional provocation.


 * Picture of Adalbert freeing "enslaved" Slav Christians from the evil Jewish merchants[edit]
 * Can we delete this? I really don't see why this needs highlighting, especially given the dubiousness of the alleged event involved? --Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noticing. François Robere (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 14:56, 22 June 2019‎ Calthinus talk contribs‎ 227,025 bytes -171‎  →‎Early history: 966–1385: why on earth in the middle of arbitration are we featuring a questionable picture depicting Jews as slavers? No it being at POLIN, itself a controversial entity in the latest disputes, is not an excuse.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calthinus#Adalbert_and_ARBCOM
 * @François Robere: this looks like an intentional provocation from Tatzref. He needs to explain himself or my testimony may become less rosy.--Calthinus (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tatzref (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, spicy. Not sure why it was necessary to copy paste edit summaries and posts from me and Robere that are pretty accessible, without using quotes. No one has ever said Jews were not involved in the slave trade -- Jews were involved in 'most international trade thanks to Christian and Muslim restrictions on it. The distortion is the depiction of their supposed prominence in it. The sources provided have already dismantled this idea with regard to Poland (and Czechia). It suffices to mention about your blurb about random places like Verdun only that it's off-topic here. Jewish merchants/artisans/etc show up in many places, as do Christian (Armenian, German, Italian, Greek...) merchants but one of the two always gets noticed. What has been demonstrated is that the trade was by no means a "Jewish" trade, and that Germanic and Slavic Christian authorities were complicit and beneficiaries of it. The question then, is why you are still defending, alone, having a picture that is not even described in the article, and which effectively reduces a complicated phenomenon that was not ethnically determined, to one that is both confessionally and racially ("Slavic Christian") stereotyped, and on dubious grounds at that. --Calthinus (talk)
 * The issue here is over a image regarding Adalbert and what it conveys. From a historians' point of view, as noted by Toch, such depictions do refer to the slave trade, but are not taken as evidence of Jewish involvement. As such having that particular image for this article is WP:UNDUE.Resnjari (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that for an image to be included, it should be discussed in the text first, or be clearly relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but the image is not relevant here, as historians take the references to slavery regarding Adelbert as historical evidence of the slave trade, but aspects referring to Jews and slavery as not so. I don't want to get off topic here, but the Catholic church has not had a good relationship with Jewish communities throughout Europe over the centuries and certain historical experiences or events were blamed upon Jews when instead others were involved. If the scholarly community holds that the image is not evidence for Jewish involvement in the slave trade, then its inclusion in the article is WP:UNDUE and POVish to say the least. Toch p. 181 states in relation to Adelbert and the issues we are discussing: "These hagiographic exercises have been accepted by most historians as hard evidence, not for the keeping of slaves by Jews but for their slave trade.".Resnjari (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of Jewish property, once again
I'd appreciate explanation of why the following content was removed. I will order this sentence by sentence, and I'd appreciate if anyone who considers a given sentence a problem would explain, properly, why is this so, ex. "Sentence 2 is based on unreliable source", or "quote for Sentence 3 failed verification". I have tried searching this talk for discussion of the following sources, and I couldn't find much or anything on the following. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to address this altogether - much of this is too specific for this level of article. We should be using not studies of specific areas but sources that address the restitution of property throughout Poland. The level of detail and lack of summarization for the entire country is most of the problem with this information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz made that claim earlier. The others didn't seem to mind. François Robere (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * All of these are taken from the above discussion, where Tatzref tried to push them - or rather, their misreps - into the article. I'll reply where I can. François Robere (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

American Jewish Year Book
1) According to the American Jewish Year Book, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”


 * This wasn't removed - it's still used in the article, but as a footnote (#240), along with the year book of the subsequent year (#253). The reason for that is the subsequent year book contradicts this one - a good example of why early and contemporaneous sources can be problematic: "The unfortunate handling of the problem of the restitution of Jewish property must be noted. In a number of cases when property could have been restored to the owners, local courts ruled in favor of persons who had no right to it... It was reported by local observers that very little collective Jewish property, i.e., property of Jewish communities, schools, foundations, etc., had been returned" (The American Jewish Year Book, vol. 50, 1948, pp. 392-393). We can use both or neither - I don't care either way. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll point out that a year book like this is actually more a primary source than a secondary source. For the interpretation of events like this - we should be using historians publishing in academic presses. There are LOTS of sources on this subject, there is no reason to use a primary source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY source - optimistic report from the ground - and even that - with rather serious qualifications (IFs). The subsequent year books aren't that glowing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Klucze i kasa (Kopciowski and Skibińska)
2) Based on studies of court records carried out by several historians, Adam Kopciowski and Alina Skibińska conclude that "relatively many" Jews were able to reclaim former Jewish properties. In Szczebrzeszyn, a “typical” small town in the Lublin Province, at least one third of 210 private properties belonging to Jews were successfully recovered by 1950, and almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles.
 * Misrep by Tatzref - see above. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NOENG + WP:CHERRYPICKED. Your provided quotation also isn't from pages 562-563+571 (it is too short - two sentences - and isn't disjoint) - please state exactly what you are quoting (page), and provide the full paragraph. Skibińska described her work on Szczebrzeszyn in English over here - and reading it one receives quite a different picture regarding the circumstances of recovery and sale - she emphasizes Jews had to sell to avoid conflict and violence. Further extrapolating anything from Szczebrzeszyn (population 5,299 today) to all of Poland is a bit of a stretch - we have scholars who have made such extrapolations e.g. Meng - and they reach a different conclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOENG is irrelevant here. As it is 99.99% of the times you bring it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a factor in the fact it took us +20 days to discover Tatzref's misreps of this source. François Robere (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Kopciowski and Bechta
3) The situation was similar in other towns in the Lublin Province.
 * We weren't given quotes for that, and given the other misreps in that thread I think we ought to before we include it. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:OR - quite evident in that you are citing 3 sources. WP:NOENG in relation to the two non-English sources. As for Kopciowski 2008 - WP:OR as doesn't say that. He does provide statistics from a single courthouse - on 240 cases filed. It is also WP:CHERRYPICKED from the source - the context (from Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II) of this statement is "It is difficult to assess how many acts of violence against Jews were motivated economically, Undoubtedly, there was a rise in the crime rate during the post-war period, and the Jews were an attractive target for the many gangs of robbers active at that time." (the courthouse statistic appear as a possible motivation of some robbers - all the rest of the journal article is a long chronicle of anti-Jewish violent incidents in the Lublin region - e.g. the paragraph above is on the murder of Szmul Pelc who was murdered by Belzec extermination camp grave-robbers. The paragraph below discusses antisemitic motives of the perpetrators. You've literally cherrypicked a small fragment of a long article on anti-Jewish violence - which for some reason you're not advancing into the article (e.g. the 118 Jews murdered in the Lublin region 1944-1946 - table on page 203). In addition - this is a very low-level local assessment (the municipal court hourse in Wlodawa - not Poland wide). Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Meducki
4) Historian Stanisław Meducki states: “In Kielce, Jews did not have any difficulties with recovering their own property. As a rule, every motion was settled favorably and quickly. In most cases, the property was taken over by the relatives of the former owners, whose rights were ascertained on the grounds of witnesses’ testimony. Witnesses, most often Poles, neighbors or acquaintances from before the war, testified before the court willingly, without reluctance or prejudice.”
 * Kielce wasn't exactly a Jew-friendly location at that time... Given that, and Tatzref's various misreps throughout that discussion. I'd really like to see the full quote before we include that. François Robere (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Local microhistory - may be relevant as an attributed statement in Kielce, not relevant Poland-wide. Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic image of the Interbellum
Tensions and antisemitism - bias. Quite many Jews were economically, academically, politically succesfull, no such subparagraph here. Compare Raphael Lemkin.Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://sztetl.org.pl/en/tradition-and-jewish-culture/history-of-the-jews-in-poland/jews-in-the-economic-life-of-the-second-polish-republic-part-1-finances Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://sztetl.org.pl/en/tradycja-i-kultura-zydowska/historia-zydow-w-polsce/zydzi-w-zyciu-gospodarczym-ii-rp-cz-2-ubezpieczenia Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://sztetl.org.pl/en/tradycja-i-kultura-zydowska/historia-zydow-w-polsce/zydzi-w-polsce-odrodzonej-czyli-1191-stron-sprzed-zaglady 1192 pages. Who cares about facts if we know about tensions and antisemitism. Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find denigration of Jewish economy and politics in pre-war Poland anti-Semitic. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Between 300 and 1,600 victims at Jedwabne
"were tortured and beaten to death by members of the local population" is extreme ignorance. Most of the Jedwabne victims were burned to death in a barn. You lack respect for them. You probably meant the Wąsosz pogrom.

It's obvious the number of victims at Jedwabne was below 1,000, probably below 400. The only source for the "1,600" number is Wasserstein, who didn't know the local statistics and wasn't an eyewitness; he repeated hearsay. Jan Gross' "1,600" and Jan Grabowski's "200,000" are anti-Polish propaganda. The discussion of how many people could be fitted inside the barn dishonors the victims. The "1,600" number is simply a hammer with which to bash the Polish people.

Probably about 1,600 Jews died in the entire region, but who cares about facts? Who is able to write "Wąsosz" or "Radziłów"? Apparently not the editor. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

uh, why was this summary/ref removed?
Answer, please.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which? François Robere (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the page serious?
How many elementary errors are there here? You discuss details, but you ignore elementary facts. Shame on you. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Shame on _you_, then; you are part of this community and can edit this article like anyone else. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do what I'm able. I haven't written the lies. My English is good enough to understand the propaganda but not good enough to edit the page. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is the post-war nationalisation more important than hundreds of other things and years? Because some Jewish activists want my money? Such conflict of interest should be declared. Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This topic is not conducive to constructive problem solving.--Calthinus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The national boycott of Jewish businesses and advocacy for their confiscation

 * The biased subsection "Tensions and antisemitism" is poorly written and has no timetable, so most readers will not be able to understand it. Is this subsection's poor quality accidental or deliberate?
 * When was Endecja (the National Democracy party) influential? The quoted phrase suggests around 1939, because it follows "Anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland had reached its zenith in the years leading to the Second World War". But Endecja had been intimidated since 1926, its activists imprisoned. How is it possible that a persecuted minority organized a "national something" in an authoritarian country?  Did the "national" boycott work?  Where?  In the east, where most shops were Jewish?  What did the Christians there eat, perhaps grass?
 * Please compare Adam Doboszyński and his pathetic Myślenice raid. Doboszyński was sentenced and imprisoned.  After World War II he was tortured and killed.  Not enough?  You can't hang his dead body, because he has no grave.
 * If antisemitism grew till September 1939, why did many Jews finance new arms? Why did so many Jews join the Polish army?  You cherry-pick, you are biased. You describe the prewar Jews as passive victims.  That is anti-Semitic.
 * The only "bank" mentioned here is the YIVO Encyclopedia & the North American Jewish Data Bank. Your ignorance is as high as Mount Everest. Please read the sources suggested above in Anti-Semitic image of the Interbellum.
 * "In 1423 the statute of Warka forbade Jews the granting of loans against letters of credit or mortgage." Does this mean the statute remains valid to this day and that no Jew ever granted such loans?  Were the Jews plowmen after 1423?  Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are you addressing? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * People who want to make the page better. 227,929 bytes - how many of the erroneous or biased?Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your rhetoric discourages, rather than encourages, increased effort by interested editors. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 06:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Chodakiewicz's edited volume "Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? a SPS/RS or not?
Please discuss it not here but at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where hopefully new, and more neutral voices, will help us reach consensus on whether we can cite this work or not. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain why keeps restoring that book  despite its rejection at RSN? François Robere (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For starters, there is no "rejection at RSN". There's walls of text from our friend Icewhiz, but we already know his opinion and he's obviously party to this dispute. As are you.
 * So can someone explain why Francois Robere is, umm, "misrepresenting" what actually happened at RSN? I mean, it's kind of blatant, since it's very easy to click on the link and check for oneself, so what's the point of ths, umm, misrepresentation-ing?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To quote Ealdgyth at RSN: "Taking everything together - this particular essay doesn't seem utterly unreliable but it's not exactly highly cited either - there should be better sources out there for such a contentious topic". François Robere (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is not actually the same as "rejected at RSN".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've already said several times, you want to add other sources, you're welcome to it. But don't try to use "there might exist better sources out there" as an excuse to remove this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus to use this essay self-published by a SPLC-profiled individual. Furthermore, as stated in RSN by Ealdgyth - much better sources (which were present in the article prior to VM edit-warring them out), who have present things very differently, are available - the WP:FRINGE viewpoint presented in this book is WP:UNDUE regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Much better sources" here being Stola who already is in the article (and it may be worth expanding based on his sources, keeping in mind that this is a general level article not one dedicated to this issue). Also, this is NOT an "essay self-published by a SPLC-profiled individual" (sic) as has already been pointed out to you on several occasions. Can you please stop using false, hyperbolic, denigrating and quasi-insulting language directed at sources and authors who don't fit your POV? BLP applies to talk pages. If you're gonna call on Ealdgyth's comments for support, for example, you should also acknowledge that the same editor clearly stated the source was NOT self-published. So stop freakin' cherry picking and misrepresenting other editors' comments like you do with sources. How can anyone try and collaborate or trust you when you behave in such a manner?
 * (nevermind that this is neither an essay, nor is it self-published, nor is it by a "SPLC-profiled individual").Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (and it takes some real chutzpah for a guy who's been edit warring on this article for over a freakin' year and has managed to get it protected as a result multiple times, to accuse OTHER editors of "edit warring") Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are better sources, and there are, then it's effectively rejected. As for the press: "In general, I find that the publisher for Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold is definitely not a high level scholarly press." François Robere (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which particular essays from the book are being cited this time? As noted at RSN, the book has essays by authors who are more reliable, and authors who are less reliable. I'd appreciate if instead of back and forth reverts people would try to at least reference the book chapters properly. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Again asking why is this source used if it's so problematic, which is something we're all aware of. Some of you who support this inclusion have in the past fought repeatedly against including Grabowski (who's cited at least a couple of hundred times) and Gross (who's cited well over 2,000 times), but are now supporting this book that was written by a group of authors who, for the most part, are well outside mainstream academia (some of them are so outside of it that they can't even get published in English anymore); which was published by an "easy reading" publishing house and translated by Chodakiewicz's own minor "Leopold Press" (and apparently contains numerous spelling and translation errors); and which is so rarely cited that I can't even find on Google Scholar. It barely even passed WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so why push it? François Robere (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My two, erh, twenty cents here--
 * 1) As a preface I am coming here in the interest of Wikipedia alone rather than any "national" goals -- but at the same time I will not say I am impartial and immune to emotional influences on my thinking. Most people with a soul have opinions about World War II events, especially when you have some family connection involved which I'm sure many if not most on this talk page do. Imho, I think most people here agree that either (a) blaming Poles for the Holocaust or (b) arguing that Poles were solely victims in World War II are fringe and extreme views that shouldn't be tolerated -- but perceive the other side as pushing one of the two.
 * 2) RS or not, Chodakiewicz is obviously not ideal and should not be on the page. The Southern Poverty Law Center should say as much []. If he is viewed as acceptable for this page, it could very well end up being used as precedent for his other statements, such as the view that Obama was Muslim and/or is communist [] (very oddly common accusation of two things that generally don't co-occur...). Given VM's typical stance on American politics, I really don't think rehabilitating Chodakiewicz is the motive here on "include Chodakiewicz" side, but that won't change the fact that it could very well end up contributing to that result come a couple years.
 * 3) A book edited by him is murkier, but still not ideal. Making matters worse, it is itself a "polemic" against earlier scholarship -- meaning it is already deep in the controversy zone (given Chodakiewicz' erm... views across the board, the hole gets deeper -- as does the risk of precedent setting). One thing that could convince me not to immediately place a boldface oppose !vote is at least some evidence that these incorporated essay authors exercised independence in their views and didn't simply adhere to Chodakiewicz' on the parts that matter (i.e. those not so lovely episodes where Poles did not behave as the downtrodden but pure-hearted patriots you'd read about in primary school). --Calthinus (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with most of what Chodakiewicz is saying about modern politics, and it is clear he represents a pretty biased view of the historical reality. At the same time, being biased is not uncommon. No evidence has been presented that he (or others who are seen as part of his 'camp', or what we could term modern Polish gov't supported camp) have engaged in any unethical scholarship, such as falsification of data or worse, Holocaust denial or such. Certainly, their research has an agenda of portraying Polish WWII activities and attitudes in a very positive light, but to what degree is it whitewashing, and to what is just countering the bias of those from the other end of the spectrum who are in turn accused of exaggerating negative aspects of those activities and attitudes (like Gross, Grabowski, etc.)? Who in turn are reacting to the other camp in a vicious spiral of biased scholarship? I find it hard to say which group is more biased, but I don't think that censoring one and not the other is a good answer, as long as there is no consensus among scholars that one group, or at least particular individuals, have engaged in unethical scholarship. Which is why I don't think we can exclude Chodakiewicz (or Grabowski, or others). They clearly disagree with one another, but we are not here to argue that one of those groups is 'right'. This is for future scholars to decide. As long as it is scholarly research, IMHO it should be used, as long as care is taken of undue weight and neutrality. When scholars disagree, Wikipedia should reflect this, and not become a partisan tube for only one group. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence: WP:RS on historiography in the field: [Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland, 1939-1941, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, page 85] - section title Locked in Ethno-Nationalist History: The Old-New School of History Writing and the Stereotype: the main representatives of the post-1989 historiography, characterized by prejudicial views and concepts about Jews and other minorities are the late Tomasz Srzembosz, Bogdan Musial and Marek J. Chodakiewicz. These historians belong to the school of (ethno)-nationalist history writing, in which the themes of martyrdom and victimhood of ethnic Poles vis-a-vis other groups play a key role in shaping their arguments and their interpretations.. Start next paragraph: "Chodakiewicz's works represent the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writings ..... In contemporary Polish historiography Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian who constantly uses conflict in the expanation of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland ..... close to ... the National Democracy's interpertation of anti-semitism in general. Reading Chodakiewicz, one could easily reach the conclusion that the Jews were themselves responsible for what happened to them: "They received the type of anti-Semitism they deserve" (Zydzi maja taki antysemityzm na jak zasluguja), as one of the interwar popular National Democratic saying claimed". So..... Yes, he is quite clearly placed in a very-very specific "school", and that furthermore that his is the most extreme form of writing within said "school". Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of errors - Libionka, Dariusz. "The National Military Organization, the National Armed Forces and the Jews near Kraśnik: A Picture Corrected." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 79-121. - Dariusz Libionka explores a rather severe error or falsehood in one of Chodakiewicz's early works (that actually convinced several scholars at the time - including Libionka) that according to Libionka: "Surprisingly, in the meantime Chodakiewicz secretly began to withdraw his theses.21 It would be useless to wonder whether it was an example of extreme ignorance or ill will and manipulation since, let us say it right away, the archival materials unambiguously settle the matter of our interest. The course of events in the Zamość fee tail (Ordynacja Zamojska) forest near the village of Rudki and a few other episodes in its vicinity is far more interesting than wondering why the technical standards were breached by the representatives of that milieu, who for years have been shocking readers with pseudo-methodological platitudes.". This is a full length journal article - some 44 pages - exploring both Chodakiewicz's writing on the subject (which are in extreme error or perhaps even manipulation per Libionka), and the events themselves in Rudki. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But there is consensus, and the two groups aren't remotely comparable in this respect: one is hailed as novel and influential by scholars the world over; the other is on the fringes of the field and only accepted by a narrow circle of scholars, mostly in Poland and the Polish-Canadian community. Whether "unethical scholarship" has been done by anyone in either group is less important a criteria than you suggest - indeed, it would pose an incredibly low bar for inclusion - and is pretty rare anyways; what matters more are subtle biases like selection bias, thoroughness (or lack thereof), and innovation. Chodakiewicz's poor reputation lies not on blatant falsifications, but on repeatedly disregarding contradicting evidence and synthesizing the rest so it supports a specific narrative. François Robere (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to challenge what I see as the functional definition of unethical scholarship here. Well Icewhiz has pointed out one case of plausible dishonesty on Chod~'s part, but if we give benefit of the doubt there, issues remain. An array of RS sources themselves attribute to him less than scholarly intentions and card stacking behaviors. What are these less than scholarly intentions that these well respected sources accuse him of? Not only whitewashing, but also defamation of entire ethnic groups. I don't think anyone on the "other" side stands accused of anything of that level. Grabowski is surely partisan in his views, yet he has not been accused of card stacking to defame an entire group -- and that is precisely a critical aspect of unethical scholarship that I would like our functional definition thereof to include.--Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add -- I'm generally sympathetic to the view of including all views on contentious topics. But that bill stops for me when we have a guy accused, to put it crudely, of cardstacking to support whatever demographic biases he happens to have, in this case "contextualizing" killings of a group of people with a minority of them happening to be bloody communists. Surely there are other, preferable, scholars out there who present a more mild view of Polish treatment of Jews 1944-1946, and are not surrounded by a cloud of ethnic-tinged controversy.--Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I share your sentiments, and I won't deny that one group here is generally able to publish in more mainstream and international venues than others, which is generally a good indication of who is fringe and who is not, I'll say that I am also deeply concerned about the impact of 'political correctness' on the issue. I.e., research into some topics, such as the zydokomuna, is often seen as unsavory and tainted, and people trying to study such topics often get labelled as extremists and such. Sometimes, justly. Sometimes, however, it is just because they go against the prevailing, correct 'groupthink'. And I personally also have some sympathy for the underdog, and scholars who may be trying to research issues that are generally considered 'unsafe' by others, be it porn, pseudoscience, or abuses of political correctness... Back on topic: I'd very much like to see better sources than Chodakiewicz, too. It is clear he has an agenda. But as long as he (or his 'colleagues') are not proven to be falsifying his data, I am just not seeing why we can reject their views simply because they are going against the 'politically correct mainstream' and therefore scoffed by the 'pc mainstream'. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * -- the issue raised by leading to the withdrawal of at least one paper by Chodakiewicz is likely worth looking at further. Re the rest -- political correctness is running both ways as there is also the political correctness in Poland that effectively censors any discussion outside of very specific circles that would meaningfully challenge the narrative of Polish martyrdom whether the oppressor be Germans, Nazi Germans, Russians, Commie Russians, Swedes, or, yes... "Jews". (...:/...) In all honesty coming from a (Jewish) family with roots in Poland on one side which did include a few communists (and some right wing ultra-Zionists) back in the day, and knowing the history, yes I have to confess that I have to chuckle a bit when I hear my folk getting up in arms whenever someone points out that communists tended to be educated intelligentsia which is also byword for rather disproportionately Jewish (not tryna brag but if we're going to set aside political correctness, then let's be honest with ourselves on all fronts) . Acknowledging these things -- that the connection of education and communism ultimately led to a scenario where a group consisting disproportionately though by no means exclusively of atheist Jews ended up very temporarily empowered over much more conservative Catholic Slavic peasants, until Slav communists be they Russian or Polish asserted ethnic dominance (which did not take long)... that's one thing. Chodakiewicz goes further than that though. He card stacks so as to portray the Jewish population as somehow inherently inclined to communism for some inherent reason other than basic socio-economics, social relations and education, smacking of widely discredited essentialism. And importantly, he's been called out for it by RS on multiple occasions. There are Russian "scholars" who say all sorts of imaginative things about Poland's historical role in the modern period. If they showed up here and I noticed it, I'd be saying the same things to people who wanted those to stay. --Calthinus (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, through I don't know to what degree we can 'investigate' this beyond the sources presented.
 * Yes, I certainly agree that there is problematic political pressure in Poland (in the last few years) leading to POV issues like the ones you are describing (and that the work we discuss here fits squarely in that POV).
 * Chuckle indeed.
 * That would be problematic, but in all honesty I haven't seen that point in the writings of his I skimmed. At the very least, in this discussion, I thought we are talking about the issue of property, not zydokomuna (which I did bring up, yes).
 * And yes, you are right some scholars are much less credible then others. But what I want to refocus on is the issue of what is this source used for. Currently it is used for the following text: "Successive restitution laws on “abandoned property” of March 2, 1945, May 6, 1945 and March 8, 1946, which remained in effect until the end of 1948, allowed property owners who had been dispossessed during the war or, if deceased, their relatives (children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses and siblings), whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property that was not subject to nationalization by way of a simplified, expedited and far less expensive procedure than the regular civil procedures. This simplified process was enacted primarily for the benefit of the Jews. Until unclaimed abandoned properties became nationalized at the end of 1955, such persons, as well as more distant relatives, could claim property of deceased owners under the regular civil procedures". Is this really such a red-flag claim that this niche and biased, but not IMHO disreputable source cannot be used? Particularly if we were to remove the "This simplified process was enacted primarily for the benefit of the Jews." sentence which IMHO seems to be somewhat agenda-driven? Now, ideally we would simply find better sources and discard this as a fringe one, of course. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As clearly pointed out by any mainstream source covering this - aside from the dates (which are present in the STABLE version of the article from 12 March - which uses mainstream sources) - this is extremely out of whack of any mainstream source covering this - e.g. Meng,, Cichopek-Gajraj,,  Weizman,, or as  pointed out here Dariusz Stola in (2008). "The Polish Debate on the Holocaust and the Restitution of Property". In Martin Dean; Constantin Goschler; Philipp Ther (eds.). Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe. New York: Berghahn Books and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. pp. 240–258. This legislation was designed to expropriate large amounts of Jewish property (returning but a trifle) - and reclaiming property under it was far from "simple". Even when one got a court decree (after proving one was one's self, and that all one's competing heirs/owners were dead) - one got a piece of paper indicating "possession" of a property still inhabited by invaders - who were difficult to evict legally - and even if tried - such attempts were often met with the extralegal death of the heir or owner at the hands of the invading tenants. And no - a Polish judge, who has not published academically previously or since, writing in a book self-published (and filled with bizarre claims in other chapters) by a SPLC-profiled far-right activist - is not a reasonable source. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Should not be used: no apparent reputation for reliability or fact-checking for the publishing house, while the reputation of the volume's editors matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over at WP:RSN, although thanks to walls of text, discussion derailing and obfuscation, essentially no outside editors have chimed in (except to point out that no outside editors are going to chime in because of the walls of text, discussion derailing and obfuscation).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * False statement - Ealdgyth commented - rather rejecting use of this source. And even if no one had commented - WP:ONUS for this self-published book with a whole chapter devoted to exploring "neo-Stalinism" - would not have eben met. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not hurt to post at both venues. On the walls of text, no doubt about it. This one clocks in at 10,500 bytes. Personal attacks are a bonus, I assume. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit break
Are we finished with this? Consensus achieved? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion was continued over at, where it belonged in the first place, and it does not look like there was consensus to remove. If anything, the other way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Marek, we already got back from RSN here. The RSN discussion is now quoted here. What is your problem? You have Icewhiz, K.e.coffman, Calthinus and myself objecting; Ealdgyth stating it should be superseded by better sources, like Stola; and only you and Piotr for - and I'm not even sure Piotr is still for it. François Robere (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is obviously not true. The editors who think this source should be used are myself, Piotrus, Tatzref and MyMoloboaccount and I think Xx236 (although I kind of have trouble understanding what they're actually saying). Somehow you did the counting wrong. Calthinus appears to have a problem with Chodakiewicz himself, but not necessarily with OTHER authors, whom you are removing. So there is obviously no consensus to implement "your" version, which is highly skewed in that it presents cherry picked info and cherry picked authors. The other version includes much more detail, there's been no challenge as to the factual accuracy of the info (only "other authors focus on different parts"), has actual details rather than polemic sweeping generalizations and is WP:BALANCEed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Francois Robere, can you also explain why you are using alleged issues with MJC to remove OTHER authors from the article? For example in this edit in your edit summary you claim removing MJC as a justification. Yet you also remove several other authors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted to a previously worked-upon version that left out references to this book, as well as a popular news item that was out of place for historical data (at least without further information on the source, which we didn't receive). Is there anything else that's missing? François Robere (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a "previously worked-upon version", it's just a single users highly unbalanced and POV version that you and a couple others (Icewhiz, Kecoffman) have been trying to cram into the article, *despite* consensus and objections.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The consensus seems pretty clear to me that the source should not be used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there is obviously no such consensus. Consensus doesn't magically materialize itself because you assert you have it. There's about an even split among the editors here with regard to this one source, which also doesn't excuse removing other sourced information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And quite frankly, since this is a very general level article the whole section is mostly UNDUE. The article is about a 1000+ year history, yet this particular section, on a very narrow issue and controversy, is given as much space as other sections which cover entire centuries. Of course this is because there's a current controversy regarding the issue, but per WP:NOTNEWS that's actually not a consideration in how we write the article. The section should be trimmed down to a couple sentences and most of the info belongs in other, more dedicated articles. Then we can argue about stuff there.

Now, I realize that as soon as I say that this section is UNDUE and too long, someone is going to jump in and under a pretense of "trimming" is going to remove just the parts they don't like and keep the parts they like, making the whole thing even more unbalanced. So let me be clear - the way to solve the UNDUE problem is NOT by POVing the section even more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it's too long. I also don't think we need a separate property section from the violence section - the prior organization and length - e.g. 12 March - is appropriate length. There' probably other content that needs to be cut here. The Holocaust is too long. "Territories annexed by USSR (1939–41)" (part of Poland for 2 years) is way too long. The article in general is a bit over WP:SIZERULE at 112k prose.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with that version is that the relevant description, although of appropriate length is hopelessly unbalanced and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So what do you propose, other than rejecting obvious consensus Re: MJC? François Robere (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For starters, can you drop the "obvious consensus" false narrative? What's obvious is that there is no such consensus. I'm not sure how we can proceed here when you keep on insisting on something that's blatantly false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, other than yourself I'm not quite sure who's for inclusion. François Robere (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I enumerated the editors above. 11:08 June 04. Why do I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again? With Nihil novi below that makes five or six for inclusion and three, maybe four against. Consensus is clearly leaning THE OTHER WAY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I lost track of this discussion. We are discussing the inclusion of what, now? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep valid information sourced from Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and other authors. Nihil novi (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Define "valid"? François Robere (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC
Note I've started an RfC on this. François Robere (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC has concluded with the following summary: While there was insufficient consensus to adequately draw as to whether or not [the book] falls into WP:FRINGE territory, there is relatively clear consensus that "Golden Harvest" is not a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

“Judeo-Communism” in the Power Apparatus of “People’s Poland”: Myth or Reality?
Mirosław Szumiło addresses this question in the Polish Institute of National Remembrance periodical, Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość (Memory and Justice), no. 2 (32), 2018: 2.https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/publikacje/periodyki-ipn/pamiec-i-sprawiedliwosc/67747,Pamiec-i-Sprawiedliwosc-nr-2-32-2018.html. Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Before we start using this source, consider this however, a quote from RS []: . That's Radoslaw Poczykowski, a Polish university sociologist at Biawystok. See also [|this Polish paper]. Maybe IPN is not a good source to rely on for scandalous material that was just featured at arbitration.--Calthinus (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is reality, but this aspect of Polish history although well known in Poland is forbidden in the west. There were two communists factions in post war Poland, the muscovites and the partisans. The muscovites held power initially and were majority jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information, 1.25 million Polish Jews are not passport eligble.
Where does this info come from? Polish Jews are not eligible for Polish citizenship if their ancestors left Poland before 1969. The March 1968 crisis stripped Polish citizenship from jews who emigrated and their descendants. Most of the jews who remained were old and at most only 10,000 remained, so how are 1.2 million jews now eligible for Polish passports? Can we either have a source or remove this misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "בישראל 1.25 מיליון איש הזכאים לאזרחות פולנית" — In Israel, there are 1.25 million people eligible for Polish citizenship." Ynet. El_C 18:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See also JPost. Following the fall of communism Poland allowed citizenship by descent also to Jews who left during the communist period (and before).Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

An interesting detail of Jewish life in pre-war Poland
Woguli ten chajrem jest tak źle że gorsze już nie ma” – pismo Fajwela Manchajma do Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie klątwy religijnej rzuconej na niego przez rabina z Izbicy Isera Landaua jako przyczynek do historii życia społeczności żydowskiej w II Rzeczypospolitej (in recent Glaukopis).Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? Your activities here don't leave the best impression. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Poland
A recent well attended RM - Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July concluded that The Holocaust in Poland should be at that title as a neutral descriptor. As background, there is a POV push in some circles - e.g. this Polish government site - to add "German-occupied"/"Nazi-occupied"/"occupied" to any phrase connecting Poland to the Holocaust. This revert reinstated a form decided against in the RM, and reintroduced an overly verbose section title (as we are already in History of the Jews in Poland, there is little need to repeat "in Poland" or "in X-occupied Poland" in every section title). The revert also reinstated two low level articles (Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust) which are far from the main articles on the Holocaust in Poland - and inappropriate use of a see also. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I will also note that repeating "in Poland" in the section title, is a clear MOS:NOBACKREF violation. Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion in one place unless you have article specific issues to raise. General discussion is here right now.
 * The RM is irrelevant here as is some imagined or invented "POV push in some circles"
 * How in the world does "in Poland" violate BACKREF when you are removing whatever it's suppose to backref to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. We had a general discussion - the RM. You are overriding the general consensus in this specific article - and ahould provide a rationale here. Furthermore there is a MOS:NOBACKREF in section headers here.Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. What you falsely call "a general discussion" was actually a specific discussion about the title of one particular article, it was NOT a "general discussion" about giving you the permission to remove the very encyclopedic information that Poland was occupied by Germany during WW2 throughout Wikipedia. Hence, as has been pointed out repeatedly (which you insist on ignoring, which is the very definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) you are simply making false claims of consensus, which is disruptive.
 * Likewise your claim of NOBACKREF is completely spurious and transparently vacuous . "Holocaust in German occupied Poland" (the section heading) obviously DOES NOT "redundantly refer back to" "History of the Jews in Poland". Please stop inventing ridiculous WP:GAME excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's more, there's little chance the reader isn't aware of Poland's status at the time to begin with. The section is a subsection of World War II, and is preceded by two subsections that cover the German and Soviet invasions, and the Soviet occupation. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

False edit summaries, edit warring, reverting on behalf of each other
In this revert, after Francois Robere got ahead of himself and broke 1RR, Icewhiz comes to his rescue and performs the reverts for him. Additionally Icewhiz's edit summary is just false. "multiple editors agreeing to" <-- these "multiple editors", as can be easily seen from the discussion above are... Icewhiz and Francois Robere (who have reverted for each other on about half a dozen articles in the past two weeks or so). Please don't make false claims of consensus.

Francois Robere's edit summary for his revert also appears to be false "No such commission existed - see discussions in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There's nothing on that page about the source (Lukas) or the commission that I can see. The info is well sourced so this appears to be a phony reason for a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * reverted you as well. On Wikipedia we generally follow project guidelines such as MOS:SECTIONSTYLE - the subsection title of The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland clearly violates MOS - and is clunky.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Francois Robere's edit summary for his revert... also appears to be false "No such commission existed - see discussions in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There's nothing on that page about the source (Lukas) or the commission that I can see... The info is well sourced so this appears to be a phony reason for a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced info It was discussed here, and mentioned in several other places, including here, here and here.
 * Just a reminder that this page is under WP:DS, and casting aspersions or breaking 1RR could get you banned. François Robere (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, three of those links (all of which are buried in history and archives somewhere) are just YOU claiming that YOU think the commission didn't exist. I'm sorry but on Wikipedia we're not gonna take your own personal opinion over that of a reliable source. The fourth link is just a request for further info which doesn't actually say the commission didn't exist.
 * And I haven't cast any "aspersions". On this article Icewhiz reverted on your behalf after YOU broke 1RR (thanks for reminding me about it though). On Islamophobia in Poland you reverted on Icewhiz's behalf . On Racism in Poland you and Icewhiz have alternated your reverts in quick succession     . That's the thing - you guys are not even trying to be subtle about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not "buried" anywhere. I literally just got them now through a search, having remembered we discussed that before. You could've done the same if you didn't assume bad faith on my part. Or, you know, you could've asked.
 * on Wikipedia we're not gonna take your own personal opinion over that of a reliable source I'm happy you just said that, because it means we can restore Madajczyk. Any objections?
 * And I haven't cast any "aspersions". On this article Icewhiz reverted on your behalf That's literally "casting aspersions" (emphasis mine). François Robere (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As for your "reversal conspiracy" - this is a novel argument! Some of these are hours, or even a day apart, with intervening edits by two other editors (three if you include MVBW). I might as well claim Molobo and the IP editor are "reverting on your behalf". Right? François Robere (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2019 (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 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
Following edit from IP was against source information, provided by historian from the Museum of Polish Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=958493882&oldid=957292533

Therefore information: ", mainly seeking slaves, sold to Muslim countries" - should be returned to the article according to Wiki rules of using that sources.

Thank You Kojoto Kojoto (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC) As the edit summary says, the information is ahistorical and lacks historical context. There is no need to add ti back either as the information is repeated later in the paragraph. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 10:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) -- Hold on. Can you please notice what you just wrote? "the information is ahistorical and lacks historical context. There is no need to add ti back either as the information is repeated later in the paragraph" * so this information is placed later in the paragraph (therefore is NOT "ahistorical and lacks historical context") (it is extended - NOT "repeated later") * this is the information provided with the source, historian opinion. So what is the problem here? Kojoto Kojoto (talk) 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I do not see that the source backs up your claims a) around why Jews first visited Poland or b) where, if that was the case, those slaves would then be sold. The source talks generally about the slave trade and some countries which were involved, but not in sufficient detail for me to draw the inference you have stated. Happy to make the change if you can provide a reliable source that explicitly details it, but for now closing as not done. Best,  Darren-M   talk  15:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I still think it would be valuable to have this historian opinion at this paragraph, but sure no point to force it as it is mentioned later too. Kojoto Kojoto (talk) 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ghettos Eastern Europe 1941-1942.gif

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ghettos Eastern Europe 1941-1942.gif

Nazi Germany and collaborators?
François Robere, I'm not sure that the text should include collaborators right next to Nazi Germany as being responsible for the destruction of Polish Jewery. Germany was responsible for the Holocaust. You have to remember that there is no universal definition of "collaboration" and most people were NOT willing to collaborate, but were forced to do so by the Germans. This includes Polish railway workers, police, Jewish Judenrat, etc. Even many of the peasants who did not like Jews, did not want to participate in the hunts. I believe it was Grabowski who described how most of them were told to join in or get sent for slave labor to a concentration camp. Btw, recently Yair Netanyahu posted on Twitter that "Germany is responsible for the Holocaust! Not Poland!" . So, in summary, I don't think this is a an undisputed statement, so it should not be presented as such in the intro paragraph, there are varying views on that. --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What does this has to do with me, exactly? François Robere (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * François Robere, I believe you reverted me a few days ago, when I removed "collaborators" for the intro paragraph. I don't think this was a good call. --E-960 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. As stated in the edit summary, sources generally agree that without collaborators, the Nazis would've found it more difficult to realize their plans. Of course collaborations is a spectrum rather than a dichotomy, but it doesn't change the end result. François Robere (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * François Robere, again, not a universal point of view. You have to remember Germany and the "collaborators" did not get together and decide on the fate of the Jews. Rather Nazi Germany was the genocidal state imposing its policy on Poland (finding either willing collaborators or forcing others), that's why saying Nazi Germany AND someone is not accurate. You have to remember that under the old Geneva convention, police and government administrators, civilians were obliged to follow German orders (as the legitimate governing authority during the war). That's why Germans always used the excuse of not following orders to execute someone or send them to a concentration camp. The point of view you cited is legitimate, however it is not universal especially given the old Geneva convention rules, thus in such a case we should not include that in the intro paragraph. --E-960 (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I'm not doing WP:OR here. The fact of the matter is other people took part in it, and it would be improper for us not to mention it in an introductory paragraph. There are already some redeeming statements in the third paragraph of the lead, which in my opinion are a bit more than enough. François Robere (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): George1738.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)