Talk:Racism in Poland/Archive 3

"Serial genocide"
"Serial genocide" - What is this? In the internets I read: "“Serial” genocide perpetrators slip under the radar as much now as genocide did relative to individual murder prior to Lemkin" implying serial genocide is not the same as the UN-standard definition of genocide. I am asking because this term is used in recent change by Molobo. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

No attacks against Jews
Poland and Hungary are the most safe places for Jews in Europe. You don't inform about it quoting professional anti-anti-Semites, who earn their money researching anti-Semitism. Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Bawer Aondo-Akaa is an expert
https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/spoleczenstwo/1691250,1,bawer-aondo-akaa-broni-honoru-polski.read

Dr Bawer Aondo-Akaa is a physically handicapped Afro-Pole, who cooperates with Polish nationalists. He is obviously more commpetent than professional "researchers". He participates in Independence Marches, describeed sometimes as fascists and racist.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Jews in particular, that have faced hostility and suspicion.
Unsourced manipulation. The mentioned Polish Tatars were respected soldiers. The Jews isolated themselves from the society. The situation of the Jews was however apparently acceptable, they didn't emigrate to Western Europe. Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed fringe claim that Poland was like Nazi Germany
I have removed a fringe claim that Poland was like Nazi Germany.Even if some author would claim that, that claim is such extreme that it would require numerous strong sources. While no doubt some discrimination of Jews did happen, this view is not shared by mainstream research(and we shouldn't forget that Jewish parties were represented in Polish parliament, Poland had Jewish ministers, generals and so forth). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Any basis for the removal other than WP:IDONTLIKE? This was published in The Journal of Modern History, cited some 80 times, by a mainstream historian - William W. Hagen - tenured at a top-tier university. The source quite clearly states "Even though in various ways the Polish regime in fact fell short of fascism, the cumulative effects on the Polish Jews of its hostile policies, as well as of Endek aggression and the consequences of demographic growth amid still widespread economic depression, were threatening them by 1939 with conditions comparable to those to which the German Jews had been reduced". There's nothing particularly unusual with the comparison of Poland in 1939 (prior to September) to Germany in 1936. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am reading the source now and so far it seems attributing this claim was very, very far fatched, Cohen at every point makes reservation statements about comparing the two, makes statements that not all was similar, and some of the claims attributed to him are quotes from interviews he presents, not actuall statement of facts.There are numerous examples on how Poland was different from Germany etc.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Content removed in diff, supported by: "In 1938 OZON came to dominate the Polish parliament, where it began drafting anti-Jewish laws of the kind adopted in Germany between 1933 and 1935.
 * Odd removal (of bank credit discrimination) and fact tag - diff - clearly supported by citation: "Already since the early 1920s the Polish government had systematically excluded the Jews from employment in the public sector, from obtaining licenses to operate businesses in the broad sphere of the government-regulated or governmentmonopolized economy, and from receiving any considerable government bank credits. In the 1930s the realm of official and semiofficial discrimination expanded to encompass limits on Jewish export firms, on Jewish artisan shops, on ritual slaughtering (which was a major source of tax income for Jewish communal self-government), on admission to medical practice and the bar, on membership in nationwide business associations, on access to universitypreparatory secondary education and university-level student organizations, and, increasingly, on university admission itself. In 1921-22 some 25 percent of Polish university students were Jewish, but in 1938-39 their proportion had fallen to 8 percent..Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am citing Hagen, not Cohen. And it isn't attributed - Hagen in The Journal of Modern History is stating this in his own voice. Certainly there were particular points of difference between Polish and Nazi legislation, however Hagen makes his conclusion in that the result was similar. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Stating Poland was similar to Nazi Germany is obviously a fringe extreme view that can't be put as off hand fact in the article. We could put it in article about Hagen's views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do mind WP:BLPTALK, and provide sources for your claims. I provided a top-notch source here. Are you contesting the reliability of the The Journal of Modern History? Should we take this to RSN? Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeh, after looking at this source, I agree with Icewhiz: it can be used here. The only question: how exactly the content should be summarized, and what other sources tell about it to comply with WP:NPOV. Just saying, "hey, it was just like Nazi Germany" would be wrong; that sounds like an anti-Polish propaganda. One should describe specifics per multiple RS (so, yes, the "specifics" per quotation by Icewhiz above I think can be included). I can see that the challenged edit was "The Polish parliament then passed anti-Jewish legislation similar to Anti-Jewish legislation in pre-war Nazi Germany". Yes, that claim does look questionable and unnecessary, given that next phrase explains what exactly was the law in Poland at at this time, and it was indeed anti-Jewish. Hence the removal by Molobo seem to be legitimate in this case . My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

1926
The Jews section doesn't inform that Sanacja acted pro-Jewish in 1926. So the text is obviously biased.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Jedwabne
According to Intimate violence http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140102719170
 * Intimate Violence is a novel social-scientific explanation of ethnic violence and the Holocaust. It locates the roots of violence in efforts to maintain Polish and Ukrainian dominance rather than in anti-Semitic hatred or revenge for communism. Please learn.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

15th century racism?
I have removed a chunk of information that seems to be about religious strife-it doesn't seem to be in relation towards racism(which would be strange for 15th century)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism. Icewhiz (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I restored this. There are sources, for example . My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Polish parliament then drafted
There was no such laws in Poland. There is basic difference between complaining, drafting, dreaming, which is typical in Poland, and implementing like in mentioned countries.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Which exactly laws were drafted? Certainly not so many like in mentioned countries. It's propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

sources please
from the 1920s the Polish government excluded Jews from receiving government bank credits, public sector employment, and obtaining business licenses - the phrase proves ignorance. The situation changed in 1926, so what is from the 1920s - till 1926 or after 1926?
 * Jews had Jewish banks. Did the banks give creditis to non-Jews without any limitations?Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some Jews were licensed to sell cigarettes till about 1935. https://tvnwarszawa.tvn24.pl/informacje,news,z-pozolklych-stron-starych-gazet-odtworzyla-zydowska-warszawe,226363.html Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is from - in The Journal of Modern History - "Already since the early 1920s the Polish government had systematically excluded the Jews from employment in the public sector, from obtaining licenses to operate businesses in the broad sphere of the government-regulated or governmentmonopolized economy, and from receiving any considerable government bank credits. In the 1930s the realm of official and semiofficial discrimination expanded to encompass limits on Jewish export firms, on Jewish artisan shops, on ritual slaughtering (which was a major source of tax income for Jewish communal self-government), on admission to medical practice and the bar, on membership in nationwide business associations, on access to universitypreparatory secondary education and university-level student organizations, and, increasingly, on university admission itself. In 1921-22 some 25 percent of Polish university students were Jewish, but in 1938-39 their proportion had fallen to 8 percent.8". The source doesn't draw any distinction regarding the 1926 coup, and only lists growing repression in the 1930s. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already written - situation changed in 1926 and you rewrite the trash. The source doesn't draw any distinction regarding the 1926 coup, - exactly, does the author even know what is Poland?Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This work has received the Chester Penn Higby Prize for best article in the Journal of Modern History in a two-year period (conferred by the Modern European History Section of the American Historical Association). - facts aren't important, bashing Poles is important. Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked for sources - I provided a source for the sentence (which is cited in the article) + supporting quote from source. I suggest you take up your reservations with William W. Hagen and the The Journal of Modern History. Or provide comparable sources, quality wise, that makes a distinction regarding Piłsudski's regime. Piłsudski may have been favorable to the Jews vis-a-vis the Endek alternative, this doesn't mean measures ceased. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, you don't have any idea about Polish Jews. I don't see any reason to teach you, you are able to read.Xx236 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-chief-rabbi-meets-descendants-of-interwar-leader/ Even "Times of Israel" doesn't support you. Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Racism in the United States doesn't inform about Numerus clausus. Double standards. Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And..... ? That Piłsudski was and is seen as an opponent to much darker currents in Poland is well known - well evidenced by events after his death as well as support during his lifetime. Do you have actual sources on the topic at hand? Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the page say anything good about living Piłsudski? No, it doesn't. It proves that the text is biased. Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees obtained Polish citizenship. Such generosity caused social tensions. Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Some blatant original research
Hey User:François Robere, can you please point out where in David Engle's source he says "Antisemitism in World War II Poland was not rare" as you inserted into the article ? This seems to be your own WP:SYNTH conclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - Engel does write that " the governments which had ruled Poland since Marshal Jozef Pilsudski's 1926 coup d'etat, including those which, following Pilsudski's death in May 1935, had pursued a policy of officially sanctioned antisemitism" on page 1. I don't see quite where rare appears - I would assume FR paraphrases this - however there is no lack of sources discussing antisemitism in pre-war Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, is there some reason for why you are are responding to a question posed to Francois Robere? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have this page watchlisted, and you removed a whole lot of other content besides Engel. Please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS on article talk pages. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not cast any "aspersions", I simply asked a question. Please stop making false accusations on talk pages. And I'm sure you have the page watchlisted, but the question wasn't addressed at you and given the well documented fact of you and FR always agreeing with each other, your sudden appearance here to, once again, support him, only serves to inflame the situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Karski and Rowecki (to which that is the introduction) state it pretty clearly. There are plenty of scholarly sources on that as well, as you know. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No they don't. At least not in the source you provided. If there is some OTHER source, then provide that source, rather than engage in your own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They literally say "antisemitism is widespread now", what are you talking about? François Robere (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This quote from Karski does NOT say "antisemitism is widespread now". What are YOU talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rowecki uses that exact term, while Karski writes that the "[the Jewish question] is akin a narrow bridge upon which the Germans and a large portion of Polish society are finding agreement". Later he writes on "wide segments of the Polish populace, among whom antisemitism has by no means decreased". Both statements were redacted from the final report. François Robere (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
VM - I intend to restore much of your blanket reversion in diff unless you provide a clear rationale for rejection of material published in: I will further note that the presentation (which you restored in our voice) of Żydokomuna (Jewish Bolshevism), as anything other than a pejorative stereotype, is unacceptable in terms of mainstream research. The content you removed is clearly on-topic, from mainstream academic sources, in regards to antisemtism (or anti-Jewish racism) in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The Journal of Modern History..
 * 2)  In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond, Palgrave Macmillan
 * 3) Engel in Jewish Social Studies.
 * 4)  The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and Its Aftermath,  Princeton University Press
 * 5) When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland. Oxford University Press
 * This was not a blanket revert. The rationale is well articulated in edit summary.
 * The reliability of sources is not at issue, it's the misrepresentation of sources and use of WP:CHERRYPICKED quotes that is the problem. This has been repeatedly explained to you.
 * The problem with the sentence about Zydokomuna is not of what voice it's presented it in but rather the claim that this was about wartime antisemitism, when it clearly refers to post war period. Likewise, while it's a conspiracy and a stereotype you can't attribute it to "Polish historians" as if they endorsed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And, I should note, with two quotes from eminent wartime sources: Gen. Rowecki, head of the Home Army; and Jan Karski, Home Army spy and GIE envoy. François Robere (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We avoid block quotes as they are non-encyclopedic, especially from primary sources. The other problem, is the little original research that YOU came up with and added in front of the Karski quote. You still haven't explained how this text is based on the source. It seems you invented it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS, Marek. François Robere (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "We avoid block quotes as they are non-encyclopedic" <-- NOT an "aspersion". "especially from primary sources" <-- NOT an "aspersion". "original research that YOU came up with and added in front of the Karski quote" <-- NOT an "aspersion", especially since it's a 100% accurate description of what you did. "You still haven't explained how this text is based on the source" <-- NOT an "aspersion". Etc.
 * You can cry 'aspersions!!!!!!' all you want, but what this is simply me pointing out that you made up a line of text (original research) which was not in the source nor based on it. And it's me pointing out that we avoid block quotes. Please don't try to misportray the situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hagen
I reverted as Hagen quite clearly states that: The reverted version presented 1937 events as 1935 events in a manner not supported by the cited source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Endeks redoubled their efforts in 1935: "Following Pilsudski's death in 1935, the Endeks and other right-wing radicals greatly intensified the anti-Jewish boycott movement they had long advocated. Between 1935 and 1937 aggressive boycott actions led to widespread violence and, in a number of cases, to pogroms, mainly in the smaller towns, in which by 1939 many hundreds of Jews had been killed and wounded, while still more were plundered of their property and driven from their homes and settlements.
 * 2) Hagen also states the resolution in question passed in 1937 and not 1935: "By 1937, the National Party (Stronnictwo Narodowe), as the Endek electoral organization was then called, could pass resolutions declaring that it considered "the Jews to be its chief enemy" and that "its main aim and duty must be to remove the Jews from all spheres of social, economic, and cultural life in Poland"
 * 3) The last sentence ia supported by "Even though in various ways the Polish regime in fact fell short of fascism, the cumulative effects on the Polish Jews of its hostile policies, as well as of Endek aggression and the consequences of demographic growth amid still widespread economic depression, were threatening them by 1939 with conditions comparable to those to which the German Jews had been reduced".


 * No one's disputing this. What is disputed is writing this up as if the Endeks were part of the government and their "resolutions" had some kind of binding legal force.
 * Clarified that.
 * Yeah, when you omit the "fell short of fascism" - and Hagen emphasizes throughout the article that the situation in Poland WAS different than Nazi Germany - and only include the second part you are blatantly misrepresenting the source. Thank you for illustrating the WP:TEND nature of your edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Endeks were not in government, and I think this was rather clear given a "government response" to them. 3. If your sole issue is a missing - "the Polish regime fell short of fascism" - I have no objection to an addition along those lines.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Exactly, so why is the text being presented as if their resolutions had some kind of legal standing? It's not clear. 3. No that is not the sole issue, this just illustrates how the source is being misrepresented. You clip the quote at the beginning to make it look like something it's not. You cherry pick a sentence out of a source to make it look like something it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hagen's conclusion of the situation is not cherrypicked. Any other issues besides "the Polish regime fell short of fascism"?Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It sure is. The clipping of the quote is an illustrative example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS for inclusion is on you, especially since you're misrepresenting the source. Please stop trying to cram this into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * VM - if you are objecting to content from The Journal of Modern History - you need to do better. Nothing was misrepresented in what you removed in diff. "the Polish regime fell short of fascism" was added following your objection. The source is crystal clear - "Even though in various ways the Polish regime in fact fell short of fascism, the cumulative effects on the Polish Jews of its hostile policies, as well as of Endek aggression and the consequences of demographic growth amid still widespread economic depression, were threatening them by 1939 with conditions comparable to those to which the German Jews had been reduced".. Now - what precisely is misrepresented here, and what is your objection now given that your previous object on the omission of "fell short of fascism" has been addressed? Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As has been explained numerous time, the objection is NOT to the Journal of Modern History. Stop constructing false straw-men. The objection is to the misrepresentation of the source. The clipping of the quote. And ignoring the fact that in numerous places in the article the author says that the situation in Germany and Poland WAS different.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Polish / Romani / Jewish equivalence or lack thereof under Nazi rule
I reverted this, as the cited source in the article - USHMM - says "In contrast to Nazi genocidal policy that targeted all of Poland's 3.3 million Jewish men, women, and children for destruction, Nazi plans for the Polish Catholic majority focused on the murder or suppression of political, religious, and intellectual leaders. This policy had two aims: first, to prevent Polish elites from organizing resistance or from ever regrouping into a governing class; second, to exploit Poland's leaderless, less educated majority of peasants and workers as unskilled laborers in agriculture and industry.". The notion that the the Nazis genocided Poles is a distinct minority view in WWII research - and in any event is not comparable to the Nazi genocide of the Jewish and Roma populations. Should we present such a minority view in the article, it should be clearly attributed (and sourced!) and with the majority view clearly presented as well. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is distinguished as "cultural genocide". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be worked in (as well as forced labor, deportations, killing of elites, ...) - however that is different from complete physical destruction. I will also note (in relation to the lede) that this is not a Holocaust article - but an article on racism in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your revert went far beyond just hair splitting over whether extermination is extermination or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to show up to the talk page. Indeed, I also removed OR and content attributed to Davis that rather badly misrepresented him. I pointed all this out in rather detailed edit summaries. Icewhiz (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't Generalplan Ost available in Washington? It's not cultural genocide.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Jews Poles and Gypsies are on the same inferior level" stated the nazi-German directive No. 1306. 81.190.44.233 (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Blanket revert
diff - reverted content based on "Unpublished working paper, tertiary sources. Undue" - which seems incorrect on the face of it in regards to several sources. I'm opening a source by source discussion below.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Cooper
Please state clearly the objection to In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond, by L.Cooper. Published by Palgrave Macmillan. This is an academic secondary source that addresses antisemtism in Poland at length. Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's actually a non-academic WP:TERTIARY source which has been cherry picked. Also, is there any chance that you'd let Francois Robere defend his edits rather than once again jumping in to speak for them? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FR didn't add this, and please see WP:OWN. The book is clearly a secondary source on the topic of Poles and the Holocaust (not that being tertiary would preclude it). The author, at the time time, was a senior research associate at the University of Melbourne - a major academic institution. The book itself was published by Palgrave Macmillan as an academic imprint. This clearly meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote, in contex:
 * "Research into this period of Polish–Jewish relations, the documentary evidence and personal testimonies, indicate that the virus of anti-Semitism, which invaded the Polish body and which propagated itself during the pre-Second World War years, had not disappeared after the September 1939 disaster. Polish society entered the Second World War and the Nazi occupation already poisoned by anti-Semitic propaganda. The anti-Jewish policy of the Nazis had encountered fertile ground in Poland. During the Nazi anti-Jewish terror, the dominant contention among the Poles was ‘that it is good that the Jewish problem is being solved by the Germans’, and that ‘at least the Germans are doing something good for us’ (Ros, p. 18)."


 * He then quotes Karski and Rowecki, which are PRIMARY as you noted, making this SECONDARY. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's clearly a tertiary source, the "(Ros, p. 18)" makes it clear. It's also cherry picked and undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So when I quoted Karski (from Engel) and Rowecki (from Gross), by your definition they were both secondary. Why did you object on grounds of PRIMARY? François Robere (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Tec
Please state clearly the objection to When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland by Tec, published by Oxford University Press. This is a secondary academic source by an expert.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nechama Tec is a Professor Emerita of Sociology at UConn, and is widely cited by scholars in the field. François Robere (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Winstone
Please state clearly the objection to The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi rule in Poland under the General Government, published by Tauris. Again - secondary academic source. Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Martin Winstone is a researcher and education officer at the UK-based Holocaust Educational Trust. He's published two books; this one won accolades from scholars such as Adam Zamoyski, Jan T. Gross and David Cesarani. François Robere (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

CRP
Please state clearly the objection to the paper published by the University of Warsaw Center for Research on Prejudice. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an unpublished, non-peer reviewed source (aren't you and Francois Robere always talking about how we should use only "peer reviewed sources" - why the double standards?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it's published - how do you think I found it? And it was conducted by researchers at a respectable research center at the university of Warsaw. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What was it published in? "Found it on the internet" /= "published".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The survey results were published as a series of reports on the center's U. Warsaw faculty of Psychology website, AFAICT with other publications relying on it (eg. this book, relying on the previous survey). François Robere (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just a different way of saying that it's a unpublished working paper. And you're not citing the previous survey so what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a paper, it's a survey. The results are published online, the conclusions elsewhere. It's pretty standard. The only question is whether you trust the researchers behind it. François Robere (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a source on the 2012 survey. Are you satisfied? François Robere (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources on Catholic church in Poland
In diff, VM removed content sourced to two books, stating that "not actually about Poland but about the Catholic Church in general" - which seems to be a case of IDIDNOTREADTHAT, as the sources clearly address the effects of Church led oppression in Poland - e.g. King - "It is not known how many Jew had established residence in Poland in the thirteenth century. That there were enough of them (it wouldn't have taken many) in the old Polish diocese, that of Gnizeno (Gnesen), to worry the Church fathers is evident from the following clause in canonical law as imposed by the Church Council of Breslau in 1266: ......Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah "old" diocese. If you actually read the source again (please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks) then it's clear that this was a concern of the Church generally. It just happened to coincide with the mass movement of Jews to Poland during this time. Was the clause specific to Poland? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As this was clearly in the source - describing events in Poland - saying that your rationale was groundless in relation to what was written in the source - was not a personal attack. As for your claim that the Catholic church was antisemitic elsewhere - this does not change the relevance of this particular antisemitic act in Poland that sent the Jews of Poland into ghettos. Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your claim that I didn't read the source was clearly a personal attack or at the very least failure to assume good faith. The source references a council which happened to be held in Breslau (Wroclaw) which involved German speaking clergy, and then proceeds to discuss a council which happened to be held in Vienna. It's not describing "events in Poland", it's describing events in Europe. The connection to the topic of this article is clearly tenuous.  And you didn't answer the question. Was the clause specific to Poland? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also ... weird, to put it mildly, to claim that the Fourth Council of the Lateran (held in Rome) somehow constituted a "particular antisemitic act in Poland that sent the Jews of Poland into ghettos". Scratch that. It's not just weird. It's just plain wrong and loopy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1266 - Jews in Poland - were sent into ghettos. Both sources are crystal clear on this (and it is trivial to find additional sources here). Both are clearly cited and online - Competence is required. These events, in Poland, were indeed related to wider antisemitic actions by the Catholic church during the period (which we cover in other articles) - that there was racism elsewhere outside of Poland - does not mean we'll exclude the same racism inside of Poland. Your line of arguement here - is akin to removing slavery from Racism in the United States as it was part of a wider Atlantic slave trade (which involved black slaves throughout the New world). Placing Jews in ghettos, in Poland, is clearly on-topic in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously insisting that the Fourth Lateran Council constituted a "particular antisemitic act in Poland that sent the Jews of Poland into ghettos"????? The source under discussion says NOTHING like you claim. There's no "crystal clear" here. You can use that phrase for rhetorical effect all you want, but at the end of the day, it's just you who made it up. Stop misrepresenting sources. And if it is indeed "trivial to find additional sources here" then... let's see them. I really really really doubt that there's ANY source which attributes the decisions made in the 4th Lateran Council to "particular antisemitic act in Poland" (sic). Because that would be ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (For sake of completeness, the Robert D. King source, not just the Malcolm Hay source, does not say anything like Icewhiz claims either. This is pretty egregious for Icewhiz to insist on)Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1266 synod of Breslau implemented antisemitic church policy (specifically - the prior 1215 Lateran council) - in Poland. More sources - The Ghetto, Beyond Patriarchy: Jewish Fathers and Families. Covering the segregation of Jew,s in Poland, over hundreds of years is a rather central issue here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first source (aside from the fact that it's from a non-historian who's got some ahistorical nonsense in there and was published in 19TWENTY8) does NOT say "In 1266 - Jews in Poland - were sent into ghettos." Indeed it refers to the 15th century, and it's speaking about Europe in general. Your second source does not say it either (and it also refers to the 15th century).
 * None of the sources are "crystal clear" about what you claim they are. In fact, none of them actually say what you claim they say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above might be suitable in article about antisemtism in Poland, but has little to do with racism.I think the content and content has gone way offtopic for this article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you support renaming the article "Prejudice in Poland", or starting "Antisemitism in Poland"? François Robere (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought about such article but I had a brief look and it seems that there isn't an article about Antisemitism in Germany, but rather redirect to History of Jews in Germany.It would be very weird to have one about Poland but not a German one.We should rather transfer information to History of Jews in Poland where it isn't supported by sources that it was connected to racism.Certainly writing about religious disputes in 13th century would be very far fetched to claim it was based on racial theory.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is one for Germany, as there are for most other European countries (see here). François Robere (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Focus on Racism in Poland
Editors should remember that this page is about Racism not Anti-semitism. Racial antisemitism and religious antisemitism are both articles on Wikipedia. A lot of stuff being added is about religious anti-semitism --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you support renaming the article "Prejudice in Poland", or starting "Antisemitism in Poland"? François Robere (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly a novel arguement for exclusing antisemitism (and anti-Muslim, as well as possibly additional content) - much of modern antisemitism in Poland is based on religion. I agree with FR that retitling this article to cover Prejudice in Poland would be a straightforward solution - however it seems to me from coverage as well as other "Racism in X" articles that religious hate is covered jointly with race based hate - e.g. Racism in the United Kingdom.Icewhiz (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about the general question of whether this falls within scope, but your quote is completely irrelevant and doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. Why are you posting it here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually source assertions - for instance my assertion above that modern antisemitism is "one of the informal tenets of religiosity in current Poland". As for the claim that antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other hate should be in a "racism in X" article if the haters base their hate on religious grounds.... Well - that's really quite a novel argument that isn't aligned with projects norms in other articles on this topic nor with how "racism in X" is covered externally. Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, oooooookay, if you say so. The point is that your "assertion" as well as your quote is irrelevant to the question being raised. It's just another gratuitous "look! The Poles are anti-semites!" indulgence of some sort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA please. As the assertion at the top of this section is that Polish antisemitism, as covered in RSes, doesn't belong in this article if religiously motivated then it bears mentioning that RSes on Polish antisemitism ascribe this to religiosity in modern Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Racism in Poland started during the times of partitions. When it first appeared in Poland, it was used against ethnic Poles. Therefore, this is a really important thing. Are we talking about racism in Poland, or racism of Poles against minorities??? 81.190.44.233 (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Plus, the article already mention discrimination against Jews as early as the 13th-16th centuries. François Robere (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Religious or racial discrimination? I believe it is very far fetched to claim discrimination was based on racial theories, rather than religious beliefs on 13th century.The article here is about racism after all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this is part of the existing content and you can't ignore it if you're trying to sort the article. François Robere (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the stuff about general Catholic church anti-semitism in the 13th century Europe, def does not belong here, especially since the content is Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Jews were always a race and a religion apart.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In the mid-20th century, notable incidents of antisemitism in Poland included Jedwabne pogrom of 1941
I would have thought the notable incident would be German Holocaust in which millions died, but the article states only Jedwabne was notable... Really? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * German...Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a notable incident of antisemitic actions by Polish citizens - coupled with some 20 other sites at the same time. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about Poland, which during German occupation was site of German made Holocaust, certainly more significant than Jedwabne alone.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a whole article on the The Holocaust in Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

False edit summary, false claims of consensus
. There's obviously no consensus for this version as this talk page evidences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Some users make their own edits filled with personal claims and WP:POINT, but at the same time give no arguments in the talk sections.
 * Their actions is nothing but WP:Edit warring and can result in their accounts being blocked. 217.172.255.175 (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously, there is no consensus for this version, and there is no consensus for my suggestion in the previous thread. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Scope of this page
I think this page should be about racism in the currently existing Polish state only, i.e. after the demise of the previous Polish People's Republic. This would be exactly as for page Racism in Russia, for example. Indeed, we need to describe this for specific countries. Moreover, it would be wrong to describe the crimes committed by Nazi at the occupied Polish (or Soviet) territories at these pages. Those crimes belong to pages like Holocaust in Poland. To save some time, I would suggest to vote.My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose since WP:OSE isn't an argument and the prevailing criteria here is that if it's covered by reliable sources, we should too (WP:NPOV). I can just as easily find (better?) articles about other countries, ex. Racism in the United States, which do talk about racism throughout important historical periods. If there are WP:RS which cover racism in periods other than modern Poland, then we cannot just hand-wave them away - that would be denial. Whether some of the content could be covered with more depth an article about antisemitism in Poland is an open question - however, antisemitism is "generally considered to be a form of racism" and the 'simple' solution here would be to have a short summary with a link (using ) to that article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "other stuff". Each human rights article "by the country" must indeed correspond to specific country. Russia is only a similar example. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To address your point: I don't think we can say that simply because a country's government or borders change that then it becomes a completely "different" country (as far as I see, this is Poland, this is Poland, etc...) - and that conclusion is not ours to make, anyway; as we must follow WP:RS (and in this case, history books do talk about the history of "Poland"...) - which brings back to what I said in the beginning: the criteria here is not whether there are similar articles, but rather "is it covered by WP:RS?" As I said, some of the content is probably better covered in more specific articles (ex. antisemitism, Holocaust, ...), but we must still follow guidelines of Summary_style and cover it appropriately and neutrally (without ignoring it) here too, if it is described as racism by RS. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude WWII, include other Polish periods. I don't think we should have a Racism in the Second Polish Republic. And modern Polish racism is intertwined with the second republic. The same is true of other Polish periods. You can't understand modern issues regarding racism in Poland without the historic role of the church and subsequently nationalist elements in the topic - and I don't think we should have separate articles for each period. I do agree that this page shouldn't be a copy of Holocaust in Poland (and sub-pages thereof) - most of the Holocaust (excluding the Polish role) was German imposed - an external actor that moved into Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that wartime foreign actors belong in other articles; but what about wartime native actors? If the pre-war and post-war periods form a historical continuum with regards to the development of native (or domestic) racism, surely the wartime period is part of that continuum as well. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is relevant. And I could see this having a short mention (e.g. Jedwabne and the other pogroms at the beginning of the German invasion in 1941 - were a native event - enabled by the chaos of the invasion), but I think it would be prudent for this article to devote most of its space to pre-war and post-war. If I look at literature on racism in Poland - yes - sure - it covers also the extreme events of the war, and also mentions those events as relevant to post-war phenomena - however most of the content is usually devoted to non-WWII. Wartime collaboration and killings are often explained in terms of racist sentiment in Poland - but they aren't the primary topic of literature on racism. Holocaust and WWII histories are usually distinct - as the major actors are different. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the Holocaust (excluding the Polish role) was German imposed That's pretty POV that you emphasize Polish role in this, while ignoring that Ukrainian collaboration played far bigger role and Jewish collaborators also contributed to this atrocity.
 * Most sources about racism in Poland focus on WW2 and the Nazi racial policies that were enacted primarily towards genocide of Poles and Jews, we need to describe both of course.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC) most of the Holocaust (excluding the Polish role) was German imposed - an external actor that moved into Poland The title of the article is Racism in Poland, not Racism by Poles, which your above comments steer the article into.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude anything that is not backed up by sources to be racially motivated. At the moment there is too much Original Research which leads to bizarre claims that 13th century Poland was engaging in racist politics, centurie before racial thought existed. Other articles on racism usually start from Modern era.Claiming that racism was motivator of 13-16th century Poland is a serious case of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record the above is Oppose--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The suggestion would confuse average readers. Anything RS deems to be "Poland" should be included here, including WWII (the title is 'Racism in Poland', not just 'Racism by Poles'). Malick78 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude wartime acts by foreign actors; mention those by domestic actors under a main; include everything else. See rationale above. I'd agree to a temporary limit on article scope excluding wartime events entirely (or mentioning them in a single sentence under a main) until the rest of the article is stabilized. François Robere (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Not going to discuss any other ideas. It seems to me this will solve as lot of the issues, and we do do this for other nations that have had a transitory existence.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is about Racism in Poland not Racism of Poles against minorities in Poland. I see some people here strongly wish it would look like that second option. The article "Racism in Poland" must cover ALL the history, it's not just the "modern-day" racism, but also historical racism, which started in the times of Partitions of Poland when the invaders seen ethnically Polish people as second-class citizens with no rights. That anti-Polish racism gained its peak during the World War II, during which ethnic Poles (along with Jews and Gypsies) were classified as "subhumans" by the Nazi German regime. 217.172.255.157 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not the weight given by sources. Furthermore while the powers that carved up Poland were opposed to Polish nationalism this was mostly not based on racism - e.g. the Prussians attempt to Germanize Polish speaking citizens by promoting the German language and fostering a German identity.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reminder of the discussion in Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Input from the broader community is useful; we may wish to WP:RfC this discussion. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - while we're discussing scope, it's worth noting that the subject of this article is Racism IN Poland, not Racism BY Poles. Please stop removing pertinent information. On the same note, it's kind of ... revealing that some editors keep "blowing up" certain images to ridiculous size just to emphasize their WP:POINT and WP:AGENDA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically, what exactly is "default pic size"? There's no "default" here, it's rather "missing parameter". Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I note that Malick78 has already made the same point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@User:Icewhiz - Will you deny, that Poles were treated as second-class citizens based on their Polish ethnicity? If you deny that, then present sources of your knowledge. And STOP accusing me of non-constructive edits in private messages, as the one who tries to prove a WP:POINT is you! Your edits are non-constructive, misleading the reader, and most certainly biased. 217.172.255.175 (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would agree with Icewhiz about excluding at least WWII, but we need consensus to do that. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Trying to get a compromise going: a) Would you (MVBW) agree to including pre-war history? b) Would you accept a one-paragraph summary section (100-120 words) on wartime history, under a main? This should be enough for a couple of general statements and several specific events. François Robere (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO - beginning with the recognized National Independence Day (Poland) in 1918 (so - all of modern Poland - 2nd, 3rd, and (alleged) 4th - but not medieval Poland, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, nor formerly Polish regions during the partitions - this overlaps the Polish legal notion of state continuity) excluding WWII (mostly external non-Polish actors + covered extensively in dedicated articles) is a clear delineation. WWII can be mentioned briefly as FR suggests, as can historic prejudice (pre-1918) as background only to modern (post-1918) prejudice - which would be brief. Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree with this or any other reasonable compromise you and others would be able to achieve here. But looking at the comments, I simply do not see a consensus for anything. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Racism against Poles in Poland is well sourced by scholarly publications to Prussian rule over Poland, and racialy motivated genocide carried out by Nazi Germany against Poles and Jews in Poland during WW2 is incredibly important subject.Poland never ceased to exist as a state during WW2, it was merely occupied and this is the position of legal notion of state continuity in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would disagree with such approach. That would be like dumping in the same page all materials on whatever subject that occur in modern Russia, Soviet Union and Imperial Russia. But I am in minority here, so whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the proposal is fundamentally sound: readers will expect to see a discussion of current racism in Poland. There is merit in including historical elements as a secondary focus, but WWII needs careful handling for obvious reasons and woudld need sources documenting that any racism is inherent or dispositional and not expedient. In toher words, if there's long-term evidence of antisemitism it oculd be framed as extending into some 1930s events, but if antisemitism is not shown to be a long-running thread in Poland, then, not. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes, one can make a case that antisemitism is a long-running historical thread in many countries, such as Poland or Russia... My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
François Robere (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Article to address racism in modern Poland, starting with the Second Polish Republic in its generally recognized borders.
 * 2) Territorial grabs, whether in or by Poland, to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
 * 3) WWII-era Poland to be omitted from the article, but for a summary paragraph with a redirection template (main or see also) to World War II in Poland, The Holocaust in Poland and other relevant articles. I propose something along these lines: "The invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany resulted in a wide-scale breakdown of social order. Germany's campaign to eradicate Poland's minorities and intelligentsia resulted in the eruption of ethnic tensions that have lingered in Polish society for centuries; this lead to cross-ethnic violence, massacres and pogroms. Jews and Romani, the main (or first, or both -FR.) ethnicities targeted by the Nazis, were particularly vulnerable to such acts, and often found themselves both hunted by the Germans, and rejected by their countrymen." This can be followed by a few examples.
 * 4) All of this will be anchored in an RfC to prevent further confrontation.
 * An RfC might well be prudent. I'll note that Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) (Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II) is an interesting pickle here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Racism in Poland dates back to 18th century and 19th century when Poles were victims of racist stereotypes under Prussian and later German rule, the proposal also ignores the racist treatment of Poles by Nazi German and genocide of ethnic Poles carried out by Nazis.All history research on Poland notes racist policies of Nazis towards Poles and this needs to be important part of the article. I also note that historic restrictions and exclusions of WW2 was already rejected by users above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see my suggestion had no support. That's fine. And I am not saying that your arguments are unreasonable. I simply think about the most logical separation of different subjects and pages. For example, I think it would not be appropriate to include, for example, the Pale of Settlement to page Racism in Russia because it is about the modern state of Russia, not Imperial Russia. I thought same logic should apply to Poland. But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest splitting that content to History of racism in Poland. François Robere (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article has enough space to cover this at the time, and we shouldn't remove any information under pretext of non-existing article,and even if such article would be created historical background would be necessary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Molobo's changes
François Robere (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Changing the ordering: two rationales have already been presented for an alternative order. I don't mind too much either way, but you should've discussed it here before making changes.
 * 2) The suffering of Poles at German hands during WWII is undeniable, but the suggestion that Poles were systematically exterminated like Romani, Jews, homosexuals, and political and cultural dissenters is simply not true. What's more, sources that are cited to support it don't actually do so (I suggest reading more of Gellately than what was quoted here - you'll see it's not that simple). We've previously had this discussion regarding this section, and ended up with a concise, accurate and nuanced explanation; I tried to do the same here, but obviously it's not enough for some editors, anonymous and otherwise.
 * 3) I'm not sure what's the point of these  additions in the context of these (,,  and Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) discussions.
 * 4) Why are you quoting from a bibliographical list? And why, if you're at it, not quote the next one in the list, that "discusses articles... in Piast, Polska Ludowa and Wyzwolenie... [dealing] with the necessity of keepign land in Polish hands... the responsibility of the Jews for alcoholism... [and] the belief that the Jews were not honest in trade"? That looks very relevant to this article.
 * The ordering is out of line with mainstream coverage of the topic. Furthermore, the edit mixes oppression that was not based on racial lines (e.g. Germanization - or assimilating Poles into German society - is not a racist concept, nor is political suppression of dissidents) with those that were. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I should note that, in response to other editors' efforts to get antisemitism and similar forms of prejudice excluded from this article on semantic grounds, I repeatedly asked two questions: First, if the material is not on-topic here, would the editor agree to renaming this article, or to move the material to an article of its own? My queries were mostly ignored, suggesting the prime motivation behind these proposals was to censor articles, not to reorganize them. Second (and more pertinent to your note), seeing how some editors suddenly became unusually rigorous regarding semantics, I asked whether sources support the assertion that early German 'anti-Polonism' was motivated by racism, rather than eg. nationalism or cultural prejudice. No sources were provided, suggesting that in the very least the three forms of prejudice stand on equal footing as far as this article is concerned. François Robere (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone asking to remove antisemitism from article-as long as it fits the topic.Racist based antisemitsm should stay, however claims that 13th century religious disputes were racist seem OR unless someone provides sources.
 * As to Germans motivated by racism towards Poles, multiple sources have been provided already, you need to check the article.
 * The structure was stable, if you want to change the order, you need to seek consensus first. Also nobody is using the source you quote above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone asking to remove antisemitism from article At least three editors seem to have suggested it, including yourself: "editors should remember that this page is about Racism not Anti-semitism". And yes, I realize that's not necessarily what you meant.
 * unless someone provides sources I've provided just such a source in the NPOVN discussion.
 * you need to check the article I've already checked the article and didn't find them convincing, that's why I'm asking you here.
 * The structure was stable Since when?
 * Also nobody is using the source you quote above Which? François Robere (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already checked the article and didn't find them convincing, You claimed they weren't provided. I am glad you changed your mind.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked here, and they weren't provided here. As for your new sources: I've reviewed all of them. Two notes before I tell you what I find: First, can you please start formatting your citations properly? It gives the impression that you're in a hurry and doesn't make it any easier following up on your work. Second, this is a difficult, charged and nuanced subject; we need to be sensitive, precise and rigorous, and use only the best-established sources. That's how I'm trying to handle it, and I hope others do too. The sources:
 * Genocide: The Systematic Killing of a People (ISBN 9780766033580) : One of the few books that supports your claim, but I'm not actually sure who the writer is. She seems to be a prolific writer of popular books on a variety of subjects, with relatively few citations. That's not the sort of source I would use here.
 * Trial report of Ulrich Freifelt : Early post-war source, so WP:PRIMARY.
 * Genocide, Ethnonationalism, and the United Nations. Exploring the Causes of Mass Killing Since 1945 (ISBN 9780203116210) : Can't access this. Quote?
 * : Quote doesn't support your assertion
 * : Quote doesn't support your assertion.
 * Polish-German Relations: The Miracle of Reconciliation (ISBN 9783847402909) : States what is quoted. Also states that the genocide was directed "mostly, but not exclusively, against Jews."
 * The Holocaust as Colonial Genocide: Hitler's 'Indian Wars' in the 'Wild East'" (ISBN 9781137391698) : States what is quoted. Elaborates on the Nazi perception of Jews, and states that Jews and Roma were the Nazis' "main" targets
 * : Quote doesn't support your assertion.
 * The Concept of Genocide in the Trials of Nazi Criminals before the Polish Supreme National Tribunal (in ISBN 9788293081135) : A passing note in a chapter intro of a legal treatise on post-War jurisprudence? WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE...
 * So it's basically just two sources that actually support your assertion, or parts of it. One final note: some editors have been promoting an exclusionary narrative that places Polish suffering above everyone else's, and uses it to justify Poles' treatment of minorities during, and after the war. Your edit suggests the same tendency - placing the Polish "genocide" ahead of the Holocaust and Porajmos, despite the fact that virtually all sources agree the latter were the Nazis' primary targets, and that the Jews became nearly extinct. I again suggest reverting to my own phrasing, which is both inclusive, carefully worded, and well-supported by sources. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to be more precise about why you think source doesn't support rather well known fact that Nazi Germany did want o exterminate Poles, Jews and Roma. All of the sources you named do support this information.Some of the sources you named as Primary or Undue are neither.Also you are right that groups facing extinction from Nazi Germany like Poles, Jews and Roma faced it in different timeframe(IIRC in case of Jews it was planned within 5 years, in case of Poles in 15 years), however as mentioned before the article is about racism in Poland, and as Poles are the main and largest ethnic group affected by racist treatment, it is natural that they are covered first.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please indent your comments properly, Molobo.
 * At the core of the problem is your mixing the idea that the Nazis wanted to eradicate the Poles, which is generally supported by sources, with the idea that they had already started, which isn't. Here appear all the little nuances that we can argue about, but the bottom line stays the same.
 * Am I reading your "timeframe" comment correctly as agreeing with this? If so, I again suggest my formulation from before; if not, I ask that you explain which sources specifically am I getting wrong. François Robere (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

At the core of the problem is your mixing the idea that the Nazis wanted to eradicate the Poles, which is generally supported by sources, with the idea that they had already started, which isn't.  And you are absolutely wrong, since Nuremberg Trials declared Germans guilty of crime of genocide against Polish people, and the father of genocide theory Raphael Lemkin also stated that Poles were victims of German genocide. "The methods applied by the Nazis in Poland and other occupied territories, including once more Alsace and Lorraine, were of a similar nature with the sole difference that they were more ruthless and wider in scope than in 1914-1918. In this connection the policy of “ Germanizing ” the populations concerned, as shown by the evidence in the trial under review, consisted partly in forcibly denationalising given classes or groups of the local population, such as Poles, Alsace-Lorrainers, Slovenes and others eligible for Germanization under the German People’s List. As a result in these cases the programme of genocide was being achieved through acts which, in themselves, constitute war crimes." In Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes (i.e., war crimes and crimes against humanity) were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonisation by Germans.”Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals ; London, H.M. Stationery Office, 1946, p. 52. You also are completely in error on what genocide is, as it isn't necessary for total destruction of the other nation for this crime to happen, and it includes things like kidnapping of children(which Germany carried out on Polish children) ''The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948[4] and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which has been incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'' --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The trials' transcripts are WP:PRIMARY.
 * Lemkin isn't cited in the article. Do you have a particular suggestion in mind?
 * it isn't necessary for total destruction of the other nation for this crime to happen I haven't made that statement.
 * What are you quoting here, exactly?
 * Both of these edits are about Prussia, not Poland. Why are they relevant here? Note the first one may also be violating WP:COPYEDIT.
 * I notice you haven't trimmed any of the other sources we previously reviewed, bringing the total number of sources under a particular statement in the lead to 12. I've tagged the sources - please review. François Robere (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be specific on which sources that mention genocide of Poles you disagree with, and name the reasons why, thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No-no. I've been specific throughout this discussion, while you've been evasive.
 * I've already listed all of the sources that do not support your claims above.
 * I asked for a quote from Genocide, Ethnonationalism, and the United Nations. You did not provide any.
 * I asked what you were quoting in "any of the following acts" etc. You did not reply.
 * I cited WP:PRIMARY for early sources, including trial transcripts. You claimed I'm wrong, but didn't cite any policy to back that claim. Then you added two more such sources (a trial verdict and Lemkin's book, which dates to 1944).
 * I asked how your sources on Prussia are relevant here - you didn't answer.
 * François Robere (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Again please point out specifically what you find wrong in the sources. ::# I've already listed all of the sources that do not support your claims above. All the sources support information that Nazi Germany engaged in genocide of Poles and Jews.
 * I asked for a quote from Genocide, Ethnonationalism, and the United Nations. You did not provide any.

Quote can be provided if you insist, however we have enough sources already.
 * I asked what you were quoting in "any of the following acts" etc. You did not reply.

What quotes do you refer to?
 * I cited WP:PRIMARY for early sources, including trial transcripts

I am not using Primary sources and in any case, read he policy, primary sources can be used anyway.
 * Then you added two more such sources (a trial verdict and Lemkin's book, which dates to 1944).

You are wrong. I am not using trial transcripts and Lemkins book is republished from 2012.It is perfectly valid.'
 * I asked how your sources on Prussia are relevant here - you didn't answer.

Prussia was a region in Poland and later took control over Poland.I am sorry that I didn't realize you didn't knew that, it is fairly entry level historical information so I assumed you knew this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

François Robere (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Genocide: The Systematic Killing of a People (ISBN 9780766033580) : One of the few books that supports your claim, but I'm not actually sure who the writer is. She seems to be a prolific writer of popular books on a variety of subjects, with relatively few citations. That's not the sort of source I would use here.
 * 2) Trial report of Ulrich Freifelt : Early post-war source, so WP:PRIMARY.
 * 3) Genocide, Ethnonationalism, and the United Nations. Exploring the Causes of Mass Killing Since 1945 (ISBN 9780203116210) : Can't access this. Quote?
 * 4) : Quote doesn't support your assertion
 * 5) : Quote doesn't support your assertion.
 * 6) Polish-German Relations: The Miracle of Reconciliation (ISBN 9783847402909) : States what is quoted. Also states that the genocide was directed "mostly, but not exclusively, against Jews."
 * 7) The Holocaust as Colonial Genocide: Hitler's 'Indian Wars' in the 'Wild East'" (ISBN 9781137391698) : States what is quoted. Elaborates on the on the Nazi perception of Jews, and states that Jews and Roma were the Nazis' "main" targets
 * 8) : Quote doesn't support your assertion.
 * 9) The Concept of Genocide in the Trials of Nazi Criminals before the Polish Supreme National Tribunal (in ISBN 9788293081135) : A passing note in a chapter intro of a legal treatise on post-War jurisprudence? WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE...
 * 10) All other trial transcripts are also WP:PRIMARY.
 * 11) Lemkin's book is from 1944. I can republished the Bible tomorrow - it's still a 2000 years old book.
 * 12) Two more sources talk about Poles in Prussia, "a historically prominent German state". Has nothing to do with this article.
 * 13) Quote can be provided if you insist Well?
 * 14) What quotes do you refer to? There's only one giant gray block in this thread that starts with "any of the following acts", has no reference attached, and precedes my comment where I ask for a citation for the quote starting with "any of the following acts".
 * 15) Molobo, you've been active on Wikipedia for more than a decade, so you shouldn't need me to tell you that Policy prefers secondary sources where they are available, or that PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used for matters of historical interpretation like this one. Nor should I need to ask you more than once to indent your comments like everyone else does.

I am glad that at you acknowledge that sources support the rather obvious fact that Nazis comitted genocide against Poles and Jews(seriously we shouldn't be even debating this).Sorry didn't see you numbered your response in the edit, I will respond to your questions soon--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)  matters of historical interpretation like this one I am quite positive that Nazi genocide is not subject to historical interpretation, but this is what you are claiming, it's your choice. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't see any other objections besides your personal preferences in regards to what you would use are noted,this so I am not sure what more could be said.Of course since other more "heavy weight" sources exist we could always trim if necessary.
 * 2.Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals.These fifteen volumes of cases represent some of the more high-profile cases handled by the UNWCC, and deal with a wide range of important cases. Unlike the vast majority of the UNWCC’s caseload, these cases have widely disseminated and well-known throughout the international legal community, and have provided significant legal precedents for a significant number of subsequent cases. This is used to simply state what was declared and I don't see any claim or source that this is wrong, what seems to be the problem here?
 * 3.The genocidal policies are described on two pages plus their legal interpretation, it is far too large segment to quote.But I will quote snippets as soon as I have more time.
 * 4.Quote confirms that Hitler wanted to genocide Slavs(of which Poles are part)As a matter of fact, Hitler wanted to commit Genocide against the Slavic peoples, in order to colonize the East".I have however moved the quote and source to more appropriate article and it is no longer in the article.
 * 5.the eradication of Polish culture foresaw the extermination of the Poles as a nation. Some 2 million men and women were deported to the Reich to work in German agriculture and industry", while the rest suffered starvation"' Quote confirms Nazi genocide against Poles.
 * 6.Thank you for accepting that genocide of Poles by Nazi Germany is well sourced.
 * 7.Again thank you for accepting that genocide of Poles by Nazi Germany is well sourced.
 * 8.murder of millions of Polish Christians and the near-total extermination of Polish Jewry, as part of the declared Nazi intention to 'erase' the Polish nation, state and culture Again quote confirms genocide of Poles took place.Of course nobody denies that Jews faced more intense measures than Poles, and I inserted this to the text myself as well.
 * 9.This is a valid source dealing with genocide in legal aspects. I see absolutely no argument to claim it is primary or undue.

''Lemkin's book is from 1944. I can republished the Bible tomorrow - it's still a 2000 years old book.'' Unlike Bible, Lemkin's book is a scholarly analysis of genocide and he is a valued scholar. I can certainly bring this to WP:RS ''Two more sources talk about Poles in Prussia, "a historically prominent German state". Has nothing to do with this article'' Royal Prussia was part of Poland and sources deal with emerging racism of German writers in this region. While Prussia was majority German, it also took temporarily control over Poland and Poles(for a time second biggest nationality) suffered racist treatment under its rule and later under German Empire in Polish territories. In regards to some of your comments
 * 1) Are you challeging the ruling during Nuremberg Trials that classified treatment of Poles and Jews as genocide?
 * 2) You already confirmed above that sources confirm genocide of Poles by Nazi Germany-why do you continue to oppose inclusion of this sourced information. Sure we can trim sources, or move them to main body of the text, however I am perplexed why this simple historic fact has raise such intense opposition towards inclusion. Please could you explain reasons for this using scholarly sources, rather than personal views?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And all I needed to do to get an answer from you was to DM an admin.
 * Ah... WP:NOTABILITY? WP:RELIABILITY? She's not a scholar.
 * Yeah, but it's still a "historical document" and therefore WP:PRIMARY. And it's not enough here.
 * I've accessed the book. p. 80 mentions the Nuremberg trials, but doesn't explicitly state what you claim.
 * It confirms intent, which isn't what this disagreement is about.
 * Same. "Foresaw".
 * I didn't say it was "well sourced", I said that particular source supports it. But it's only cited once by tertiary sources, so there's a notability issue.
 * See above.
 * Again, it's about intent.
 * But we're not dealing with legal aspects, we're dealing with historical analysis. Ideally you'd have more than a passing note in a chapter intro dealing with it.
 * Lemkin... is a valued scholar Lemkin passed away exactly 60 years ago. He was a world-class scholar, but this book of his is still dated.
 * No, I'm saying historical trial transcripts are not WP:SECONDARY, which is what Policy states we should be looking for. Seventy years after the fact, you ought to have a lot of those around.
 * No, I didn't. In this entire thread you only gave two recent, secondary RS supporting that assertion, one of which has a notability issue. All of the other sources are about intent, which we both agree on and has been included in my revisions as well.
 * Following the discussion on WP:NPOVN, I suggest you indeed trim your 14-15 sources and only keep the best 2-3, which we can then further discuss (or possibly attribute). François Robere (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, are you going to trim down to 2-3 sources, or should I do it for you? François Robere (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion on WP:NPOVN, it was suggested that such sourcing could be used when somebody is POV pushing against an established fact as well.I suggest we keep ten to ward off any potential attempts to deny genocide Nazi Germany carried out.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No... It was said that such a situation can arise if someone is pushing a POV. What was suggested is that I Ask for the single best source, and if it doesn't satisfy WP:V for our text, then there's a problem. At that point, indeed, your sources did not satisfy WP:VERIFY. And so I asked you to trim those that do not, so as to reach a reasonable 2-3 good citations. François Robere (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If he trims down the # of citations are you going to stop trying to remove the info?  Volunteer Marek   22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Marek, if you want to make deals on cleaning up a WP:REFBOMB this isn't the place. Proper layout and style are in everyone's interest. François Robere (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you create another thread, if you did not answer me in the thread Talk:Racism_in_Poland? I'm still waiting for your answer there. You want consensus? Then answer me there. I see you focus only on User:MyMoloboaccount while there are a few other users, including myself, who strongly disagree with your ideas. You used to escape from my argumentation in the section Order of racism occurrence and ethnic groups, and when you eventually felt that you're against the wall, having no more arguments and absolutely no sources to support your WP:POINT, you just created a new section and now trying to start the previous conversation all over again, but this time with omitting some issues that you found inconvenient. I consider this an obsession. 81.190.44.21 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not playing this game, Anonymous. I've asked you for sources several times and you haven't provided them, and then tried to present it as if it's the other way around. Start by basing your argument on sources, then we'll talk. Also, I again suggest opening an account if you intend on editing here regularly. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The one who avoids giving reliable sources is you my friend. Maybe I will repeat what I've told you before, because you're constantly trying to escape from it:

Think logically, it is you who has to provide sources, as Wikipedia requires sources to any information that is being presented. I claim that racism was unpresent in the early ages, so I don't need to give sources because if it was unpresent, then no sources about it exist. You, on the other hand, claim that racism (to be more concrete - antisemitism) was present in Poland since 13th century, and if you claim it was present, than it's you who needs to prove it to us, because if it was present, then the sources must be present too. If you can't do it, than all you do is trying to prove a WP:POINT which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. We're waiting for your sources then. And stop changing the article without a reason. 81.190.44.21 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of sources - both on WWII (which I agree with the MVBW below should be excluded) - and on other periods - covering racism in Poland - do not cover ethnic Catholic Poles - or cover ethnic Catholic Poles only after other groups. Poland isn't exceptional in this regard - in most countries the ingroup is the driver of racism towards various outgroups - e.g. see ordering and emphasis in Racism in Russia and Racism in the United Kingdom (neither of which cover Russian or English people!). In Racism in France there is a small section on "Racism against white people" which mainly covers its use as a claim in the far-right.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop running away from my questions. Give us sources that antisemitism was present in Poland since 13th century. Stop comparing Poland to the United Kingdom or similar imperialist countries! Poland was invaded multiple times in its history, and during random periods Polish people were treated as "second-class" citizens. Especially during the Partitions of Poland in the 18th century, as well as during the German-Nazi occupation of Poland in the 20th century. Polish people were called subhumans. Doesn't it qualify as racism? Did other European nations experience such thing in their own countries? You said Poland isn't exceptional - you should learn history man. No other European nation was the victim of such harsh racist prejudice in its own occupied country, only the Poles. Poland is exceptional in this case, and if you did not know this, your knowledge of Polish history is unfortunately quite poor. But I understand that in the western countries you don't hear nothing about Polish history, actually, you don't have to know, while the only history connected with Poland that the western youth is learning about on the history lessons is a brief and uncomplete story of the Holocaust, which usually is presented as something aimed only at Jews.

Edit: I see User:GummiBear139 has deleted my answer:. Why do you want to censor my input? Your action is nothing but breaking the rules of Wikipedia! 89.231.49.35 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello this is GummiBear139. I need to clear things up. It was a mistake. I sometimes accidentally delete things I shouldn’t. I am sorry. I promise I won’t delete it again talk 22:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:GummiBear139 It's OK, I understand, don't worry. 89.231.49.35 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities
I asked about the lack of statistics on this page. He told me that the page should link to Ethnic minorities in Poland. But if I add a link to the first occurrence, it leads to a direct contradiction.

In the lede it says:

I'm not sure that I'm reading current statistics in quite the same way. Looking at the data from 2002 & 2011, this claim seems misleading. Shouldn't this article contain current statistics?

Without objection, I will change this to:

Anything more recent? 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 22:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd just say that from the founding is better than from 17th century. And it is certainly correct to observe that today's Poland is the least multi-ethnic in the country's history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Order of racism occurrence and ethnic groups
The User:François Robere is constantly changing the original order of the groups that were the victims of racism in Poland. The order is based on chronology, as the first official occurrence of racism in Poland (not religious, but race-based discrimination) was during the age of partitions in 18th century. It does not matter that this racism was aimed at Poles themselves, as we are talking about racism in Poland, not racism of Poles against other groups.

As I see this French user is also engaged in many other topics concerning Poland, like Jan T. Gross. The user Francous Robere added some subjective anti-Polish claiming, that Poles killed more Jews than Germans, he placed it in the article as a possible fact:.

Therefore, User:François Robere, I want to discuss, what's your point in changing the original order of the groups, adding empty hyperlinks, and deleting sourced content in the article "Racism in Poland"? PS - User:Volunteer Marek - What do you think about this? 81.190.44.233 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't "the original order", it's something you did today. At the moment the earliest events this article covers are date to the 13th century; you want chronology? Put that at the top.
 * In the meanwhile, avoid referring to editors' nationalities, and if you're intent on editing seriously consider opening an account. François Robere (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please, refer to the racial prejudice, not religious and cultural prejudice. Polish people were never racially prejudiced to Jews in the early centuries. The only prejudice was cultural and possibly religious. Stop manipulating the facts. The first occurrence of racism in Poland was when Germans (Prussians), Austrians and Russians partitioned the country and treated Poles as second-class citizens. That's when it all started. 81.190.44.233 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Does any of the sources to which this claim is attributed makes a reference to "race" rather than eg. nationality or ethnicity? François Robere (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

During centuries Jews from all over Europe were flooding Poland. They were escaping from antisemitic France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Portugal, or Italy, and their aim was to live in Poland or Turkey, which were then seen as the most tolerant countries in Europe. In other countries Jews were persecuted and killed while in Poland at those times, Jews even obtained some special rights like the Statute of Kalisz. The situation didn't change for ages, as in the 17th and 18th century, Poland was considered a "Jewish heaven" - Paradisus Judaeorum, Jews even called Poland their "promised land". Now you claim, that Poland was racist against Jews in the early ages? Really? So why they would come to Poland on such a large scale, if it was such an antisemitism here as you say? At the times, when countries like England, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and France were trading black slaves and killing people to establish their colonies, Poland not only had nothing to do with black slavery, but also was the most tolerant country in the whole Europe and welcomed Jews during centuries. After the World War II in the 1940s when Germans killed millions of Jewish people in Poland, after the tragic times of the 1950s and 1960s when Jewish communists like Roman Romkowski, Józef Różański, Salomon Morel, Jakub Berman, Anatol Fejgin, or Julia Brystiger, persecuted and sentenced to death many Polish war heroes like Witold Pilecki, after the hard time of communist oppression and therefore the rise of Polish anti-Semitic attitudes, today the emotions dropped, and Poland is once again starting to be considered the most safe place for Jews in the whole Europe. 89.231.49.21 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM and this is off-topic. Can you answer the question, please? François Robere (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not offtopic, as I try to give you a clear view on the subject of antisemitism in Poland, as this is what interests you my friend and so I am trying to help you to understand it. Actually the answer to your question is inside my previous reply... But I will say it in other words: No, these sources provide no reliable evidence that there was any form of racial prejudice towards Jews present in Poland during the times when Jews flooded Poland while escaping from all across the antisemitic Europe. The term "racism" or "antisemitism" was something absolutely abstract to a Polish person back in the days, Poles never faught with nobody because of racial origin, but in later times there could be some cultural or religious tensions between Poles and Jews. It was never about racial background, but Jews on the other hand, in the early centuries would never let a non-Jewish Polish girl to marry a Jewish man, even if she would have an authentic will to convert to Judaism and embrace the Jewish culture - still the main obstacle was that her ethnicity is not Jewish, but Polish (and they claimed that in the Jewish family the mother of children must be of Jewish ethnicity, not Goyim - it's a pejorative term by the way)... then wouldn't you consider it as eugenics and racial prejudice against Polish people?... Answer it in your head my friend. However, the first time in Polish history when somebody actually became a "second-class" citizen in Poland because of ethnicity was during the partitions in the 18th century, when Poles became ethnically discriminated on their own land by the invaders. 89.231.49.21 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Right. Now, can you answer the question? Does any of the sources to which this claim is attributed makes a reference to "race" rather than eg. nationality or ethnicity? François Robere (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Read carefully what I say because I've answered you twice, or make your question more precise. 89.231.49.21 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So you don't have sources that you can cite here? François Robere (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The one who needs to provide sources is you, because as far as I remember, it's you who claim that racist attacks and attitudes were present in Poland since 13th century? By the way - why did you change the chronology without reaching the consensus? Why did you place the section "Ethnic Poles" as the last one after Roma and Black Africans, while it reaches 18th century? Where is the chronology then? 89.231.49.21 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We follow sources - most sources on racism in Poland cover racist actions by Poles against minorities. In the scope of WW2 - the German genocide of Jews and Roma is covered much more widely than their more limited actions against Poles. Given weight in sources, and given that racism against Poles in the past 100 years is mainly limited to WWII (and even then - after other groups) - Poles should appear last.Icewhiz (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In the scope of WW2 - the German genocide of Jews and Roma is covered much more widely than their more limited actions against Poles.


 * The German genocide of Poles is widely covered by numerous sources. Poles were the largest group targetted by racism in Poland and it is standard form that minorities are described after the main group in a country.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Then present them. And do remember we've had this discussion before. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You made the following positive claim: The first occurrence of racism in Poland was when Germans (Prussians), Austrians and Russians partitioned the country and treated Poles as second-class citizens. That's when it all started. I asked several times whether you have sources to support it. You haven't presented any. I'm unconvinced. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:Icewhiz - The article is about racism in Poland and you wish to make it look like racism of Poles against minorities in Poland. Stop it. I agree with User:MyMoloboaccount - the order of the persecuted groups should be not only based on chronology, but also on the size of the group that the victims were a part of. And without any doubt, the largest group in Poland that was the target of racism were ethnic Poles themselves. Might seem abstract to someone from a western world who never was racially persecuted by the invaders in his own occupied country.

@User talk:François Robere - Think logically, it is you who has to provide sources, as Wikipedia requires sources to any information that is being presented. I claim that racism was unpresent in the early ages, so I don't need to give sources because if it was unpresent, then no sources about it exist. You, on the other hand, claim that racism (to be more concrete - antisemitism) was present in Poland since 13th century, and if you claim it was present, than it's you who needs to prove it to us, because if it was present, then the sources must be present too. If you can't do it, than all you do is trying to prove a WP:POINT which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. We're waiting for your sources then. And stop changing the article without a reason. 89.231.49.93 (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As you can see from the above, this relatively recent change that you keep reverting to never gained consensus. Why do you insist on restoring it against others' objections? François Robere (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * An IP reverted the order again to put Ethnic Poles on top, presumably arguing they were the first group to experience racism (before the Tatars or the Mongols or...). Whatever eventually gets decided it would seem wise to explain why the story is being spun as it is in the text itself.  My personal thought is that given such  homogenous post-war demographics... there's a good 75-85 years of history that probably is more relevant than the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Mongol invasions? 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@User:François Robere - I'm still awaiting for your answer. @User:SashiRolls - Do you suggest that Tatars/Mongols were the first groups experiencing racism in Poland? If so, than present your sources. As far as I know, it were the Poles who were attacked by Tatars/Mongols first. Tatars were the invaders, Poles were their victims. Tatars were known for their brutality and numerous rapes on Polish women (many Poles today look a bit Asian, but are unconscious of their roots). Only those Tatars who later surendered and swore loyality to Poland, were accepted and later faught in the Polish army. Anyway, maybe defensive fights of Poles against the Tatars are counted as "racism", who knows. Any sources? If no, then stop reverting the content. 89.231.55.101 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop deleting reliably sourced census data. I recommend reading the passages I just updated from God's Playground (Oxford Press).  The second & third paragraph of the lede of this entry are shamefully bad.  Any ideas on improving them? Also, if you wish to have a "history of racism in Poland" subsection somewhere in the article that's fine, but the entry should probably begin by speaking about the situation in the last fifty years or so.🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the article Racism in the USA speaking about slavery somewhere down below? No. The historical background is always at the very beginning. It's not Polish people's fault, that the first noted ethnic discimination in Poland was against Poles. The historical racism in Poland must be at the very beginning of the article. First: because it's chronological order, second: because Poles were the largest group considering number of people, against whom racism in Poland was aimed. 89.231.54.144 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Throughout most of its history, Poland has experienced very limited immigration
It is a funny statement. Poland was a country of immigrants, the towns were dominated by non-Poles, some Polish kings were non-Poles, Batory didn't speak Polish. Especially German immigrants influenced Poland. WWII anti-Nazi commanders had German roots - Unrug, Anders. Many Poles have also Ruthenian roots. Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed as per your comment and the little history I've read. I admit I've personally known more Polish emigrants than immigrants. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 19:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that millions of poor peasants and Jews emigrated from the whole Eastern Europe in 19 and 20 century. But many qualified immigrants - soldiers, webers, teachers, Mennonites, Bambrzy arrived. Many Jewish refugees arrived after WWI.Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia is not racism!
Islamophobia is not racism. Islam is not a race. This section should be deleted. Disagree? Discuss. 81.190.44.233 (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you support renaming the article "Prejudice in Poland", or starting "Islamophobia in Poland"?

The name "Prejudice in Poland" would be the worst solution possible, it would make the article too huge, as all the people in the world can be prejudiced to anyone or anything, even to an earring in somebody's nose. Islamophobia in Poland is a separate concept, as Islam in a religion, not race, so you cannot call someone who hates Muslims a racist, as Islam is a religion, not ethnicity or racial group. There are Slavic Muslims called Bosniaks who are South-Eastern Europeans but of Muslim faith. There are even many white converts to Islam in the UK, so someone who is white and and hates Muslims, also hated them! Race has nothing to do with Islamophobia. 81.190.44.233 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@ User:François Robere - Why did you add islamophobia as racism, without reaching consensus? 89.231.49.21 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been in the article since May. Why did you remove it without reaching consensus? François Robere (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is widely seen as a form of racism.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Since May? It seems you posted it there. It is seen as a form of racism? What's the definition of racism then? Is a white man who hates a white Muslim a racist? Explain. 89.231.49.21 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Read these [], [], []. Its like when the Nazis railed against "Jewish science" or "Jewish art", they did not just target the Jews who "practiced" it, they target the culture as well (and anyone who practiced it, even if not Jewish). Its about attacking a non white culture, not just its adherents.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, targeting Jewish culture is obviously antisemitism. However, I would mostly agree with IP here. This is well described on our page Islamophobia and its Racism subsection. Obviously, a form of xenophobia and discrimination, this is an anti-religious sentiment. Yes, one can find sources arguing this should be viewed as racism, but they are in minority. For the same reason, the Crusades is a borderline info. I re-included it, but this is something debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

So is a Black Christian who hates all Muslims a racist? What "race" is he hating then? I'm so curious. 89.231.49.21 (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Possibly, it depends on what he hates, the religion or the dark skinned Turban wearers that hold it. Remember not all Muslims wear turbans, and not all people who wear turbans are Muslim, that does not stop them being labeled as Muslim (in terms of verbal abuse for example). It is a tad more complex then your questions suggest.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The truth is you are unable to defend your thesis, that's why your answer is ambigious and without any straighforward explanation. Islamophobia is not racism, islamophobia is hatred against islam and its believers, and that's it. You can officialy hate Islam but at the same time feel sympathy for people of color who are not Muslim. That's because Islam is a state of mind that some people consider dangerous, while the color of your skin is only your genes which do not affect your mind. Islamophobe hate those first, and a racist hates those second. You cannot call an islamophobe a racist because he might not even care about the person's race, all he hates is what he believes in. If he would care about the person's race, then he would be an islamophobe AND a racist, but those terms are separate! And don't compare islamophobia to antisemitism, because islamophobia is only about religion (Islam = religion), whereas anisemitism is mostly about ethnicity (Semitism = Semites = ethnicity). Antipolonism can be rather compared to antisemitism while you mention a tribe/ethnicity in the name of the "-ism". I personally knew some Black people prejudiced to Muslims because Muslims killed their families, I even knew an Arab girl who openly criticized Islam and insulted Muslims. Would you call such people racists? I don't think so. They are islamophobes, not racists. Now, if you want to label all Muslims as people of color, than you are a racist yourself. 89.231.49.21 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * its odd then how often Islamophobes target people who are not Muslim based upon their skin colour [], [ None of this is based upon their religion, so what is it based upon?.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, many Islamophobes are also racists, but it does not mean Islamophobia = racism (hence we have separate pages). My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that (as I have link to above) many say it is the same. It might be fairer to say Islamophobia is racism but not all Islamophobia are not racists. But then we can say that about white supremacists.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is well described here . Islamophobia rightly belongs to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment which in turn belongs to Category:Religious discrimination. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you support renaming the article "Prejudice in Poland", or starting "Religious intolerance in Poland"? François Robere (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are really obsessed. How about Nazi zombies in Poland? My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You claimed this does not belong in the article, so I'm asking what solution other than removal of sourced material would you support. Clearly we're not in the business of censorship, so you must have something in mind. François Robere (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Islamophobia in Poland. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh well thats different, as we have an article on this we really only need a see also here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - I created Islamophobia in Poland on 3 August 2019, splitting out from here (copying the content per WP:PRESERVE) after it was challenged. However, I have now re-added a short paragraph here as according to this journal article - - "As such, the eruption of Islamophobic attitudes in Poland can be understood as part of a continuous trajectory of Othering and its alignment with racism" - Islamophobia in Poland is connected to racism. I'll note that several other journal article tie Islamophobia in Poland to racism / othering / xenophobia / etc.  Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As RS have made the link I think a brief mention and a link to the main article is fair.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty islamophobes in Poland who at the same time are anti-racist and love Black people whose families were murdered by Muslims in Africa and they had to escape. So? Would you label these Poles as racists? If yes, then your philosophy is so "tunnel-vision", and I will explain you why: If some of you consider islamophobia as racism just because it was invented by Arabs (who are people of color, but at the same time they are Caucasians and collaborated with Hitler), then according to your way of thinking anti-Christian sentiment qualifies as antisemitism because Jews invented it! 81.190.44.21 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * many "talking heads" considered it a form of racism because it is often more about dress and skin colour then religion, as I pointed out people who are not Muslims are often targets. But I think this has run its course now, we are just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Then how would you call those Polish people who feel hatred towards Muslims only because the Islamic world collaborated with racists who the German Nazis most certainly were and their leader, one of the world's biggest racists, Adolf Hitler? Can someone who hates racists and their collaborators be called a racist? Tell me.............. The claim that islamophobia equals racism is irrational, of course there are some racists among islamophobes (racists can be in any kind of hate groups), but claiming that every islamophobe is a racist is like saying that every alcoholic is a wife-beater, or that every Muslim is a terrorist. Now what you say is deep generalization my friend and generalization is the seed from which prejudice sprouts. But what should I expect if some biased "talking heads" are the source of your knowledge. 81.190.44.21 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody wants to be called a racist and that's why islamophobes are so sensitive about the subject, but according to what reliable sources say islamophobia is a form of racism just as antisemtism is. // Liftarn (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Muslims are not a "race", but people who follow or practice Islam. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We're talking about racism, not "race", but if you want to go down that path the definition of "race" is "a group of people". // Liftarn (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fine with this article briefly mentioning Islamophobia as long as WP:DUE is observed. However, that is very obviously NOT a "definition of race". Otherwise, the employees of, say, Microsoft, would be "a race". Or the members of the Buffalo Bisons. Or the stamp collectors of the world. Or hell, "Wikipedians" would be a race by that definition. There's lots of "groups of people" which do not constitute a "race".  Volunteer Marek   06:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you on the other hand use the scientific definition of "race" there is only one human race so in that case nothing can be racism (at least among humans). Just staring at the etymology gives no understanding of the meanig of a word. Or would you argu that people who aren't atletes may not get athlete's foot or that people who aren't legionnaires can never get legionella? // Liftarn (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Xx236 (talk)
 * If you accept "a group of people", so this page is racist anti-Polish. Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain. // Liftarn (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that every islamophobe is a racist is like saying that every alcoholic is a wife-beater, or that every Muslim is a terrorist. Let me repeat my question:
 * How would you call those Polish people who feel hatred towards Muslims only because the Islamic world collaborated with racists who the German Nazis most certainly were and their leader, one of the world's biggest racists, Adolf Hitler? Can someone who hates racists and their collaborators be called a racist? 81.190.47.248 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you beleive in things like every Muslim collaborated with Hitler then you might as well beleive The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and then you indeed are a racist. How would you call people who feel hatered towards Poles only because they collaborated with Hitler and even continued with the Hollocause after germany surrendered? Can someone who hates racists and their collaborators be called a racist? Get the idea? // Liftarn (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop using lies and false accusations, or you will get your account blocked. This what youve said reveals your anti-Polish attitude. There you go, sources about Muslims collaborating with German Nazis: As you see, I'm presenting FACTS. And now give me sources that Poles officially collaborated with Hitler. Because according to most historians and to my knowledge, Poland was the only country in occupied Europe, where Hitler could not find any kind of official or even unoffical collaborative unit. Only some few individual people called Volksdeutsch did collaborate - those were mostly German people of Polish citizenship, or Poles who had some German descent and proved it to the Nazis when willing to collaborate. And what did Poles do after the war? Please give me sources. Now, I can give you a lot of sources about Jewish communist murderers who were high-ranked communist officials in Poland after the World War II, and who persecuted, sentenced to death and murdered many Polish war heroes in the late 40s and 50s. Oh... By the way - when you hate Poles you hate their ethnic background which qualifies as racism. When you hate Muslims you hate their religion which is not racism. Get the idea? No? So is Christianophobia racism? Really? 217.172.246.70 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Free Arabian Legion
 * Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world
 * 
 * 


 * You are presenting some cherrypicked bits of information and use them to paint in incorrect picture. I could do the same with for instance the Jedwabne pogrom and the Kielce pogrom ant all the Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 to say that all Poles are antisemitic murderers. Poles is not a race so it's can't be racism to hate Poles. How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot? // Liftarn (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Depends where that other foot goes? François Robere (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But can you get athlete's foot if you're not an athlete? // Liftarn (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I see you need a history lesson my friend. In case you didn't know, the Jedwabne pogrom and Kielce pogrom still remain unexplained crimes. Reports based on eyewitness testimonies are contradictory. Therefore, since many years Polish people want to investigate the Jedwabne pogrom and exhume the victims for the neutral team of international investigators and experts to check who really killed those people (Polish farmers and Poles in general had no access to guns and gasoline during WWII - any of these found in the Polish household resulted in instant death penality for the whole family, performed by the German Nazi occupants). But the Jews for some reason don't want international criminology experts to finally explain this tuff case, and so the exhumations are being successfully blocked each year. The same goes to Kielce pogrom - many historians and eye-witnesses claimed, that it were the Soviet Russians who are responsible for this crime and it was their goal to blame the Poles for it. Did you know, that just a few weeks before the pogrom, large number of Russians from the Soviet Union came to work in factories nearby Kielce, and in the day of the pogrom, those "workers" organized and performed the whole action?

And did I say that all Jews collaborated with the Nazis and Communists? No. Only some Jews collaborated with the Nazis (eg. Jewish Ghetto Police, or Judenrat). And not all, but only some Jews were collaborating with the communist oppressors of Poland, for example, very high-ranked communist and stalinist officials in Soviet-occupied Poland were Jews (Józef Różański, Anatol Fejgin, Jakub Berman, Helena Wolińska-Brus, Józef Światło, Salomon Morel, Julia Brystiger, Stefan Michnik, or Roman Romkowski, just to mention a few of the more significant figures), who right after the World war II, persecuted, tortured and sentenced to death numerous Polish anti-communist civilians and many members of the Polish Resistance Movement, primarily ex-Home Army guerrillas called the Cursed Soldiers. One of the greatest Polish war heroes Witold Pilecki - the man who told the world about the Holocaust - was one of the victims of these Jewish communist officials. And that was the moment when antisemitic attitudes in post-war Poland appeared and grew. Surprised? I guess you never heard of this.

Now, coming back to the topic: If islamophobia is racism, then against which race is it? And is anti-Catholicism considered racism too? According to your way of thinking - yes!

Now, Mr. Liftarn, you've said: Poles is not a race so it's can't be racism to hate Poles. No, Polish is not a race, but it sure is an ethnicity. The definition of racism says:

So, as you see, Polish is an ethnicity, and anti-Polonism is hatered towards an individual's Polish descent, so it is considered racism. On the contrary, Islam is neither a race, nor ethnicity, so islamophobia cannot be defined as racism. 89.228.161.46 (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum and you haven't provided any reliable sources. Here are some that say that islamophobia is a form of racism. // Liftarn (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "The Multicultural State We're In: Muslims,'Multiculture' and the 'Civic Re‐balancing' of British Multiculturalism", Political Studies: 2009 Vol 57, 473–97
 * Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns
 * Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns
 * Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns
 * Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns
 * Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns
 * Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns

Mława - economically, not racially
http://romopedia.pl/index.php?title=Pogromy_Cygan%C3%B3w/Rom%C3%B3w_w_okresie_transformacji Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Poor Roma weren't attacked. Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A summary by the academician http://mlawainfo.pl/16432/w-czerwcu-minie-ponad-20-lat-od-pogromu-cyganow-zwany-noca-porcelanowa/ Prof. Anna Giza-Poleszczuk says the reasons are complicated. She doesn't mention "racism".Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Mława riot. // 09:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainians in Poland
This article should discuss racism against Ukrainians in modern Poland. News are not reliable but indicative of the problem, ex,  ,. I don't have time to work on this right now, here are some academic works on this (in Polish, I am afraid):,. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious attempts to omit or marginalize information about racism against Poles in their own occupied country
This is so strange and frightening to see some people trying so hard to make it difficult for Wikipedia readers to access any information about racism against Poles in their own occupied country. This history is undeniable, but very uncomfortable for some people. Why could someone wish so strongly to divide this article, and in the best scenario, place historical racism against Poles in some other, non-significant article?

We all know the answer but nobody wants to say it loud - I will do it! The answer is - To get rid of any sign of Polish struggle. And this, my friends, qualifies for a Wikipedia ban. It just needs someone familiar with laws and procedures to move this case forward.

Just imagine the article about racism in the USA but without the history of slavery, just modern-day racism, that's all. Imagine the argumentation that "there should be no slavery mentioned because it's 'historical' racism and should be in a separate article or located somewhere down below". This would for sure be harshly condemned, even by some of those who at the same time wish racism against Poles to be a taboo on Wikipedia!

I even saw articles like "Racism in the UK", "Racism in the Netherlands", "Racism in Ireland", "Racism in Israel", or "Racism in Germany", totally cleaned from any sources and information about numerous ethnicity-based beatings and even some murders on Poles in those countries, which took place over the last 15 years and there were even short documentaries about it (guess it was after murdering two Poles with a screwdriver in Ireland or England, just because the murderer heard they spoke Polish, and so he assumed they are Poles and need to die).

Anyway, in the past those articles contained information about many brutal incidents involving antipolonism, from derogatory and racist insults (like those against the Radwański sisters in Israel), to murders (like this one mentioned before), but currently these articles are totally "clean" from any information about racial hatered against the Poles. Bravo! Seems like when it comes to Poland and Polish people, all kinds of hits below the belt are allowed. Not any more.

Let me say this clearly if you still don't understand - all attempts to erase of omit the history of racism against Poles will be considered the same way as if you wanted to omit slavery in the "Racism in the USA" article. 89.231.55.101 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The tiny difference is that ethnic Poles are, and have historically been, the ruling 90%-97% majority in Poland, while most of the other groups covered in such articles are minorities. Do we need to cover anti-Polish bias? Definitely. Do we need to re-orient the entire article towards it? I've seen no reason we should do so.
 * As for your other claims - diffs? François Robere (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So what if Poles consider themselves ethnically homogeneous? Does that make Poles racists? What's the point of these digressions? (To your information, Poles may consider themselves ethnically homogeneous, but the truth is, Poles have a lot of mixed genetics because they were visited and invaded by so many ethnic groups, that even nowadays Poles vary in looks, from pale and blonde with blue eyes to olive-skinned with black hair and dark-brown eyes - all of these people consider themselves "ethnically Polish"). Anyway, you've said: "most of the other groups covered in such articles are minorities". So what? It seems that's because only minorities were the targets of racism in large majority of other countries. In Poland the situation was different. Significantly different. And you should know that already. Go learn history. What's the title of this article then? Racism of Poles against minorities in Poland, or Racism in Poland? 89.231.54.144 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @ User:EdJohnston - Why are you accusing me of edit waring, if the one who does not want to discuss the issue is User:François Robere?
 * Do you see his answer to my last input? No. Did you see reverted the article without responding to my arguments? Sure you did. You are breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Can't you really see how he's escaping from my argumentation? Can't you see that it's only about the original order of racism occurrence? He didn't even use any counterarguments, he just edited.
 * @ User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Diannaa - Can you do something in this case? I am now successfully blocked from editing by François Robere lobby.
 * However I will not stop asking question and giving my arguments. The thing is, when I try to have a conversation and exchange argumentation and ideas, User:François Robere eventually runs out of arguments, then he cuts off his input in the conversation and stops responding just like he did here:, and here:.
 * I wanted to talk, he didn't, but he edited the article anyway, now blaming me about not obtaining consensus: . He reminds me alot of User:English Patriot Man actually, as he also did not reply after his arguments finished while not wanting to let the consensus be worked out. Now this is highly unprofessional and suspicious.
 * All I ask is to put the section "Ethnic Poles" in its original place of the article, because:


 * The first case of somebody being a second-class citizen in Poland was in the 18th century, when ethnic Poles were considered "cattle in human form" by Prussian invaders (btw. never in history nobody was considered a second-class citizen in Poland when Poles ruled their own country),
 * Poles are the largest among all other groups towards whom racist policies were ever applied on the Polish land, like in the 20th century, during WWII, when ethnic Poles were classified as "subhumans" by the German Nazis.
 * Poles are exceptional in this case, different from all other European nations and most other nations in the world (similar only to such ethnic groups as Native Americans, some Black Africans like eg. the ancestors of African Americans, and most of all - Black South Africans), because they experienced racism and ethnic persecutions in their own homeland. Therefore Poles are supposed to be the first section of the article, as the main citizens of Poland who suffered from racism in Poland.
 * What are your counterarguments User:EdJohnston and User:François Robere? I'm waiting. 81.190.47.248 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There's been plenty of deliberation on that. There's no consensus to that change. Sorry. François Robere (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"There's been plenty of deliberation on that." Oh really? Please, have some honor man. Do you know that it's all still visible here on the talk page and anyone who wants can easily verify it? Everytime I try to present you my arguments and ask you questions, you eventually stop responding as in the examples linked above, despite my arguments are strongly connected with the topic.

Now, please, answer to each of those 3 points mentioned at the end of the message above, and maybe we will finally reach consensus. 81.190.47.248 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for your answers. All I want is explanaton of your views by referring to my arguments (those 3 points presented above). Stop avoiding the debate while continuing to submit changes in the article. It's ridiculous and breaks the rules of Wikipedia. 217.172.246.70 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The first case of somebody being a second-class citizen in Poland was in the 18th century a) You're mixing sources. Georg Forster was just one writer, and for a statement like that you'd need to demonstrate government policy. b) I highly doubt that prior to the Prussian invasion Poland was a multiethnic heaven. c) As other editors pointed out, articles like this generally focus on the present. If you wish to focus on historical information, do it in "History of... in...".
 * Poles are the largest among all other groups towards whom racist policies were ever applied on the Polish land Yeah, but the comparative suffering of other groups was much, much higher: both Jews and Roma were nearly annihilated, and neither community ever recovered. I submit that the near eradication of a people is at the very top of the scale as far as crimes again humanity go, and should not be diminished regardless of the size of the people.
 * Poles are exceptional in this case Are they? Just about every square inch of Europe has been conquered and re-conquered at some point, often by very unfriendly forces. Also, see previous note - it applies to Native Americans and African Americans as well: this is how a slaver ship was packed. It is not dissimilar to how concentration camp barracks and death transports were packed. It is not unlike how farm animals are treated by current industrial farming practices. Please, tell me more about how Poles are like blacks and Native Americans.
 * François Robere (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) The entry you link to on Paradisus Judaeorum suggests that the claim that Poland was a Paradise for Jews and heaven for feudal lords can hardly be taken as straightforward praise.  As I understand it the serfs were not the same ethnicity as the Polish/Lithuanian nobility?  Ruthenian / Ukrainian?


 * 2) I don't think this entry should seek to suppress information about the suffering of any group:  I think a better name for it would be "ethnic tensions in Poland" or "prejudice in Poland".  Every country in the world could have such a page.


 * 3) You may not have read about the genocide of the Helvetii in the first century AD...
 * Do you have a specific suggestion for text for the entry? I agree with you that it might be wise to deal with the problem of race versus ethnicity in the entry, since statistics do not refer to racial self-identification, but rather self-declaration of ethnicity.  Only the Nazis seemed to view the Slavs, for example, as a different race.
 * Have you considered creating an account rather than changing ID regularly? 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 04:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same ethnicity; Jews are the only ones highlighted. There's been a big discussion that touched on the nature of the phrase; my position is that contrasting Jews and nobility with the "common folk" is most likely an expression of antisemitic stereotypes.
 * It's not about "suppression", but about focusing and stabilizing the article. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that we could find more than one source claiming that the Polish-Lithuanian nobility were not of the same ethnicity as the serfs who worked their lands or those of the arendators (cf. Cossack Mamay), at least in modern-day Ukraine.  What is your source for your sentence about the overseas empire?  I do wonder what colonial capabilities the historically decentralized Poland would have had (I don't know enough about the Polish navy from the 15th C. forward, for example, to evaluate the relevance of such an observation.) And the 17th C. Khmelnytsky Uprising took place in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, right?  I've added that and referenced it appropriately. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 23:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

''the 17th C. Khmelnytsky Uprising took place in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, right? '' Wait. Who is saying it was motivated by racism? Can we see sources on this?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I found one source that says something like this, but it's not very direct. In general, racism studies focus on modern events (20th century), not on the medieval or early modern periods. I'd suggest that we don't dwell much on history, since it's hard to find reliable sources that say that treatment of Jews or Ukrainians (or Poles) few hundred years ago was racist. I mean, let's face, few hundred years ago EVERYONE was racist, so it's like saying 'few hundred years ago people were illiterate and smelled bad'. Doh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam minority in Poland
Couldn't find that much:, , (also check this and all other academic sources for further sources). "jedynie ¼ Polaków i Polek jest świadoma, że istnieje dyskryminacja ze względu na pochodzenie etniczne. Więcej, bo 40% osób badanych przyznaje, że kolor skóry to jedna z trzech cech (oprócz orientacji seksualnej i niepełnosprawności) najmocniej kojarzonych z dyskryminacją. Wyższy wskaźnik dotyczy osób, które znają osobiście Czeczenów, Arabów, Wietnamczyków, osoby czarnoskóre - co druga z tych osób przyznaje, że są Polsce gorzej traktowani". Probably not enough for a section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

On Polish Wikipedia
I am not sure if you are aware, but pl wiki while not having an article on that yet, has a well-referenced subsection at pl:Rasizm that might contain content and sources useful for expanding this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of minorities header
re:. I'd suggest instead adding a header 'by ethnicity', this would allow grouping ethnic Poles with others. I'd also suggest grouping nationalities by alphabet, with Poles being under P, even if we ratain 'ethnic' marker (which frankly is not that helpful IMHO). In either case, I support grouping of all ethnicity sections under level two heading, since it simply makes things more organized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. Has there been any discussion about reorganizing the article so the subsections are chronological rather than by ethnic group? – Levivich 05:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is this section in the article?
King Casimir III the Great brought Jews to Poland during the Black Death at a time when Jewish communities were being persecuted and expelled from all over Europe. As a result of better living conditions, 80% of the world's Jews lived in Poland by the mid-16th century.[14][15] ''During the 15th century in the royal capital of Kraków, extremist clergymen advocated violence towards the Jews, who gradually lost their positions. In 1469 Jews were expelled from their old settlement and forced to move to Spiglarska Street. In 1485 Jewish elders were forced to renounce trade in Kraków, which led many Jews to leave for Kazimierz which did not fall under the restrictions due to its status as a royal town. Following the 1494 fire in Kraków, a wave of anti-Jewish attacks occurred. King John I Albert forced the remaining Jews of Kraków to move to Kazimierz.[16] Starting in 1527, Jews were no longer admitted into the city walls of Warsaw (generally speaking, temporary stays were possible in the royal palace). Only the Praga suburb was open to them.[17]:334 They were likewise barred from all of Silesia by Ferdinand I in 1559 and by Rudolph II in 1582.[17]:339[18] ''The Council of Four Lands created in 1581 was a Jewish diet presided over by community elders from each major part of Poland, another governing body was established in Lithuania in 1623. Jewish communities were usually protected by the szlachta (nobles) in exchange for their work administering the nobles' domains.[17]:358 As such, they were often on the front line in revolts against the lords of the land, as was the case during the Cossack revolts in 1630, 1637 and 1639. It is estimated, in particular, that 30,000 Jews perished from 1648–9 as a result of the Chmielnicki Uprising.[17]:342 ''In Congress Poland, Jews gained civic rights with the ukase (edict) of 5 June 1862, two years before serfdom was abolished and the peasantry was freed. 35 years later, in 1897, the 1.4 million Jews represented 14% of the population of the Russian-administered partition, which included Warsaw and Lodz.[19]:478-480

All the above has absolutely zero to do with racism in Poland.Is anyone claiming that Poland in 15th century was led by racist thought? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To put it uncharitably: why wouldn't pogroms, segregation, and banishment be in a section in an entry about racism?  The intersection between race, nation, religion, job prospects in late feudalism, etc. is useful information (compare to antiquity).  What I found here was shorter, but I think we should mention the expulsion of the Jews prior to the Prussian period if we're going to do history, which I'd thought you said we should.  If so, it should go back to the Mongols and be concise. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 22:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please can we have sources stating these events were connected to racism.Thank you in advance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed parts not connected to racism.If any pre 19th century events are linked by sources to racism, I don't mind them being presented.However religious strife,military conflicts, wars that aren't connected to racism shouldn't be in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If medieval pogroms belong here what about Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) (14th century massacre of Slavic inhabitants)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should mention the expulsion of the Jews prior to the Prussian period As long as you have sources describing these events as motivated by racism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your erasing (Les Juifs dans l'Histoire) is noted (cf. BNF). Here's what the book says:


 * ( source )


 * Please restore the material you deleted.🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 23:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The above material doesn't seem to contain mention about racism or any of those actions being motivated by racism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The article seems to be headed in the right direction
I just want to acknowledge the work of, as well as , and , in moving this article forward. I think we're headed in the right direction. François Robere (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I did that much, but thanks. // Liftarn (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop calling me Murzyn
Is there a public domain version of that famous photo from the BLM protests in Poland? Would be appropriate for this page. Malick78 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Special football section?
It may be useful to start a dedicated section to certain areas where racism is prevalent and in unusual ways. For example, the obsession with assassin Janusz Walus amongst some football fans. Malick78 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)