Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 2

Name
I think the current name with communities reduces the focus of the article. Why not rename it to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because it doesn't differentiate between individual acts of heroism and communal response. Keep it as it is. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article covers both and more, I think, so the current title is not comprehensive? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current title is misleading becuase it gives the impression the article is about rescue by entire communities, a claim which is barely supported in the actual article, if at all. A more general "Rescue efforts of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust" makes more sense. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What are we writing about, individual Polish Christians or entire communities? I thought the article was about how communities gathered together to help their countrymen. I specifically deleted several passages citing individual acts of heroism because they didn't fit into communal context. I prefer to leave the article as it is and focus on how communities worked as a whole. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Poles in general, individuals and communities (do note that Polish Christians does not include all Poles and is not the best description - although applicable to 90%+ cases). This is why I added sections on Church, organizations and government (which may be seen as communities, too). Based upon the readings, I do think that actions of the communities/organizations were more common than actions of individuals alone, and thus the main focus of the article will still be communities - but individuals likely deserve a section of their own. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A general comment
It is beyond me that some editors here have been going out of their way to remove an article that describes an important part of Polish-Jewish history. I have never seen such level of hypocrisy, hatred and bias, and it really saddens me. Instead of trying to help out and make this article look better, some people here are trying to destroy somebody else's work and erase historical information. It is like a slap in the faces of those brave Poles who risked/gave their lives to rescue thousands Polish Jews. Seems like all that matters for some people here are prejudices. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've hesitated to say this before, but there seems to be POV-pushing on a grand scale at this article, with the aim of smearing the Polish people as antisemitic, quite contrary to what appears, here, to be quite good evidence. As we should be aware, from the story of the The Painted Bird (but mysteriously concealed in that article), large numbers of Polish people, in quite desperate circumstances themselves, put their lives on the line to protect some/a few of their Jewish neigbhours.
 * The real solution, from the point of view of the encyclopaedia, is to learn lessons from the case of David Irving - preaching hatred and gross historical fabrication are closely related. Identify one and you'll probably find the other. This makes the work of administrators relatively straightforward, apply sanctions to those editing at this article and attempting to paint the Polish people as antisemitic. Any edit that introduces "TAmidst a good deal of tension between the Polish Jewish community and the Polish government in exile, funds, arms and supplies to Żegota etc etc" (notice the clumsy key-strokes!) is probably disruptive and needs dealing with. PRtalk 20:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear PalestineRemembered, it is not only limited to this particular article. The objective of some people here is to present the history of Jews in Poland as a never-ending series of conflicts, with the smallest cases of antisemitism being inflated to grotesque size. Seems like seven Polish victims of the Massacre of Brzostowica Mala are far less important than one Jewish victim of the Kraków pogrom. Tymek (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not surprise me to hear that the problem is far more extensive than what I know about. Your example indicates that administrative action needs taking across many more articles than what I could list. PRtalk 20:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please, get off the WP:SOAPBOXes--this article was confirmed to be one big WP:COPYVIO. And the Massacre of Brzostowica Mala was a disgraceful mess (compatre before and after). Try and spend less time playing victims and more time improving articles, and those articles would not run into the trouble that they did. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop soapboxing, PR. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if Massacre of Brzostowica was a mess, why didn't you try to improve it? All you did was trying to delete it. Same with the Rescue of Jews article. There is a lot to be done here, so be creative in a positive way. Tymek (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there really editors in the project who have sought to delete this important article? What impression do you get of these efforts - are/were they a good faith attempt to improve the entire project based on careful consideration of the articles worth/reliability, or was it an attempt to defend, maintain and contribute to ethno-specific hatred? PRtalk 10:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mala. Good faith? Not much there, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's way, way out of order - you should have told Jayjg, who would have blocked anyone refering to "fringe right wing writer whose work consists largely denialist apolegetics for anti-semitism in Poland" if he'd known about it. Jayjg is keen to block even anyone naming convicted holocaust deniers (though I think that's a bit over-zealous!).
 * Far be it from me to insinuate lack of good faith, but I'm seeing very, very surprising allegations inserted into this article, this latest being "Historian Martin Gilbert, who has chronicled the efforts of the Righteous, has written that rescuers, who could be found in towns and villagers throughout Poland during the war, constituted the exception, while citing testimony from survivors that more Jews than non-Jews were involved in rescue efforts, due to perceptions of mistrust by Jews of their on-Jewish neighbors."
 * I find it extremely hard to accept that Martin Gilbert ever said anything like that - eg "... in The Righteous, distinguished historian Sir Martin Gilbert, through extensive interviews, explores the courage of those who-throughout Germany and in every occupied country from Norway to Greece, from the Atlantic to the Baltic-took incredible risks to help Jews whose fate would have been sealed without them. Indeed, many lost their lives for their efforts. Those who hid Jews included priests, nurses, teachers, neighbors and friends, employees and colleagues, soldiers and diplomats, and, above all, ordinary citizens. From Greek Orthodox Princess Alice of Greece, who hid Jews in her home in Athens, to the Ukrainian Uniate Archbishop of Lvov, who hid hundreds of Jews in his churches and monasteries, to Muslims in Bosnia and Albania, many risked, and lost, everything to help their fellow man."
 * So how come a historian who stoutly defended so many good people all over Europe (even including Muslims!) would turn on the very nation (the Polish) who suffered more than almost anyone else? I think there's something wrong - and in fact, I believe I just removed completely imaginary material from this article - possibly from this very same editor. PRtalk 17:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you bother checking the provided cite?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, PalestineRemembered, get off of the WP:SOAPBOX. The material from Gilbert comes directly from the cite. Check it. read it. As for your entirely bogus claim that you "removed completely imaginary material," what you actually did was remove fully sourced material, which I will be restoring. If you remove it again, or if you remove continue to remove well sourced material under the guise of bogus claims of "imaginary," or with SOAPBOXING rants or lame personal attacks as justification, I will take you to an appropriate board. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, please actually read sources before deleting them based on your feelings about what they might have said. Also, please abide by WP:TALK, and stop soapboxing. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the above, I think I've now come across two separate edits wherein the inserted material doesn't actually come from the references it claims to be from - are you interested in such a serious breach of the policies of the project? If I'm right (and I spell out for you the exact area of deceit), you might feel impelled to take urgent action.
 * Separately, I'd like your view as to an RS. Is the book "Contested Memories" By Joshua D. Zimmerman, and the chapter by John T. Pawlikowski acceptable to use in this article? The reason I ask is that it makes the rather astonishing claim that, in August 1939, Hitler was already threatening complete genocide on the Polish people. I'm not sure how we'd use such a fact in the article, but it's clearly significant, if the source is acceptable to policy. What do you think? PRtalk 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pawlikowski presumably refers to the somewhat controversial Armenian quote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah - I'd not made the connection, very interesting. When you say "somewhat controversial", the Turkish are extremely offended by one version of this speech, because Hitler, supposedly said (just before attacking Poland) "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?". That last statement from Hitler may have been invented, tacked onto one version of the speech and not mentioned in two others. However, the Turkish don't have a problem with the rest of the speech - and the Polish believe the declared aim of the Nazi invasion of Poland was "not the arrival at a certain line, but the annihilation of living forces." Hitlers speech to his generals on 22 August 1939 authorized the killing "without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way, can we obtain the living space we need."' Heinrich Himmler was placed in charge of implementing the plan, and said: "[A]ll Poles will disappear from the world. It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles."
 * Note that this Hitler quote comes from "Contested Memories" Joshua D. Zimmerman, Chapter 9 - Polish Catholics and the Jews during the Holocaust. Heroism, timidity and collaboration. John T. Pawlikowski p.107. This is an author we (perhaps wrongly) quote as being quite harsh towards the bulk of the Polish, denying that 100s of 1000s of them had done enough to be called "rescuers". It would seem strange if Pawlikowski would quote us Hitler's intentions to wipe out all the Polish, if he wasn't satisfied it was genuine.
 * As I said (assuming it's true, and I cannot see any reason here for disbelieving it) Hitler's intentions to wipe out the entire Polish nation is clearly relevant to what went on in Poland. PRtalk 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant to an article about "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust"? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which specific material "doesn't actually come from the references it claims to be from"? Also, what on earth does the historically dubious Armenian quote have to do with the "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust", the subject of this article? Please stop soapboxing. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the material inserted here (and then removed by me) claims to come from the web - but it doesn't appear to be in the references attached. See here and here - I cannot see the word "expulsion" anywhere, or anything else to suggest "majority of which favored a policy of eventual expulsion of Jews from Poland".
 * I've also challenged the Martin Gilbert quote here, which seems completely out of character - but had no satisfaction there either, which must be worrying in light of what I've just told you. PRtalk 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything is in the sources provided. And to challenge an actual statement by an author, which appears in print right in front of you, because you find it "completely out of character" is probably the silliest excuse for removing sourced content I've ever heard. Do not remove sourced material again with these absurd rationales--if you can't find it, mention it here and someone will help you. If you do find it but still can't believe the author said it, write to the author or the publisher and alert them to your concerns. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking advice on this, because I'm finding it impossible to verify what appeared in the article against two of the references given for it. PRtalk 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK honour
This article has just received a DYK honour -- I want to thank everyone who contributed to its contents. I am glad we are able to share this topic with our friends in the Net community. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fairly tacky to be submitting this article for DYK at this early stage, given the ongoing controversies and difficulties, and trying to pass it off as a pristine new article, but whatever. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it up at WP:DYK, and help me explain to the editors there why they should allow DYKing of articles that are more than a few days old... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldnt be an issue, Piotrus, if you weren't submitting controversial articles which had recently been tagged with massive COPYVIO's barely hours after they got resubmitted and before other editors had a chance to review them, now would it, Piotrus? Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

POVed quote
Why is this quote singled out for direct citation AND blockquote prominence? How is it better than this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it "POV." It is a statement by a leading scholar of the subject of this article who is the author of perhaps the most notable and definitive study covering the subject of our article, a book which has never been cited anywhere for containing any bias, and which gives a succinct statement of an important aspect of the difficulties involved in rescue (antisemitism). How exactly is that a "POV'd quote?" Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent removing well sourced info justified by bogus edit summaries. Poeticbent removed well sourced relevant material (the Tec quote) yet again here with a bogus deceptive edit summary ("replaced some politicized buzzwords with actual content from the same source") which implies that the quote that was there was not "actual content" from the source but "some politicized buzzwords." Please cease these dishonest editing practices. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right; an out context quote critical of Poles should be bolded and centered, and should not be replaced by a more neutral one... I think the logic of that escapes me somehow.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL--an "out of context quote" which just happens to be a leading scholar of the subject pointing out a central issue regarding a central issue in Polish Jewish relations during the Holocaust? Ummmm OK! We see, however, where the real "POV'd quotes" are Piotrus--right here on this talk page, made by you, with your admission that including a quote "critical of Poles" (despite the fact that she is making a point that many scholars make in their writings) is "POV'd" Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Leading scholar according to whom? Central issue according to whom? The quote illustrates it according to whom? And proof that he is unbiased and speaks the only truth where? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to demonstrate the source is not satisfactory. There are at least four other refs cited indicating the centraility of the issue.   and more can be added. The ones you rely  upon, by the way, Lukas and Paulsson, have both been criticized for their failure to take seriuosly the extent of anti-semitism. And regarding Tec, "he" is a "she." At least get the gender issue correct. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the quote is OK. I'm not sure about the display though--the more encyclopedic style is not to use them if  in possibly polemic situations; I think it would be better not to use one here. The way to establish her status as an authority, as usual, is to try to write an article on her. DGG (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Organizations dedicated to saving the Jews
This section is confusing and contradicts itself. It says that the "most prominent" organization dedicated to saving Jews was Żegota. Then it says it was unique in Poland. If it was unique, why say it was the most prominent? "Unique" means it was the only one.

The last sentence says there were other such organizations in Poland, which is consistent with the first sentence but not the "unique in Poland" sentence.

Could somebody double-check the sources (the first source gives me a 403 error) and verify whether Żegota was unique in Poland, or whether the article should just say that Polish rescue organizations were unique in Nazi-occupied Europe? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it's somewhat badly written. "Unique" (in Nazi occupied Europe) most likely refers to purpose of effort - only (non Jewish) organization solely devoted to saving Jews. "Prominent" most likely refers to scale - while there were other smaller organizations none of them devoted the same amount of resources.radek (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been described as the only organization in Europe specifically created specifically for rescue of Jews. However, it's not accurate to call it non-Jewish, as it had a number of Jews amongst its leadership. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Like who? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends what you mean by 'accurate'. It was different from all-Jewish organizations which rescued Jews (like ZOB or other Jewish partisan formations) and it was different from non-Jewish organizations which had other purposes but may have made efforts to rescue Jews. It was started by gentiles. Basically in my comment above I did not wish to imply that it was the only organization purposefully dedicated to rescue efforts since obviously many Jewish formations had more or less the same aim. With this sort of thing it's going to be impossible to draw clear lines.radek (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the lines are unclear, and sources give different descriptions. They all basically agree that it was a unique organization; whether or not it was the "only" organization of its type doesnt detract from its uniqueness. The fact that it was co founded by a right wing nationalist with a history of anti-semitism, which she apparently retained even after formation of the organization, yet still chose to embark on and persisted in the dangerous work of rescue is unique in itself. There are instances of, eg, hard core Endeks who still went against their own strong beliefs to take such risks on behalf of Jews. This uniqueness -- an ethical calling that transcends simple political or societal beliefs -- is part of what Tec discusses in her book. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * this seems like quibbling. unique can be used in the world loosly in many senses. It was unique in being founded on the day it was founded, for example, or in having the exact mix of jews and non-jews it may have had. But in terms of an encyclopedia, which tries to be accurate, it's a much stronger claim than the evidence warrants. If it was not the only organization if its kind, it is not unique it any real sense. to say it was unique as being the only Jewish rescue group formed by the right wing, as Boodles says, may well be accurate, but could be read in a much more negative sense than I think he intends. Best to not use the word. Its hardly critical to the point. DGG (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1998 interview With Prof. Yisrael Gutman
Here is a good interview I really like with Prof. Gutman.  (pages 14 on are about Poland)--Jacurek (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam Sztark
What is your source? It's a general problem - why someone was killed. Adam Sztark was killed probably because some Belarusian nationalists denounced him. Maybe beacuse he helped Jews or because he was RC or Polish. several hundreds victims?Xx236 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Huta Stara near Buczacz
It was an Ukrainian crime. The description may include Huta Pieniacka facts.Xx236 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pawlikowski ref
In particular, the statement that "number of rescuers struck him as "highly inflated and without sufficient documentary evidence"" or in the original "“but these numbers strike me as highly inflated”" is not exactly encyclopedic. He does not explain what exactly it was that "struck" him one way or another or why. At best the statement should be qualified with something like "speculates" or "conjectures". But the ad-hoc nature of the statement in the source should be made explicit otherwise it appears as a scientific assessments of other researchers' estimates rather whereas it's just him expressing his feelings. This particular statement strikes me as not worthy of inclusion in this article and should probably be struck itself. Does anyone else get struck that way? Or struck the other way?radek (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it is so obvious that he is speculating why would you need to add "he speculated?" By the way, the bulk of the figures cited by Paulsson, Lukas et al are entirely speculative. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're equivocating on the word "speculative". The numbers in Paulsson, Lukas, Prekerowa and others involve some guesswork but they are based on specific things like estimates of # of Jews that survived, # that were in hiding, # of Poles executed for helping Jews, personal testimonies and other forms of evidence. Obviously this is a sort of thing that cannot be known with certainty so some guesswork - "speculation" - is involved. But there is a methodology. With the Pawlikowski statement, there's no methodology. It just "strikes" him. There really is no reason for the statement to be in the article, as its devoid of factual content, aside from the fact that it pushes someone's POV.radek (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, it's all basically speculative, the methodologies involved are basic, and the calculations back of napkin. Thats true for Paulsson, Lukas (who has been seriously criticized for his biases), the Zegota veterans, and even the psychiatrist, Hans G. Furth, whose opinions we are kind enough to include.


 * (Splitting up Boodlesthecat's response). The methodologies involved may be basic but they are methodologies rather than just some guy talking about how some particular estimates "struck" him. They are basic because of the intrinsically difficult nature of the making these kinds of estimates. They are basic because sufficiently detailed data does not exist. That doesn't mean that if somebody just starts talking about their feelings about some particular numbers, these feelings are on par with a serious attempt to make the best use of the information that is available. I see that you omitted Prekerowa from your list of "back of napkin" calculations. But she does more or less the same thing as Paulsson, Bartoszewski, Lukas (who actually, mostly just cites Bartoszewski - and who has responded just as seriously to lots of the unsubstantiated criticism (i.e. more people being "struck" by how they feel about some particular numbers)) and the others. Since her methodology is essentially similar (although she lowballs the number of Poles it took to hide somebody from the Nazis) to the others why are you omitting her? Some consistency here is called for, else it just seems like you're willing to take any numbers as long as they're low enough, however they were arrived at and wherever they came from. Prekerowa's estimates are at least transparent and a reader can tell how they were arrived at. This isn't true for somebody who was "struck" by some feeling.radek (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that these techniques are what is used basically points to the marginal nature of the phenomena. Other facts, such as the fear Poles who did help have expressed about admitting so publicly, for fear of repercussions even AFTER the end of the war also points to both the marginal nature of the phenomena and the dangers posed by wartime Polish anti[pathy towards Jews. so basically, everyone involved is speculating, and Pawlikowski is as reliable a commentator as the others (how much does it really involve to examine and weigh the estimates made, given the primitive methodologies?)


 * No, the fact that these techniques are used reflects the huge uncertainty and lack of detailed data. And add circular logic to your equivocation above: "no reliable data exists so Pawlikowski's speculations that this was a marginal phenomenon is true. Because this was a marginal phenomenon no reliable data exists. The fact that no reliable data exists and these kinds of techniques are used means that this was a marginal phenomenon". This is the exact definition of begging the question. And to avoid that we need some numbers, however imperfect. Not somebody's feelings about how some numbers "struck" them.
 * Of course if you want to cite other sources which argue that this was a marginal phenomenon due to the causes you postulate above that's perfectly fine. But that's not Pawlikowsky and his feelings don't belong in this article. Obviously the fact that anyone who tried to help faced a very high risk of death for themselves and their entire family is a very plausible alternative hypothesis to your speculations as to non-Jewish Poles' motives.radek (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And speaking of "speculations," your repeated extrapolations of numbers based on supposed Polish population, I see no evidence that Bartoszewski is using that number--different researchers can and do use differnat bases--adult population, "those who could have helped", all ethnicities, etc. So your calculations are original research and really should not keep being put back in. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh... ok, but then what you're saying is that the Phayer source is completely useless and devoid of content. In other words, what is this 1 and 3 percent of? This is like citing some source which says "the distance between the Earth and the Moon is TWO!". Now, I'm sure there are some measurement units in which the distance between the Earth and the Moon is actually two. But without knowing what these units are the "2" is completely useless information. Likewise citing a % without clarifying what it is a % of, is just meaningless (and repeating it in Wikipedia is pointless and innumerate). So either the Phayer ref is useless (and so should be removed entirely) or the phrase "Polish population" refers to the non-Jewish Polish population in which case its 320,000 to 960,000 and there's no reason to exclude that. Particularly since those numbers are roughly the same as the numbers Bartoszewski estimates in other places (and even consistent with Prekerowa if we take Paulsson's number of non-Jewish Poles to hide a Jewish Pole). In other words, unless you can tell me what population Bartoszewski-through-Phayer is referring to I'm going to remove Phayer, since the "1 and 3 %" by itself means less than nothing.radek (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not advisable in the least for you to remove well sourced material with that explanation. A percentage spread gives us clear information; e.g., if I say on "between 1 and 3% of Wikiepdia editors have a basic proficiency in statistical analysis", that would give a reader a pretty clear picture that such proficiency is fairly limited among thast population. By your logic, I should also go ahead and removed "There is general consensus among scholars that Polish collaboration with the Nazis was not commonplace." as well, since that gives us no hard numbers. As well, we should probably remove a few hundred thousand such statements in Wikipedia where various phenomena are described with, as you say, "completely useless and devoid of content" terms such as "few", "marginal", "widespread" "many" "a sizable number" etc etc etc. So where she would start. Artciels that start with A-Ab? Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodles, the obvious difference is that in your statement you say "of Wikipedia editors have a basic proficiency..." (really? that many?) In other words you clearly specify what the percentage is "of" (Wikipedia editors), without which a percentage has no meaning, makes no sense. Your second statement about "general consensus" also specifies the relevant "of" (scholars). But you're arguing above that there is no "of" in Phayer. There are probably numerous instances of this basic ignorance of what a "percentage" is in many Wikipedia articles, and these should be removed, but we are not talking about other Wiki articles. Simple question. Can you tell me what the "between 1 and 3 percent" is of? If yes, then what's wrong with writing in the actual numbers? If no, then remove it.radek (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying "1-3%" is sufficient and clear enough by itself. An average reader can infer that it means a relatively small percentage of the population; it is an informative statistic. There is no basis for you to remove it, and you should cite a relavant Wikipedia policy or guideline that you feel it violates if you want to continue arguing this point. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of what population?!?!? Isn't that why you're removing my edit? Since we don't know? Without specifying what the population is it is NOT an informative statistic nor is there any basis upon which to decide whether or not it is "small" (930,000 is 3% of 31 million. Is that "small"? Is 930,000 individual risking their life and that of their families "small"?). This has nothing to do with some Wiki guideline but rather with the simple fact that a % makes no sense unless you specify what it is a % of. If you mispell "misspell" I don't need to Wikilawyer about it in order to change it. I wasn't aware that basic numeracy needed a separate Wiki policy.radek (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You've asked the key question: Of what population? Since the source doesn't say what population the 1 to 3% figure is calculated from, we should simply report what the source says: 1 to 3% of the Polish population. Anything more would be WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this is like quoting a source which says "distance between Earth and Moon is TWO". Either we make a reasonable conjecture (based partly on what Bartoszewski is referring to in other places) what "Polish population" refers to in which case there's no reason not to include the actual numbers, or we should not include such an ambiguous statement/source. In other words, what is "Polish population"? Every Pole alive in every country in all times present and future? BTW, those weren't "scare quotes", that was just my general "abuse" of quotes.radek (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, your Moon analogy makes no sense whatsoever. An actual analogy would be to say that the distance between the earth and the moon is 1% of the distance between the earth and the sun. Now, without having to know the actual distances in miles or km or feet, it's still a meaningful statistic (pretty much anyone can infer that the distance to the moon is quite small relative to the distance to the sun). Same with the 1-3% of Poles statistic--we can infer it's small. It's meaningful. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you can tell me exactly what this is a percentage of, or what "Polish population" consists of this is EXACTLY like the moon analogy. Your statement about distance of moon and earth vs. distance of earth and sun again specifies a clear, although relative, criteria, unlike - as YOU argued above - the sentence in the article (A statement such as "3% in Poland as opposed to x% in Holland" would be better although it would still need clarification). And there's nothing nothing intrinsically "small" (or "large" for that matter) about a 1%. 1% of 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is 500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Is that small? Well, depends on the units and what you're talking about which is what the whole point is. Likewise, is between 1% and 3% of ... well, something, don't quite know what now ... people willing to take a very significant risk of death to themselves and their families in order to help a stranger or even an acquittance or a friend (which may not even increase their chances of survival by more than "small") "small"? Honestly, never having been faced with such a choice I don't feel qualified to say. Apparently, you feel otherwise. But anyway. 1% is not "small" or "large". It is just 1/100 of something. And what that something is is essential, crucial and necessary for a statement aboout %'s to make sense. This is getting ridiculous. This is basic numeracy and anyone with fifth grade math should be able to grasp what I'm saying. There's no need for Wiki policies here just like there's no need for Wiki policies when reverting spelling errors. I'm taking out the text (since you obviously don't think that "Polish population" refers to the most obvious definition of "Polish population", and as is suggested by other Bartoszewski sources) until you can tell me what exactly this is a percent of. As in a definition. Feel free to take it to dispute resolution.radek (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

<==The material is reliable sourced. You have cited no violation of any Wikipedia policy or guidelines to justify your removal of it. Please restore it, and if you have a problem with it, YOU should take it to dispute resolution, since by arbitrarily removing reliably sourced material based solely on your opinions, declaring "There's no need for Wiki policies here", you are essentially vandalizing the article. I strongly suggest you restore it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your strong suggestion but this is a question of simple numeracy. The material has not been arbitrarily removed. You are the one who brought up the ambiguity of "Polish population". Please do not accuse me of vandalism.radek (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Either supply a legitimate reason based on Wiki policy and guidelines or the material will simply be restored. Boodlesthecat Meow? 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Either provide exact definition of what this is a percentage of, or there is no basis for reinstating the material.radek (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with radek. His versions were more informative.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Radek's versions were clearly WP:SYNTH, which you should read and familiarize yourself with. He is taking one source--the reliably sourced figure of 1-3% gicen by Bartoszewski, combining it with an entirely different fact (the population figure given at the beginning of the article) and SYNTHESIZING them to do a calculation that gives a numerical spread that is nowhere in the sources cited. Please refer to WP:SYNTH:"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." This couldn't be clearer. The reliably sourced, verifiable, attributed material should be restored, without the WP:SYNTH. Please stop advocating this blatant violation of Wiki policy. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not synth as it is based on that one particular source. Again, what is Polish population then? If we don't know then we shouldn't be including this. If we do know, then there's nothing wrong with including numbers (aside that to Boodles "1 and 3 percent" looks "small" and "320,000 to 960,000" looks "not small enough" even though it's the same thing).radek (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are adding a population figure from another source to do the calculation, its obviously synth. There is no source that uses your numerical spread for Bartoszewski's 1-3% estimate, hence it is synth and OR on your part. Your logic for removal--because raw figures aren't cited--is simply ridiculous. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the between 1 and 3% of Boodles?radek (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH before you restore your calculations to the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The most obvious way of resolving this content dispute would be to acquire the Bartoszewski reference that Pheyer is using (and btw, Pheyer's referencing is sloppy to say the least (participating in these discussion keeps increasing my amazement as to what constitutes scholarly research in some fields) it takes some research effort to even figure out what the "Research Report" actually is since a lot of organizations publish "Research Report"s. This is also what you get for using tertiary, far removed he-said she-said type sources) and see what he actually means by "Polish population". Apparently in your hurry to remove anything that does not accord with your POV this option hasn't even occurred to you. But presumably the definition of "Polish population" is given therein and it's not unreasonable to conjecture that it is the one which Bartoszewski uses elsewhere. My most accessible library does not carry the relevant publication nor is it available on the web but I'm pretty sure I can get it through inter library loan. Hopefully at that point the whole issue will be moot.radek (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Punishment for aiding the Jews section should be rewritten
It's unacceptable.Xx236 (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT--what specifically is unacceptable? Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See above.Xx236 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) What is the value of such phrase The residents of the village of Markowa, near Łańcut, where many families concealed their Jewish neighbors, were executed by the Nazis? The crime is perfectly described, see Markowa, 8 mebers of Ulma family were shot plus an unborn child.Xx236 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems relevant if the Polish villagers were executed for aiding Jews. Is it not true? Was it only the Jews who were killed? Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewritten how? What's wrong with it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.savingjews.org/
Xx236 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * list of 704 names of dead non-Jews (known in 1997)
 * list of 8 punished villages
 * partial bibliography

Witold Pilecki did not go to Auschwitz to rescue Jews
Pilecki went to Auschwitz in 1940, at a time when it was a a camp for Polish prisoners; his goal was an uprising of AK prisoners held there to be coordinated with the AK outside. The uprising by ZOW never happened; the AK never risked a joint attack on Auschwitz, preferring to wait for a general uprsiing in Poland which never occurred (the only armed revolt at Auschwitz was done by Jews). Pilecki's intelligence did contain information on extermination plans for Jews, but this really has nothing to do with rescue. Unless someone has some compelling sources that indicate Pilecki is in any way related to "Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust" the photo cap shuold be removed as irrelevant to this particular article (although relevant to Auschwitz, etc.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point....perhaps photo of Jan Karski would be more appropriate in this section.--Jacurek (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But he went there to organize a resistance and collect information, and was instrumental in providing the world with the first available information on the mass murders of Jews in Auschwitz. His goal was not an uprising of AK prisoners, but of all the prisoners, organized by AK-allied organization he created, whose membership allowed Jewish members. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, thats illogical. Millions of troops who fought against the Nazis did so with the intention of defeating Hitler, who among other things was murdering Jews. We do not categorize all of these brave individuals as part of Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust simply because of that. The extensive Pilecki biography on the IPN website doesn't mention the word Jews once. So if you have sources indicating that Pilecki was involved in any way with Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, please supply them; otherwise, the photo should be removed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Read this, or this. The fact that he was the first to provide reports on the Holocaust is pretty relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what part of "sources indicating that Pilecki was involved in any way with Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust" you are not understanding. Surely you understand that sending information which, among other things, including information about what was happening to Jews, and Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust are not particularly related (unless the person actually did BOTH--which Pilecki didin't do). so again, if you have sources indicating that Pilecki was involved in any way with Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, please supply them; otherwise, the photo should be removed. A photo of Karski, or one of the Righteous, would be a suitable substitute. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Logic is a follows: 1) Polish government campaigned among the Allies to provide more support for the suffering Jews 2) this campaign is notable and should be mentioned 3) this campaign was fueled by reports among which Pilecki's were highly prominent 4) thus Pilecki's can be mentioned in this context. Once we have enough photos, I do agree that Pilecki's may be dropped; until than it's better than nothing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Briefly entioning Pilecki's information is perfectly fine only in the context of the flow of information, and how it was used in the subsequent political wheeling and dealing in London etc--it had nothing to do with rescue. And it's more accurate to say that the Polish government used the plight of the Jews to try to persuade the Allies to launch retaliatory attacks on German non civilian targets, rather than that, as you say, "the Polish government campaigned among the Allies to provide more support for the suffering Jews" (not really true--the reports about Jewish suffereing were watered down by the Polish govt at first, which tried to instead win favor with the allies with intelligence about the USSR; it was only later that they tried to win favor by adopting a sympathetic attitude towards Polish Jews). Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And what's your source for the watering down of the report and not caring about the Jews? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * e.g. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Huta Stara
Nothing confirming your story: http://wolyn.ovh.org/opisy/huta_stara-03.html. I'm going to remove all Huta Stara sentences.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC) References 48 are mostly about Łomże region.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Piotrus' deletions of sourced material

 * 1. Why on earth do you keep changing the phrase "Tec also noted that Jews, for many complex and practical reasons, were not always prepared to accept assistance that was available to them" to "Tec also noted that Jews were not always prepared to accept assistance that was available to them", consistently removing "for many complex and practical reasons" (three or four times already!) from the Nechama Tec quote with specious edit summaries such as "removing WP:WEASEL sentence that doesn't mean anything"?? The source says "Jews who could benefit from such help had to be ready for it. For many complicated and realistic reasons many were not." Please restore this important and FULLY SOURCED part of the phrase and stop removing it with bogus summary excuses.
 * 2. You keep removing an entirely well sourced and relevant section concerning issues affecting rescue with another specious and distorted edit summary of please explain on talk how discussion of Polish folk culture is relevant here?. It is quite clear, and you know it, "discussion of Polish folk culture" is clearly discussing rescue issues, and it is EXPLAINED CLEARLY IN MATERIAL YOU KEEP REMOVING, AND IS FULLY SOURCED:"Johnathan Zimmerman writes that Cala's findings on attitudes of Polish peasantry during and after the war confirm what he describes as a growing consensus among scholars that an active stance by Poles towards Jews during the Holocaust either to assist or to betray was a marginal phenomena. Cala describes this as an indifference resulting from antisemitic propaganda both before and during the war, as well as the persistence of religious antisemitism."
 * Please restore this relevant and fully sourced section.


 * 3. Your question here of "why was this reverted [sic] was explained here where I corrected a title given as "“Two Polish Villages Razed for Extending Help to Jews,” to the correct (and less misleading) actual title of “Two Polish Villages Razed for Extending Help to Jews and Partisans." there was no "REVERT." Why are you claiming correcting an incorrect title is a "revert."?
 * 4. You removed another fully sourced segment here with yet another specious edit summary ("rm strange claim - please clarify it on talk before restoring"). You can clearly see the source for the statement "which essentially operated on behalf of Poles only" comes directly from the cited source, which says ""the "underground state" was essentially for Poles only". You should restore this properly sourced information.
 * This rather unbridled POV edit warring is particularly disturbing, and in light of your current ArbCom case, wghich is scrutinizing your behavior, is highly ill-advised. I suggest you restore these deletions and reconsider your posture. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. "for many complex and practical reasons" is a great and pointless WP:WEASEL. And if it's a direct quote, without even quotation marks, do we need to go through copyvio discussion again?
 * 2. No, I still don't see how discussion of some fringe theory that "Polish antisemitism" is rooted in Polish folk culture is relevant here.
 * 3. Because in your haste to revert me you even reverted my typo correction...
 * 4. "which essentially operated on behalf of Poles only". Define Poles. Underground State was for all Polish citizens, not for "ethnic Poles" only (nur fur Polen? gimme a rest). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. It's paraphrased and reliably sourced. WEASEL and COPYVIO are bogus red herrings. Stop it and restore the material.
 * 2. It's reliably sourced and prima facie relevant, and not a "fringe theory". Your personal opinions do not trump WP:RS and {{WP:V]]. Stop it and restore the material.
 * 3. I didnt revert you. Stop making things up. I corrected an incorrect title. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. It's reliably sourced. Your personal opinions do not trump WP:RS and WP:V. Stop it and restore the material. Boodlesthecat {{sup|Meow?}} 20:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can't agree on an acceptable summary of Tec's position, the only alternative is a verbatim quote. Same for Zimmerman. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - assuming they are relevant (per WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE), which is by no means certain yet.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that Nechama Tec is fringe on the subject of rescue of Jews during the Holocuast, please feel free to take it to an appropriate board. Boodlesthecat {{sup|Meow?}} 18:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem eith with the summary that was there, or with a direct quote. I don;t get why Piotrus is repeatedly deleting a key phrase--""for many complex and practical reasons"--, which alters what she is saying. Zimmerman WAS clearly summarized. Piotrus removed the whole section wholesale, simply becuase he doesnt like it. This is ridiculous. Boodlesthecat {{sup|Meow?}} 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pawlikowski, again
Since the above discussion got bogged down in what a "percent" is, here I want to repeat that I think the Pawlikowski quote should be removed as it is specious. I gave my reasons above which were not addressed.radek (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions ("specious") of a reliably sourced relevant verifiable sentence are not a viable reason for removal. You have consistently failed to put forth a single guideline ot policy that supports removal. so it will be restored. As with the case of Piotrus' purely POV edits, personal opinion is not a viable reason for removing encyclopedic content. I suggest (again) that you both stop. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to Wikipedia policies and guidelines we should use common sense. And putting Pawlikowski's unfounded feelings about the #s on the same level as serious attempts (however imperfect) at making estimates is ridiculous. And that makes the source irrelevant. So its not encyclopedic content. Also, please respond to me, not Piotrus.radek (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing/POV pushing
Adding editorial commentary such as "Pawlikowski offers no explanation for why he feels this way nor does he specify any methodological problems with how these estimates were arrived" is unaccepable POV pushing. Either find a reliable source that makes those criticism, or please delete it. The edit warring and POV pushing by Piotrus and Radeksz on this page is way out of control. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this is merely a description of the source. A baseless statement by somebody should not be given the same weight as a serious attempt at estimating the number. If it is to be included, the methodology, or the lack of it, that the source uses should be included so that readers can form informed opinions on the quality of sources. And the POV pushing here is by Boodles who's resorting to illogical claims and arguments in order to minimize the extent of the rescue efforts.radek (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You prove my point by describing the reliably sourced information as "A baseless statement by somebody..." If you cannot edit without your biases and emotions interfering, you should step away from the article. All of your own baseless deletions will be restored and your editorializing deleted anyway. The fact that you say "readers should form their own opinions" while adding unsourced biases of your own indicates you have lost any semblance of objectivity. The fact that your attacking my edits--every single one of which is well sourced--as "resorting to illogical claims and arguments" is further evidence that you seem to be losing it somewhat, and should take a break. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodles, I notice that you've followed your typical pattern of moving from discussion of material to personal attacks and accusations. Please stop. Whatever impression you may have, another editor who does not share your particular ideological POV editing an article does not constitute edit warring and pov pushing and these kinds of accusations are insulting and obviously betray a lack of good faith. I don't care to participate in these kinds of fights as they are pointless. As I've said before, I am merely describing the source.radek (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And the threatening tone of your language just makes you look silly. "YOU WILL BE DELETED! YOU WILL BE RESTORED!". Come on.radek (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a threat, it's a fact, based on the history of the sort of POV pushing and disruptions Piotrus (and now you) have engaged in for months on these sort of articles. Ask Piotrus. On a dozen or more articles that he has been doing this, all of his and his allies attempts at POV pushing have been overturned. Literally 100%. Inexplicably, Piotrus keeps at it; hence his current ArbCom problems. Unfortunately he is setting a bad example for you. I suggest that you dont use him as a model. It's really not a road you want to follow. trust me. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy, as in WP:V and WP:NOR, says that whatever Pawlikowski says, that's what we say he says. If some other published reliable source criticises that position, say so. But we don't add editor's opinions or attempts at poisoning the well. This is not something that there is cause to debate. Policy is very clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite Boodles and Malik's characterization, this is not a criticism nor an editorializing on Palikowski but it is simply describing what's in the source. If you think the statement is phrased in POV terms, then de-POV it. But please keep it accurate. And as long as it is an accurate description of Pawlikowski's methodology then it should be included. Look. We have various estimates of the numbers in the articles and these estimates are controversial. They are arrived at through various approaches. Part of the controversy stems from the different approaches used to get these estimates. Hence, how they are arrived is essential to presenting an accurate nature of the scholarship and sources. It is not my fault that Palikowski's estimates are not founded upon any specific methodology. That's just what they are and providing this information is part of accurately depicting the source. Policy may be clear, but it is not being applied appropriately.radek (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In particular, the text I added was this; "Pawlikowski offers no explanation for why he feels this way nor does he specify any methodological problems with how these estimates were arrived at". First, is this statement untrue? Does Pawlikowski in fact offer an explanation for why he is "struck" this way? No. Does he specify what methodological problems in others' estimates lead him to this conclusion? No. The statement is true. Second, is it editorializing? Do I say "Pawlikowski's approach is wrong" or "What Pawlikowski's doing is bad" or "Pawlikowski's feelings are incorrect" or anything like that? No. THAT would be editorializing. What I simply doing is describing the methodology that Pawlikowski is using. The fact that once you spell it out it looks bad is a personal opinion of people who are trying to remove it, which means that they are the ones who are editorializing (by omission) and POV pushing (by exclusion).radek (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but it is outright editorializing. Find a published source or remove it. You cannot make evaluative comments about someone's work. Innuendo counts as much as outright statement. This is OR, and it remains OR no matter how correct it may be. The best way of handling it is to simply list the different numbers different people achieve. If you want to critique their reliability, look for published reviews of them. DGG (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that in addition to general confusion about what a percentage is, some editors don't quite understand the meaning of simple English words. "To editorialize" means to offer one's opinion. I do not do that. "To speculate" means to offer one's opinion about something unknown or uncertain. I have not done that either. I am simply describing the source. Now, since this is a talk page I will allow myself a bit of speculation. The fact that the source looks bad when you describe it (as it obviously does to editors who are trying to censor this edit) leads some editors who are sympathetic with the source's POV to try and remove any actual description of the source (hoping that casual readers will not bother to check it out themselves). But this is in fact the innuendo, not my edits. Innuendo can be done by omission. And the innuendo here is that this speculation by Pawlikowski is somehow backed up by some kind of a serious approach and tackling of the question. But that's not in the source. Again. If you think that there is some inaccuracy in what I wrote or some "editorial" word, feel free to reword it. But do not remove it, as it is a simple description of the source, is relevant to the article and removal of this text constitutes POV pushing vandalism.radek (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you are all wrong. Yes, Radek is adding content that is not usually added, but this is because the Pawlikowski's numbers in the first place are unclear. As Radek points out, 1-3% of what? We can either add a note that we don't know, or not to use them at all; the worst case is to use them without any explanation, misleading the reader.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are all wrong. Indiana University press saw fit to publish the 1-3% figure without adding the numbers, apparently without any worries that their readers heads would explode by virtue of being thus "misled." It's completely common practice to give a percentage spread in scholarly material without hard numbers--it's done thousands of times. You are making an argument that has no basis in the reality of scholarly publishing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So you think the numbers are wrong? Why?radek (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Which numbers? Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 320,000 to 960,000.radek (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no way of knowing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It should be removed until someone can track down the actual Bartoszewski reference used.radek (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's reliably sourced, so no, it SHOULDNT be removed. And incidentally, it any more vague than Lukas being sourced as saying "but some estimates go as high as three million"? Whose estimates? What "recent research" is he talking about that "suggests a million Poles were involved"?? He gives NO source for these claims. Yet you seem to have no problem with those claims, which are far vaguer than a claim by a participant in Zegota offering the 1-3% figure. How come you are not questioning those claims, if you are so genuinely concerned about precision? Puhleeze, its hard to take you seriously in this discussion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, Boodles, you might want to actually familiarize yourself with a source before you start making false statements about it. Lukas DOES give a source for these statements. So either you're speaking out of ignorance or trying to pass one off in a hope no one will notice. "Whose" - Zajaczkowski's. Other parts are clearly referenced to the same Bartoszewski - participant in Zegota - that we are discussing here. In fact I am NOT questioning the 1-3% figure. What I am doing is asking 1-3% "of what". If it's Polish population, and Polish population is understood as the population in Poland at the time, then it's 320,000 to 960,000 individuals. If it's not that obvious, then what is it? It doesn't make sense to say 1-3% without saying what this is a percent off. This is basic, grade school math. The constructive thing, if you were so inclined, here would be to track down the Bartoszewski source Phayer is using to resolve any possible ambiguity as I am trying currently to do. But the fact that in several other places Bartoszewski's referring to "several hundred thousand" or even "a million" individuals pretty much gives away what "Polish population" means here.radek (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no my quick to charge ignorance friend, Lukas gives NO citation after his claims of one million and three million arrived at in "recent research" and "some estimates." Thats as specific as he gets. As for Zajaczkowski, are you referring to the same Zajaczkowski whose "clearly polemical and often antisemitic tone precludes his book from being taken as serious scholarship"?, according to Paulsson? Or are you referring to a different Zajaczkowski? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lukas cites Zajaczkowski after the three million. I have no idea if it's the same Zajaczkowski or not.radek (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we looking at the same article and book? Where is the reference to the three million in the citation given in the article? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<==I'm looking at my hard copy of the book. I think it might be because you're looking at the introduction and I'm looking at text at end of chapter 5 (pg 150).radek (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also you're looking in Out of the Inferno and I'm looking in Forgotten Holocaust.radek (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the source given in the article, which is Out of the Inferno. If the claim is sourced to Zajaczkowski somewhere else, lets change the cite to the correct one, so we can qualify Zajaczkowski with Paulsson's comment about his antisemitic tone precluding him from being taken seriously. I'm sure you'll have no problem with a reliable source like Paulsson commenting on the veracity of a source, since you argue so strenuously that you yourself should be allowed to offer commentary on sources. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The source in the article says "also in Richard C. Lukas, The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation, 1939-1944, University Press of Kentucky, 1986". It has not been established that this is the same Zajaczkowski. Honestly, I don't know. It's a common enough name. But hey! The "three million" is in a reliable source! It must not be touched! Any kind of commentary would be 'editorializing'!radek (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No pay attention. It's editorializing is YOU give YOUR opinion. It's not if we give Gunnar Paulsson's opinion. And of course its the same Zajaczkowski; there's only one who writes about the subject, and he's cited by both Paulsson and Lukas by name. Zajaczkowski's book, btw, is published by the Maximilian Kolbe Foundation; Maximilian Kolbe has been widely charged with being an antisemite. Lukas, of course, has had his own problems with credibility on issues concerning Jews, so its not surprising he would uncritically cite Zajaczkowski. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been paying attention and I have yet to see anyone, yourself included, show where I give MY opinion in any of the edits. The text is a verifiable description. If it is not then please explain where or how. Making accusations does not constitute an "explanation".

As far as your changing of the topic, Maximillian Kolbe might have been charged, and may have even been an antisemite. He also hid 2000 Jews from the Nazis and gave his life in the place of another Auschwitz prisoner. Perhaps it is these aspects of his legacy that the institute is referring to. Lukas refers to personal correspondence with a Zajaczkowski. Lukas has been criticized and he has responded to the criticism quite successfully.radek (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
Would editors who seek to remove the statement about Pawlikowski please kindly explain or point out which part of the statement constitutes "editorializing"? Where is the opinion in that statement? Calling something "editorializing" does not make it so. There's no need for other source here because it is a straight forward description of what is in the source.radek (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal description of a source is editorializing. Find a WP:RS that describes the source, or leave it out of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, just because you call an edit you don't like "editorializing" does not make it so. What is it about the text that makes it "editorializing"? Where is the personal opinion? Where is any kind of evaluation, speculation or anything else that's editorializing? You're making stuff up and then using that as an excuse to remove text you don't like personally. This is vandalism.radek (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a break and read WP:RS and WP:V and WP:OR. Look through some encyclopedias. Even newspapers. They don't say "Obama presented his economic plan today, but he didnt say how he was going to actually solve the crisis, or what his methodology was in arriving at the plan." they say what he said. Then the editorial writers and the pundits discuss the holes in the plan ad nauseum. And everyone argues. There are plenty of blogs you could join or create if you want to offer analyses of any subject. But Wikipedia is not one. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Boodles, but did I ask you for advice on how to spend my time? No. I asked you to point out or explain what portion of the text consists of personal opinion. Which you have been unable to do so, just like you have not been able to answer the question of what the "between 1 and 3 %" is of. You want to dispense advice, start an agony aunt column ("Dear Boodles..."). Otherwise please stop dodging the issue and stick to the subject matter. In point of fact newspapers will often report "without revealing any specific details Obama said that his economic plan will stimulate the economy". And the 'without' part is seen as an essential part of responsible journalism. An additional difference of course would be that an Obama economic plan probably actually has details whereas the Pawlikowski source doesn't and never will. Once again, describing what is in a source is not OR. In fact it is the very practice of RS and V.radek (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on content please, not contributors.


 * Are you being daft or is that meant for Boodles? He's the one who's been commenting on contributors rather than content through out this. Obviously my post above is a reply to Boodles' personal advice on how I should spend my time.radek (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And with that out of the way, I have to say that I don't read WP:V that way. How about quoting the part(s) which you believe require, or even encourage, this sort of editorialising? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that it is NOT editorializing, but a description of what is in the source. If you wish to argue that it is editorializing then please - please, please, please, please, please, please! anyone! - point out where the text under discussion involves a personal opinion. But don't assume your conclusion first then make irrelevant arguments. Since it is an accurate description of the source it is perfectly in accordance with, and in the spirit of, WP:V. Let's see, so far we have Equivocation, Circular logic and now a nice Strawman.radek (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point is that it is your description of what is in the source, which is called editorializing. Unless you can find an WP:RS that describes the source, it's WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the definition of editorializing, otherwise all the articles on Wiki would be editorials and if we were to strip these descriptions of what's in the source (since it's always someone's description) we'd be left with one huge copy vio. Again, describing what's in the source in neutral language is not editorializing. If my language is not neutral, please dePOV it, but don't remove relevant text. Or in this particular case I would appreciate it if you restored it. As far as WP:V goes, the question is whether or not the description of what's in the source is verifiable. It obviously is as anyone who clicks on the link can, well, verify.radek (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're confusing "summarizing" the source with "describing" it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I'm summarizing it. Now please restore it.radek (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rude comments made about the people who are working on this article
I would like to call your attention to this conversation about the article we are working on:. For those who have worked very hard to make this article worthy of its subject matter, it may come as a surprise that someone finds the efforts of those gathered here to be "dreadful" and that "the believers will produce a travesty." Ecoleetage (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a P.S. -- I have no ethnic or religious connection to this subject (I come from Mozambique!), yet I came aboard this effort to help make this article proper because I thought it was a story that needed to be told -- I am constantly learning something with each new addition brought to the text, and I am grateful for everyone who is taking the time to bring this article up to grade. However, I have stayed away from contributing because the tone of the Talk Page conversation has moved in a direction which is far from cordial -- I have enough off-line stress, so the last thing I need here is more anxiety.  I genuinely hope that an effort can be made with everyone trying to stay focused on the same goal: creating a historically accurate article that addressed the numerous aspects of this topic. I don't want to echo Rodney King, but I hope that we can all get along and shape this article into something of value. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people tend to consider anything edited by certain other editors "dreadful", "travesty" and so on. You may want to reconsider posting a comment here. Even simply linking to this thread or copying it would be useful, I believe. For the record, Eco, I want to thank you for all the effort you put into it; without your help this article would be in much, much worse shape.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Failure to observe this elementary requirement always results in dreadful travesties of what Wikipedia articles should be. The answer is not to complain about statements which qualify as bleeding obvious, but to ensure that articles do represent significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. If you can't do this yourself, either because you don't have access to materials presenting other views, or because you can't "argue for the enemy", it is necessary to get others to do so. But having effectively ruled out that solution for some time to come, you're left with a major problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All articles are works in progress, and clearly this article has some distance to go before it reaches a level where it does proper justice to its subject. And, obviously, this subject is a very sensitive one to many people. That is not an issue, and I believe the various bickering parties here would share common ground on those notions.  What is an issue, however, is calling people names and making fun of their work, as per the link provided at the start of this section and in too many comments that are littered throughout this Talk Page.  It is upsetting that the numerous people who contributed to this endeavour are being made the butt of cheap laughs or held up to suspicion or worse.  We all have a right to disagree with the opinions of others, but that can be done with class and tact. The only thing I see as "dreadful" is the inability of too many people to show a genuine sense of respect to their peers on this project.  Speaking as an adult to what I assume is a gathering of adults, I am asking everyone who contributes to this article to put their animosities aside and try to work together.  Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Angus, what exactly is it that is "bleeding obvious"?radek (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That ownership is bad, that NPOV is non-negotiable; see my 23:43 UTC. Oh, yes, it's also obvious that edit-warring is bad. This lot of edits -                    - surely make up an edit war. Yes, there's a three-revert rule, but that's just one aspect of edit warring. If you keep this up, and if things move with their usual glacial pace, you may be able to get your name in lights here. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Angus, as I said before assertion does not equal argument or evidence. Yes, ownership is bad, but who owns this article? Look at the the article history, various editors, bringing in different resources have contributed. I am not the one automatically reverting any edits that don't agree with some POV. To be honest, even though there's disagreement, I don't see Boodles or even Malik doing the same either. "Ownership" is not a central problem with this article so exactly what the hey are you talking about? Is this is just a 'throw everything but the kitchen sink and hoping something will stick' strategy on your part (particularly as someone who has not actually contributed to this article)? 'NPOV is non-negotiable' - ok ... sure ... democracy is good, evil is bad. But where is the POV? Please point out where in this article is there non neutral POV? If you can do so I'll be happy to assist in cleaning it up. Again, assertion is not evidence or argument. As to the edit-warring. I've made what I think are legitimate edits and additions to the article - non POV, verifiable, edits. For reasons which I'm not gonna try to speculate on, Malik and Boodles have been busy removing them. Since I think my edits are legitimate (and they are in good faith) I have put them back in. Malik and Boodles keep removing them. Who exactly is edit-warring here?radek (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, some users should take a deep breath, indeed:, , , , , , , . I am sure you didn't mean to single one side in this dispute... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And some editors living in glass houses throwing stones should take massive gulps of air:, , , , , bogus edit summary, disguising removal of sourced material, quiet deletion of relevant material, another bogus edit summary, disguising removal of well sourced material Piotrus doesnt like. bogus edit summary claiming simplifying when actually altering content watering down material that provides needed balance etc etc. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, I hope everyone (and I mean everyone) is happy -- the article has been put in lockdown protection for a week and one of the contributors received a 24-hour block for edit warring. Can we please now stop all of this fighting and try to work together?  We have one week before the protection is lifted -- why don't we make an effort to point out where the precise problems are in the article, what needs to be added or removed, and then build a consensus to get the article into shape? And if we can do that in a manner without name calling and acrimony, that would be tonic. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Question for Boodles
Just wondering, before I put more effort into retrieving hard to find sources, if it can be established through a RS that the "Polish population" that Bartoszewski refers to (as cited by Phayer in the "between 1 and 3%" under dispute) is some particular kind of "Polish population" (pre war Pop, non-Jewish Poles pop during the war, etc.) are you still going to object to including specific numbers as OR (i.e. multiplying two numbers together)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs) 02:06, November 24, 2008


 * given the very wide variability of both factors in the multiplication, the sort of accuracy obtained after such arithmetic is extremely low. It's so far from being obvious that it's misleading to do it. Better to just give the full range of numbers and let people do what the want with them by themselves. DGG (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * DGG, thanks for the response. But the thing is, a percentage is already a division (which is just a form of multiplication) obtained by dividing an estimate by some benchmark. In this case '% of Poles who helped = # of Poles who helped / total number of Poles". The only way this % can be obtained is by first estimating # of Poles who helped, THEN dividing it through. So multiplying a % by the population it is a % of, CANNOT decrease the accuracy of the estimate (going the other way, converting from a # to a % CAN decrease the accuracy if there's noise in the estimate of the denominator). To put it another way, one cannot estimate a % all by itself, without first estimating the #. So the accuracy "obtained after such arithmetic" is not extremely low, at least no lower than that of the % it's calculated from. I'm not sure what is misleading and non obvious about this, it's basic math. And of course we should give the full range of numbers - whether %'s or actual #'s. That's why it's "between 1 and 3 percent" or "between 320,000 and 960,000 individuals".radek (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree but as I wrote above, the original number (1-3% of undefined population) is also quite unclear. An average reader may assume the population refers to pre-war Polish population, but we don't know if this is what the author had in mind: maybe he meant only ethnic Poles? Only adults? All pre-war Polish citizens (including Polish Jews themselves, children and 3 millions Volksdeutche...)? I do think that the fact that we don't know what population he meant should be somehow reflected in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Percentages without hard numbers are used all the time with little or no problem or confusion. It's obvious that its an estimation. We use figures such as "half of all Americans believe X" all the time, and even though we may know the exact number of Americans at any given moment, we know that such figures are based on sampling. In the case of the estimates of helpers, its all very imprecise, based on formulas, rather than surveys. I dont know what the point would be to add our own (OR) guesswork to already imprecise estimates and speculations. We should just include what the reliable sources say, whether or number or a percentage, and leave it at that. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So are you answering my question or no, because I can't make it out? Yes, they are used all the time (and often incorrectly) because often a % is useful way of summarizing some information (like all statistics). But an actual number is also useful information. What exactly is the objection to having both? Again, is it just because "between 1 and 3 %" looks (to readers with a weak understanding of percentages) "small", while "between 320,000 and 960,000" looks "large"? If we can know what "Polish population" is, based on the original source that Phayer is using then the two ways of presenting the information are mathematically equivalent. So what would the basis be for excluding one and not the other, aside from trying to manipulate readers towards a particular POV through exclusion? If we know what "Polish population" is then there's no guesswork involved, at least not from us. And to repeat again, multiplying two numbers together is not OR - that's just ridiculous. radek (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you see any ""half of all Americans believe X"" type stuff around Wikipedia, please let me know, because that kind of stuff is very often bunk.radek (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, for the fourth or fifth time, the "objection to having both" is that we don't have both. The "between 320,000 and 960,000" is yours, and not from any reliable source we can cite. The reliable source we do have, published by Indiana University Press, apparently had no problem publishing the 1-3% figure without adding speculative guesses at the number range or fretting about "readers with a weak understanding of percentages." The rest of your arguments don't hold up either, based as they are on false premises or non-sequitors:
 * You say: Yes, they are used all the time (and often incorrectly)" So what? We should remove percentages from Wikipedia because "they are used all the time (and often incorrectly)?"


 * I think it's obvious that I don't want to remove any percentages from Wikipedia (unless they are in fact used incorrectly) or from this article in particular. Why are you misrepresenting the dispute? I'm perfectly happy with the "between 1 and 3%" being in there, you're the one who tried to argue that we don't know what this represents. This argument has been going on long enough that you know very well that no one is trying to remove any percentages from this article so why are you pretending otherwise??? And yes, in cases where percentages are being used incorrectly, they should be removed.radek (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, but above you made the following threat: "In other words, unless you can tell me what population Bartoszewski-through-Phayer is referring to I'm going to remove Phayer, since the "1 and 3 %" by itself means less than nothing." From that, it seemed obvious that you do want to remove percentages. And since you know quite well that the reliable source doesn't indicate the population number, I would take that to mean that you were going to follow through on your threat to remove the percentage, as you stated (which would amount to removing perfectly legitimate reliable sourced information). So if you want it to be "obvious" that you don;t intend to do something, then don;t threaten to do it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You say: "But an actual number is also useful information." But we don;t have an actual number that the author might or might not have been intending, so it's moot.
 * You say: "What exactly is the objection to having both?" Uhhh...we don't have both. We have a percentage spread, and YOUR guesses.
 * You say: "If we can know what "Polish population" is, based on the original source that Phayer is using" We don;t have that. If you can ascertain that, please let us know.
 * You say: "So what would the basis be for excluding one and not the other?" Errrr....becuase we only have one, and don't have the "other." The "other" is for the umpteenth time YOUR PERSONAL GUESS. Not a reliable source.
 * You say: "aside from trying to manipulate readers towards a particular POV through exclusion?" Bogus, and lame lack of good faith. What we are excluding is (again!) your GUESSES. To make accusations that anyone is trying to manipulate readers, simply for objecting to including your own personal guesses WP:OR, WP:SYNTH is kinda lame.
 * You say: "And to repeat again, multiplying two numbers together is not OR - that's just ridiculous." Ummmm..it's OR when we only have one of the numbers (actually a spread, 0.01-0.03). The other number is your own guess (unless you know precisely what the author was intending by "population." Do you?)
 * Any more questions? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as this goes, if we don't know what "population" is then those %'s are meaningless (it could be the population of 6 year old red haired left handed boys!) and I'm not sure what the point of having meaningless information in a Wiki article is. Of course I think that it's not meaningless because Polish population probably refers to the most obvious population it could be - Polish pre war population. Just like if an article had "GDP Per capita" in it, one presumably shouldn't object to adding "GDP" to it, by multiplying GDP Pc by population without pretending that "we don't know what population" is.
 * The bigger issue here is that the way the information is currently presented in the article misleads the reader to think that Bartoszewski had two sets of estimates for this - the "several hundred thousand" on one hand but then also a "between 1 and 3 percent". But with almost near certainty, these are the same Bartoszewski numbers in both cases, just presented in different way, since "between 1 and 3%" of Polish population is in fact "several hundred thousands". If you object to having concrete #'s, perhaps those two statements could be merged so as to avoid giving the readers a false impression.radek (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodles, did you even bother reading my initial question? Like, the first sentence of this section?radek (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Which question? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The one for Boodles. You know, like the section title says. Like, the first sentence of this section?radek (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We should say whatever information a reliable source provides. If you can find additional information for that statistic from a reliable source, feel free to add it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to above (please don't intersperse responses in the middle of someone else's posts, its confusing). In response to your question, do tyou have evidence that the two Bartoszewski estimates of "several hundred thousand" and "between 1 and 3 percent" come from the same source? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I think it makes it easier to follow, but whatever. Bartoszewski is quoted in and has his numbers in several works spanning several decades, from the 60's to the 90's. In all of these it's pretty much the same estimates. The particular source Phayer is citing is very hard to track down because the Institute of Jewish Affairs doesn't exist any more (it changed name and even location I believe) and not many libraries have their 'Research Report's (this was also complicated by the fact that Phayer just gives the journal name as 'Research Report' and doesn't mention IJA so it even takes some effort to figure that part out) but there is no reason to believe that in this one particular instance Bartoszewski gave different numbers. Unlike in his numerous other works, published before and after the report. Like I said, I'm trying to track down this source but it's gonna take some time (inter library loan and the like, also holiday travel). And oh yeah, even if we took the 15 million that P uses, "between 1 and 3 percent" of 15 million would still be "several hundred thousand". The "Polish population" would really have to be defined in some weird, very restrictive way, for it not to be "several hundred thousand". And this is assuming that in fact it wasn't Phayer who took actual #s from Bartoszewski and converted them into %'s.radek (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Punishment for aiding the Jews
The section hasn't been rewritten yet.

I believe that the numbers by IPN are the only ones more or less reliable (as for 1997). Some research is being done. Eg. 33 ethnic Poles were murdered in Ciepielów and Rekówka Dec. 6 and 7, 1942. So the 1997 or recent data should be included. The second part of the section contains informations about UPA crimes. Siemaszko&Siemaszko shuld be consulted. The majority of quoted sources are unavailable to me. Has someone seen them?

Maksymilian Kolbe also helped Jews, but he isn't listed here, so why Adam Sztark is?Xx236 (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you propose the text of the rewritten section here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Partial list of communities
The list doesn't say anything. In reality there were two problems - Warsaw and other lands. Why some parts of Warsaw are selected and other omitted? Głupianka in Otwock area and Otwock are listed separately. Markowa isn't listed at all.

I believe that geographical division would be more helpful:

New Reich
Xx236 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany offers more details. I am just unhappy with Volhynia: it was Reichskommissariat Ukraine, and the above would forget about Reichskommissariat Ostland (Wilno...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

False statement
''Like in other countries of occupied Europe, ... ranging from acts of altruism at the risk of endangering their own and often their families’ lives,'' - outside Eastern Europe rescuing Jews didn't endanger lives of families.Xx236 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That change adding "Like in other countries of occupied Europe" was added by Tymek, contrary to what the ref actually says. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * sure it did. France. Holland. probably Italy, though it wasn't actually an occupied country. DGG (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. The sentence is mostly true, but Nazi response to people aiding Jews varied: in the civilized West, the punishments were much less draconian (fines) then in the to be eradicated East, where the punishment was death, and often, of anybody in the neighborhood (ref, ref, ref, ref).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * the civilized behavior of the Nazis in West--what gives you that idea? What I had in mind was Oradour-sur-Glane, but that didn't involve Jews at all. Neither did Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre and a number of similar events. My apologies; I misremembered about the Jewish aspect--if I come across one I'll add it where it goes. DGG (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that the Nazis were very civilized in the West, but they were more civilized than in the East. For example, they never planned to exterminate all Frenchmen or Italians and colonize their lands... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They murdered millions of civilians in the west as well as the east, including their own citizens in the heart of Western Europe. How you can characterize a policy of exterminating entire specific populations in, say, France and Italy, but not "Frenchmen" or "Italians" (and what exactly were French and Italian Jews, gypsies, homosexuals etc?) as "more civilized" is baffling. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't see the difference in Nazi treatment of ethnic Frenchmen, Italian, Danes versus that of ethnic Slavs, then I am baffled, indeed. For enlightenment, see The_Holocaust. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Piotrus, can you show me exactly where I said that I "don't see the difference in Nazi treatment of ethnic Frenchmen, Italian, Danes versus that of ethnic Slavs?" I'm baffled as to how you see me saying that yet I can't seem to find the post where I said it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodles, did you miss the quotation marks around "civilized"?radek (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They murdered millions of civilians in the west as well as the east - Boodles, you are you worst enemy. You admit you don't have any idea about WWII in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about Poland; the source for the original statement:"The responses of non-Jewish Poles to the Holocaust against their Jewish fellow Poles covered an extremely wide spectrum, ranging from acts of altruism at the risk of endangering their own and often their families’ lives, to indifference, to active participation in killings." comes from the cited source, Steinlauf's Bondage to the Dead. By adding "Like in other countries of occupied Europe", Tymek disorts what the source says, and creates a muddle. If editors think a section of comparative penalties is needed, then it should have its own wection. In this "background" section, we are discussing Poland, and that is what the sentence, before it was altered, was discussing, backed by a reliable source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tymek's edit was obviously meant to underscore the fact that in Poland, like the rest of occupied Europe, the reaction to the Holocaust spanned the whole spectrum of human actions. It got mixed up with the "at the risk of their own and their families lives" which made it seem as if the punishment for aiding Jews was same in Poland as in the occupied West, which of course it wasn't. So there's two issues here which need to be separated. I'm not sure that Tymek's edits are necessary, I think the rest of the article pretty much makes it clear that there were all kinds of responses. The other issues - the fact that in Poland the punishment for aiding Jews was death to oneself and one's whole family, whereas in the occupied West it was imprisonment and a fine - is obviously relevant and should be discussed in the article.radek (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The death penalty issue is already discussed in "Punishment for aiding the Jews." I think we should simply undo tymek's confusing edit, and stick to what the source (Steinlauf) says. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact of the death penalty is mentioned though not really discussed. For example, there is no mention of the fact that the death penalty applied not just to rescuers, but also to their families.radek (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dumb article title
The name of the article (and most of the revert wars involved) pretty much assumes that the category of 'Jews' and the category of 'Poles' were mutually exclusive. If we were to be precise the name of this article would be something like "The Rescue of Polish Jews by Non-Jewish Poles during the Holocaust". Obviously Polish Jews were Polish, at least as far as their citizenship goes. At the same time it's pretty obvious that this article is not about Polish Jews rescuing Non-Polish Jews. It is about non-Jewish Poles rescuing Jewish Poles. The name of the article itself is POV, though in my opinion a 'good faith' kind of POV. While I am sympathetic to the documentation presented in this article, it does need a better title. Otherwise it just perpetuates some standard stupidities.radek (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the definition of "Boostupidities"? Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, typo, honest.radek (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)