Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2021/August

Section POV tag
If an editor feels that some information is missing they should add it (provided sources exist) instead of tag shaming. Not sure what "positive activities" are being referenced here. Without an explanation the tag is spurious.  Volunteer Marek  06:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The explanation is provided just a few sections earlier. Are you seriously suggesting that none of the thousands of Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians and Germans recognized as Righteous Among the Nations carried out rescues in Poland? Wilm Hosenfeld and Anton Schmid are just two examples that spring to mind. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then add that info.  Volunteer Marek   16:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinions in wikivoice
"Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." Whether it's "high" or low, "successful" or otherwise is an opinion; opinions in wikivoice violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Such opinions should be attributed and only included when it's DUE, also, consider if the opposite opinion is also a widely held one. For instance, Jan Grabowski estimated that a large number of Jews who tried to escape and survive in such a way were killed directly or indirectly due to actions of Poles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then attribute it.  Volunteer Marek   16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point Buidhe is making is that the article has more than just this example, and that in general editors in the TA should be mindful of attribution. François Robere (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it's up to them to come to the talk page and explain which statements they think need to be attributed. I can't read their mind.  Volunteer Marek   18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

More importantly Buidhe, once again you made a series of controversial changes without bothering to discuss any of them, then when your edits were challanged you just did a blind revert and you used a false edit summary to justify that revert. Your revert doesn't undo "restoration of content that fails sourcing requirements". It's just a straight up blind revert. One needs only to scroll down to the first few paragraphs to see that you've removed material sourced to academic and other reliable sources. You even removed Yad Vashem. Are you really saying that Yad Vashem is not a reliable source which doesn't meet sourcing requirements?

If your edits are challenged then you need to discuss it rather than immediately blind reverting. You need to use accurate edit summaries. You need to justify your reversions on talk. We've been through this before. Let's not do it again.  Volunteer Marek  16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Does this have to do with the issue raised by the OP? If not, please open a new thread. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're good here, thanks for keeping an eye out though.  Volunteer Marek   18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems with VM's reverts
I will list all the problems:
 * 1) VM removed information on prewar antisemitism, which reliable sources relate to the wartime events: "Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war. Anti-Jewish violence occurred in more than 150 localities between 1935 and 1937. Prior to the war, right-wing Polish politicians encouraged Jews to emigrate in order to reduce the number of Jews in Poland. "
 * 2) "An estimated 157,000 to 375,000 Polish Jews either fled into the Soviet Union or were deported eastward by the Soviet authorities." -> VM replaced with "Within months, Polish Jews in the Soviet zone who refused to swear allegiance were deported deep into the Soviet interior along with ethnic Poles. The number of deported Polish Jews is estimated at 200,000–230,000 men, women, and children." According to reliable sources, not all Jews were deported, some went voluntarily. Deportation of non-Jews is irrelevant to this article
 * 3) "Both occupying powers were hostile to the existence of a sovereign Polish state and endorsed policies of genocide. " Restored by VM. The problem here is that Soviet and Nazi hostility to Poland is already obvious (since it was invaded and occupied by them), allegations that Soviet Union pursued a policy of "genocide" against Poland are irrelevant and need a much stronger source than what is provided
 * 4) (see map) -> violates MOS:SEEIMAGE
 * 5) "Polish nationals account for the majority of rescuers with the title of Righteous Among the Nations, as honored by Yad Vashem."... I moved most of this paragraph into the rescue section, where it belongs. VM replaced it at the top of "Poles and the Jews" section.
 * 6) Some Jews were denounced or killed by erstwhile rescuers. Motivations of rescuers differed; some were motivated by compassion and altruism while others did so for money or sex.  -> Removed by VM without explanation
 * 7) VM added content stating "and 150,000 [non-Jewish Poles died] due to Soviet repressions. -> Totally irrelevant
 * 8) About a fifth of Poland's prewar population perished. Their deaths were the result of deliberate acts of war, mass murder, incarceration in concentration camps, forced labor, malnutrition, disease, kidnappings, and expulsions. -> Deliberately aggregating Jewish and non-Jewish deaths when they have already been given separately. The general German repressions (as opposed to repressions specifically for helping Jews) is not relevant, most of them were in concentration camps for other reasons, etc.
 * 9) There were, however, many Poles who risked death to hide entire Jewish families or otherwise help Jews on compassionate grounds. Polish rescuers of Jews were sometimes exposed by those very Jews if the Jews were found by the Germans, resulting in the murder of entire helper networks in the General Government. The number of Jews hiding with gentile Poles, quoted by Żarski-Zajdler, was about 450,000. -> Unreliable sources, opinion stated as fact (It's not for us to decide if there were "many" or indeed "few" Polish rescuers).
 * 10) Possibly a million gentile Poles aided their Jewish neighbors. Historian Richard C. Lukas gives an estimate as high as three million Polish helpers; an estimate similar to those cited by other authors.   -> Most of the sources cited are unreliable for the topic (i.e. Smith and Furth appear to have no expertise studying the Holocaust in Poland) and there's no indication given that this is a minority, probably even FRINGE view. As stated indeed in the methodology section of Furth's paper, all these estimates rely on there being many, many more Polish rescuers than known to the historical record. Andrzej Żbikowski states, "Summing up this aspect of Polish historical writing—I might add that it continues, although it is none too popular—we may state that up to the year 2000 so-called Polish witnesses to the Holocaust were for most part perceived to be the Righteous, people fighting German terror tactics and willing to help those in danger. There were supposedly many, many more than noted in underground documents and postwar accounts."
 * 11) The paragraph implies that German repressions were the only reason for not helping Jews. Reliable sources, such as Żbikowski's chapter linked above, beg to differ. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In some cases I think your changes make sense, but not all of them.
 * " Deportation of non-Jews is irrelevant to this article"... "and 150,000 [non-Jewish Poles died] due to Soviet repressions. It's part of the wider context. Which you just argued is relevant.
 * Why do you call this source unreliable? Ditto for others like Smith's work published by Edinburgh University Press. They all seem reliable to me. If there are issues with estimates, we should simply cite (and attribute) the ranges as given in various RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , In the background section, maybe, but not in the section for Polish rescues of Jews. I just don't see any sources that tie Stalinist repressions with rescuing of Jews.
 * As for numbers, there's no way that an estimate by someone who is not a historian and expert in Holocaust research is WP:DUE, or for that matter those like Lukas' from 30 years ago (!) when most research has been done quite recently. I don't support including Grabowski's estimate of the number of Jews killed by Poles either, because as far as I can tell the research doesn't exist to be able to accurately estimate these numbers—either the number of rescuers or the number of killers. This is the same approach that was taken in the Home Army article due to lack of data. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd suggest listing various estimates here, and discussing their reliability. Older estimates by amateurs can be discarded, but surely there are some newer and more reliable ones? Attribution tends to solve such issues, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not knowledgeable about any recent estimates by credible historians. But one has to be clear about what is being estimated: "Oszacować można, natomiast jest pytanie, na ile te szacunki będą w tej chwili bliskie prawdy, były bardzo różne kategorie tej pomocy. Możemy mówić o osobach, które pomagały doraźnie, jednorazowo, nie ryzykowały swoim życiem, udzielając pomocy i tych nazywamy pomocnikami. Z kolei były osoby, których nazywamy ratownikami lub ratującymi, to ci, którzy udzielali długotrwałej pomocy, takiej, która rzeczywiście pomagała przetrwać długie miesiące."
 * Incidentally the IPN has documented 341 cases where Poles were killed for helping Jews: (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Maybe this really should be discussed at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust? That article can contain a bigger discussion, as well as all the estimates (maybe in a table?) and then we could summarize it here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you are aware of any recent estimates made in reputable sources, I'm happy to discuss them. However, I am not aware of any that would be due to mention in this article, and the reputable historians linked above discussing the issue are evasive when asked for exact numbers. I think it's better not to include any estimate than one that lacks historical consensus or is inherently speculative. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Maybe this really should be discussed at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust? That article can contain a bigger discussion, as well as all the estimates (maybe in a table?) and then we could summarize it here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you are aware of any recent estimates made in reputable sources, I'm happy to discuss them. However, I am not aware of any that would be due to mention in this article, and the reputable historians linked above discussing the issue are evasive when asked for exact numbers. I think it's better not to include any estimate than one that lacks historical consensus or is inherently speculative. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest replacing the bullet points (*) with numbering (#) so we can clearly refer to specific points. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing quoted in #1 relates those statements to the topic of this article. This is a straightforward case of WP:SYNTH.  Volunteer Marek  02:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, including historical background information is not optional, but required for articles. We can't assume the reader knows anything about the topic. If you want to argue that historical background is SYNTH, take it up with MILHIST or at the NOR noticeboard. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But this isn't really historical background information. Historical back information would concern the nature of German occupation of Poland and the development of the Nazis' genocidal policies (which... for some reason you want to remove?). Anyway, you'd need sources which actually do make the connection.  Volunteer Marek   04:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m having trouble understanding what your objection in #2 is. Is it that it says that Jews were deported along with non-Jews? Why exactly must this be removed? Are you questioning the source? Why? Your statement “not all Jews were deported” is irrelevant since the text doesn’t actually claim that all Jews were deported. This looks like you’re looking to substitute in your own original research in place of reliable sources.  Volunteer Marek  03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't respond to unfounded personal attacks. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not made any personal attack. If you want to discuss this issue, please address the objection.  Volunteer Marek   04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Baselessly accusing another editor of original research is a personal attack. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually not. It's criticism of content. And it's not baseless since it really is original research. Let me note also that you haven't even bothered to reply to any of the questions I asked. WHICH part are you exactly objecting to?  Volunteer Marek   20:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding #6. Your first source doesn’t satisfy the sourcing requirement. Should I file an AE report?  Volunteer Marek  03:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please do. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean sourcing requirements. It's a unpublished thesis.  Volunteer Marek   04:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Take it up with Arbcom or RSN if you insist. It's a peer-reviewed piece of research supervised by the noteworthy historian Dagmar Herzog and published by University of Ottawa on their website. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m sure you’re aware that having a piece linked to on a website isn’t the same thing as “published” in a peer review journal. It just doesn’t meet sourcing requirements. I don’t actually have to “take it up” with anyone. It’s pretty straight forward and you really shouldn’t be pretending otherwise after you *just* filed an AE report on this very matter.  Volunteer Marek   18:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Which source is that? Ref 7 above is totally broken for me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And btw, who is "Furth"? You say negative things about them but I don't see any source named "Furth" here.  Volunteer Marek  21:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe didn't attach diffs, but I'll take it for granted that diffs can be presented if needed. François Robere (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) We've had several discussions on this. This is relevant and well sourced background material.
 * 2) Mentioning that some "fled" rather than "were deported" is important.
 * 3) Is the "swear allegiance" part sourced?
 * 4) We can state "(along with so-and-so ethnic Poles)"
 * 5) What are the numbers of refugees/deportees exactly?
 * 6) I agree about the hostility of the regimes being obvious.
 * 7) The mention of a Soviet Polish genocide is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, so would ideally be attributed to several up-to-date sources. In addition, the attribution in source 6 to a reviewer rather than to Piotrowski directly is a borderline violation of the TA sourcing requirements.
 * 8) Can you diff this?
 * 9) This is again something we discussed a lot. The claim itself is true, but it has to be given in context, lest it gives the reader a false impression of Poles' willingness to help Jewish refugees. I agree that it belongs in the "Rescue and aid" subsection, and certainly not at the top of "Poles and Jews" section.
 * 10) Again something we discussed a lot, and shouldn't be removed.
 * 11) Belongs in Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), not here.
 * 12) Source 12 violates TASR.
 * 13) Same as above, but can be mentioned as an aside.
 * 14) Source 17 is an indirect reference to a dated source (published 1968), which was published by non-scholarly, state-controlled publisher of a Communist country. Source 18 was analysed in an ongoing AE case and was found lacking. This is problematic in terms of TASR, and needless to say I would've liked something stronger for a potentially inflammatory statement like that.
 * 15) It's difficult to find a reliable estimate of the number of Poles who helped Jews, but I can find you any number of sources that will say that it was a small minority. Three million sounds WP:FRINGE-y, but one million could perhaps be cited given adequate sourcing.
 * 16) Again something we discussed ad nauseum. There are plenty of sources that place a significant part of the risk on one's neighbours, who all too often were happy to "snitch" on a saver's exceptional initiative.


 * "We've had several discussions on this. This is relevant and well sourced background material." - Have we? Can you link them please? I looked back through Archives going back to Jan 2018 and didn't see anything. And if it's relevant than there should be no problem in presenting sources which actually link that to the topic of THIS article. Otherwise it's just WP:SYNTH
 * And really, first saying "I haven't actually looked at any of the sources" and then going on to stake out your position is completely backwards. You're basically saying "I made up my mind without looking at any evidence". You're suppose to do it the other way.  Volunteer Marek   21:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On #2 we can say that those some of those who were deported by the Soviets were the people who had fled to Soviet Union in the first place. That's not a problem. The issue is that we don't want to obfuscate or hide the fact of the deportations themselves and the reason for it (refusing to swear allegiance to USSR and/or give up Polish citizenship).  Volunteer Marek   21:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On #3, this is well sourced. Once again, you're trying to substitute in original research for what sources say. Is it important? Yes. Is it obvious? I guess that depends on the reader. It might be obvious to some but not others. As far as genocide thing goes, pursuing genocidal policies is not the same as actually carrying out genocide. You might want to do something and change your mind or you might want to do something and be bad at it. This is fine.  Volunteer Marek   21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It had to do with these edits, which were later mentioned in several places. Now that you mention it I see that the correction has been removed, and that the same unqualified claims are made in three other articles, and qualified in one. Indeed there's no problem finding sources on this: Cymet, D. Polish state antisemitism as a major factor leading to the Holocaust. 1999; Ben-Ami, Y.. The Irgun and the Destruction of European Jewry, in Braham, R. (ed.) Perspectives on the Holocaust. 1983; Kochanaski, H. The Eagle Unbowed. 2012...
 * I did look at the sources. What's the problem?
 * Can you source it, and is it related to the subject of the article?
 * Citing a review (tertiary source, usually low notability vs. the reviewed work, and not always itself peer-reviewed) is hardly applicable now. If you want, check Piotrowski and cite him directly, or better yet - cite Piotrowski and a couple more sources. What's OR here? François Robere (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm sorry, I'm not clear on this. What does some other dispute some where else over Irgun have to do with any of this?  Volunteer Marek   19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the same content. François Robere (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait what? This is "same content" as ... what? There's nothing about Irgun in this article afaict. Also "History of Jews in Poland" is a much more general subject than "Holocaust in Poland" so it makes sense that some content, like stuff about Irgun, belongs there but not here. Not sure what you're talking about.  Volunteer Marek   23:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two parts: the increasing antisemitism in Poland before the war, which I believe was also discussed with you at some point; and the Polish government's push for Jewish emigration (ie showing Jews the door), which motivated their support of Zionist organizations (cf. Buidhe's point #1 and diff). François Robere (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the BBC source since it wasn't needed anyway.  Volunteer Marek  19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is the BBC source problematic, the BBC are about as RS as you can get?Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK< the BBC might not pass as a "reputable institution" (As I assume it means academic), but I am unsure many of the others here fail, this. If the BBC fails, then so should all news outlets or media companies.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Generally, if the piece in a news or media outlet is written by a historian it's ok. Here the BBC piece is unattributed afaict. Normally it would be RS but with the stricter sourcing requirements ... I guess it's borderline. Either way, it's not even necessary.  Volunteer Marek   19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The TASR (or TASE, if you prefer) take into account the venue, and popular media is out regardless of author. François Robere (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All media companies that do not conduct peer review in the academic sense. François Robere (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true. According to AE, "leading mainstream newspapers" can be regarded as "reputable institutions" . You should know that since that's from an AE you filed. But if something somewhere says otherwise, please link it. Oh and also, this means we should remove stuff like "oko press" which are popular media and not quite "leading mainstream".  Volunteer Marek   23:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . François Robere (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All the same, for the purposes here the point is moot because BBC is not in the article anymore.  Volunteer Marek   23:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No its not moot as it was removed because it failed the test, so if it did not fail the test it should be reinstated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest self-reverts. The edits were challenged on the basis as not meeting the Arbcom requirements; it's on VM to establish that the sources are appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * fixing ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What Arbcom case?Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinged you above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) I suggest you actually follow the developments here rather than, as the superficial nature of your comment suggests, just reflexively picking a side. That's not actually helpful in terms of resolving the disagreement. The sources which were challenged have been removed for the most part (there's one or two which can be discussed). They weren't even necessary anyway. Most of the removals had nothing to do with the sources. And no, the onus is not on me here, it's on the person who's trying to remove 23k bytes of long standing material with barely any explanation.  Volunteer Marek   19:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, a good part of the problem with buidhe's removals are that they removed text sourced to clearly reliable sources like Yad Vashem and scholarly journals. So... you kind of have it backwards.  Volunteer Marek   19:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you keep your sass to yourself and try to focus on meaningful arguments. I haven't seen any diffs or sources that support your claims just yet, so I can hardly blame K.e.coffman for being unconvinced. François Robere (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are replying on K.e.coffman's behalf here Francois, and you've been warned by admins before about comments like "I suggest you keep your sass to yourself".  Volunteer Marek   23:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I again suggest that you focus less on editors' motives, and more on presenting convincing arguments. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Of the formerly  Polish  Jews,  some  68,000–71,000    were  deported  before 22 June 1941 and another 23,600 arrested; perhaps 10,000–21,000 were  drafted  into  the  Red  Army.  To    these  altogether  101,600–115,600  who had been coercively removed from the path of the Wehrmacht, we need to add 40,000–53,000 who volunteered to work in the Soviet hin-terland  before  the  Nazi  storm  broke  over  Soviet  lands.  At  a  minimum,  then,  141,600  and  maybe  as  many  as  168,600    were  thus  saved  from  the  German Einsatzgruppen. In addition, perhaps 210,000 Jews evacuated or fled east once the Germans attacked.  These figures mean that, at the very least, 146,100 and as many as 384,600  were saved from the Holocaust by the often harsh haven of the Soviet Union."
 * Since removal to the soviet Union was both voluntary and involuntary, it is biased to mention one but not the other. RS citation is an absolute minimum for inclusion, but content also fails on other grounds. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait. Are you confusing people fleeing the Nazis into the Soviet Union with the Soviet deportations? Yes the first one was voluntary - people fled Nazis. The second one wasn't. That's why they were called "deportations" rather than... I don't know, "establishing a voluntary residence in the colder, less populated regions of the Soviet Union". The text isn't about "removal TO the Soviet Union" (that would be almost silly). The text is about what happened WITHIN Soviet Union afterward. The point of the passage is to illustrate what happened some of those who escaped the Holocaust.  Volunteer Marek   00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is covering what happened to Jews in the Soviet occupation zone, and clearly says that some Jews volunteered to work in the Soviet interior, others fled east after Barbarossa. I am not sure why you keep trying to remove this information from the article, but it is clearly stated in sources. (Likewise, "Of those who fled the German portion of Poland between 1939 and 1941, a considerable number (possibly as many as 100,000) were deported [to the Soviet interior] as class aliens, and a large number were evacuated or successfully fled the German invasion.") (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The text you’re trying to replace existing text with clearly says “into the Soviet Union”. Into, as in in to. It’s referring to people who fled German occupied Poland into Soviet Union. Once there a bunch of them got deported. I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue about some of those who might have voluntarily moved within the Soviet Union. At any rate, I’m not the one “trying to remove it”. You replaced detailed existing text, with a vague sentence which conflates several phenomenon at once and leads to confusion. You’re actually the editor who “keeps trying to remove” well sourced info.
 * Also, I asked some questions above and I notice you haven’t responded,p. Like who is this “Furth” person that you claimed was cited somewhere but whom I can’t find anywhere on this page.  Volunteer Marek   06:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources say clearly that some Jews went from Soviet occupation zone of Poland to the Soviet interior voluntarily, others were deported. You're the one who is suggesting to remove this information from the article, replacing it with a sentence that does not mention voluntary movement, which misleads readers into thinking that voluntary migration was not a factor. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Maybe we'll come back to this later. Who's "Furth"? This is third time I've asked.  Volunteer Marek   07:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @VM: I've reviewed the discussion and buidhe's changes prior to commenting. Invoking "long-standing material" in this context is not a valid argument; see: Stable_version.
 * Separately, personalising the discussion and assuming bad faith right off the bat is not helpful. Likewise, please refrain from using disparaging edit summaries, as was done here: ; this was not a "blind revert". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your original statement claimed that the problem was that some sources didn't meet ArbCom requirements. At the time you made that comment, presumably after "reviewing the discussion and buidhe's changes", sources that were objected to had already been removed. Along the same lines, those sources were never the issue - there was additional citation for all text. The issue is actually with buidhe's removal of reliable sources such as Yad Vashem and scholarly journals. You have not commented upon that. And yes, an editor removing long standing text sourced to Yad Vashem etc. with barely any explanation ... yeah, the onus is on them. Sorry, that's just how it works.
 * As far as calling a blind revert a "blind revert", an assessment shared by several administrators it seems, is not "disparaging", nor is it "personalising" anything. If could comment upon specific content that would be helpful.  Volunteer Marek   00:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding #3 above "see map" does not violate MOS:SEEIMAGE. If it said "see map on the left" or something like that, then it would: Don't refer to image orientation such as left, right, above, or below. You can refer to the map you just shouldn't say where the map is because it displays differently on different browsers. Also, this is a minor issue.  Volunteer Marek  00:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

False edit summary, edit warring while discussion is ongoing
This kind of behavior is highly disruptive. There is clearly no "talk page consensus" to make these massive changes to the article. There is no "talk page consensus" to remove sources like Yad Vashem from the article. This edit summary is just false.

Please do not edit war while discussion is ongoing. This is a WP:IDHT problem that you've been warned about in the past User:Buidhe and you promised to do better. This isn't "doing better".

Buidhe, if you wish to remove Yad Vashem, Journal of Genocide Research or Yale University Press from the article because you think they're unreliable, please bring that up at WP:RSN first.  Volunteer Marek  13:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are the minimum, but not sufficent condition necessary to support a proposed article version. In the discussion above, I don't see any other editors who endorse your version of the article., , all said that they disagreed with it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And I don't see any consensus for your drastic and massive unilateral changes. We go by reliable sources. Otherwise this becomes just a "I do what I want" mess. You are free to bring these sources to WP:RSN.  Volunteer Marek   17:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact I don't see ANY discussion regarding whether it's okay to remove reliable sources such as Yad Vashem, Yale University Press, Journal of Genocide Research or the Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal. The fact that these weren't even discussed yet you thought it ok to remove them while claiming consensus makes this even worse.  Volunteer Marek   17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We certainly need to revert to an earlier version, though I'm undecided on which. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This IS an earlier version.  Volunteer Marek   17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not check your discussions (tl;dr, sorry), but speaking about this specific edit by VM, I think this is an obvious improvement because


 * 1) it provides a much better background (starting from mentioning the 1939 invasion of Poland) and correctly focus on the crimes by Nazi and their allies, whereas the version preferred by Buidhe and Robere implicitly blames Polish people for the atrocities by Nazi (it does it by starting the section from "Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war.") That looks like an anti-Polish bias to me.
 * 2) it tells "About a fifth of Poland's prewar population perished"
 * 3) it mentioned the Polish Government in Exile (which is relevant),
 * 4) it mentioned "The question regarding the Jews' real chances of survival",
 * 5) it mentioned "Polish nationals account for the majority of rescuers with the title of Righteous Among the Nations, as honored by Yad Vashem." My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but this can be re-incorporated later, on top of a version that is better overall. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why "later"? This IS the previous version. Buidhe's unilateral changes don't have consensus and they shouldn't have started edit warring on the false pretext that they did. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, something Buidhe has been warned about in the past and something which they promised to work on.  Volunteer Marek   17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Marek, your reversals have less support than her changes, which suggests that we should revert to the version from January 28th and continue from there. François Robere (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not how this works. This is not how any of this works. Buidhe made big controversial changes without bothering to discuss them. Buidhe edit warred when these changes were challenged. Buidhe then tried to get their way by filing spurious AE report. Buidhe then couldn't help themselves and began edit warring again before any compromise could be worked out. Buidhe used a false edit summary which claimed WP:FALSECON. Buidhe removed multiple reliable sources from the article. Support for Buidhe has consisted of nothing more than some incivil substance free comments from you and generalities from one other editor. As an added bonus you began stalking my edits across multiple articles ... as some kind of payback or strategy or something. When I requested you stop, you doubled down on the rudeness and incivility.
 * In terms of following dispute resolution and pursuing the goal of collaborative editing this right here has been a textbook example from Buidhe and you of what not to do.
 * With all due respect.  Volunteer Marek   22:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe also meticulously documented her concerns on Talk (and does so on other pages in the TA), which allowed the WP:CONSENSUS process to progress. I'm not seeing you doing the same, and I'm not going to support a reversal to the January 4th version unless I see a clear explanation for why her changes were wrong. Also, I think my 11-point discussion of your edits was both civil and substantial; and you were shown proof that I was already watching the articles you claim I "followed" you to, so I suggest you strike that part of your comment. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess in this case "meticulously documented" is in the eye of the beholder. For the most part they haven't responded to inquiries and haven't clarified what sources they were actually referencing.  Volunteer Marek   16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They gave an 11-point list with 23 sources . François Robere (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, sources for what? Text they're removing? How is that suppose to help their case? Come on, it's not like it's not immediately obvious that half of those "23 sources" that "they gave" are sources for text they're trying to remove !!!  Volunteer Marek   20:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Some, yes, but the point is they actually discussed the issues. What have you contributed to the discussion? François Robere (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and where exactly was I "shown proof" that you were already watching the article? Because you said so?  Volunteer Marek   16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I can cite a particular edit from October for which I gave Buidhe a public "thank you" note that is logged by the system? François Robere (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not check editing history, but just looking at the page... In the version restored/created by Buidhe section "Background" starts from Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war. Anti-Jewish violence occurred in more than 150 localities between 1935 and 1937, instead of starting from describing the invasion of Poland by Nazi. So, it were Polish antisemites, not Nazi who are responsible for the Holocaust in Poland? This is really a bias. Yes, sure, there was Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, just as in many other countries. And of course we must mention Nazi collaborators, but in proper place. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's much more to the background than just the invasion. We should probably start the section with an overview of Nazi racial ideology and the geopolitical situation, then discuss Polish antisemitism (which many sources tie to Jews' chances of survival during the Holocaust), then introduce the invasion and connect this section to the next. François Robere (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should duplicate content from The_Holocaust, and we have already The_Holocaust_in_Poland on this page. The info should be country-specific. Yes, it could say more on the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). But hardly anything else. I agree, the antisemitism in Poland is something notable, but we have a separate page about it. Did it play a role in the Holocaust in Poland? Yes, it did. As this page say "There was an upsurge in the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as Communist traitors; it erupted into mass murder when Nazi Germany invaded Soviet eastern Poland in the summer of 1941.". Use something from History_of_Jews_in_Poland in background here? Maybe, but the emphasis should be put on Nazi and the occupation of Poland. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on the specific content. If we over-focus on the invasion, then we'd be giving the reader a lot of "how", and little of "why". As for antisemitism - I hope you don't really think that sentence alone captures the issue... François Robere (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, it does not. Given disagreements, I think one simply needs to suggest new exact version here. However, starting background from "Antisemitism had been increasing in Poland before the outbreak of war" on this page implies that it were Polish people, not Nazi who are responsible for the Holocaust in Poland. That is absolutely wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. François Robere (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with background is that books about the Holocaust in Poland that cover prewar background at all (not just Cichopek's book but Dreifuss' Bender's and Zimmerman's) the background given is Polish Jewish history prior to 1939. If the Holocaust happened the same in every country, there would be no need for separate country articles. The Nazis pursued the same goal throughout Europe with different results, due to local factors (the nature of local communities as well as different German occupation policies and geography). I am not aware of any sources on the Holocaust in Poland that extensively cover the history of Nazism prior to 1939, or the details of Nazi ideology. Unless they can be shown to exist, I don't believe that material belongs in the article. Instead I recommend using The Holocaust in Slovakia as a guide. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)