Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2023/May

Unnecessary comma
Sentence: The food stamps introduced by the Germans, provided only 9 percent of the calories necessary for survival. This comma splits the noun phrase (subject) from the verb provided. Rule #12 explaining this common mistake: Jerryusa (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2022
The title of this page needs to be edited to “The Holocaust in Nazi Occupied Poland”

The current page title is misleading in that that the Holocaust was orchestrated by Poland.

The turtle must be made clear that Poland was occupied by the Nazis. 2600:1700:4DB0:CB00:51E5:D094:729E:D5A5 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. Lemonaka (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The turtle" What turtle? It is not clear what you are talking about. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Without any discussion page should be moved to The Holocaust in German occupied-Poland because at that time was no country named Poland, Poland government was on exile in London, and the territory was Nazi Germany occupated, let’s be historically accurate. Joaziela (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion and agreement are compulsory. Perhaps your command of English is not up to the task.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh my... I used “no discussion” as figurative speech... but yes please bring me an argument for existing of country of “Poland” on that time, no the part of Germany, being part of “Germany occupied Poland” territory Joaziela (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukraine didn't even exist back then. But The Holocaust in Ukraine is a topic. Ditto for The Holocaust in Belarus. Other countries were occupied too, but we have The Holocaust in the Netherlands or The Holocaust in Lithuania. The only exception is The Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied Greece, but this is a subarticle to both The Holocaust in Bulgaria and The Holocaust in Greece. See Template:The Holocaust for other cases. There is no need to clarify in title whether a territory was occupied or not. It's pointless detail. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian one is about Ukrainian SSR!!!,, the one about Poland is also about modern Western Ukraine and Belarus, so yeah it would be nice to be historically accurate, to not mix modern with historical one, that you made maybe on purpose maybe on accident... @Piotrus it’s looks you might be Polish speaking, in Polish it is named “Zagłada Żydów na ziemiach polskich podczas okupacji niemieckiej” with all propaganda stories about "Polish death camp" controversy and seeing how The Holocaust in Germany is short maybe it’s better to be accurate and don’t give arguments to falsify history Joaziela (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it is down to you to get consensus for a move, I suggest making a formal request for move. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but there WAS a country called Poland during Holocaust. My parents lived there in ghettos, etc. You can say there was no Polish GOVERNMENT but no scholar I've read (and I've read a LOT as I'm working on a book about my parents' experiences) says the country ceased existing. I'd argue that the territories the USSR "annexed" at the start of the war were still part of Poland at the time. Mkimel (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

'Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust'
This very recently published research article in the The Journal of Holocaust Research, entitled Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust by J. Grabowski & S. Klein may be of interest and concern to all editors involved in this topic. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's more discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Nemo 07:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6 czar  04:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If we do RS do, so it is them that need to be taken to task. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Levivich (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, as any edit we make (in order to stand) must reflect what RS say. So if an edit stands it is supported by RS. Thus the fault lies with RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense what you are saying Slatersteven, always did. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is distortion, it means, by definition, that our content does not reflect what RSes say; that's why it's "distortion". If our content reflected what RSes said, then there wouldn't be any distortion. So to say that if we distort the history of The Holocaust ("If we do..."), then that means the RSes also distort the history of The Holocaust ("...RS do") is contradictory and thus makes no sense. One can argue that there is distortion, or there isn't distortion, but one cannot argue that the distortion "is supported by RS", because if it was supported by the RSes, it wouldn't be "distortion" at all, it would be "history". Levivich (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While one can argue over whether a source is reliable or not, the question of whether the text reflects the source is simply a question of WP:V. Pretty much everything points to the fact that the text does indeed reflect sources. If that is indeed the case then Slatersteven is correct.
 * If we go with your definition instead, well, then you've just basically proved that Grabowski and Klein are simply wrong in their accusation. Thanks.  Volunteer Marek   15:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ? I think you mean WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No V, as in it is what the RS says, if it is not an RS then that would fail wp:rs. If it does not fail RS, then it does not fail V if it actually reflects what the RS says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I seriously have to explain to you that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", one of the headings of WP:V? What we include, and how we include it, is determined by NPOV, not by V. This is Wikipedia Editing 101; if you actually believe that our coverage of The Holocaust does not involve NPOV, that "whether the text reflects the source is simply a question of WP:V", that's a major WP:CIR problem. Both of you know better than that, give me a break. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about inclusion. We are talking about "distortion" and whether the text represents the sources. To quote you directly If there is distortion, it means, by definition, that our content does not reflect what RSes say; that's why it's "distortion". If our content reflected what RSes said, then there wouldn't be any distortion..  Volunteer Marek   16:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So what content do we currently have in this article that is not properly sourced to RS? Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question of sourced or unsourced, it's question of WP:NPOV. If you're asking me what NPOV problems do we have in this article? Read the paper that Nick linked above, it details problems with this article, and others.
 * And Steven, idk if you've read the paper or looked at the article histories for the articles mentioned, but if you did, you'd see that there is a massive sitewide cleanup effort underway, where a number of different editors are fixing problems noted in the paper. This is the biggest "proof" that the problems in the paper are real. This article has been quiet, but there has been much editing going on at other articles, as well as talk page discussion elsewhere (and I'm sure more to come). Levivich (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the most recent "problem" is from 2021, and did not stick. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that's easily disproven, just look at the page histories of the articles cited in the paper and you'll see all sorts of "problems" (of varying ages) that have been fixed in the past few days. Here let me make it easy for you, look at the history of Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, Ewa Kurek, The Forgotten Holocaust, Polish Righteous Among the Nations, History of the Jews in Poland, and notice how many different editors are participating in the cleanup. What's been removed/fixed in the past few days is some of the longstanding problems that were highlighted in this paper.
 * This can't be hand-waived away. This is real. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This supposed "clean up effort" really just means looking at the issues raised in the paper. I certainly see no evidence that any "distortion" has been found. Really the main thing that has happened is that some people have been trying to remove one particular author, a historian with a position at a major American university, just because Grabowski and Klein talk a lot of bad about him. Which is actually contrary to OUR policies on WP:RS and WP:BALANCE, since it's not our job to adjudicate disputes among scholars.  Volunteer Marek   16:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (on the Ewa Kurek article it looks like User:Drmies is actually "cleaning up" old Icewhiz stuff)  Volunteer Marek   16:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is correct, Marek--I was a bit surprised to see some careless editing still remained in that article. But I have reached the end of my English rope there: there just isn't much more sourcing in English available. Some of the Icewhiz edits were indeed problematic, and much of the article was messed up in terms of formatting--I cannot claim to have done a comprehensive cleanup, though. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe ~10 edits addressing about as many sentences... that's "massive sitewide cleanup effort"? Sigh. I honestly would like to seem more, because if there is one thing the authors get right is that there are errors and missing content (hint: none of those articles are at Featured level...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait--am I part of a cabal again? Ha. I hope that any Wikipedia editor who knows what's what will see that the edits I made to the Kurek article are pretty cosmetic and in line with policy--I made a point of leaving extensive edit summaries since the world is watching, haha. The only edit that I can think of that addresses tone is that to the lead--where I thought the subject's ... opinions were a bit understated, given the verified content in the article. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drmies 😂 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been no edits to the article The Forgotten Holocaust so I'm not sure who these "many ''different editors are participating in the cleanup" on that article are suppose to be.
 * Other than that there seems to be one or two editors that made like two or three edits to the articles you listed.  Volunteer Marek   16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1138553430 is the edit to The Forgotten Holocaust, with the edit summary, and it's an example of an edit that brings the article more in line with WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This "massive clean up effort" apparently consists of:
 * 6 edits by Gitz6666 on Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust
 * 13 edits by Drmies on Ewa Kurek, which, like I said, actually are cleaning up Icewhiz's old mess
 * 0 edits on The Forgotten Holocaust. I have no idea what you're talking about here.
 * 1 edit by Grnrchst on Polish Righteous which could arguably be described as minor.
 * 1 edit by Grnrchst on Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust which appears to misunderstand the source
 * 1 edit by Grnrchst on History of the Jews in Poland which I haven't looked into closely yet.
 * I mean... "massive"?  Volunteer Marek   16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hence why (it seems) NPOV and not V has been raised, as it was sourced to (and attributed to) someone who only recently has been seriously challenged. THis is a dispute between academics, and we should reflect both sides of such a dispute.Slatersteven (talk)
 * Like I said - and I'm agreeing with you here - one can argue about whether a source is reliable or not. But Levivich seems to be claiming that our article text fails to accurately reflect the sources it cites. That's a serious problem and they need to provide evidence of that.  Volunteer Marek   16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the paper that makes that case (that our article text fails to accurately summarize RS, e.g. is a "distortion"), although I am persuaded by the paper. (I have made the same argument in the past elsewhere in the topic area, but not about this article, which I don't think I ever previously paid attention to.) Levivich (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Except something not being RS is not the same as something not being actually reflected. Most of these edits seem to have been to remove a source, not to alter how the source is being used. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I count 15 edits at Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust since Feb 10 by 3 different editors. Maybe I should have said "significant" instead of "massive". Levivich (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * MAny of which seem to be CE. or other format changes, not contextual ones. And most (all?) of those seem to be trying to remove a source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 8 of those 15 are small copy edits and formatting changes by User:SilkTork. The other 7 I mention above.  Volunteer Marek   17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you sure Levivich you are talking about articles you linked? Where is that "massive clean up effort"? 🤦🏻‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * - I made small correction. I think that was just a clumsy wording, nothing else. Welcome to correct my edit, revert it or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023 edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "book review by a non-expert is not a suitable source; see: Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist). -- K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Article reorganization
I note sadly that my proposals made years ago to change the article's organization to avoid trying to structure the article according to the responsibility of ethnic groups have not been heeded. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a whodunit, and I'm not aware of any sources I would cite that are organized that way.

The article instead should be structured according to events. Instead of being listed under "national minorities", for example, the Lviv pogrom (if we count it within the geographic scope—see above) would be covered along with the rest of 1941 pogroms in eastern Poland in a section dealing with the consequences of the invasion of the Soviet Union. To make matters worse, coverage of the pogroms in "national minorities" section makes it seem that ethnic Poles were not involved in them, which is not accurate. Most of the content on rescue and betrayal should be covered in a dedicated section that is not based on the role of a specific ethnic group but rather the situation of Jews trying to survive. It could be titled "Escape and hiding" or "Third phase of the Holocaust" Order in this article is significantly bad; for example, Auschwitz's role as the center of the Holocaust only developed after 1942 so it makes no sense to list it first.

And frankly, most of the article's sources need to be replaced. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(yes I know Grabowski has his own bias, but Engel much less so). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For example Lukas 2001—at the very least, 1) this source's stated topic is not congruent with this article 2) first published in 1986, it's distinctly out of date and 3) the most recent commentary of it that I can find, from a 2022 book review, states "One of the quoted books, The Forgotten Holocaust, attempts, without any reference to historical evidence from Polish, Israeli, or German archives, to broaden the definition of the Holocaust to such a degree so as to also include the killings of ethnic Poles by the Germans. As soon as The Forgotten Holocaust was published, David Engel, one of the most eminent historians dealing with the destruction of European Jewry, wrote a scathing, thirteen-page critique for the Slavic Review. The research presented in that book, he said, was marked by “distortion, misrepresentation and inaccuracy.”"

"Diplomatic crisis"
If you were not aware, there are plenty of scholarly describing a "diplomatic crisis" (eg. ) Also called "The biggest diplomatic crisis between Poland and Israel" since 1990 and "the most serious diplomatic crisis in Polish-Israeli  relations  since  their  resumption  in  1990" According to Kornbluth, "The ensuing backlash was so serious that the American government reportedly refused to accept any state visits by Polish leaders until the law was revised" (citing “Struktura ludności: Polska—1970–2050,” Główny Urząd Statystyczny, accessed March 16, 2019, http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/ludnosc/ludnosc/ludnosc-piramida/; Aleksandra Wróbel, “Poland’s Leaders Barred from White House Meetings  over  Holocaust  Law,”  Politico,  March  7,  2018,  https://www.politico.eu/article/polands-leaders-barred-from-white-house-meetings-over-holocaust-law/.) which is no small matter given the generally good state of Polish US relations. Since Polish Wikipedia is not a reliable source I do not see why it would matter what is covered there. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Buidhe Ah, that's fine - I don't mind this being restored, with refeences and with the key clarification of "between Poland and Israel". I think that's quite reasonable, and it is described in more detail in Israel–Poland relations. What I would be more careful with is calling this event "The biggest diplomatic crisis" without any qualifier, implying it was "The biggest diplomatic crisis in Polish history" (which certainly is not the case). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Kornbluth does say Poland's "most serious  international  crisis  since  the  end  of  communism  in  1989" but it can also just be called a diplomatic crisis. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Current relations are not my fore, but the Polish-Soviet/Russian relations in the years 1989/1991 could be considered a serious international crisis, for example. Or the present Polish-Russian relations, come to think of it. I think we need better sources on this if we were to make strong statements. Calling this "most serious diplomatic crisis between Poland and Isreal" should be uncontroversial and sufficient for all instances and purposes. How about that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any references to it being most serious have been removed, it's now just called a diplomatic crisis. Multiple countries were involved so I avoid suggesting it was just between Poland and Israel. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage expanding on the international diplomatic controversy in the dedicated article. Maybe one day I'll translate it to pl wiki... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)