Talk:The Holocaust in Poland

Grabowski, again

@Volunteer Marek: You've removed a detail that's been in the article since at least 2019,[1][2] which was discussed ad nauseum here[3][4][5] and elsewhere.[6][7][8][9][10][11] What's more, you have a WP:COI with the source, as explained to you twice.[12][13][14] Now you're telling me to "stop edit warring and try to get consensus"?[15] François Robere (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as explained more than “thrice”, I do not have any “COI” (sic) here (or in any other editing on Wikipedia). Your false but persistent pretending otherwise is bordering on personal attacks. And the fact it’s been there “since 2019” is irrelevant. Apparently there was some Wikipedia article that had erroneous information added back in 2004 or something and that info stayed in that article for many many years. Yet, it was later removed. Ironically, the previous discussions you mention all point to the fact that there was no consensus for this text even back then (and some of the other discussions you link to aren’t even about this topic - please don’t do “diff padding”) Volunteer Marek 14:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume all this hubbub is about "or turned in by Poles" part? If we need to clarify this, then the correct way would be to change "killed or turned in by Poles" into "perished at the hands of Germans and local collaborators". The old phrasing was obviously misleading, as it a, ridiculously implied that Germans didn't do anything, and b, it simplifies the multiethnic state of the SPR into 'Poles' (which was 70% Polish, 10% Jewish, 10% Ukrainian, and 10% other...). This kind of research often risks oversimplifying things when we forget that there were areas of 'Poland' where ethnic Poles were actually a minority (ex. in the east, see commons:Category:Polish census of 1931). For example, look at pl:Powiat rówieński (en:Rovensky Uyezd, that interwiki may need some fixing). Here you have a "Polish" county with a population 60% Ukrainian, 15% Jewish and 10% Polish. So, errr, run by me again what was the ethnicity of the average collaborators there? Eh. Instaed of Grabowski, I'd recommend reading Bloodlands by Snyder. Now that's a serious scholarship that doesn't see the world as a simple black vs white dychtomy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hence this correction, which takes directly from the book without doing WP:OR.

It almost reads as if you're trying to say that Grabowski, a world-renowned scholar with whom you've had a public off-wiki disagreement, is not a "serious scholar". François Robere (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd avoid discussing my person, per NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and like. Am I commenting on your attitude towards Grabowski, or am I trying to put words in your mouth? No? Then please extend the same courtesy to me. As I prefer to maintain a NPOV stance, I am a bit more reserved when it comes to praising scholars using WP:PEACOCK terms. He has his fans, and he has his detractors, and who is right we will know in few decades or centuries, were tempers die down and new generation of scholars is able to coolly review the topics which modern historiography has difficulties with (and I am sadly not holding my breath for us to see this anytime soon, sadly).

As for your edit, I'll note that Grabowski himself, as noted in the quote, talks about "Poles (or, for that matter, Ukrainians, Belorussians, or Balts)". As I pointed out above, to omit the parenthesis is misleading, either retain it or use some other neutral term (like I suggested above, " local collaborators", for example). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:NPA and everything to do with WP:COI. As an academic you had previously published a rebuttal of Grabowski on Gazeta Wyborcza. As a wikipedean you're now implying that he's narrow-minded and unserious. You can't do both. François Robere (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

HAvew thy stated this here, or is this based on your own research?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not exactly a secret. He published it under his real name, and there's even a link at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FR, I tried to mediate in the dispute you had with VM and offer a compromise that I thought both parties may find of use, and what I am seeing here is some weird WP:BATTLEGROUND, with you refusing to discuss the diffs and instead making BLPs violations against Grabowski ("he's narrow-minded and unserious") and trying to put them in my own mouth (which is a violation of NPA/CIV/etc.). For the last time, please stop those PAs (in particular, please stop offering your novel "rewording" of what you think I said or meant), now topped with BLP violations (which, I'd like to remind you, applies to talk spaces too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have issues with user conduct either take it to their talk page or to wp:ani, do not discuss it here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Move

Article should be moved to The Holocaust in German occupied-Poland and put more stress on Nazi occupation. Poland wasn’t existing during Holocaust, that was only ex-Poland terrain under Nazi German occupation, having nothing to do with Polish country. Nowadays title is Anti-Polish sentiment, suggests that this tragedy of Jews- Polish citizens before Germany aggression was involved with country of Poland, sounds the same as "Polish death camp" controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaziela (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That notion is ridiculous. It also whitewashes widespread anti-semitism in Poland at the time and a general (with brave exceptions) malaise among the Poles about the fate of the Jews. 50.111.34.214 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

While I disagree with the statement that the current title is in any promoting anti-Polish sentiment, I don't see how a clarification would mean "whitewashing widespread anti-semitism in Poland at that time", nor does the rest of your statement have to do with the subject at hand. As for the subject, there is an inconsistency in naming these articles, on one hand you have an article simply called, like this one is, The Holocaust in Norway, but on the other hand you have The Holocaust in German-occupied Serbia. Either way I don't think I have any strong opinions on the matter, the article makes it clear that Poland was occupied. Rousillon (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Part on baking bread

I've removed [16] the text Initially, the Jews were legally banned from baking bread because it's been pointed out [17] that this is based on a primary source and that it's unclear if this refers to the Warsaw Ghetto or occupied Poland as a whole. The primary source, Marek Edelman, is here if anyone wants to look for more info on this and find secondary sources. Volunteer Marek 00:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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: [18] 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)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia: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| 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)

'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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust. Nemo 07:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust 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)

...the question of whether the text reflects the source is simply a question of WP:V? 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| 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 remove editorializing, 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 [19]
• 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)