Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing per WP:SNOW as there is overwhelming consensus that this page is an appropriate spinoff from the main article. User:Malik Shabazz helpfully quotes a paragraph from the guideline that explains the difference between content forks and spinoffs. A summary section should remain in the main article to briefly describe the content of the spinoff page, this can be done after the current protection expires later today. All are reminded that editors who engage in edit warring, whether at this page or the main article, are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany article is an example of Content forking. The article was created by User:Piotrus on 14 March, 18 right in the middle of several prolonged and heated content disputes [1] on the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II page, regarding the Poland section, which resulted in the article being LOCKED by admins [2] and one user was block temporarily for edit warring [3]. But, instead of waiting for all parties to cool-off and resume the discussion, a new article was created from the content that was reverted by admins [4]. This is a very troubling act, as it duplicates the content from the original article, and also tries to circumvent restriction placed by admins, due to disruptive editing that affected the original article. Thus, creating more confusion, gridlock and edit warring. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note of criticism to editors from E-960. I'd like to voice my concerns as to what's going on with this topic, though some might strongly disagree with the comment I'm about to make. But, I keep thinking about Criticism of Wikipedia in this case, and how this issue translates to the topic of Polish collaboration.
At this point we have three LONG texts on Wikipedia regarding this subject matter:

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany - 1,600 words

Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland - 1,200 words

History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers - 1,000 words
Yet, with the exception of one or two editors, everyone is like — YEAH!! we need more stuff on Polish Collaboration cause two texts weren't enough for Poland — and Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view including UNDUE WIEGHT, BALANCING ASPECTS, EQUAL VALIDITY are ignored and dismissed as irrelevant, just a numbing mob call that this is a VALID TOPIC. --E-960 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Matters of "undue weight" and "balance" pertain to viewpoints within the coverage of a given topic, not to how much coverage on WP the topic is given. If there is a lot of sources about a topic, then there will be a lot written about it here. Luckily the majority of editors doesn't seem to be too concerned with curtailing that in favour of aiding Poland in its current face-saving program, but rather with making available the reams of material that have become available (mostly through a rather pleasing backlash to said whitewashing attempts). We absolutely want articles on similar topics with regard to other countries; but their absence is not in the least indicative of a need to present less about Poland. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, no bias on your part that's for sure... otherwise, how else could you just flat out say "...Poland in its current face-saving program". All you are concerned with is promoting some liberal/left-wing POV onto every topic imaginable. Anything outside of that, is just someone else's "propaganda" not to be taken into consideration, Perfect example of this is how some editors immediately questions historians and reliable sources from Poland in those articles, just because they were Polish, calling them lies or libel — no bias here right. BTW, I'm not arguing to take down a long standing article, but one that was just created, for no good reason. --E-960 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many viewpoints here, I feel that a core component of WP:NPOV is to not let your point of view to influence your opinion wherever possible. Not to metaphorically pick up a war-club and charge at someone with an opposing view, because that is just going to create a problem. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a POV fork but is a valid attempt to cover a complex and contentious topic within it's own article rather then clogging up another (overview) article. The content removed by admins was for no other reason then an edit war and setting back the page to it's pre-edit war state, it was not a comment on the content itself.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete For reasons stated above. --E-960 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- Warning: duplicated vote by the nom (E-960). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator doesn't get a highlighted !vote unless it comes immedately after the nomination and says "Delete - as nom". Otherwise, it is much too easy to take as a second vote. DO NOT REMOVE THE STRIKEOUT. You may have created the nomination, but you do not WP:OWN the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slatersteven. This nomination was made in bad faith by an editor who for the past month or more has been trying to whitewash the section about Poland in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, shifting all blame away from ethnic Poles, and over to the Polish Jews themselves (see page history of that article, and compare revisions...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom hasseling editor who voted against deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note to editors: Pls disregard user Thomas.W trolling comment (Wikipedia:Assume bad faith), made without any proof. --E-960 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, on a side note what you just said is slander, removing content added by an editor that is now blocked for edit warring is not "whitewashing" (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), and I was not the only one to revert those edits. BTW, how do you shift collaboration, as you say it? What Poles did they did, and what Polish-Jews did they did, and you can't shift the Jewish Ghetto Police on Poles, just as you can't shift the Blue Police on Jews. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Slander"? You must be joking. What I did was explaining to other editors what has happended on that article, and suggesting they check the page history themselves. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, what you did was to make an inaccurate statement for other editors to stumble on, and just for the record can you explain that glib "shift blame" comment you made? --E-960 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not slander. You DID vote twice. --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think that's besides the point of the direction of where the disscussion went. --E-960 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I struck the nominator's extra delete !vote, pointing out to them on their talk page that they shouldn't add a bolded !vote since the nomination counts as delete (per WP:DISCUSSAFD]), but they removed the strike, and have thus double-!voted here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, not any user or any other article, please stay focused.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reason in Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The modern Polish narrative of Poland being the only nation that did not collaborate has, in a catch22, vastly increased coverage of Polish collaboration. The topic has been covered in depth by multiple RS and is clearly notable. The content in the list article grew to the point a separate article was warranted.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect?Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, valid topic. I guess controversial topics will always have people warring over them but that's no matter. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm choosing the deletion. There are various essential reasons for it; I'll explain later. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still waiting... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll skip me explaining as it will not change the overwhelmed "Keep" vote outcome. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- certainly viable as a stand-alone article; see for example: "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris", by John Connelly, Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 771-781 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649912. A valid WP:SPINOUT; meets WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom is wrong. This is not a content fork, and had he actually read the guideline he cited he would have seen that:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. (underlining and emphasis added)

Clearly there was too much material about Poland to keep adding to Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, and there was a talk page consensus to split the material about Poland to its own article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a no-brainer that this is a valid subject for an article, and has significant coverage in reliable sources. A summary of this article should remain in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peacemaker. There is a large literature on this topic, and it's a large enough article to justify being split out. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly enough material for a standalone article, excellent sourcing. The current summary at Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II#Poland strikes me as a little long, but that can always be whittled down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable subject and easily passes GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a proper subject for an encyclopedia entry. Whether the current article is balanced is a different question (though I think it does a good job for such a contentious topic), but one for future amendment, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per proposal, besides, there is already History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a proper WP:SPINOUT from a long parent article. Some of this information is also at History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers as noted just above, so a further hatnote should probably be added there and both entries at the general articles may need to be trimmed some per WP:SUMMARY. This is a complex and contentious topic, but treating it in its own article is the best way to provide all the context and viewpoints presented in reliable sources. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a controversial topic but notable and the article is well-written. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well researched and contains details not available in other Wikipedia entries. As a related subject for another discussion, one may argue with the selectivity of this article's creation — there are, as of this writing, only three other such articles, all of which reference adjoining countries — Byelorussian collaboration with the Axis powers, Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers and Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers [the Byelorussian and Russian articles have been currently nominated for renaming to match the form used in the main title header of the Polish article under discussion]. Examination of the all-inclusive article Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II provides links to such articles as Denmark in World War II, but not Danish collaboration with Nazi Germany; Vichy France, but not French collaboration with Nazi Germany; Netherlands in World War II and Reichskommissariat Niederlande, but not Dutch collaboration with Nazi Germany; German occupation of Norway, but not Norwegian collaboration with Nazi Germany, etc. Such titles await creation to focus the same analogous spotlight upon the well-documented collaboration in Western European nations. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think one reason is because these have not had major edit wars recently that have disrupted other articles. Nor (as far as I know) are any of them currently subject to a major (and indeed international) controversy. In most of these countries collaboration in not a hot topic and controversy (a closer analogy might be Germany itself).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These red links could indeed be spun off as articles in their own right. Sources do exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask all users to comment on this articles deletion, not each other or other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you spend time reading that comment it is clear that Roman Spinner does comment on the merits of this article, then moves on by saying As a related subject for another discussion, I don't see any evidence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments or infact any dubious arguments except the continuation of an edit war by the nom and others over points of view. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not indented as a reply to him, but as a general request to a number of users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I was only saying that because it's the most obvious comment where someone could get that impression. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history you will see who I was thinking of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points need to be specifically addressed — "In most of these countries collaboration in not a hot topic and controversy" — neither is it in Poland. In fact, it is a source of Polish self-esteem and pride that, as pointed out in the very article under discussion, "Unlike the situation in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland such attempts failed." The point immediately preceding — "currently subject to a major (and indeed international) controversy" — concerns not collaboration, but the "Polish death camp" controversy. This controversy is not new — the Wikipedia article on the subject was created on January 28, 2006 as Polish death camps and was twice retitled in 2007 as Polish death camps (incorrect term) [those former main title headers still serve as redirects]. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet not only do we now have anti-polish defamation laws, but a major international crisis. The timing is not accidental.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, for reasons states already. François Robere (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons stated in my post at the WP:NPOV noticeboard. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a content fork, and a notable subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article provides a venue for clarifying many questions in one place. Nihil novi (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subject. Agathoclea (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Obviously. Some of the cases quoted represent collaboration under duress, a topic which might be more fully covered in a rather terse lead section. That applies to army conscripts (which seems to include people who would have been Prussian citizens pre-1918); and Jewish Councils (whose members were probably trying the shield Jews as far as they could from Nazi oppression). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. I've created this because the underlying topic is clearly notable. Yes, there's relevant content in other articles (I didn't even know about the section at History of Poland.. article). Now they can be shortened, and relevant debates hopefully centralized in one place. People should not confuse creation of articles on controversial topics with having a particular POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Obvious political motivation for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.