Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Memoirs published in book-forms are not scholarly enough

There's an ongoing problem stretching over a number of articles about Polish-Jewish history, i.e.: personal memoirs of Holocaust survivors, so eagerly quoted here by some editors. The diaries often contradict the evidence collected over the following decades by professional historians. Aside from the detailed description of individual experiences—which can be considered accurate—personal memoirs written by contemporaries usually include a barrage of normative opinions written without any historical perspective. It looks like, each and every one of those articles featuring quote-farms of normative statements needs to be dealt with separately.

Take as an example, the following Google copy-paste job in the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust.[1] Polish-Jewish contemporary historian, Emanuel Ringelblum, wrote in 1943, clearly unaware of how little was being done in the West to save the Jews from the Holocaust: "…Polish people. It is they whom we blame for the fact that Poland has not taken an equal place alongside the Western European countries in rescuing Jews." Ringelblum surviving in the Warsaw Ghetto could not have been aware of what the West was doing, nor did he know about the clandestine work of people such as Jerzy Jan Lerski or Stefan Korboński. Korboński “sent many telegrams to London to alert the world about the destruction of the Jews, telling that 700 daily were being loaded into freight wagons and dispatched to Treblinka where they were all gassed. But the BBC was silent, nobody abroad believed it: neither the [Western] Jews nor the British authorities. London was flooded with telegrams about Jews being brought from the Balkans, Hungary, Holland to Auschwitz. Even Jews being thus transported from abroad in trains with suitcases and valuables and told by Germans that they are transferred for work, did not believe when some Polish railway men whispered them the truth.” (Anna Poray) Ringelblum’s statement therefore, is an expression of his depth of despair. It is NOT a statement of historical fact and therefore cannot be quoted in Wikipedia for informational value. But it is...without as much as a footnote.

There are other, endless examples of how selected quotes from individual memoirs are being taken out of personal context and copy-pasted here for the shock value of their normative statements. I wrote about this already during the latest ArbCom case against Piotrus. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go over every article featuring these sort of misrepresentations of facts. The restoration of balance is going to take joint effort and so, I’d like to appeal to editors interested in this subject to please consider helping out as part of your New Year’s resolution maybe. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 21:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Poeticbent's caution here with respect to the uses he describes--but the acceptance here would depend upon the scholarly opinion about the book--some may be suitable. I also think that possibly the details of what happened in an individual town might be reliable, depending again on the memoir. I'm concerned that we do not eliminate entirely the use of the Memorial Books. They of course need to be used with the very great care we do for primary sources. DGG (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

www.zyciezazycie.pl

http://www.zyciezazycie.pl/ is a modern and probably reliable source, unfortunately only in Polish. Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

can someone tell us its sponsorship & some background about it? DGG (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"Zrealizowano przez NCK ze środków Ministerstwa Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego w ramach programu Patriotyzm Jutra oraz przez IPN w ramach projektu "Polacy Ratujacy Żydów": created by pl:Narodowe Centrum Kultury (National Center of Culture, a governmental organization) with the aid of Ministry of Culture and National Heritage in the framework of the Patriotism of Tommorow program and with the aid of the Institute of National Rememberance in the framework of the "Poles Saving the Jews" programme. Indeed, seems reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ac.karski2.jpg

The image File:Ac.karski2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ringelblum

Why is Ringelblum's notable? At best, they should be moved to "Individual_testimonies" section. I do also recall that his views were discussed by scholars (Piotrowski? Paulsson? One of those, at least...) who pointed out that he made a lot of guesses, assumptions and comparisons, while in fact limited in his actual knowledge to his personal experiences of hidding in Warsaw (and do remember he died before the end of the war, so he certainly didn't see the big picture - despite making grandiose claims about Polish nation and such).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note "Individual_testimonies" section is a bad idea if it will be continued the way it is written so far. Testimonies from the Yizkor book for single shtetl would exceed not only this section, but the whole article dozens of times. M0RD00R (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur and suggest creating an article on wikiquote or wikisource for that content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Stara Huta

Wrong Szumsk, too.Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC) The same fate met the villagers of Stara Huta near Szumsk.[50] - the quoted text may inform about the death of the Jews only. Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Who were the Poles

The article does not define who were the Poles. If you don't define your words, you may prove anything.Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to geography lessons to know who is "Pole"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.123.24 (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Firstly,

  1. The lead is too short
  2. The lead already raises a few red flags for POV - "extraordinarily cruel" is the first one. Secondly, wrt Nazis, if helping Jews is a capital crime, were those kind charitable people executed after a trial for this ridiculous law, because if they got a trial, then one has to use "executed for ...." rather than murdered.
  3. Hmmm, some really sloppy stuff. Lots of uncleaned up footnotes and punctutation ".[45]." and what have you.
  4. Footnotes, books written out in full multiple times instead of being moved once to a booklist. Also, what about books with no page numbers to specify the exact location of the information
  5. Unfromatted URL refs...

YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that mandatory. A lot of reviews of mine were not. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
-... people executed after a trial for this ridiculous law, because if they got a trial, then one has to use executed for .... rather than murdered - there was no trial, people were simply murdered on the spot.--Jacurek (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, just because it was made "officially" against the law does not imply that those who were caught helping automatically got the right to due process, or a right of appeal or any other right. The law basically meant that they could be shot on the spot (i.e. murdered) and whoever did it was immune from any kind of punishment.radek (talk)
  • This article was a subject of a fierce edit war conducted by a banned user, and—as is the case with all such articles—it was basically ripped apart with a number of paragraphs permanently disfigured with citations promoting ethnic strife and racial hatred between Polish nationals, which were reverted back and forth endless times. As a result, there’s a lot of repetition and deficient discourse in it. I see this GA review as the opportunity to bring this article back to acceptable standards. However, more detailed analysis would be much appreciated, because working on specifics is the only way to avoid further flare-up between various camps. --Poeticbent talk 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it going to be revamped then? The references are still all over the place and the prose is still quite poor in some places, I see some of the edits have noted this in the edit summery. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've failed it/ YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead; hopefully now it is more comprehensive and neutral.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can this be compacted ?

Can this be compacted into clean lines with references instead of "According to" or Paulsson said" or "Paldiel writes" etc.?

According to one reviewer of Paulsson, with regard to the extortionists, "a single hooligan or blackmailer could wreak severe damage on Jews in hiding, but it took the silent passivity of a whole crowd to maintain their cover."[23] He also notes that "hunters" were outnumbered by "helpers" by a ratio of one to 20 or 30.[8]. According to Lukas the number of renegades who blackmailed and denounced Jews and their Polish protectors probably did not number more than 1000 individuals in Warsaw (or less than one hundredth of one percent of the city's population). [10] German propaganda antisemitic poster, written in polish language. Says: "Jews-sucking louse-typhus", hanged out on Polish streets in 1942, German-occupied PolandMichael C. Steinlauf writes that even more than the fear of the death penalty for aiding the Jews, the major obstacle limiting Polish aid to Jews was popular attitudes towards Jews, which made individuals uncertain of what their neighbors' responses would be to attempts at assistance.[27] Steinlauf however notes that despite these uncertainties, Jews were helped by thousands of individual Poles throughout the country. He writes that "not the informing or the indifference, but the existence of such individuals is one of the most remarkable features of Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust."[27] Nonetheless, number of authors have noted the negative effects of the significant hostility towards Jews by Poles in the general population and within the the organizations and parties that comprised the Polish underground, the majority of which favored a policy of eventual removal of Jews from Poland.[28][29][30][31] The 1980s saw the publication of scholarly studies that challenged earlier assumptions about Polish behavior during the war, amongst these were beliefs that a large segment of the Polish population provided assistance to Jews during the war; that the death penalty for aiding Jews was the main obstacle to providing aid, and that anti-semitic attitudes had been marginal in Poland during the war and remain so.[32] Alina Cala's study of Jews in Polish folk culture argued for a persistence of traditional Christian antisemitism, including the belief in the blood libel claim against Jews. Johnathan Zimmerman wrote that Cala's findings on attitudes of Polish peasantry during and after the war confirm what he describes as a growing consensus among scholars that an active stance by Poles towards Jews during the Holocaust either to assist or to betray was a marginal phenomena. Cala describes this as an indifference resulting from antisemitic propaganda both before and during the war, as well as the persistence of religious antisemitism.[33][34] Nechama Tec, who herself survived the war aided by a group of Catholic Poles,[35] noted that Polish rescuers worked within an environment that was hostile to Jews and unfavorable to their protection, in which rescuers feared both the disapproval of their neighbors and reprisals that such disapproval might bring.[36] Tec also noted that Jews, for many complex and practical reasons, were not always prepared to accept assistance that was available to them.[37] Some Jews did not expect help from their neighbors — in fact, some were surprised to have been aided by people who expressed antisemitic attitudes before the war.[38][8] According to Mordecai Paldiel, former Director of the Department of the Righteous at Yad Vashem, Polish landscape at the time contained "a widespread antisemitism that militated against a serious attempt to render succor to the afflicted Jews — difficult as such undertakings would have been in light of the Nazi terror machine which operated with a special brutality against the Polish population." Paldiel writes that the notion that Poles stood only to profit at the disappearance of Jews was "commonplace," and that a feeling of both relief at the disappearance of Polish Jewry was as widespread as the revulsion at the methods employed by the Nazis.[39] A Yad Vashem study of Żegota cites an interview in which the organization's Deputy Chairman, Tadeusz Rek, reports to the representatives of the Polish government-in-exile "that the overwhelming majority of Polish society are hostile toward those extending relief [to the Jews]."[40] Paulsson and Pawlikowski write that overall, such negative attitudes were not a major factor impeding the survival of sheltered Jews, or the work of the rescue organization Żegota.[38][8]''

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When experts disagree with one another, in the interest of NPOV we usually attribute the opinions. One way to clean it up a bit might be to summarize the various viewpoints and attribute them collectively: "Some historians, including A, B, and C, say this.[1][2][3] Other historians, including X, Y, and Z, say that.[4][5][6]" — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Two notable collaborationist organisations missing in difficulties

Group 13 and Żagiew aren't mentioned as far as I can see in the text. Those were organizations who had hindering of Jews being rescued as one of their main goals. They infiltrated Polish and Jewish resistance and tried to find out who hid Jews to report them to German authorities. They should be mentioned in difficulties section.--Molobo (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

General cleanup of introduction by Jjaggeropen

I've heavily edited the first two paragraphs. The first graph didn't even mention rescue of Jews by Poles, it only mentioned the Nazi invasion and the Holocaust. I had to change that. The second graph was horribly written, it seems by people for whom English is not their native language. We do need to start the 2nd graph with the data, to give the reader immediate size and scope of what we are talking about. That is why I moved the Righteous data and the upper estimate higher. The AK is now being called the biggest resistance movement of WW2, not one of the biggest - see WP article on it. I have also edited the graph to be more concise and readable for Eng Lang WP users. Please discuss with me before changing it.

Jacurek: I really appreciate your input here but please add what you have to say on this talk page first. With respect, your knowledge of the subject is excellent, but your use of English reads like English is your second language - and it is sometimes difficult for Eng Lang readers to understand. If you would give us the honour of sharing your knowledge here first, give me content here on the talk page, and I would be happy to turn it into native English text.

Thanks all Jjaggeropen (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I will be fine. You are always welcome to correct things within the articles.--Jacurek (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the sentence: "Throughout the occupation of Poland (1939–1945), many Polish gentiles made significant efforts to save Jews from the German Nazis." To my mind "significant efforts" is completely inaccurate, and in English suggests "effort" but not "achievement". The Yad Vashem data shows the biggest number of rescuers were Polish gentiles. The figure of 3 million from Lukas dwarves anything else. Every time I write it in the opening sentence, I get cut and accused of POV or edit warring. I'm going to take a break and see if others can take a look at this. Jjaggeropen (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. The Righteous Among Nations citation is one of many factual sources that could be used in the first line of the article to assert that more Poles rescued Jews than any other nation did. Why don't you go ahead at add that sourcing. There is nothing controversial , nor POV, about you saying Poles did more than any other nation did to rescue Jews. I guess counter-arguments could be made that some Poles hindered the rescue of Jews, so it might be odd to read that Poles did more to rescue Jews - but still, you are correct. Another argument may be that the Soviets pushed back the Nazis in 44/45 and therefore stopped the Final Solution and may have effectively saved more Jews than the Poles ever could have. But it wasn't ever a primary Soviet objective to save Jews, whereas it was e.g. Zegota's reason d'etre. Mranistire (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement that "Polish gentiles did more than any other nation to rescue Jews from the Nazis" is a subjective judgment and hence unencyclopedic. It is a fact that Poland has more Righteous, but did Poles do more than, say, the Danes, who rescued 99% of the Danish Jewish population? Again, a subjective judgment. Let's stick to facts. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, lets stick to the facts. How many Danish Jews were there? What is 99% of that? How does the answer compare to the estimate of 450,000 Jews saved by Polish gentiles? What was the population of Denmark compared to the population of Poland? If as Paulsson and Lukas say, the majority of Poles were passively protective, how does 'the majority of Poles' compared to 'the population of Denmark' ? And how about Evidence indicates more Poles were rescuers of Jews than people from any other nation? Mranistire (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a fact I hope we can agree on. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Malik, I looked up the facts. Please see Rescue of the Danish Jews. The Danes saved 8000 Jews. Polish gentiles saved around 450,000 Jews according to recent scholarship, eg Lukas. Do you think the rescue of the 8000 Danish Jews should really eliminate the assertion about 'Polish gentiles did more than any other nation'? I think I have to pass the ball back to you and ask you to find some facts that indicate Polish gentiles shouldn't take pride of place. Maybe Polish gentiles did - in fact - do more than any other nation? If so then we should have that in the first paragraph as important size and scope / measurement of what we are talking about in this article. Mranistire (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My point is that "doing more" involves a subjective judgment. The number of Jews saved or the percentage or Jews saved—why is one a better indicator than the other of how much was done? Let the facts speak for themselves. There were more Polish rescuers. To say more than that is, in my view, WP:OR unless a reliable source says it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The other reason why so many Poles were willing to hide Jews is that many were simply hiding their friends. Poles also had the most opportunities to help. After all that were the Jews lived...not in Island. However, did Poles as a nation passed the test and did the most to help the Jews?? Maybe... but I would not be so sure about that..there were many nasty Poles who did just opposite of helping. We don't need to include "more than any other nation" because this opinion is biased and unencyclopedic.--Jacurek (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

grammar/style, to Mranistire

Mranistire, I think Jacurek's "Throughout the occupation of Poland (1939–1945), many Polish gentiles at great risk to themselves and their families, rescued Jews from the German Nazis." is better grammatically than your "Throughout the occupation of Poland (1939–1945), many Polish gentiles rescued Jews from the German Nazis, at great risk to themselves and their families." The reason for this is that the second version can be read as suggesting that the "great risk to themselves and their families" was to German Nazis, rather than (the subject) "Polish gentiles". The second version, with a bit of a stretch could also be read that the "great risk..." was to the "rescued Jews", though that's more implausible.

Basically, in well written English it should be clear which is the subject and which is the predicate, and the original version does a better job of that.radek (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only problem with Jacurek's version was the punctuation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
About English grammar: I am referring to Polish Jewish but also ethnic Poles, were hampered by some of the most extreme conditions versus Polish Jews and gentiles were hampered by some of the most extreme conditions. In the first sentence the missing comma can be solved by adding '-' signs or moving the clause. But anyway I'd say the style of the opening sentence should be MUCH more concise, it should me an introductory statement without detail or qualification, as that all comes in the article. Mranistire (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mranistire, I would appreciate your critical comments if they were at least a little constructive. Sadly this: "Unfortunately this process has turned into a private English lesson for Jacurek" is not only unhelpful but it is also very rude. Please also keep in mind that nobody has a monopoly on being perfect in English grammar...not even you.--Jacurek (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lehi

I doubt that the pre-War Polish government trained the Palestinian guerilla group Lehi, which was formed in 1940. See that group's article for details. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello Malik and thanks for your comment. Polish support for Lehi is a proven fact with citations in the WP: Lehi item. I 100% agree that we must not digress from the main theme of this article, but would suggest that a brief mention of Polish support for pre-war Jewish paramilitaries is useful, as it explains Polish policy: gentile support for wartime Jewish partisans wasn't an ad hoc or knee jerk, it represented continuity of Polish policy. In fact we could add Irgun and others to Lehi, but for sake of keeping the article's focus I've stuck to one. Its all in WP: Lehi, you'll see this if you scroll down to the 'Evolution and tactics of the organization' section FYI:

"Some of Lehi members had undergone a military training by instructors of Polish Armed Forces in 1938-1939, months before World War II began. In Zofiówka of Wołyń, Podębin near Łódź and forests around Andrychów, they were taught how to use explosives. One of them reported later:

Poles treated terrorism as a science. We have mastered mathematical principles of demolishing constructions made of concrete, iron, wood, bricks and dirt.[14]

Later on, Polish government secretly equipped Lehi members with over 20 000 guns and allowed them to escape to Palestine using Polish airlines and ships.

The group was initially unsuccessful. Early attempts to raise funds through criminal activities, including a bank robbery in Tel Aviv in 1940 and another robbery on 9 January 1942 in which Jewish passers-by were killed, brought about the temporary collapse of the group, and an attempt to assassinate the head of the British secret police in Lod in which three police personnel were killed, two Jewish and one British, elicited a severe response from the British and Jewish establishments who collaborated in an effort to eliminate the underground organisation." Chumchum7 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "some Lehi members" being trained by the Polish army before the War, and the statement that the "pre-war Polish government armed and trained Jewish paramilitary groups such as Lehi". Since Lehi didn't exist until 1940, it is impossible that the pre-War government could have armed and trained Lehi.
Also, please read WP:LEDE. The lede is supposed to summarize an article. It's not intended to be an essay that introduces facts and theories not discussed in the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Malik. Properly phrased (without exaggeration) the subject matter can and should be inserted somewhere in the article text but is to detailed for the lead.radek (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Żagiew and Group 13

In my opinion Jewish collaborationist organizations such as Żagiew and Group 13 should not be in this article at all and for sure not in the lead. Average Polish rescuer did not face threats from Zagiew or Group 13. These organizations did not have country wide reach. They were small and the Germans created them (among other things) to penetrate wings of the Polish Underground involved in the rescue of Jews. Szmalcowniks and blackmailers on the other hand were everywhere. Small towns, big town, cities and villages. The rescuer never even knew if his neighbor would denounce him simply because of fear of being shot by the Gestapo. I will remove Żagiew and Group 13 for now but if you insist on having them here, please do it somewhere within the article and not in the lead. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely don't belong in the lede. A sentence somewhere in the text may be appropriate as long as it's kept in proportion.radek (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree per Radek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you guys.--Jacurek (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

From Chumchum7 Talk

Re: your blanket revert

Chumchum7, you're a reasonable person and a good writer. I'm not going to edit-war with you, but please. Did you actually read carefully what I changed, before your reverted my edit? [2] You know very well, that there was a lot of text added to the article gradually in recent time without discussion and consensus, contrary to your edit summary. New additions were made also by you. However, if you read the first few paragraphs without prejudice, you will notice, that they no longer follow any internal logic. That's why I rearranged them. I placed the new content according to subject matter. In the first paragraph, only what relates directly to article title. In the second and third paragraph, I put the remaining content according to similar theme. Nothing was removed. Would you accept my improvements, if I made several smaller edits instead, only one sentence at a time to allow for greater visibility? The article lede reads like a mess. So please, do something. --Matalea (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, small sequential edits are better. But your write-through should be posted on the Talk page first, where you can try to gain WP:CONSENSUS and practical criticism, before dropping it on the article page. It's a no-brainer. Chumchum7 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Allow me to make a series of small sequential edits leading to the same end result and see if any of them would draw your attention separately. -- Matalea (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The risk of survival Wspólny los by Mateusz Szpytma

http://www.petlaczasu.pl/risk-survival-los/b05043313 Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Partial list of communities is still unsourced

The list should be removed or sourced. Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  • You're more than welcome to do it, and I'm sure, everybody who ever worked on this article will appreciate your effort. Please click on each external link and read it. When you come across a name of a village from the partial list in our article, put a <ref name=... /> next to it. It'll take time, but it's doable. Thanks. -- Matalea (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Any such list should be quoted from one source. A free selection of geographical names doesn't have any value, it's OR. There were hundreds of villages where Jews were helped and hundreds (frequently the same), where they were robbed or delivered to the Germans. Warsaw was the place of the biggest help actions and at the same tome of the biggest tragedies and crimes. Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you give an example of a Wikipedia list quoted from a single source? The lists of names (people, toponyms, buildings, etc.) have multiple sources in most Wikipedia categories. Take a look at the List of Nazi concentration camps (sourced), or the List of Righteous among the Nations by country (nor sourced) similar to Soviet deportations. The value of WP lists however is undeniable, because they allow readers to conduct further research. -- Matalea (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The List of Nazi concentration camps informs: "The data in this table is mainly from Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews". Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can see only a list of accidental names of places, without any rule defining the list, without sources. Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The List of Nazi concentration camps is a sad joke, 6 000 prisoners in Auschwitz-Birkenau, see List of subcamps of Auschwitz.Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming we found a source supporting the list then an editor could then complain that we were allowing that one source to bias the article and ask for multiple sources. Personally I don’t see a problem with multiple sources (per Matalea argument it is done elsewhere) BUT agree there needs to be a rule for inclusion (per Xx236 argument). Could we agree that for inclusion that 25 individuals or 5% of the population (whichever is greater) must have aided Jews? Then we agree editors have 3 months to find sources for each entry or it will be removed. Jniech (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary decisions outside of WP policy guidelines should be treated with caution. The subject area of this article is already well-defined. By the same token, there are articles with inadequate list of resources, such as the Jewish ghettos in Europe listing only two (2) ghettos in section Poland. -- Matalea (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum. I just rewrote the Jewish ghettos in Europe article. I moved all info relating to Poland to only one section with a subsection called the Holocaust in Poland. I added several new references. The article is no longer misleading, even though it needs additional citations for verification of data about other countries. -- Matalea (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the source of the Tuliszków story? The first ghetto was formed in Piotrków Trybunalski. http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_HOLocaust/chronology/1939-1941/1939/chronology_1939_16.htmlXx236 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done. Check it out. -- Matalea (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment copied from GA review

An editor made the following comment at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/GA1. I'm copying it here because that GA review is closed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The following paragraph makes it seem like the only people in Poland NOT collaborating with the Nazis in persecuting Jews were the Poles. Hooray, the Poles are the only nation on earth that cannot be corrupted? You must be kidding? The extremely wide spectrum of the Polish response went no further than indifference? Really? And what about scapegoating the ethnic Ukranians for what went on? Apalling! Can someone sensible edit this please?
"The response of the Polish majority to the Jewish Holocaust covered an extremely wide spectrum, often ranging from acts of altruism at the risk of endangering their own and their families’ lives, through compassion, to passivity and indifference. Polish rescuers also faced threats from unsympathetic neighbours, the Volksdeutsche[7] and the ethnic Ukrainian pro-Nazis,[8] as well as blackmailers called szmalcowniks and (as in Warsaw) from Jewish collaborators such as Żagiew or Group 13. There were cases of denunciation or even participation in massacres of Jewish inhabitants" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankfilardo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear User:Frankfilardo. You seem to know more about Poland's WWII history, than anybody else around here. Have you written a book? If so, please share it with us; the truth must be told. And, check the title of this article for more clues. --- Veyron EB (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

I've just asked FPS to take a look at the recent IP edit warring here, so its now an admin-level issue. I've warned said IP, to no avail. Ironically, it appears that the IP has misunderstood the source they are using, Yad Vashem, to try to prove the point that Poles were largely anti-Semitic. In the quote, Yad Vashem is in fact saying that the Polish Righteous data is a minimum because it is based on proven cases with exhaustive evidence and witness testimony only; Yad Yashem is not saying here that the 6000+ should be considered a small amount. This mistake suggests the IP is not an expert on the subject and is coming in with a preconceived agenda and assuming that secondary sources will support it. In principle, there's no problem mentioning Polish anti-Semitism in this article; there is a problem with an opinionated editor wanting to prove their personal point, without considerate discussion for the other editors around them, and presuming to speak for the Jewish people while they're at it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Same/overspill trouble at Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Przemysl history

Number of people who were killed for helping Jews in Przemyśl (and close area) is certainly not of 568. There are no people excluding Kurpiel family from Tarnawce who have been awarded post mortem Righteous among the Nations. There are several memory sites of executions in Przemyśl. None of them is dedicated to people who were saving Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknut (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources? The current statement in the article does have a source, although it is a dead link.VolunteerMarek 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Piotr Jaroszczak in his history on his websites does not have any sources and any names. Citing such man, who says that Jan Nowak Jeziorański worked for German nazist is just stupid (see www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_311.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknut (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Piotr Jaroszczak is also known of such opinions like: "carrying out its messianism, still assemble in many different points of the globe a new wars, conflicts and holocausts, bringing them huge financial gains, because their interest has to spin" (about Jews). http://www.kki.pl/piojar/polemiki/holocaust/odp_1.html
My suggestion is to remove such "credible" source.Marknut (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Partial list of communities

NOTE I've moved this from the main article since it isn't supported by the ref and is full of inaccuracies and ambiguous place names. --JaGatalk 09:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Below is the partial list of Polish communities engaged in collective rescuing of Jews during the Holocaust, as described in literature mentioned. Spelling of some of the names of settlements and counties has been revised in accordance with the currently available geodata. Occasionally, the below links lead to disambiguation pages listing villages known by the same name in the same geographical area of prewar and postwar Poland.

For list of settlements and their gminas in alphabetical order, please use table-sort buttons.

Settlement Area Settlement Area Settlement Area
Białka Parczew Sterdyń Sokołów Bolimów Skierniewice
Główne Sierpc Ozorków Sierpc Borkowo Sierpc
Dąbrowica Ulanów Głupianka Otwock Osiny Łuków
Wola Przybysławska Lublin Jabłoń Parczew Kańczuga Przeworsk
Czajków Staszów Zdziebórz Wyszków Parczew Ostrów
Rudka Lublin Jedlanka Łuków Makoszka Dębowa Kłoda
Tyśmienica Gmina Parczew Bójki Ostrów Niedźwiada Opole
Mętów Głusk Gołąbki Lublin Króle Duże Ostrów
Dąbrowa Rzeczycka Stalowa Wola Kępa Rzeczycka Stalowa Wola Wola Rzeczycka Stalowa Wola
Rzeczyca Okrągła Stalowa Wola Głuchów Łańcut Mulawicze Bielsk
Drzewica Opoczno Ceranów Sokołów Poniatowa Lublin
Bielsko Upper Silesia Dziurków Radom Olsztyn Village Częstochowa
Korzeniówka Grójec Łaskarzew Garwolin Sobolew Garwolin
Wilga Łowicz Siedlce Masovia Wielki Las Pisz
Lendowo Brańsk Teresin[disambiguation needed] Chełm Powiłańce Lida
Kajetanówka Lublin Ożarów Kielce Ignaców Lublin
Szymanów[disambiguation needed] Masovia Grodzisko Leżajsk Białka Parczew
Sterdyń Sokołów Okopy Kisorycze Rokitno Wołyń
Tarnopol Tarnopol V. Berecz † Wołyń Huta Werchoducka † Złoczów
Zahorze † Łachwa Dubeczno Lublin Kozaki .
Stara Kubra Radziłów Bełżec Tomaszów Sobibór Włodawa
Treblinka Małkinia Serock Warsaw Sikórz Płock
Urzędów Lublin Milanówek Warsaw Mielec Rzeszów
Goszcza Miechów Gawłuszowice Mielec Chrząstów Mielec
Majdan Nepryski Bełżec Głowaczowa Dębica Grodzisk[disambiguation needed] Warsaw
Wołomin Warsaw Zabłudów Białystok Nowosady Brańsk
Baranki Białystok Araje Białystok Zawyki Białystok
Niedźwiada Opole Lubelskie Runów Grójec Gorzyce Dąbrowa
Przydonica Nowy Sącz Ubiad Nowy Sącz Klimkówka Nowy Sącz
Jelna Gródek Słowikowa Nowy Sącz Librantowa Chełmiec
Piszczac Biała Podlaska Kolonia Dworska Piszczac Rożki Krasnystaw
Zamość Lublin Radzymin Wołomin Otwock Warsaw
Miedzeszyn Warsaw Praga Warsaw Żoliborz Warsaw
Obórki Brodnica Woronówka † Ludwipol Kościejów Bełżec
Kulików Bełżec Bar Gródek Zawołocze † Ludwipol
Bereźne Kostopol Korzec Wołyń Stara Huta Szumsk
Kosów[disambiguation needed] Kołomyja Międzyrzec Równe Niżniów Czortków
Ułaszkowce Czortków Hanaczów Lwów Ostra Mogiła † Skałat
Konińsk † Sarny Borowskie Budki Kisorycze Świnarzyn Dominopol
Bereźne Kostopol Janówka[disambiguation needed] Tarnopol Wólka Kotowska Łuck
Huta Stepańska Wołyń Przebraże Wołyń Zdołbunów Bereźne
Huta Brodzka † Lwów Adamy † Lwów Netreba † Wołyń
Karaczun † Kostopol Złoczów Rakowiec[disambiguation needed] Pańska Dolina Wołyń
Kurdybań Wołyń Bortnica † Wołyń Zameczek[disambiguation needed] Wilno
Żeniówka Wołyń Wsielub Nowogródek Mieżańce Raduń[disambiguation needed]
Dźwinogród Buczacz Huta Stara † Buczacz Hołosko Wielkie Lwów
Berecz † Wołyń Matejkany Wilno Białozoryszki † Wilno
Potok Górny Tomaszów Bybło Rohatyn county Jazłowiec Buczacz
Dołha Tarnopol Słonim Nowogródek Hucisko Oleskie Tarnopol
Settlement Area Settlement Area Settlement Area

<ref name="Mark Paul">A considerable portion of the quoted list of Polish settlements engaged in collective rescuing of Jews originates from: [http://web.archive.org/web/20070701095957/www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf "Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy. The Testimony of Survivors"] compiled by Mark Paul, with selected bibliography; published by the Polish Educational Foundation in North America, [[Toronto]] 2007</ref>

Also pasting ref. --JaGatalk 09:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

<hr=50%> I'd like to suggest that all names of settlements leading to disambiguation pages be de-linked, essentially putting an end to this never-ending debate about the so-called inaccuracies. The names are drawn from reliable third-party references about World War II... Their exact locations don’t need to be defined unambiguously, because this article is about the historiography of the Holocaust, and not about the actual destinations often in different countries today. Poeticbent talk 18:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to go along with that, but we have to have accurate, verifiable information. What say we delink (or remove) anything we can't verify? Could you point out some sources? --JaGatalk 20:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This is to confirm this article is B-class. Review for WPPOLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Poles

The Yad Vashem statistics doesn't say Christian. I bet there were some atheists among them.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Survey by the BBC in 2004 recorded atheists as comprising 8% of the world's population.[1] No need to split hair in here. They were gentiles, which commonly denotes non-Jews. Whenever necessary, you can replace "Christian" with "gentile" if you want although it might not sound as descriptive. Poeticbent talk 13:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "UK among most secular nations". BBC News. 2004-02-26. Retrieved 2015-01-14.
The Yad Vashem statistics doesn't say Christian so it's OR.Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Partial list of communities

Serock belonged probably to powiat warszawski, not to gmina.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC) The whole table is OR and should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I hope you do remember what WP:OR stands for in Wikipedia, do you. The abbreviation "OR" is used to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. Poeticbent talk 06:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The original list has been extended, how?
What is the Area? It's described as gminas but it's false.Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The first check - Kozaki - Japan. Xx236 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The second check - Olsztyn Village (unsorced name) links to the Polish Wikipedia even if there is Olsztyn, Silesian Voivodeship.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no Araje, according to Google.Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time communicating with you Xx236. Please spend a little more time studying the content before taking a stab at cheap criticism. At the end of the opening paragraph is a citation with internal and external links which you refused to acknowledge so far. Do you remember what WP:NOTHERE stands for? "Little or no interest in working collaboratively." Poeticbent talk 06:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. Kozaki Osuchowskie
  2. Kozaki, Poland
  3. pl:Kozaki (rejon kamionecki)
  4. pl:Kozaki (rejon złoczowski)
Please don't patronise, your better English language doesn't make you an expert in e.g. geography of Poland, which has been proved.
What do I need the list of 4 Kozaki? Is it a joke? Please correct the table or remove the Kozaki. The table links Kōzaki in Japan. It proves the table isn't perfect, but you assume my critics as ad personam. Is it too much to expect correct links?
Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There exists no Araje in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
the text For list of settlements and their gminas in alphabetical order, please use table-sort buttons. misinforms, they are not only gminas, but Areas - gminas, counties (powiat) and others (Wołyń).Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The quoted text is about the clergy, not about villages or towns. It's far from being obious how to step from several individual heroic deeds to classifying a village or town. The main place of hiding was Warsaw.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sobibór links to the extermination camp. Is the link correct? What is the source? I haven't found Sobibór in Paul's text.Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Stara Kubra isn't listed in Paul's text. My source is [3], I don't know if it's reliable.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Kolonia Wileńska is now a part of Vilnius, no connection to Nieświerz.Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have corrected Bybło, now uk:Набережне (Галицький район) Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be assured that I do appreciate your help. This article was created years ago. Wikilinks change. Kozaki was a correct link at first, but now it is the Kozaki Osuchowskie ... and the only reason I know that is because of the Lublin Voivodeship listed next to it. Available data is imperfect, but the locations can be pinpointed using administrative divisions such as gminas although we don't always have the actual names of gminas, but instead, the neighbouring towns and cities, or regions and voivodeships which can best be summarized as "areas", similar to rejony, tereny, obszary, miasta etc. in the Polish language. If the name is spelled in the source incorrectly, we can fix it. Poeticbent talk 10:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mark Poul, Bibliography on Glaukopis

Corrected Poul's texts are available here [4] Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Are Kurek and Grynberg listed correctly?

They seem to be a part of Pauls reference. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jan and Antonina Żabiński should be mentioned

The Zookeeper's Wife Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Partial list of communities

This list, of some 106 locations, is for the most part un-sourced (or sourced by Mark Paul - who is clearly not a RS per comments in section below) - and is of little value to the article. My reading of previous discussion here (2010 (which also noted unsourced state) and 2012 (in which it was removed), and 2016) doesn't show consensus for inclusion of this. What are the grounds for keeping it?Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Ewa Kurek as a source

My removal of the following two sources - diff, and diff was reverted. Both sources are the same book - even though one of them falsely states Jan Karski as an author (he did write an introduction) - one is the Polish language book, and the second is the English translation. There are a number of problems with this source. Let's begin with the publisher - Hippocrene Books - which specializes in folklore and ethnic cookbooks (such as Best of Polish Cooking) - so, not quite the publisher of academic texts. Moving on, while she does have a PhD from the Catholic University of Lublin, she is not particularly well published nor cited (note - there is a better published microbiologist with the same name - plwiki entry - so if you go scholar - you need to filter out all the life sciences hits) - nor does it seem does she hold a significant academic post (as of 2006 - wyborcza article on her views on "Jews having fun in the ghetto" - she held a lecturing position in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" (which seems to mainly do weekend studies - per the city website). Moving a bit onwards, it seems she has quite interesting views about Jews - and it seems she has been called out on it by Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint) - not only the Jewish community, but it would seem also Polish government officials (yup - the current government). AP leads off with One, Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II when describing her, and notes a response by the Polish government "Andrzej Pawluszek, an adviser to Poland's prime minister, said Wednesday that the award was never a government initiative, but authorities acted to stop an event that would have been divisive.". per Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward - "“Deeper research” reveals that Kurek says Jewish perfidy is intrinsic to Jewish law and communal organization." (not so deep research - you might see this in the video of her speaking above (which I found prior to this article - containing - “Jews behave like a [herd] of lions in a threatening situation,” Kurek says in a YouTube video. “Lions are said to throw the weakest ones to death, to save the rest. And this is the norm among Jews. We Christians, since the beginning of … time, we have one principle: In the situation of a threat, the strong protect the vulnerable. If someone tells you about a Judeo-Christian civilization, then there is no such thing because this [Judaic] law excludes our civilization.”. Some have noted some subtle aspects to her discourse “Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”. In short - we should definitely not be using her as a source in Wikipedia for WWII history.Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

The above wall-of-text is a multiple copy-paste by User:Icewhiz first added to Talk:Irena Sendler on 25 April 2018, with no relevancy to this article content. Poeticbent talk 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to the use of this particular source in this article. I have engaged in cleaning up references to Ewa Kurek in a few articles (thankfully - very few - it seems that the red flags around this source are fairly clear). Kurek was not supporting all that much text in this article - text sourced to refname "hundreds" was backed up by another ref, and text sourced to "Karski|2001" (falsely named - as this Kurek with an introduction by Karski) was limited to one not too long paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, you copy/pasted irrevelant to this discussion text from here[5]. I can hardly follow this flooding and many propably dont even read it due to it's lenght.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of self-published (?) material by Mark Paul

My removal of [6][7][8][9][10] was reverted. These are 3 books authored by Mark Paul (who is somewhat known for authoring such works - at least by anyone searching on-line) - Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors (Polish Educational Foundation in North America), A TANGLED WEB. Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath (PEFINA Press (acronym of Polish Educational Foundation in North America)), and Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal: Jews, Germans and Poles in Occupied Poland during World War II (The Polish Educational Foundation in North America). Neither Mark Paul nor The Polish Educational Foundation in North America have a reputation as experts in the field (if at all, there are different reputation issues). Mark Paul (this Mark Paul - there are more notable scholars in other fields) is rarely cited (even though the work being all available online - it is quite easy to find and cherrypick from). Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy (2015) is cited once per google scholar. A TANGLED WEB. Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath (2016? At least the last version has that date) doesn't appear in scholar, and nor does Patterns of Cooperation, Collaboration and Betrayal: Jews, Germans and Poles in Occupied Poland during World War II. Other works by Paul are uncited as well. Publication by PEFINA (and online, in what seems to be a PDF that is continually updates - e.g. Patterns is cited in our articles with a date of 2009 - the link currently has a PDF dated (at top) to 2016) - is a WP:SELFPUBLISHed book - and should be excluded per policy.Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

April 25, 2018

  • User:Icewhiz again, under false pretences (as is often the case), attempted to vandalize the work of others about the Polish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. Proper sourcing for Wikipedia articles is not a contest of who's in the money. Mark Paul is one of the best, if not the best Polish-Canadian historian devoted to this particular subject, acknowledged by virtually every relevant portal of interest.
  1. Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
  2. Virtual Shtetl, POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews.
  3. Virtual Shtetl, POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews.
  4. Kings University College. Reading list.
  5. Glaukopis scientific quarterly: Artykuly Obcojezyczne
  6. Poland, 1918-1945 By Peter D. Stachura ISBN 0415343585
  7. World War II Through Polish Eyes By M.B. Szonert ISBN 0880335025
  8. The Sarmatian Review - Volumes 22-25.
  9. Mark Paul (2001). Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust: The Polish Minority and Jewish Collaboration in Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland, 1939-1941. Pefina Press. 402 pages – via Google Books.
Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz edits appear to be very tendentious, correct me if I'm wrong 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
None of those sources establish Paul's credentials in the field - particularly not for self publlished books. All you have shown is that he has been cited 3 times in possibly RS (and, I'll not, with yet a different year for the publication date of this evolving online pdf). Being listed in a library (and some patently non RS are listed there as well) is not an indication.Icewhiz (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, see Talk:The Holocaust in Poland#Open access for the follow-up discussion about the same misleading charge of "WP:SELFPUBLISHing" by Wikipedia policy/guidelines. And, let's keep further exchange of personal opinions on this topic in a single place from now on (over there). Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Contrary to the above, no policy based rationale has been presented in the other talk page. SELFPUBLISHED was countered by a claim that some of these were not published at all - merely being hosted on the web - making this WP:USERGENERATED which is even less acceptable as a source.Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    Here Icewhiz keeps removing[11][12][13] reference to historian Mark Paul claiming that he has no credentials(!?!) This has to stop NOW or it will be reported.GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    Do you have a source covering him as a historian? This is self published (via PEFINA - the older versions, the new versions seem to be online only) material by an author with unclear credentials. There is no policy basis for its use. Note that by restoring these you are taking responsibility for inserting a source against Wikipedia policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    Does this work[14] looks to you as work of the amateur?? GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mark Paul is an independent scholar in Canada, he has written the most exhaustive study of Koniuchy massacre in any language so far." Marek Chodakiewicz [15] GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That Chodakiewicz, active in far right movements and scrutinized by the SPLC and HopeNotHate, is one of the very few sources mentioning this work (all be it in a book that is filled with conspiracy theories per one academic review) - speaks volumes. However, Chodakiewicz himself says "independent scholar in Canada" - which does not establish any sort of credentials for Paul.Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll give you just one example Icewhiz: This is how article about a living person, historian Bogdan Musiał looked like before you arrived with your edits [16] This is how the article looks like now after your edits: [17] Does it look balanced to you now? Is it presented responsibly, conservatively, and in an unbiased tone?? [18]GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is how it looks on - dewiki (Musial was in Germany for many years prior to returning to Poland) - where some 80% of the article is devoted to various controversies. If at all, the enwiki article at present is too favorable in relation to coverage of this individual in outside sources (which seems to be mainly in German and then Polish - however the top English search results for Musial are this (not favorable) review in a peer reviewed journal and this journalism piece). Chodakiewicz and Musial (who have both been covered in RSes on historiography) may be a RSes (when they are published in a peer reviewed journal or academic publisher) - but there are quite severe WP:BIASED issues using them. Using self-published WP:FRINGEy books is definitely a no-go.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
So after questioning Kurek and Paul now you question Chodakiewicz as well. And whats wrong with being independent?? "Way to go" Icewhiz.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with being independent, however being such does not establish credentials in the manner a chair in a major university would.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You question credentials of every historian you don't like and thats the problem that needs to addressed soon. [19]GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul has published a number of articles in Glaukopis and in the book Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, ed. by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński, and Paweł Styrna (Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012). These are scholarly publications that are peer-reviewed by academics and professional historians. According to WorldCat, Glaukopis is subscribed to by at least 49 leading academic libraries (WorldCat lists 49 institutions). Mark Paul’s online publications such as A Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath and Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers are meticulously and copiously referenced. They have been cited by many academics and professional historians such as Tillar Mazzeo, Marek Wierzbicki, Bogdan Musial, Eike Lossin, Peter Stachura, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, M.B. Biskupski. Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy is listed in the USHMM library catalog as a web resource, with a link to a PDF file: http://catalog.ushmm.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=186&recCount=50&recPointer=1&bibId=134788 This is more than sufficient to meet the test of reliability. ALERT TO ADMINISTRATOR Icewhiz appears to have taken it upon himself to purge and delete any reference to Mark Paul’s work he can find. This is being done unilaterally and apparently without authorization. If that is the case, it must be put a stop to and action must be taken for having engaged in improper activity. Here are just a few examples from Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust: Revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust&action=history • (cur | prev) 10:34, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,888 bytes) (-1,290)‎ . . (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul - SP:SPS by WP:QS author.) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:31, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,178 bytes) (-1,377)‎ . . (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul. Karski citation here is actually Kurek - mislabeled.) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:29, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,555 bytes) (-555)‎ . . (WP:SPS see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:29, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,110 bytes) (-12,778)‎ . . (revert - edited wrong ver.) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:28, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (132,888 bytes) (-555)‎ . . (WP:SPS by [WP:QS]] author. SeeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:27, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,443 bytes) (+13,333)‎ . . (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul - the Karski here is misattributed - this work is by Kurek.) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:24, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,110 bytes) (-931)‎ . . (WP:SPS by WP:QS author. See.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:21, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,041 bytes) (-830)‎ . . (→‎Bibliography: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul. First of this is Kurek - author mislablled.)(undo) • (cur | prev) 10:21, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,871 bytes) (-1,646)‎ . . (→‎References: WP:SPS by WP:QSauthor Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:20, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,517 bytes) (-274)‎ . . (WP:QS author. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul) (undo) • (cur | prev) 10:18, 24 May 2018‎ Icewhiz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (123,791 bytes) (-11,029)‎ . . (→‎Partial list of communities:WP:LISTCRUFT primarily sourced to WP:SPS of WP:QS author Mark Paul. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul) (undo) If you try to undo Icewhiz’s incessant deletions, this is what happens: 3RR Warning[edit source] Your recent editing history at Jedwabne pogrom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRDfor how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Tatzref (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Bias

Sugihara cooperated with Poles

Some of the famous Japanese visas were produced by Poles, who copied Japan text without understanding. Later many POles from the group were murdered, Sugihara survived the war. People arriving to Japan were helped by ambassador Romer.Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Konstanty Rokicki helped about 2000 Jews

http://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,1302813,ambasada-rp-w-szwajcarii-konsul-wystawil-w-latach-40-paszporty-dla-ok-2-tys-zydow.html Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ewa Kurek has been deleted like in 1984' by Orwell

Ewa Kurek has documented help by Catholic nuns. Jan Karski has written an introduction to her book. Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jews in Polish cities

Many Warsaw Jews died during the 1944 uprising.Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jan and Antonina Żabiński

They obtained a book and a movie, but still don't deserve to be listed here.Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Home Army or Armia Krajowa ?

Please select one name, it's the same.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is under the title "Home Army". That is an unequivocal English rendering for Armia Krajowa, and one comprehensible and pronounceable to Anglophones. I therefore suggest we use "Home Army".
Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing reinstated

@Piotrus, K.e.coffman, Tatzref, François Robere, GizzyCatBella, and Ealdgyth: (RSN participants) - the following revert restored contentious information sourced primarily to Mark Paul's WP:SPS online/book publications, as well as some information sourced to Ewa Kurek (some of which is misrepresented to Karski - a legitimate scholar - but the referenced book is Kurek's). Mark Paul's writings, being generally being questionably, grossly exaggerate the scope of rescue by Poles - and sourcing a long list of communities which allegedly (quite a dubious claim) engaged in "collective rescuing efforts" (not scattered individuals) in Wikipedia's voice is entering highly dubious (and not accepted in mainstream literature) content to our article - with the list itself being not needed as WP:LISTCRUFT in any event. Your input here welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're still having these discussions. Get better sources, Bella. It's not that hard. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The only major issue I see here is the suggestion that this was collective activity. This is indeed a strong claim, and I'd agree we need a better source than MP for this. This can be sourced to page 288 of [20], where MP writes: "Contrary to what is often claimed in Holocaust literature, there are many recorded cases of entire villages sympathizing with the Jews and participating in their rescue". He does provide a number of examples, and they are usually well referenced, so we can try to verify them, ex.:
[21] "A 9-year-old Jewish boy by the name of Wintluk (Wintel), who 290 had lost his mother and three fingers when shot at by Germans while escaping, was taken in by a poor Polish family in Mulawicze near Bielsk Podlaski and then cared for and protected by the entire village who took pity on him: “The entire village, which was more aware of the danger, took responsibility for his survival. The village administrator gave warning of visits by the Germans, who were stationed in the village school. Thanks to this collective effort, the boy survived the war.” See Alina Cała, The Image of the Jew in Polish Folk Culture (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew Univeristy, 1995), pp.209–10."
Fortunately, he does provide an inline ref that shouldn't make it too hard to verify this and other examples. Where possible, we should replace citation to his work to stuff that has been subject to peer review.
Bottom line, of course, is to see if any other scholar, preferably, ones that do actually publish in peer reviewed works, made similar claims. For now, I'd support attributing this to "Mark Paul claimed...". I don't see the need to remove anything, unless you think there is some controversial and likely wrong fact somewhere (like when we found that the claim about Poland being the only place in Europe where Jews were executed was incorrect)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for self published denialist fringe hate literature. There are no policy based grounds for any use of Paul - who himself admits "Contrary to what is often claimed in Holocaust literature" - self admitting (rarely, for once) this is a fringe claim. This is self published fringe garbage, and this on going WP:IDHT conduct is not reasonable. ONUS is on those wishing to include, and following the RSN discussion this has not been met.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Mark Paul has published articles in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal Glaukopis that is subscribed by universities. His on online publications are found cited by numerous academics and professional historians such as - Tillar Mazzeo, Wierzbicki, Musial, Stachura, Lossin, Chodakiewicz, Biskupski and others. It is a very reliable and valuable source NOT “..denialist fringe hate literature”. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
This issue was raised on this page a month ago. Then went through a long RSN discussion. There was no consensus for your position - it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wikipedia does not use WP:SPS works by WP:QS authors (described in the footnotes of actual RSes as an "anti-Jewish tract", containing "demonstrably false claims", and expressing the "myth of the "ignoble ungrateful Jew"). Wikipedia is not a place for self-published hate literature.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Please link to discussions which established consensus. I don't believe there's a consensus to remove those sources, outside of controversial claims to be discussed on per claim basis. And describing Mark Paul (or even Kurek) as 'hate literature' is ridiculous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul. Consensus, by my read, seems to reject Paul. However, at the very least there is a lack of consensus to use Paul (due to WP:SPS) - which means WP:ONUS for inclusion has not been met. Note that your argument that WP:SPS can be used for non-controversial claims has no grounds in policy - and in any event, the source here is being used to make highly controversial claims.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Jerzy Kosiński's family was helped by the whole village Dąbrowa Rzeczycka. Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In general (and in this case also) if the information is not fringe, it will appear in other sources that are reliable. It's always better to use the most reliable source you can find for the information, rather than continue to continue to try to push the use of a self-published source by someone who does not appear to be an expert. The sheer lack of libray holdings of this Paul work is a big red flag on something that published over 10 years ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It is actually about 20 years. "Mark+paul"+pefina&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs8buYz6HbAhUIJVAKHQlnB1QQ6AEIIzAA this one has a 2001 year, and IIRC there is 1 or 2 that hark back to the 90s. The manuscript, or rather online doucment, keeps on evolving - there are multiple editions (added details, citations) from the initial release to today.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul and others

  • Remove: a WP:QS / fringe source is not needed, even with attribution. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References to Mark Paul should not be unilaterally removed with a consensus. Like several others, I do not believe there is any consensus to remove references to Mark Paul's copiously referenced work, especially where the factual information relied on is referenced by him to a source. Mark Paul has been published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals and books, and his online publications have been referred to in publications of many academics and professional historians such as Tillar Mazzeo, Marek Wierzbicki, Bogdan Musial, Peter Stachura, Eike Lossin, Marek Chodakiewicz, M.M. Biskupski. Mark Paul's Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy is listed in the USHMM library catalog as a web resource, with a link to a PDF file: http://catalog.ushmm.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=186&recCount=50&recPointer=1&bibId=134788 The Virtual Shtetl website of POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, a premier Jewish educational center, also refers to Mark Paul's work (e.g., A Tangled Web: https://sztetl.org.pl/pl/miejscowosci/w/1941-wsielub/127-bibliografia/13126-bibliografia; https://sztetl.org.pl/pl/miejscowosci/t/1581-traby/99-historia-spolecznosci/138167-historia-spolecznosci [2 footnotes]) This is more than sufficient to meet the test of reliability.Tatzref (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to achieve cinsensus to include. There is no policy basis to include a SPS by such an author. All the more so when it is described in the footnotes of actual RSes as an "anti-Jewish tract", containing "demonstrably false claims", and expressing the "myth of the "ignoble ungrateful Jew". Presence of such content in a Wikipedia article is shameful, and runs counter to WP:RS, and WP:NPOV\WP:FRINGE policy - and this in a highly contentious topic area. Paul has been cited a handul of times - and some of those citing him as an example of expressing a myth. USHMM collects everything Holocaust related, including hate material, this is not an indication of anything. And sztetl is user generated like Wikipedia IIRC, and it would not be surprising if the KPK were involved in inserting Paul there.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The ONUS is on the detractor. It is highly unlikely POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, a premier Jewish educational center, would cite "anti-Jewish tracts" that contain "demonstrably false claims". The allegation that Mark Paul promotes myths has been amply debunked. (1) One was advanced by Icewhiz, who denies Jewish overrepresentation among collaborators with the Soviet occupiers of Eastern Poland to the detriment of Poles. This overrepresentation has been substantiated by leading (non-Polish) historians and key eyewitnesses such as Norman Davies, Ben-Cion Pinchuk and Jan Karski, among others. They are hardly fringe or unreliable sources. They easily trump Icewhiz's views. Hands down. No room for debate here. (2) The other alleged myth is based on a patent misreading by Joanna Michlic of Paul Mark's Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy, which cites what Jewish scholars said about the ungratefulness of some survivors. The work in question canvases a broad spectrum of attitudes and mentions many examples of gratitude. Michlic's extremist views of other historians whom she dislikes and tars (Bogdan Musial, Marek Wierzbicki, Marek Chodakiewicz) have been implicitly rejected by leading (non-Polish) historians in the field such as Timothy Snyder, Yehuda Bauer, and Peter Longerich. They easily trump Michlic. The test of reliability of Mark Paul's work has been more than met. Tatzref (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tatzref: Paul appears to be a fringe author. How else would you explain this claim:
Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10)
Please consider self-reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman I strongly disagree with, oppose reverting.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: How do you explain this quote?
Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10)
K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This is regarding the Soviet Union. What’s the full context? GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah no. This is what Paul has to say about Polish Jews (as well as a number of other things on the same page).Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Full context please.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't have time to pdf search which source may contain this out of context quote, neither. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust

@GizzyCatBella: The full context is:

There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting (...) in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag.
Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10).

This is from pg 10 of Paul's Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust [22]. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies from August 1939 until June 1941 and shared a common purpose: the destruction of Poland. As Mark Paul points out, "After overrunning Poland, the Nazis and Soviets agreed, under the terms of a Secret Supplementary Protocol to the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of September 28, 1939, to a redrawn common border. Each side seized roughly half of Poland, thus ensuring that the country would be once again wiped off the face of Europe. They also undertook a common struggle against Polish resistance—to suppress “all beginnings” of “Polish agitation” and to keep each other informed of their progress. In fact, this ushered in a period of close cooperation between the NKVD and the Gestapo, the secret police of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Lists of Poles slated for execution were carefully compiled, traded and expanded." See also Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, p. 57. Collaboration with one constituted de facto collaboration with other. Chapters 3 -5 set out many examples of such collaboration directed at officials and military. A very compelling argument.Tatzref (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Jews in the Soviet zone of occupation collaborated with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
O.k. Thanks for the full context - now explain what is fringe about this judgment in your opinion? Recognize that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies at the time (see Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) both countries jointly attacked Poland penetrating it from both sides, aimed at the extinction of Poland. What is wrong with summing it up with this conclusion? Does he deny any historical fact? Sorry, I don’t get it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: Here's what Paul wrote:
  • In the Soviet zone of occupation, "Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting [ethnic Poles]", thus participating in the destruction of the Polish state.
  • "Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany..."
Ergo, Jews in the Soviet zone of occupation engaged in "de facto collaboration" with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941. Is that a conclusion that seems reasonable given Paul's statements? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul doesn't generalize. He's referring to collaborators among the Jews - the ones described by Dov Levin, Ben-Cion Pinchuk, Norman Davies, and many other historians in Neighbors on the Eve of the Holocaust. By shooting at Polish soldiers, apprehending and denouncing Polish officers and officials, and making lists of political opponents for deportation to the Gulag, they were in fact supporting the common purpose of the Soviet-Nazi alliance, which was no secret at the time. Their newly found friendship was publicized widely. There were also more direct examples of collaboration in Luboml and Kobryn. But all this is besides the point. The views of amateur Wikipedia users are irrelevant at this time. The academics and professional historians who cite Mark Paul's work, as well as POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, a premier educational institution, have spoken. End of matter. The reputable historians cited in Mark Paul's work have also trumped the various attempts to discredit Mark Paul's work in this discussion. But we are now facing a critical juncture. HIGH ALERT. The article has been devastated by deletions made by Icewhiz, carried out in the absence of any consensus, in order to purge all references to Mark Paul. It appears that these deletions can't simply be undone but require manual input. Something must be done about this soon.Tatzref (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul does indeed generalize about the Jews, and Germans, and Soviets - thouugh tellingly these long tracts tend to treat "the Jews" as the subject. If y'all think this is a reliable source, I suggest you update World War II's infobox and text, as it does not properly reflect the "common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." of Germany and the Soviets, in particular between 1941 and 1945.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is both indecipherable and bizarre. The Germans and Soviets had a common criminal purpose from August 1939 to June 1941. Thereafter, their paths parted and they advanced their own agenda and purposes. This is rather elementary. A no brainer. Rather than Icewhiz tell us what Mark Paul allegedly wrote, Paul Mark will do it in his own words and let the reader be the judge. Excerpt from the Foreword to Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust (http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/SOV-OCC-39-41-UNEDITED-1.doc): "It is important, however, to bear in mind that such collaboration, although a force to be reckoned with, was marginal and unrepresentative of the overall behaviour of both communities. It was the work of a small minority, but one cannot for that reason turn a blind eye to this phenomenon. Apart from collaborators drawn from the margins of society, there were also Jews who assisted Poles (many examples of such help are also cited), and, far more often, those who stood by for various reasons (fear, helplessness, indifference, etc.)—the so-called “bystanders.” Neither the Poles nor the Jews as a collective can be charged with complicity in the atrocities designed and carried out by the Nazi and Soviet regimes."Tatzref (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10) .
The quote is quite clear, per Paul the infobox and text in World War II are incorrect.Icewhiz (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I also find the following quite amusing (though this does have deadly serious ramifications):
The downfall of the Polish state was not only a time for rejoicing for many, but also appeared to provide a free licence to attack Poles indiscriminately. Inherent to these actions is the prevalent notion of getting rid of the Poles as representatives of the old order for the sake of the new Soviet-imposed order. The assault triggers resembled each other schematically, suggesting that a shared behaviour taken from simplified stereotypical patterns determined the dynamics of the attacks on Poles. These outbursts of violence carried a deeply symbolic meaning: The Polish victims were not attacked because of actual misdeeds of individual persons. None of them harmed the Jews or other minorities. The Polish victims were attacked because of what they symbolized. What is more, with few exceptions these vile deeds did not elicit protests on the part of the non-Polish population. They were, by and large, tolerated by them. (8) (NEIGHBOURS: On the Eve of the Holocaust, Mark Paul, 2013 version).
Not so much because of the grossly inappropriate text, but because of Paul's own admission in his, as always, copious footnotes that:
8 This paragraph paraphrases arguments that are commonly directed at Poles. See Eva Reder, “Polish Pogroms 1918– 1920 and 1945/46: Theoretical Approaches, Triggers, Points of Reference,” in Marija Wakounig, ed., From Collective Memories to Intellectual Exchanges (Zürich and Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2012), 202, 205–6, (NEIGHBOURS: On the Eve of the Holocaust, Mark Paul, 2013 version).
So Paul seems to be admitting he is writing a parody of actual research - as his citation takes Eva Reder, Polish Pogroms 1918– 1920 and 1945/46: Theoretical Approaches, Triggers, Points of Reference - which about the well documented anti-Jewish pogroms - violent anti-Semitic actions per Reder - and paraphrases a summary of the thesis in Reder (I shall note that Paul does indeed seem to "faithfully" summarize Reder) - just switching Pole and Jew around, with minor matching detail. Note that if you hadn't read the footnote - you wouldn't know this was the case - it is presented as completely factual - and in fact - this is Paul argument throughout the rest of this document. I shall further note, that in cases I've had to check copy-pasted material from Paul (take a peak at Talk:Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 - where per Paul Jews got their property easily after the war - contrary to all other research - which I had to dive into since the text from Paul was copy pasted into the article, complete with references not supporting the actual text!).
However, whereas Paul's copious writings are floating around the internet in various forums (lately - uploaded to Course Hero - it seems, from the massive dispersal of this material, that some elements might be fearful of a takedown notice due to the nature of this material) - Eva Reder's essay (and there are several more notable works in this topic with similar conclusions) has been published in LIT Verlag - and there is plenty of published and well cited material similar to Reder's work (who is a fairly young scholar - [23] - yet with a greater footprint than Paul).Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
This also illustrates another issue with Paul's documents. Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust was first self-published in 2001 - google books as a response (parody?) of the well known and respected Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland published the same year. Since then, there have been a multitude of versions - e.g. 2007, 2008, the 2013 version (quoted above), 2016, unedited 2017 version (and these are just those I found in a short search now - I suspect once a year or there abouts). These revised versions contain quite a few changes - e.g. as we can see above, Paul decided in 2013 to parody (or at least footnote) a 2012 research paper. While this certainly means the KPK documents pops up when one searches for published research (as it is all cited in the footnotes - any random on-topic paper just about) - a form of Search engine optimization - it also means that edits such as this (changing the version of the document) - may lead to a quite broken citation. Contrast this with normally published revision of books - which usually contain minor corrections, perhaps a new chapter, and often not even that - and usually at worst you'll get a wrong page.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Neighbours by Gross isn't respected. There are hundreds of academic and legal critics of the book. But yes, it's well known. The basic information - the number of Jewish victims - is obviously false. Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Gross is one of the most influential scholars in the field in the past two decades, and in academia at large - he is definitely accepted.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Gross is influential, but is he a scholar? I would say a prediger.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
On Gross's reputation: [24][25] François Robere (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus, K.e.coffman, Tatzref, François Robere, GizzyCatBella, and Ealdgyth: - per the example above, of Paul admitting a passage is a parody of actual research - I think we can conclude that quotations in Paul's work of others, as well as Paul's explanations/summaries of others, can not be used on Wikipedia even for WP:V of a quote from actual published research. Note the issue spotted by K.e.coffman at Talk:Żegota#Attribution to Gunnar S. Paulsson - regarding Gunnar S. Paulsson - where Paul was misrepresenting Paulsson, and Paulsson himself (apparently) objected to use of him via a quotation in Paul.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
A big ‘’’NO’’’ Icewhiz, read previous arguments, I’m not going to repeat myself over and over. Again NO, Paul is a reliable and respected source.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems that Paul "The charge—advanced by Jewish historians ... has been authoritatively discredited" [26] also labels the ethnic/religious background of historians he has issue with, even when the cited historian in question - Jan T. Gross - is not exactly Jewish (it also does not seem this was "authoritatively discredited" by any actual published research).Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Counting - it seems "Jewish historian" is used 14 times in Neighbors either to label individuals or collectively label some historians. It is also used in Traditional Jewish Attitudes Toward Poles some 7 times. He labels Alina Cała as Jewish, but I do not think this is correct (her plwiki entry and her mother's entry do not seem to indicate anything that would suggest this, she was born and is based in Poland, though Paul seems sure of the label). This use in the midst of a quote in page 94 is quite revealing where Paul exhibits an aversion to a list of names - will be accepted by Engel [here we can readily substitute a litany of names of Jewish historians—M.P.]. He also uses "non-Jewish historians" - in page 25, he laments that Influenced by such views such as those expressed by Naomi Rosh White and many others, non-Jewish historians have also endorsed this skewed picture of Jewish-Christian relations.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: You claimed that Paul is well-published and oft-cited, but he's only published and oft-cited in "Glaukopis", and that's a problem. François Robere (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
He isn't oft-cited even there - and he is not published either - he is hosted on the website (at least for these English language tracts) - not published.Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
does not seem - what does it mean? Yes or not?Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Does Google Scholar quote Mark Paul? Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

1. The reference to 1939-1945 is an obvious slip. It was clearly meant to be 1939-1941, which is the subject of the publication. The 1939-1945 timeframe does not appear anywhere else in the publication.

2. The argument isn’t so much a parody of Reder as drawing an analogy. The analogy is supported by scholarly writing mentioned in Mark Paul’s publication. Polish officials, officers, landowners, etc. were attacked not for what they allegedly did, but what they stood for. It was part of the Soviet plans to destroy all vestiges of Polish statehood.

3. Icewhiz’s allegation that Mark Paul invented – contrary to all research – the claim that Jews were able to reclaim thousands of properties after the war under the law “On Abandoned Property,” is simply bogus, and has been exposed as such. Mark Paul cited the most recent research on this topic published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research (https://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index.php?show=534) and other scholars. These reputable sources fully confirm what the American Jewish Year Book stated in 1947: “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” Violent confrontations over the return of property were the exception, not the norm.

4. When Icewhiz deleted my text on property restitution – NB he has been deleting my texts systematically since I joined Wikipedia (please check it out) – he added his own: “In the immediate postwar period vast quantities of Jewish property were unclaimed due to many Jews being murdered when they sought restitution of family property and due to Jews fleeing postwar Poland. … many Jews who had fled to the Soviet Union were only repatriated after this date and Jews in displaced persons camps in Germany feared returning to Poland, and those who attempted to do so were usually blocked by the Polish authorities,” which he “lifted” from Weinbaum’s book The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust, p. 101): “In the immediate postwar period vast quantities of Jewish property were unclaimed – in part due to the fact that owners or their heirs were often murdered when seeking to retrieve their property, and that many others fled the country. … Many of the Polish Jews who had survived in the Soviet Union were only repatriated to Poland after the claims deadline had already past. Others in DP (displaced persons) camps in Germany feared returning to Poland. Moreover, except for individual cases, the Polish authorities blocked the return of Jews from DP camps.” Weinbaum provides no source for these claims in his book.

5. Mark Paul did not misrepresent Gunnar Paulsson’s statement. As anyone can see for themself, he cited Paulsson’s publications verbatim: http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf (p. 287). At no time did Mark Paul attribute a 300,000 estimate to Paulsson, as falsely alleged. (See also http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc)

6. Since Icewhiz posts dwell on labeling reputable Polish historians he doesn’t like as hacks, “nationalists,” or even worse, it is surprising that he takes objection to Mark Paul’s pointing out, from time to time, the national perspective of various authors. That factor is generally recognized in the scholarship on Polish-Jewish relations as often having a bearing on one’s views. Joshua Zimmerman, for example, states in The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939-1945, “The negative portrayal of the Home Army among professional Jewish historians was made semi-official with the appearance in the early 1980s of The War of the Doomed: Jewish Armed Resistance in Poland, 1942–1944 by the Israeli historian and Holocaust survivor, Shmuel Krakowski, as well as Krakowski’s volume, Unequal Victims, coauthored with Israel Gutman.” Zimmerman goes on to reject many of the views of those “Jewish historians” based on the work of Polish historians.

7. The undeniable bottom line remains the same. At least ten works by Mark Paul have been published in peer-reviewed journals and books. Mark Paul's online work has been referenced by at least seven reputable historians/academics (Marek Wierzbicki, Bogdan Musial, Peter Stachura, Eike Lossin, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, M.B. Biskupski, Tillar Mazzeo) and by POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, a premier educational centre. This is more than sufficient to meet the test of reliability, and trumps the views of some opposing Wikipedia users, whose specific arguments about the merits of Mark Paul’s scholarship have been amply debunked. Tatzref (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The following claims about Mark Paul’s publications have been debunked several times in Wikipedia talk forums – so please don’t keep repeating them as it won’t make them any stronger: François Robere: he's only published and oft-cited in "Glaukopis" Icewhiz: He isn't oft-cited even there - and he is not published either - he is hosted on the website (at least for these English language tracts) - not published Mark Paul has published a number of articles in the journal Glaukopis, no. 25/26, no. 27, no. 28, no. 30. (This can be readily verified: http://www.glaukopis.pl/index.php/biblioteka-cyfrowa/numery-archiwalne/40-numer-34-nadchodzi) Two of Mark Paul’s studies were published in the book Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews, ed. by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński, and Paweł Styrna (Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012): "Rescue of Jewish Escapees from the Treblinka Death Camp" (pp. 117-137) & "Poles and Jews in Poland's Eastern Borderlands in September 1939" (pp. 257-293). Alongside the following academics/professional historians: Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Peter Stachura, Piotr Gontarczyk, Waldemar Chrostowski, John Radzilowski, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski These are scholarly publications, peer-reviewed by academics and professional historians. According to WorldCat, Glaukopis is subscribed to by at least 49 academic libraries/institutions. Mark Paul’s published three studies in the collective work The Story of Two Shtetls: Bransk and Ejszyszki: An Overview of Polish-Jewish Relations in Northeastern Poland during World War II. Two Parts. (Toronto & Chicago: The Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998). Alongside the following academics from US and Canadian universities: Tamara Trojanowska, Danusha Goska, John Radzilowski Mark Paul’s studies in The Story of Two Shtetls and his online publications -- A Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland and the Aftermath and Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers -- have been cited by a number of academics and professional historians. The following is a partial list: Tillar J. Mazzeo (Irena’s Children), Marek Wierzbicki (Polacy i Zydzi w zaborze sowieckim), Bogdan Musial (Sowjetische Partisanen: Mythos und Wirklichkeit; Sowjetische Partisanen in Weissrusland), Eike Lossin (Katholische Geistliche in nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslagern), Peter Stachura (Poland, 1918-1945: An Interpretive and Documentary History of the Second Republic), Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939-1947; After the Holocaust: Polish-Jewish Conflict in the Wake of World War II; Ejszyszki: Pogrom, ktorego nie bylo; Intermarium: The Land between the Baltic and Black Seas), Mieczyslaw B. Biskupski (Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future), Myrna Goldenberg (Before All Memory Is Lost: Women’s Voices from the Holocaust), Caryn Mirriam-Goldberg (Needle in the Bone: How a Holocaust Survivor and a Polish Resistance Fighter Beat the Odds and Found Each Other), Tadeusz Piotrowski (The Polish Deportees of World War II: Recollections of Removal to the Soviet Union and Dispersal Throughout the World), Jan M. Piskorski (Die Verjagten: Flucht und Vertreibung im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts), Mariusz Bechta (Pogrom czy odwet?), Frank Salter (On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration). Mark Paul’s publications have also been cited in a number of publications of non-academics such as Philip Bialowitz (A Promise at Sobibor), Robert Z. Cohen (Jewish Resistance Against the Holocaust), M.B. Szonert & Maria Szonert-Binienda (World War II Through Polish Eyes: In the Nazi-Soviet Grip). Mark Paul’s publications are also referred to in the Virtual Shtetl website of POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, a premier educational centre.Tatzref (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Some additional academics and professional historians who cite Mark Paul's work have been added, as well as some other publications.Tatzref (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Publishing a couple of pieces in a fringe open-access journal, and writing a chapter in the book edited by a friend - does not make one an established expert in the field. Regarding "Icewhiz’s allegation that Mark Paul invented – contrary to all research – the claim that Jews were able to reclaim thousands of properties" - I said nothing of the sort - A small fraction of the Jews with property in Poland were indeed able to receive their property back - however the vast majority (barred entry, inheritance laws changes to bar relatives, intimidation and murder) - not - the vast majority taken over by Poles and the Polish state - serious scholars tend to mention the latter - in this case Paul makes a quite clear and glaring omission while mentioning only the extremely small minority of property that was reclaimed. Quite simply - this is a WP:SPS by a highly WP:QS author that has no place on Wikipedia - our policy is quite clear on this matter. It is truly perplexing why we are still rehashing this after the rather clear RS/n - surely if these are details that merit inclusion in Wikipedia, one would expect multiple writings by well established authors publishing in a venue known for reliability to be available as sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

the Polish state - Poland was occupied, at least till 1956, when Władysław Gomulka survived and obtained some autonomy. Economy of Poland was ruled by not-quite-Polish Hilary Minc and Roman Zambrowski.
The state robbed landlords (ziemianie) and started to oppress peasants, imprisonong them in working camps. The anti-peasant group included a number of Jewish Communists. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
‘’Publishing a couple of pieces in a fringe open-access journal, and writing a chapter in the book edited by a friend’’ - this is nonsense, who are you talking about? Obviously not Paul. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line is, we shouldn't use Paul to support controversial claims like the one at the opening of this paragraph. But is Paul being used for that? No. He is primarily used for non-controversial statement. We can review them, one by one, and indeed, preferably remove cites to him and replace them with better research. Let's see if any controversial stuff remains. What I oppose is removing a non-controversial claim, referenced to MP, and either replacing it with cite needed, or removing the entire sentence/section/whatever from the article. I see no grounds for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And and all aspects related to the Holocaust are controversial, and WP:SPS does not have carve out for non-controversial. If there isn't a source better than Paul (who beyond being a SPS, also has a number of QS flags per his description in the (very few) RSes that cover Paul as a subject) - it should stay out.Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it should stay in. Again, read the commentary above why it he should stay in, I’m not going to repeat myself and quote others. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As for what Icewhiz said or didn't say about postwar property restitution, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944%E2%80%931946: "there were a number of successful restitution cases (though the Polish government subsequently nationalized the property)". So the reclaimed properties were nationalized? The topic of property restitution, based on actual records of courts that processed restitution claims, was undertaken by Polish scholars, most recently by Alina Skibińska and Łukasz Krzyżanowski, scholars associated with the Polish Center for Holocaust Research (Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów), Poland's premier and widely acclaimed Holocaust research center. Their in-depth regional studies were published in a massive 2014 book Klucze i kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, edited by Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, which deals Jewish property issues. These studies complement other regional studies by historians such as Krzysztof Urbański, Adam Kopciowski, Grzegorz Miernik, Sebastian Piątkowski, and others. Their findings are accurately set out by Mark Paul. Thousands upon thousands of claims were processed expeditiously between May 1945 and the end of 1948. 531 successful applications, sometimes for multiple properties, were processed in two county towns of Lublin province alone: 291 in Zamość and 240 in Włodawa. Do the math. In almost all cases, these properties were then sold to Poles. They were not subsequently nationalized. According to the American Jewish Year Book, which closely monitored conditions in Poland, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control [i.e., nationalized], proceeded more or less smoothly.” American Jewish Year Book, 5708 (1947–1948), vol. 49 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 390. The existence of these procedures was well known, and Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Given the choice between the views of Icewhiz and Mark Paul, the latter clearly comes on top. At least 13 academics and professional historians have cited Mark Paul's work. Wikipedia articles contain all sorts of references to less reliable and less cited sources.Tatzref (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As I am not with several red flags (including descriptions in actual RS) leading to WP:QS my own self-published opinion probably counts for more than Mark Paul's - which still amounts to close to nothing in terms of Wikipedia policy (assuming I choose not to identify as an expert). However, the opinion of actual published work contradicts the narrative advanced above and in Paul's self-published work. See.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust: Confronting European History, Palgrave, Laurence Weinbaum, pages 100-1
  2. ^ Robbery and Restitution: The Conflict Over Jewish Property in Europe, Berghan Books in association with United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Dariusz Stola, pages 244-248

Ignaców, Mińsk County

Please verify sources regarding Ignaców, Lublin County.Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The food rations allocated by the Germans to the ghettos condemned their inhabitants to starvation

Were the food rations so bad since the beginning? So why did the Jews accept their transfer to ghettos? Or did the rations deteriorate? Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rescue_of_Jews_by_Poles_during_the_Holocaust/Archive_3&oldid=1142776025"