This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It goes contrary to how the Holocaust in Poland is described in historical literature. So please restore all the content you removed because it was out of the self-defined geographical scope. I already restored the part about mass shooting in the east. Marcelus (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland
I think the title should be: The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland because first sentence is: "The Holocaust in Poland was part of the European-wide Holocaust organized by Nazi Germany and took place in German-occupied Poland " . So there's no Poland but German-occupied Poland so the title should be changed to keep article neutral. Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
See the talk page archive, you have added nothing new. 10:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Nothing new, but nothing changes. It's a very important thing, because articles title suggest that Holocaust had place in Poland and in the first sentence at last at the end precise that was German-occupied Poland, so it was the land of Poland managed by Germany. And second thing - that is not Poland but part of land of Poland, because half was occupied by Soviets. Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Very good point, I support that Marcelus (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It would not be neutral, as we do not do it for any other nation, so why Poland? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Please point other examples for other nation at first, because i don't know what is Your point of view and what situation You compare it for. Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
THis is why I pointed you to the archive, as this question has been answered more than once, but here you go The Holocaust in France. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
France: "The Military Administration in France (German: Militärverwaltung in Frankreich; "
No I do not (and "important facts" are for the body, not the title). And with that until I see a new argument raised we have not discussed more than once already I will not reply. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Simply ... there's no Poland while EN wikipedia claims that is. Historians say that there was no Poland then, and Wikipedia claims that there was. There is no Poland on the map between 1939 and 1945, but you claim otherwise. Can you explain it logically? Read this Subdivisions of Polish territories during World War II and explain me what is the Poland during the WW2 ? Where is Poland on this map ?
Final summarize: I read whole discussion about article title and the only argument for is naming convention, but what about true? Krzysztof Popławski (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I would actually support a proposal to make this page a disambiguation and create instead pages according to the German occupation zones, eg. The Holocaust in the General Governorate, The Holocaust in East Upper Silesia, the Holocaust in Bialystok District, etc, similar to what I did at The Holocaust in Czechoslovakia. However, I doubt this proposal would gain consensus. The article title unambiguously identifies its subject, which is what we're seeking in an article title. The text clearly states that Poland was occupied just like many other countries in Europe where the Holocaust happened. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
A wrong analogy. In the case of Czechoslovakia, you are dealing with an area annexed by Germany, an area annexed by Hungary, an autonomous Czech protectorate and an independent Slovak state. Four separate regimes. In the case of Poland, on the other hand, you have an area occupied by Germany, which it organised in various ways, moreover, ignoring Poland's pre-war borders.
In the light of Grabowski and Klein's article, and the accusations of distorting the history of the Holocaust in Poland on Wikipedia, I believe that we need to be particularly meticulous and precise. Emphasising that the Holocaust occurred in German-occupied Poland and that the Germans were the perpetrators of the Holocaust is particularly important. Marcelus (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't leave any room for doubt on those points. It's not a reason to ignore our usual guidelines for article titles. (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
However, it seems to me that it leaves some room for interpretation, as it can be understood as the Holocaust on the territory of today's Poland, while it concerns Poland within the borders of 1939. Marcelus (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
That is not accurate either because as I stated above from reading various sources I get the impression that "the parts of pre-1939 Poland that became part of Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine are usually treated as part of The Holocaust in Lithuania, The Holocaust in Belarus, The Holocaust in Ukraine, etc." and are not /should not be covered in this article. The Holocaust in Slovakia is not coterminus with the current borders of Slovakia, same with The Holocaust in Hungary, The Holocaust in Romania, and The Holocaust in Bulgaria to give some other examples. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
First of all, this is an isolated view. Secondly, the article now deals with the Holocaust in Poland within its wartime borders, before the changes made in 1945. This is as mainstream an approach as possible. Thirdly, such an approach is illogical, because why could Lviv, which was part of the GG and is not part of Poland today, be mentioned in the article, but Luck, which was not in the GG could not be? Marcelus (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
What is illogical about it? The persecution of Jews wasn't organized by Poland's prewar or postwar borders but by the administrative divisions established by the Nazis. General Governorate - Galicia, but including Bialystok District would be close to the postwar borders which I would be fine with. (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
That's a good argument for an article Holocaust in the General Governorate, but not for this one. I consider this argument as ended, because you are now proposing WP:OR that goes well beyond established mainstream historical consensus. Marcelus (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The title of the article is confusing, does not correspond to historical truth because there was no FREE Poland at the time and should read: "Holocaust in OCCUPIED by Germany Poland". 95.115.115.183 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it's worth considering, although it seems that for consistency with other similar articles it should stay as it is. Marcelus (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Im think it is very poorly worded, and were there any parts of Poland that were still polish? Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
True. Also, there are other ambiguous cases in this category. For sake of clarity better let it stay as it is.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the clarification in the lead that Poland was occupied at the time (that information has been removed) will be sufficient? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually forget it, it’s clear in the lead that now says: The Holocaust in Poland was part of the European-wide Holocaust organized by Nazi Germany and took place in German-occupied Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I support the point made by @Dreamcatcher25. There are multiple countries in EU which, based on their laws, may start a legal proceeding against Wikipedia in case the language used if found to be deliberately wrong/ misleading. The Anti-Defamation league also writes that the case for ensuring accurate use of language when referring to Holocaust and death camps in occupied countries is important. Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/news/how-poland-can-fix-its-holocaust-speech-legislation
I also support the point by @GizzyCatBella, especially that AFTER this comment was crossed out, the article was edited to say "masterminded" instead of "organized". So this point is valid again. The naming convention for all these articles could be e.g. "Holocaust in Nazi-Occupied Poland, Netherlands, Russia, etc.". "Let's just keep it as it is" is no excuse. Ninjabong (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
As noted at WP:Infobox, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The article's current infobox is overstuffed, compare The Holocaust's infobox.
Certain aspects are questionable, such as listing the OUN/UPA before the Wehrmacht in the list of perpetrators and showing a picture of Carpathian Ruthenian Jews at Auschwitz without a clear labeling making it seem that they are Polish Jews.
The map is a good effort but it's very hard to make sense of it because it's so full of text, and nearly impossible to verify from the cited sources, which do not meet the current article sourcing expectations. The arrows don't seem to be entirely accurate according to the maps published here.
1. I agree, I think we should generally avoid naming concrete formations as perpetrators, especially in such broad topics.
2. Disagree, this article is not about the extermination of Polish Jews, but about the extermination of Jews in occupied Poland. The fact that these were Carpathian Jews is secondary. The use of several different photographs makes it possible to show the scale of the Holocaust in Poland: ghettoisation, mass executions, mass killing in gas chambers in extermination camps, Jewish resistance etc. One can reflect on the selection of photos, but the ones chosen now are rather ok.
3. If we don't have better a map, I think this one should stay. Marcelus (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
All information in this article, including images, is expected to meet the article sourcing expectations. It's better to have no map than one that is badly cited and misleading. The ideal would probably be to recreate Stone's map from the paper I linked above, but I would not put it in the infobox but in a later section of the article.
The current images do not show all the stages of the Holocaust (you mention resistance and ghettoization, but I'm not seeing it) and if anything obscure the fact that the majority of Polish Jews, or for that matter Jews who died in Poland, died in gas chambers after being deported there on trains. Three of the pictures are from the two largest Nazi ghettos, the combined caption would overwhelm a shorter infobox, and the images are be too small for many readers to see well. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You need to be more specific about why you think this map is misleading. The arrows correspond to the general directions of deportation, and at this level of generalisation I rate it as fundamentally correctly drawn.
The pictures, looking from top and left, show: the burning Warsaw ghetto, children in the Łódź ghetto, the mass execution, the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the selection in the Auschwitz camp. Thus, all the phases I have mentioned are presented. You can think about the selection, but I think that 4-5 pictures are as appropriate as possible. Marcelus (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, even if you don't think the map is misleading it clearly does not meet the expectations for article sourcing. And it does not show the deportations particularly accurately. For example the deportations from Krakow District to Belzec are not shown; contrary to what is portrayed, areas as far southwest as Częstochowa and as northeast as Grodno saw deportations to Treblinka,
Your entire argument is that these images are a good representation of the Holocaust in Poland, overall, but that is not the case as I discussed above. There is indeed no picture of ghettoization, which is the process of creating ghettos. The people rounded up in the second Warsaw ghetto image are just ordinary civilians, like most of the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto they were not affiliated with the resistance. Most Polish Jews were not imprisoned in the largest ghettos, many more of them died in the Reinhard camps than Auschwitz, etc. I still don't see the rationale for why having these images at the top of the article rather than spaced throughout is better for the reader. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Please restore the map, you didn't get consensus needed to remove it.
As I said we can change the pictures, but having more than one is good for a reader, because it shows the full extent of the Holocaust in Poland. I said it already more than once, so please don't say things like I still don't see the rationale for why having these images at the top of the article rather than spaced throughout is better for the reader, because it's an example of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Marcelus (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that you don't restore the map, because article sourcing expectations are still in effect.
I did read all you wrote, however, I still do not understand the perceived benefit of putting all the images in one place versus throughout the article. If you don't want to explain, fine. (t · c) buidhe 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I repeat myself the last time: As I said we can change the pictures, but having more than one is good for a reader, because it shows the full extent of the Holocaust in Poland, you can disagree with me, but don't pretend that I didn't clarify my position and didn't explain my rationale. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Current infobox is a mess - in section "Major perpetrators" it lists 3,000,000 Polish Jews as one of the groups. This is the literal sounding of the box, if under 1 box with such name it first says "units" and then "killed" - it implies referring to the "killed major perpetrators" which is completely inaccurate. Ninjabong (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The map is user generated and does not meet the reliable source requirements. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It does not work this way; it's really up to those proposing to use a resource to demonstrate that it's reliable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I commented in the linked discussion that the use of the image in question is appropriate, as it's supported by the source provided. I don't see how the situation is comparable to the the use of a user-generated image for which such sources do not appear to exist. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Inaccuracies, sandwiching, leaning formulation (as previous, just in opposite direction)
1. There are tons of generalizations without reference to at least a basic estimation of an order of magnitude.
Example: "Some Polish peasants participated in German-organized Judenjagd ("Jew hunt")" - the word "some" is unclear.
This article is now much worse than it was. What's really happened here is that after months of trolling by some rigt-wingers in Poland, someone decided to "punish the trolls" with making this article as adverse to their point of view as possible, in fact trying to make any unaware reader confused. You really overdid, Wikipedia...
2. There are multiple examples of sandwiching, where key important facts, such as e.g. that the Underground government of Poland put a death penalty on supporters of pogroms and helpers of Nazi-perpetrated holocaust are put in between information aimed at inciting hatred towards the Polish people. In the example below, this exact information is sandwiched in a long set of sentences to focus the reader on (yet again, not referring to an order of magnitude) information about crimes perpetrated by local population, also without any comparison with the scale of crimes performed by the invading party.
Example: "Some locals benefited materially from persecuting the Jews. Several thousand Szmalcowniki - blackmailers - operated in Poland. The Polish Underground State strongly opposed this sort of collaboration, and threatened Szmalcowniki with death; sentences were usually given and carried out by the Underground courts. Jewish property, taken over by Poles, was a factor behind the beating and murdering of Jews by Poles between summer 1944 and 1946, including the Kielce pogrom.
3. Multiple changes were introduced to minimize the role of Nazi Germany, such as:
a. The title was changed to stop indicating that formally the lands on which this occurred were Nazi German - occupied, under German administration and that the administration encouraged rather than prevented such occurrences.
b. The words "organized by Nazi Germany" were changed to "masterminded by Nazi Germany".
4. Even the infobox was changed to exclude "Nazi Germany and its collaborators" from list of perpetrators and instead shows that it's on territories of "Occupied Poland", without any words referencing Nazi Germany, other than the difficult to read names of German Units, which, for an uninformed reader - don't mean much.
5. Aftermath chapter doesn't mention a word abut the Nuremberg trials and Nuremberg Military Tribunals, instead only referencing the trials of "collaborators of the Nazis in local territories".
As often is the case - this text has become nothing more as a Political game, which is very sad. Ninjabong (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
...or they know very well how to use sources selectively and in sandwiching... Even the title "holocaust in Poland" is selective. Let's use be a parallel here:
Just by the fact that US and UK had "a stance on the Holocaust", can we please also change the name of articles like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Holocaust to "Holocaust in the USA" and "Holocaust in the UK"? How can we say there was some "holocaust in Poland" if Poland as a country consisting of a government controlling a specific territory did not exist at that time and was de-facto dismantled? Maybe we should also create an article about "Holocaust in the Soviet Union", since these lands were also at some points in time controlled by Soviet Union? Let's give history all the accuracy it deserves. I'm OK with "holocaust in the soviet union, holocaust in the UK, holocaust in USA". Just as appropriate. Thank you very much. Ninjabong (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Well as there was no mass murder of Jews during Ww2 in either the UK or USA your proposal makes little sense (and smacks of a wp:point violation), but we do have The Holocaust in Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the CCCP/ Russia links. Unfortunately, as there was physically "no Poland" at that time the article, the article's name and your point still makes little sense, it's far from objectivity, including linking pogroms (which also have separate Wiki articles devoted to them) to the Holocaust which was persecuted by the underground polish state of those times (which did not control the territories of Poland at that time).
My point was rhetorical - the name is as inaccurate as if we tried to rename the articles on US and UK. If a non-existent country can have Holocaust "in it", keeping this name would be just as inaccurate as changing names of articles relating to other existing countries. An American died in the Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Stephen_Hall. Does that mean there was holocaust in UK? No, you're right. There was no mass murder in those countries, sure but their citizen were subject of holocaust by the Nazi state. Just as there was no Poland while the Jewish citizen of former Poland were subject to Holocaust by the Nazi state on Polish territories controlled by the Nazi state. Ninjabong (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Holocaust in Poland is very much so needed article, but I'm more worried that the article Holocaust in Germany is basically non-existent, and it makes you think why Grabowski and Klein didn't notice that. Marcelus (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ninjabong Dear new user, you can WP:BEBOLD and edit the article - or if it is semi-protected, you can suggest specific content to be changed here. Some of what you raise above is certainly worth addressing, and I hope the editor who rewrote the article recently will address your points one by one (ping User:Buidhe). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This needs closing, it has gotten...off topic. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This comment from @Slatersteven needs to be ignored as unspecific. His responses have gotten... unspecific, and do not reference any way, in which any of the 5 specific points noted above is wrong or misleading. I'm happy to suggest edits and provide sources - thanks for the good suggestions @Piotrus which are so different (in a good way) from the comments by other users. Ninjabong (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
"Institutionalized discrimination"
It's said that this fails verification, yet that is exactly what is described in the source for Poland after 1918, for example: Trends toward modernization in the Polish economy tended to bypass Jews; discriminatory policies in public employment, public works projects, and the awarding of credit by central banks remained major obstacles to any realignment of the Jewish economy in Poland, Jewish civil servants were few and far between (many of them holdovers from the Austrian period in Galicia), and Jewish lawyers and physicians were concentrated in private practice, since government offices and hospitals did not hire them., The numerus clausus was enacted in more and more institutions of higher learning, followed by “ghetto benches” in the lecture halls for the dwindling number of Jewish students; legislation placed limitations on kosher slaughter; professional associations expelled Jewish members; and a series of pogroms and attacks struck Jews in a number of cities and towns. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The source doesn't say anything about institutional discrimination being widespread in Poland, especially after 1918. Marcelus (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The claim was that "The source qouted doesn't say anything about "institutionalized" discrimination, certainly not since 1918" diff. Post-1918 "institutional discrimination" is specifically mentioned in the cited source:
...As a condition of international recognition, Poland was required to include in its constitution guarantees that proportional funds would be allocated to Jewish schools, that except in national emergencies Jews would not be forced to violate their Sabbath, and that elections would not be held on the Sabbath or Jewish holidays. Polish representatives blamed Jewish lobbying for what they saw as an insult to Polish national honor. In the long run, the minority protection system proved of little use for Polish Jews. Institutional discrimination continued throughout the interwar period; no allocations of funds for Jewish institutions were made; and protection of Sabbath observance was less consequential for Jews than laws that forced them to close their businesses on Sundays. Yet Jews hardly ever appealed for redress to the League of Nations, the body entrusted with enforcement of the treaty for which many Poles blamed the Jews in the first place.Source.
Am I missing something? --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Nope, source seems to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The reference in the introduction paragraph about "dark tourism" is very questionable, the term is really associated with recreational tourism to sites such as Vlad the Impaler's castle or the likes. On the other hand, trips to places such as the Auschwitz Concentration Camp are primarily educational and commemorative in nature, such as Polish school children going in order to learn about history or the well publicized Israeli school trips. Now, I do read about some Western European youths who come to Kraków on a city break trip to do a pub crawl and visit the nearby concentration camp where they take a selfie of themselves doing the arm salute, such as these recent examples of Dutch or German tourists (here [1] and here [2]) However, this should not result in such a classification for holocuast related sites. It is also important to understand that the Auschwitz Concentration Camp is a museum and not a recreational tourist attraction. E-960 (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
There are a great deal of scholarly sources covering Holocaust related tourism as part of the broader phenomenon of dark tourism, just a few examples: [3][4][5][6][7][8] Although I'm not wedded to that particular term, some mention of the boom in visitation to Holocaust locations in Poland after 1989 does merit a mention in the lead imo. Furthermore, I am not sure that educational and recreational purposes can be as sharply delineated as you suggest, after all, "All Holocaust and NS-history learning sites, including Yad Vashem, Auschwitz, Buchenwald or the ushmm have great, more or less intentionally crafted thanatouristic entertainment potential – otherwise they would not be as popular as they are."[9] (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the more correct term is Holocaust tourism and this topic is covered in the Legacy section, btw I do think it's appropriate to have it there. However, the Intro section should capture the fundamental facts of the actual event itself, not of contemporary issues surrounding it, those are secondary and I've seen various other article Into sections being completely sidetracked by contemporary political or cultural matters. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
No, as this has nothing to do with the topic. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
It has something to do with the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This topic is "The Holocaust in Poland" not "Wikipedia's coverage of The Holocaust in Poland". This will adds words that do not give us any greater understanding of what happened. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
belongs in Grabowski's BLP if anything. However since he is driving the news coverage (this being the point for him) I do not think there is enough accurate coverage to add it anywhere at the moment. All the RS coverage is highly biased. And speaking for myself my hands are full dealing with what happened when someone tried to "fix" this article. But don't mind me, I am just here to see if they bothered to explain their tags. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
And the answer is... No. No they did not Elinruby (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know who or what tags this refers to, but I'll take your word for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Shrug. In history if anyone cares, as I have just removed them. If you do not, shrug, aren't you from the Signpost? Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference YBau5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Territories annexed by Germany
The part currently reads: Parts of western and northern Poland were annexed into Germany—as Zichenau, Danzig–West Prussia, the Wartheland, and East Upper Silesia—while the rest of the German-occupied territories were designated the General Governorate. Zichenau and Wartheland aren't Polish names, these are names given by Nazi Germany to the Polish land after the annexation, so it's ahistorical to say that Germany annexed them. Same goes for West Prussia. Gdańsk wasn't part of Poland before the war.
Also try to avoid "General Governorate", and use "General Government" instead. Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The article states clearly that these Polish areas were annexed as the German occupation regions listed by their German names, although I welcome another wording that makes this even more clear. As stated in the edit summary, the German occupation zones don't correspond exactly to Polish regions known under Polish names so I felt the clarification was not fully accurate (also not supported by the cited source).
"General Governorate" may be less common, but it is a more accurate translation into English (p. 263) My understanding is that "General Government" is based on a false friend from the French Generalgouvernment (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it's just literal translation of the original German name Generalgouvernement, don't you think? Also we have article General Government, so it would be nice to be consistent. As for territories, you have to think about what you want to say, because if you want to list territories that were annexed by Germany, you cannot use the German administrative units names. On the other hand, if you want the names of these units to appear then you have to phrase the thought differently.
There is no way around this because at this point the text is misleading. It is also worth asking whether the details of the administrative division of annexed lands are relevant to the content of the article. Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Different anti-Jewish policies were adopted in line with the borders of the annexed and occupied territories. See The Greater German Reich and the Jews. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
"annexed and incorporated into the administrative structure of the German Reich"—seems a bit duplicative to me. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
"annexed and incorporated into the administrative structure of the German Reich as...", it's not duplicative because it explains that the names listed are German administrative names. Marcelus (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Carnage in references
I have commented out two list-defined references that were throwing errors because they were removed from the text. This is purely a cosmetic move, which begs the question of why exactly they would have been removed as both Timothy Snyder and the US Holocaust Museum are generally considered both reliable and respected. I did the same for another reference error which at least made sense on that level (IPN), but inconsistently, as a reference to Lukas was left to stand, as well as another published on scribd. I strongly suggest an examination by someone more familiar with Polish historiography than I am. I will however see if I can fix the other reference errors and flag some of the more dubious references remaining. Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
oh yeah, as mentioned above, I also removed half a dozen unexplained "relevance" tags. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
They are not unexplained, they were clearly explained in edit summaries, because the sources are about the Soviet Union and not the subject of this article. I have gone ahead and cleaned up the entire section which was restored without adequate explanation. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, that is a helpful suggestion and I hope it is heeded. if true I would have considered that good reason Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Gerlach massively over-cited
i say this without having yet investigated which page of which book merits 15 or so citations (for that single cited text; there are many many more Gerlach citations). Surely other sources are available and if not, why not, hmm? Elinruby (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
This is bizarre. There are many FA articles with more than 15 citations to a particular source. What's wrong with this book? (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not focused on FA articles. What's so special about this particular book is a better question. Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
