Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Anti-Polish sentiment. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Polish sentiment. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Polish sentiment. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Polish language was persecuted at all levels"

That's an untrue statement at least for the time before 1871. The Prussian state has historically been very tolerant against language and religion. The much chastised Frederick II invited immigrants from all countries to settle in Prussia regardless of their religion and their language. Before 1871 the teaching language in schools in Prussia was the majority language in the respective county. So, in German-majority counties German was teaching language, in Polish-majority counties it was Polish (also for the German pupils!) and in Lithuanian-amjority couties it was Lithuanian. After 1871 this gradually changed and German became more and more the teaching language in all subjects at school, finally also in Catholic religion which led to the school boycotts. But the German Empire 1871-1918 was not Nazi Germany and the Polish minority very well resisted these Germanization attempts. Numerous Polish associations worked and lobbied for the national aims. The crude description "The Polish language was persecuted at all levels" is too simplistic. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence was right beside the footnote, that's why you removal looked suspicious. Did you check what the reference said? May be the phrase in question was simply taken out of context or incorrectly summarizes the source, while the source actually says something reasonable. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The statement is simply wrong in this context as I explained. Since this source is not available as online full text I can't decide on whether his reference is falsely cited or not. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 22:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It is not required that sources used on Wikipedia be available online. Why not try a library? If your local library doesn't have the source (which is pretty likely) they might be able to order it for you through inter-library loan. Or, if there is a research library or university library near you, they might have it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, google search for "iroquois poles frederick" gives a couple sources which would allow us to expand this article. In particular this text gives a credence to the language claim. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Finally Germanisation of Poles during the Partitions goes in much more detail on the issue, and I am surprized itis not used here. Adding to "See also" for now. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I received the following e-mail on my talk page:

In the first paragraph it says:--"During World War II, such prejudices contributed to mass murders and genocide or were used to justify atrocities[2] by Nazi Germans, Ukrainian fascists, Soviet communists, and Jewish partisans."

As a new editor i cannot edit a semi protected article, but as a person who reads a lot of history ,especially regarding the events in WW2...i can tell you that the were no atrocities committed by the Jewish Partisans towards the Polish population based on the anti-Polish sentiment.

So i would like to ask you to edit out "Jewish partisans" off this line.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimahagever (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I bring the request here for discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

NO
"were no atrocities committed by the Jewish Partisans "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naliboki_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koniuchy_massacre
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiedzosław (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Memorial lettering

New Comment, 04/20 In the picture at the top of this section of the spray paint on the memorial to the Poles who were killed, the writing is not in Ukrainian. The upside-down V is not a Ukrainian letter. That letter is only used in Russian. Although both countries use Cyrillic letters, that letter is not used in Ukrainian. So, Ukrainians are falsely accused of the graffiti in this picture. This should be credited to Russians. 2601:1C0:CB00:E4C1:2451:3EE8:C45A:4A6B (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can the term "Polish death camps" really be considered anti-Polish?

I understand why many people may be ofended by the misleading use of the term "Polish death camps" in reference to Nazi death camps in occupied Poland, sometimes made in the Western media. However, I think the suggestion that this is an example of anti-Polish sentiment, let alone one which deserves a large subsection of the article on said topic, isn't very realistic. To me, it seems to be nothing more than a semantic error, and not one which is motivated by intentional malice towards Poles. I therefore suggest that the section on the the "polish death camps" controversy be removed from the article. Regards, Aardwolf A380 Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a whole separate article on the subject: "Polish death camp" controversy. It's clearly a notable topic. You may not consider it a serious issue or an example of anti-Polish sentiment, but obviously many Poles feel differently. Robofish (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

04/20- Why not just call them "death camps in Poland?" 2601:1C0:CB00:E4C1:2451:3EE8:C45A:4A6B (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of terminology

We have an article on the car. Wikipedia does not call a car a samochod. By the same token, we're not going to use terms such as 'antypolonizm (anti-polonism)' unless they can be cited to English-language sources, and even then there needs to be a strong case because AFAICS such words are not in the English dictionary or encyclopedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Mika photo – again

Just happened to look back at this article. The caption of the September 1939 picture that has been challenged by two different editors for WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, has now connected this killing to the Generalplan Ost, which according to the article about it was drafted in 1940 and implemented in 1941. If that is not synthesis, I have no idea of what synthesis is. --T*U (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The two sisters

From what I could read thiswas caused during a military air raid. How is this anti-Polish exactly? Torba17 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Was strafting of civilians standard Luftwaffe tactics in France or Norway?Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

disagreement about history ?

The subject of the disagreement isn't "history" but the "the". Does Netanyahu accuse some Poles or all of them? Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The Mika photo is not WP:SYNTH, it's WP:DUCK

We have an article on the car. It includes photos that show objects not named by sources as cars, which we know are cars. By the same token, we know a photo of a Polish girl shot by a German is an example of the racist German policy of conducting war crimes by killing Polish civilians including women and children. If there's ignorance that the Germans actually had this policy, then please refer to the well-documented sourcing which verifies that they did, such as Spiegel: [1] -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Chumchum7: I am well aware that the Germans had this policy and that their war crimes against Polish civilians in many cases were worse and more brutal than against civilians from other countries. But there is nothing about this particular picture or Bryan's description of the event that shows that women and children were killed because they were Polish. Therefore the caption is WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Roll-call for 8-year-old girls at KZ Dzierżązna, a sub-camp of children's concentration camp in Łódź
Einsatzgruppen murder Jewish civilians in Ivanhorod, Ukraine, 1942.
Czesława Kwoka in 1942 or 1943. (Photograph credit: Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and Wilhelm Brasse)

I'm starting to find this objection difficult to understand. The Nazis had a policy of killing Polish civilians as you say you know. Bryan describes the event as a premeditated, targeted killing of civilians, and that the plane came round for a second strafe of the field. Is your opinion is that this could have been an innocent mistake by the Nazi pilot? I'm wondering what you need, and how familiar you really are with Nazi policies on Polish civilians. Would you prefer a photo from the Polen-Jugendverwahrlager der Sicherheitspolizei in Litzmannstadt? Or are you going to dispute that the photo on the left of Polish children in a German concentration camp for Polish children isn't proof enough that Polish children were taken to German concentration camps because they were Polish ?

For the record, would you object to this photograph on the right having a caption which says that women and children were killed by Germans because they were Jewish on a rationale that there is nothing about this particular picture that shows that the women and children were killed by Germans because they were Jewish? As if, maybe it was for some other reason?

And what are your views on what a caption can say under Czeslawa Kwoka? Is your opinion that her murder in Auschwitz was not racist, or not because of her ethnicity? -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Chumchum7: I resent the way you interpret my objection to the caption way out of proportion, and I resent your insinuations about what I might mean about other pictures. Please WP:AGF.
Regarding the only picture I have commented on, I will only add that premeditated, targeted killing of civilians was an inherent part of German warfare everywhere. The current caption could be understood to indicate this killing would not have happened if the girl had been Dutch, French or Norwegian instead of Polish. That I do not believe. --T*U (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I made no insinuation. I asked straightforward questions, which you have not answered. The assumption of good faith applies universally. There's no extrapolation that such killings did not occur at all anywhere else such as in Holland, France or Norway; at the same time it is well documented that the Nazi policy on the killing of Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians, Roma and Sinti was extremely different and of a far greater scale than the three nations you mention, where such killings were comparatively rare. The latter were classified as the Untermensch, the former were not. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Chumchum7: If you mean that would you object to this photograph on the right having a caption which says that women and children were killed by Germans because they were Jewish on a rationale that there is nothing about this particular picture that shows that the women and children were killed by Germans because they were Jewish? As if, maybe it was for some other reason? is a straightforward question, we obviously have very different definitions of "straightforward". But if you say did not mean that as an insinuation, I will take your word for it. I am finished here. --T*U (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
T*U I intervened here to defend you against false allegations of vandalism: [2] Certainly, this question is to get to the root of the rationale, by asking whether what applies in one case does or does not apply to another, and why. We can still find a way of phrasing the caption that suits everyone, or use a photo that everyone is happy with. There is usually a middle way. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Chumchum7: Yeah, I appreciate your defence against the IP editor's allegations. It was actually the IP that was the reason I came to this article in the first place. They have been pushing their POV from dynamic IPs mostly in the 2600:1001 range for a long time, mainly in articles connected to Central and/or Eastern Europe. They are currently range blocked.
Since you seem to invite me to come back to the discussion, I will try to clarify my view. I still have problems digesting the fact that you seem to find your two Jewish examples appropriate. For me they are so completely off-topic that I will not comment on them. In any case they are not relevant for this article. However, since you mention the possibility of using another photo, I will say that the children concentration camp picture most certainly is an example of German policy because they were Polish. On the other hand, making the airplane do an extra turn in order to kill more civilians was common German warfare, seen many other places.
I would support changing the picture and including a similar phrasing for that picture to the phrasing I have objected to. I still do not like the current caption with the current picture, but I will not contest it. --T*U (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
T*U, thank you for the response. First of all, let's get on the same page about rationale and what is on or off topic. To the more general reader and researcher, there are understandable and very common false assumptions about just how deadly it really was for non-Jewish civilians in occupied Poland, and the detail of what happened on on a daily basis given that the Germans ranked Poles second only to Jews as race enemies (which explains why unlike anywhere else, there was no Polish SS and no Polish collaborationist regime). Reading of the specialist sources shows that unlike in most of occupied Europe, non-Jews in Poland were subject to a German genocide that entailed constant murder of civilians including women and children. This is often obscured by the fact that (i) the rigor of German genocide was many times worse for the vast majority Poland's Jewish population, that (ii) Polish 'casual antisemitism' was widespread, and in notorious cases such as the Jedwabne Pogrom, some Poles were not victims but perpetrators in the Holocaust and (iii) today's defensiveness and denial from many Poles about the past wrongdoing of some Poles, including on Wikipedia. This can cause discussions at cross-purposes. To illustrate the point, you've made a good-faith assumption here that there are two pictures of Jews above, one of them being the girl in Auschwitz. If you take another look at that and expand the picture, you'll see the registration number and what the Germans say is the reason why they put her in Auschwitz. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Chumchum7: Yes, I see that I made a wrong assumption about the last picture after being a bit stunned by your "straightforward question" about the Jewish picture. I have no problem apologizing for that, but that is hardly the point. I came back here as a response to your mentioning the possibility of changing the picture and the "middle way", which I have said my piece about. I will leave it at that. --T*U (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
T*U: no need to apologize, it was gracious of you to do so but you have done nothing wrong. Yes, in principle I could be able to support the change of the picture or a change to the wording that would be a middle way, to support consensus, but we would need to first establish the logic or rationale for doing so. The question about the Jewish picture is at face value and serves to do exactly that. I assume we agree that Jews were being killed in the one photo because they were Jewish rather than for any other reason, not because there is any evidence that they were being killed for being Jewish but because we understand the context of the German policy on killing Jews. If that is the case, what are the reasons why would we not assume that Poles were being killed in the other photo because they were Polish rather than for any other reason, not because there is any evidence that they were being killed for being Polish but because we understand the context of the German military's policy on killing Polish civilians? The answer to that is important. Are there preconceptions at work about the historical context here? It would inform why the photo would be changed and what its replacement could be, or how the caption could be changed, or whether any change is merited at all. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
While some Jews were killed for reasons other than their Judaism (there are quite a few known examples of Jewish or Jewish origin political activists and homosexuals who were closet Jews) - being a Jew in occupied Europe from a certain date (one can quibble on the dating per region/aktion) was punishable by death by the Nazis - and this was carried out vigorously by the Nazis. This was generally not the case for Poles (who were killed by the Nazis for a variety of reasons - usually dissent - and not on racial grounds (Nazis definitely despised Poles on racial grounds, and had various far off future plans - but during the war most killings had other motivation). In terms of generics (Jewish vs. Polish generic image) - I object to the thread of argument above. However, for the specific photo of Czesława Kwoka one can find sources (e.g. [3]) connecting her death to Ethnic cleansing of Zamojszczyzna by Nazi Germany - which would be sufficient, in my mind, to tie the image of Kwoka to anti-Polish sentiment. Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Finding sources tying Einsatzgruppen killing to be racially motivated is not difficult either (and probably for the specific photo shown in this thread) - regardless of the generic arguments here. Which additional images (in addition to Kwoka and the Einsatzgruppen shooting Jews) are in dispute ? Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: The discussion is originally about a caption in the article and my edit here. (The three other pictures were introduced to the TP discussion by Chumchum7.) --T*U (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm - one would need a very strong source making that asserting regarding that photo specifically (or at least the Luftwaffe actions generally in the September 1939 against Polish civilian targets) to support that caption. Absent a source - I would not support it (and the same, BTW, if we are doing cross-ethnic comparisons goes to Jewish war dead in September 1939 - whether in service with the Polish army, or Jewish victims of aerial bombing / artillery bombardment). Absent a source - that caption text is WP:OR, and I would question inclusion in the article as well on OR grounds. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The situation for Jews in Poland was many times worse than it was for non-Jews in Poland, as I have said above. The situation for non-Jewish civilians in Poland was many times worse than it was for civilians in Western Europe, although the Nazis frequently denied it. There are verifiable sources specifically saying that the American photographer Julien Bryan's documentation of the killing of Mika's sister and others is the direct evidence of the German military policy on murdering Polish citizens to the extent that they did (in addition to Bryan's account that the German plane bombed the civilian house and then came back and targeted the women who had been digging for food in field next to it). It appears that for many editors (including the aforementioned IP) it has been obvious what is going on in this photograph as it is with other photographs of Nazi war crimes. Part of this is due to what we know about the context of Nazi policies, and that they were certainly different in Poland compared to Western Europe. See WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Wikipedia normally isn't in the business of having to actually prove the Nazi military's racist motives for murdering each one of the dead 'untermensch' (as opposed to Dutch or Norwegian) women and children shown in photographs. If that's the proof being asked for by way of citation for the caption under the photo of Mika and her sister, it seems like a seriously troubling demand, but it can be done specifically in the case of Julien Bryan's meeting with Mika. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Bryan's PRIMARY account can not attest to the Luftwaffe's motivations for the bombing/strafing. Civilian casualties is not a case of WP:BLUE - nor is terrorization of the inhabitants of an invaded country X something that is necessarily borne out of "anti-X sentiment". E.g. Bombing of Guernica, German bombing of Rotterdam are often referred to as a "terror bombing" (conversely - so was Bombing of Dresden in World War II - and this was admitted by one of the allied commanders involved) - however the motivations are generally understood to be a (possibly "dirty" - though standards at the time were different from today) method to win the battle/campaign by breaking enemy (including civilian) morale - not anti-Basque, anti-Dutch (or anti-German) sentiment). If there are non-POV sources for the Mika photo (or Luftwaffe bombing of civilians in the September 1939 generally - which this photo can illustrate as an example) - how about presenting them? Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz thank you for the considered input. First of all the issue with this rationale is that it isn't universal. In case anyone refers back to this dialogue in future, for the record: photos of Einsatzgruppen murdering Jewish civilians are photos of civilian casualties, these murders were necessarily borne out of anti-Jewish sentiment, being a case of WP:BLUE. Anyone who asks editors to go and disprove that there weren't non-racist motives behind the Nazi murder of Jewish children is liable to get taken straight to WP:AE, by me at least. Secondly, just because some civilians were targeted by Germans without racial motivation that obviously doesn't necessarily mean that others weren't. Some 43,000 British civilians were killed in The Blitz without racial motivation, we know that because Germany had no racist polices against the British. Over 1.9 million non-Jewish Poles were killed in the war, and we know that Germany had racist policies against the Poles. Any photo of those killings is merited in this article. And there are many more to choose from, for example in this list which includes Mika, Kwoka and the concentration camp for Polish children above: [4] Before I do go and dig up one of the Mika citations, I'd sincerely like to understand which of these 26 photos editors think require additional evidence of anti-Polish racism from the Nazis, and which of them doesn't, and why. Because to my mind, we could probably use any of them for this article both instead of and as well as the one of Mika. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
For Kwoka (or any other Ethnic cleansing of Zamojszczyzna by Nazi Germany victim I would think) - it is not a problem to find sources: [5]) connecting Zamojszczyzna to anti-Polish sentiment (likewise - there is really no problem finding sources for Einsatzgruppen (our article is full of them!)). For Dzierżązna, Łódź Voivodeship - I don't know - I would like to see a source - it isn't WP:BLUE to me - as the Nazis collected slave labor from all over occupied Europe - nearly as many French (not untermensch) as Poles). I agree with you that Germans saw Poles as racially inferior and had various (mostly unrealized) nefarious future designs regarding Lebensraum - HOWEVER - jumping from that generality to saying that each incident of atrocity against Poles by the Nazis was driven by anti-Polish sentiment - that's a step too far. I also don't think it's needed in the article - you have enough CLEAR-CUT cases that diluting the article by cases in which it isn't BLUE to other editors (nor sourced) - just makes it read weaker than it was. For Mika - I don't agree it is BLUE - Nazis purposely terrorized civilians in air raids (dating back to Guernica in the Spanish civil war) - as a means of breaking morale. Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Dzierżązna was a camp for Polish girls. Did the Germans (not only Nazis) collect French girls? I fthey did, did they imprison them in camps?Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate the explanation, and this may pave the way for additional photos being added to this article. I maintain my position that all this seems to be setting the bar extraordinarily high for one ethnicity. Why is that? Bear in mind that this article is about something abstract and general called sentiment, not evidence of genocide. It has direct parallels in rather poor articles such as anti-British sentiment, where editors don't seem to have a problem using a photo such as this:

American protester stands on a Union Flag, presumably associating petroleum company BP with the United Kingdom; before adopting the initials "BP" as its official corporate name and brand, BP was known as British Petroleum.

So let's not underestimate what we're talking about here. The Nazi German Generalplan Ost was genocidal toward Poles, nothing like it existed in Western Europe. Part of that plan was the Nazi policy of making the German military murder Polish civilians, in ways and on a scale unheard of in Western Europe. We have a photo of a dead Polish civilian, killed by the German military. But somehow a photo of a British flag being trampled on qualifies as anti-British sentiment, while a photo of the murder of a Polish girl in a field by a Nazi in keeping with Nazi Germany's anti-Polish policy does not qualify as anti-Polish sentiment? To be clear, this is a genuine and face-value question. And to be sure, poor articles have no bearing on potentially good articles; I make the connection to illustrate that the broadly encompassing article subject here is coming in for what I believe are too narrow requirements. Perhaps at some stage we could do an experiment in testing rationale by adding a photo of The Blitz to that British article, and see what happens; I'm not sure what it would reveal, but it might be interesting for us all. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A first source on the Mika photo, online for easiest access: [6] According to Google Translate: "Pictures of the girl sobbing over her sister's dead body went round the world. They were a shocking proof of the cruelty of German soldiers who - contrary to Hitler's assurances - did not fight only with the Polish army, but deliberately murdered the civilian population." Per WP:POV, all sources have a POV, there is no Wikipedia policy that supports a concept of "non-POV sources" because they don't exist. We are asked to reach neutral POV in debated matters of opinion by writing neutral text based on a range of divergent sources each with their own POV. For what it's worth, this particular source is Poland's mainstream newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, which is liberal-left and whose editor-in-chief Adam Michnik self-identifies as having a Jewish background. The Spiegel reference does not mention this photograph and the phrasing of the caption should not suggest that it does; however, it discusses the nature of the German military's killing of Polish civilians, which this is a photograph of. Therefore it needs to be preserved, but with better phrasing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, this source quotes Mika as saying she was 12, which indicates that Byran got it wrong, so the citation can also be applied to that correction.-Chumchum7 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

From around TC 37:00 [7] Mika appears in Bryan's film, with him quoting her; there is a shot of the pictures published in an American newspaper photostory at the time. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we can agree the Germans had a strong anti-Polish/Slav sentiment - but were not particularly anti-Dutch or English. Yet the Nazies deliberately killed civilians of all three (e.g, UK victim). In my mind this being a deliberate act of murder is not sufficient - I would like to see a source tying this specifically to the Nazies being motivated by anti-Polish sentiment (as opposed to terrorization, intimidation, or retribution). For Ethnic cleansing of Zamojszczyzna by Nazi Germany one can amply source this (and I will note - AFAIK there was no similar racially motivayed clearing out of English nor Dutch) - this - being part (or precursor/related to) of Generalplan Ost. Raising the bar of what to include would actually emphasize those actions that were racially motivated. Gazeta Wyborcza calls this a soching atrocity, a murder, a delibarate act against civilians - but does not say this was motivated by anti-Polish sentiment or racism.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for editors

You are not obliged to remove anything you don't like. You may move a piece of text into a better place or correct it. Your edits seem to be biased. Why has the Generalplan Ost perished? Nazi revisionism? Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The man apologized and said that he had been upset by an antisemitic slur by an embassy guard

Who says he's a probable liar? Whether or not he's lying is subordinate our right of reply standards. Note my last edit, FYI. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ellman & Montefiore

I reverted the recent additions (diff) as they misrepresented two sources. The article had:

The coordinated actions (...) amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention, concluded historian Michael Ellman.[1] His opinion is shared by Simon Sebag Montefiore,[2]...

References

  1. ^ Michael Ellman, "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited." Amsterdam School of Economics. PDF file
  2. ^ Simon Sebag Montefiore. Stalin. The Court of the Red Tsar, page 229. Vintage Books, New York 2003. Vintage ISBN 1-4000-7678-1

Ellman does not conclude this (pp 687-688). Likewise, Montefiore does not share Ellman's opinion, because a. he was not aware of Ellman's opinion when he wrote his book; b. Ellman's opinion has been misrepresented. This is OR and misuse of sources. I suggest checking sources before restoring obviously dubious material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

First, these aren't "recent additions". They were "recent spurious removals", which were then undone. Please get it right. Second, they do not misrepresent the sources. Ellman does indeed conclude this, although he notes that it's possible to disagree. If you want to be really picky, then "shares Ellman's opinion" is a bit ORish, but the main point is valid - they agree on this. Your comment "I suggest checking sources before restoring obviously dubious material..." assumes bad faith and kind of suggests you didn't really check sources yourself, since you wouldn't be making these false claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


I will also note that Sommer is not a historian (he was (is?) a political candidate/spokeperson for several parties (that did not pass the threahold or had very low seat counts), as well as a journalist - mainly in Najwyższy Czas! where je is now editor in chief. Nczas is very far from a mainstream publication - see [8], Racist Extremism in Central & Eastern Europe, along the way he did receive a phd for Ways of tax justification in the light of ideology of human rights (nczas is anti-tax among other things)) - furthermore the cited source for Sommer was a piece in the tabloid Super Express. Furthermore - A letter from Timothy Snyder of Bloodlands: Two genocidaires, taking turns in Poland on the bookhaven blog, is, well a blog - discussing a letter written to the blog. I will note that the blog, despite being a non-suitable source (WP:BLOGS), is actually better than some of the other sources - e.g. Sommer in a tabloid or other figures in opeds.Icewhiz (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
We're not using Nczas, are we? (oh noes! "anti-tax"! Scary!). And yes, Snyder's letter is quoted on a blog. Of a reliable source. By a historian. It's reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Please establish with Sommer is a reliable source for this field. As for an e-mail from Snyder being quoted in a blog - please see WP:BLOGS - the blog is not a reliable source for said quotation (though - I will state that at least the blog doesn't contain any red flags - I have no reason to believe they are misquoting Snyder). Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLOGS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.", which is the case with Snyder here. As for Sommer, you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN, although it looks like this is a peer reviewed journal. In any case, there's another citation for the same text right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on you to establish Sommer - who is not remotely appropriate here. Some of the text in the passage, which you've restored, is not supported by the citations it uses. As for Snyder - this is not Snyder's blog. It is someone else's blog reporting on an e-mail allegedly received from Snyder. Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Both Timothy Snyder and Cynthia Haven are very respected scholars and professionals - they're top quality sources. Can you clarify by what you mean by the statement "someone else's blog reporting on an e-mail allegedly received from Snyder". In particular, can you explain why you use the word "allegedly"? That seems to imply that there is a possibility that Haven is lying about having received an email from Snyder. Or maybe that someone impersonated Snyder and fooled Haven. Is that what you mean here? If not please explain the use of the word "allegedly"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLOGS and specifically WP:BLPSPS as to why we don't use self-published material by one individual reporting on what a different BLP wrote. Icewhiz (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You are evading the question. Can you explain why you used the word "allegedly" here? Are you insinuating that the letter Haven discusses was not from Snyder? Can you explain how you think that could have happened? 16:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


What Ellman said

Ellman summarises (p. 690) his discussion of the operation thus:

The ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38, notably the ‘Polish operation’, may qualify as genocide as defined by the UN Convention, although there is as yet no legal ruling on the matter.

This is not the same as "[The operation] amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention, concluded historian Michael Ellman", no? Without Ellman, the rest of the paragraph does not make sense, because his "conclusion" is being misrepresented. I.e. Montefiore (in passing) mentions a "mini-genocide"; this is not a "similar opinion" as the article claims: [9]. What's a mini-genocide anyway? A genocide is a genocide. Tomasz Sommer is a journalist and author, not a scholar; his opinion is undue. Etc.

I suggest reviewing sources and proposing something that is a. true to sources, and b. not a coatrack. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the rest of the paragraph clearly indicates that Ellman does come to the conclusion that it was genocide (see also statement from Chumchum7). He goes on to list the objections to why it may be considered genocide, and then proceeds to debunk them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman FYI I don't have access to Ellman and I trust your quoting of it. Yes, it's intellectually fraudulent of us to be mis-attributing assertions to Ellman. That per se does not rule out the 'Polish operation' being discussed in context of genocide. Timothy Snyder discusses the use of term, and indeed the Polish-Jewish debate around the use of it. He says: "It is hard not to see the Soviet "Polish Operation" of 1937-38 as genocide." [10] -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it actually reads "It is hard not to see the Soviet "Polish Operation" of 1937-38 as genocidal". Genocidal is not the same as genocide (though obviously related - genocidal has a wider meaning) .Icewhiz (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for catching the typo.-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
By the way, in the same reference he says: "When the Germans, like the Soviets, specifically targeted educated Poles in 1939-41, that was genocide. When the Germans shot tens of thousands of Poles in 1944, with the intention of making sure that Warsaw would never rise again, that was genocide, too. Far less dramatic measures, such as the kidnapping and Germanisation of Polish children, were also, by the legal definition, genocide." There's a place for that elsewhere in the article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Year-old neutrality banner at Invasion of Poland and World War II section

What are the remaining issues to resolve? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Shamir is quoted twice

The same words are quoted twice, once were enough. But Lapid continues the line so perhaps a subparagraph Shamir-Lapid would be useful.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

September 1939 myths

Danusha Goska

Am semi-retired and just took a look at this page. Why does Goska get removed? It's a reliable, secondary source that has been peer reviewed.[11] It's the most clear work making a link between anti-Polish sentiment and the stereotype of Poles as anti-Semites, notwithstanding Polish anti-Semitism, which the thesis incorporates. In fact, in case an editor has assumed it's some kind of nationalist academic attempt to undermine critiques of Polish anti-Semitism, it's quite the opposite - showing how the two forms of hatred are entwined and feed each other. Whoever is removing it, please come forward and let's work to consensus on the matter. --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Goska compares steretypes of Poland (sad gray land of the Holocaust) and of Germany and Austria (colorful places perfect for holidays for Jews).Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

there were Poles and Hungarians

Poland was invided by Germany, Polish people were persecuted. Hungary was an ally of Nazi Germany. The Arrow Cross Party ruled from 15 October 1944 to 28 March 1945 and coorganized the Holocaust. Such explanantion is needed. Many Western readers ignore difference between anti-Nazi Poland and pro-Nazi majority of the nations in the region. Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Soviet WWII propaganda poster

The year of the publishing is unclear. Rather before the WWII.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be verified. It's been described by the user who uploaded it after having sourced it from fronta.cz, and I don't have any idea of how reliable the site is. According to the site, it's attributed as being for the Polish campaign of 1939. The almost illegible text is summarised here. I had a bit of a struggle reading it, but what they provide is a reasonable translation in as far as conveying the gist (considering that it's been written to rhyme, and trying to translate it so that it rhymes would end up as an unnecessarily lengthy mess). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it does shed a different light on the type of propaganda it was. The current description is wrong. It's not depicting the Poles as spies. It's purpose is to encourage the Poles to come out from cowering in dark corners and join their 'friends' (the bastions of goodness and 'saviours' of oppressed Slavs) of the Soviet Union who are offering their strong hand in fighting the evildoers. Of course, it's an exercise in cynical propaganda, but not as it's being described by the text. I think we should find an appropriate poster. I'm sure there are examples from later in WWII. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not so sure that this profusion of Soviet propaganda posters from the time of war, mostly, does this article any good. Some of them were added by Oliszydlowski in February, but certainly not like this... A few years earlier, there were some images of executions in here (perhaps controversial, I don't know), but they have all been replaced with only the Stalinist bad jokes in recent time, with no exception; as if the whole thing was a bad joke also. Poeticbent talk 06:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The picture prefigure the Katyn crime - good Soviet kills Polish military vermin hiding in a black hole.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In psychology there is a concept called emotional hijack. These posters are ephemera, not history as it happened. Poeticbent talk 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid, Iryna Harpy is mistaken. The text is in Ukrainian language And it does not "encourage the Poles to come out from cowering in dark corners" . The Czech translation in the link you provided here is mostly correct, but a bit out ow whack: "Mother Poland! We had a big march but do not rest without vigilance. The enemy is always ready to strike at day and night ..... Stay alert! Let up in the spotlight! Be the Bolsheviks to the end! (1939)" -- There is no "mother Poland" in the original.

In summary, the text warns the "comrades" that a cowardly foe "broken by the mighty campaign" (an allusion to 1939), still amid the night comes out to do his treasonous deeds. Conclusion: the poster is not polonophobic: at that moment Poland was "liberated" and the poster warns against reactionaries who want to turn the tide of the progress of Communism. I.e., it is a sample of Communist propaganda, but not directed against Polish people or Polish culture. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am typing the text of the original (please fix the transliteration)

Ne treba zabuvat', shcho v nas voennyy chas,
Scho slamanyy vohnem mohutnyho pokhodu
Prokliatyy voroh shcho vkusysty khoche nas,
Buvae vden', chastiishe zh sered nochi,
vykhodyt vin na zdradnytski dila
O, pidlyy kat! Zdykhayuchy vin khoche
Ubyt' liudey, spalyt' mayno do tla.
Tovaryshi, tsyoho ne zabuvayte.
Pilnuyte chest' radzyanskoho biytsya
Uvazhni budte!
He zivayte!
Bilshovykamy bud'te do kintsya!

Staszek Lem (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Approximate translation:

"Don't forget that we are in the times of war; That the enemy broken by the mighty campaign still comes out, sometimes at daytime, but mostly at night, to do his bad deeds: while dying, it still wants to kill people or burn the property. Comrades, don't forget this! Be vigilant! Be Bolsheviks to the very end!"

I added all this into the image file at commons. PLease improve it there, who knows languages better. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've only just come back to this talk page long after I'd realised that Staszek Lem is correct, and that I'd skimmed over the very pixilated text without my magnifying the image (and, erhem, putting on my reading glasses), I actually reproduced the original text and translated it. The Ukrainian text reads as follows:

Не треба забувать, що в нас воєнний час,
Що зламаний вогнем могутнього походу
Проклятий ворог що вкусита хоче нас.
Буває вдень, частіше ж серед ночі,

Виходить він на зрадницькі діла
О, підлий кат! Здихаюча він хоче
Убить людей, спалить майно до тла
Товариші Цього не забувайте.

Пильнуйте честь радянського бійця
Уважні будьте!
Не зівайте!
Білшовиками будьте до кінця!

Translation:

We shouldn't forget that these are times of war,
That, snapped by the fire of a mighty campaign
The accursed enemy which is stung wants to bite us.
Sometimes in the day, more frequently in the night,

He comes out for treacherous work
Oh, dastardly executioner vile hangman! Dying, he wants
To kill people, burn property to ashes,
Comrades, do not forget this.

Be watchful of the honour of the Soviet fighter
Be Aattentive!
Do not yawn gape!
Be Bolsheviks to the end!

I'm going to add these to the image at Wiki Commons. If anyone else can do a better job of translating it, please change the translation there. Cheers, all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

що вкусити хоче нас - who wants to bite us.
О, підлий кат! - O vile hangman.
Do not yawn! - Do not gape.
Staszek Lem (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, agreed that "кат" is specifically a hangman. I've just checked the "вкусита" business again, and am fairly convinced that it's written that way, not as "вкусити". It would fit in with the attempt at 'poesy' (hence also accounting for no comma before "що"), but the meaning would be the same as "вкусити". As for the yawn business, I think my brain was stuck somewhere between a yawn and my jaw was agape.
Are you good with this rendition? If so, I'll amend it on the Wiki Commons file. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
вкусита : I would be very cautious when interpreting low resolution image and follow Occam's razor here. I am not that expert in Ukraianin; google search for 'вкусита' reveals mostly poor OCR like here: text says "вкусити", but google search reports it as 'вкусита', or Old (Church) Slavonic archaism in the meaning of "to taste". Also, I don't feel that this "poesy" (or possibly regionalism) fits the overall style of the text. Finally, under a very high zoom I see that the distortion of the letter significantly differs from distortions of "a": the taller always has "oval" outer contour (rounded corners), but the former is rather "rectangular". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. of all wikipedians' hassle, this is the mother of all nitpicking, don't you agree? :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I just read through it again in Ukrainian and realised that, in context, the line can comfortably be construed as "That, bitten, wants us" (the gist being, "That, having been bitten, is after us", and that it is the vile enemy that's been bitten) if it's 'вкусита', meaning that it has nothing to do with poesy or regional dialect. I agree that regionalism would not have factored in, and that poetic license would not have been a concern. Mind you, the straightforward way to write it if it It's a propaganda poster, ergo nuances that wouldn't click with the average person in their target audience: it's meant to rhyme and stir the ol' emotions as opposed to being high brow. I actually overlaid a partial transparency the 'a' over a couple of и's and other а's in Photoshop, and it matched up with the former rather than the latter. Mind you, the most obvious way for it to have been written, if this is the case, is as "Проклятий ворог що вкуситий хоче нас". As for getting stuck into brainteasers, you can call me the mother of all nitpickers! I need a cup of tea and a little lie down before my brain implodes (again). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent link for the propaganda posters and the discussion itself. Thank you. Zezen (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove regular wars

Most wars require dehumanizaation of the enemy. It is natural. Thus let us remove 16th c. wars like these: 

.... The war was held as a Russian triumph for its attempt to destroy Poland.
... Sweden, which developed anti-Polish sentiment due to previous Polish–Swedish wars in hope to gain territorial and political influence...

Zezen (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitic faux-scholarship?

@Piotrus:[12][13]:

  • The first quote is from a book enshrining the antisemitic narrative of Judeopolonia, which garnered a mere seven citations (twelve along with its sequel).
  • The second quote is from a book I can't event find, which is only mentioned - and heavily criticized - in the context of antisemitic propaganda spread by a certain bookstore in Warsaw.

Please explain. François Robere (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Once again, undoing likely vandalism and socking is not related to this. Why don't you ask User:Folly Mox why he restored this?[14] May I remind you about AGF? Given that Icewhiz has been finally confirmed to be socking and several of his socks have been banned, I'd have thought you'd like to revisit your support for his edits. Although one would have thought that indef ban would be enough to make most people realize who's disruptive in this TA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming good faith, which is why we're discussing it here. At the time you reverted this edit (May 13) the IP wasn't "confirmed" nor blocked, and their contribs weren't disruptive in any way resembling WP:VANDALISM.[15] Confirmation only happened two days later (May 15), to an unnamed "sock master". One can only conclude that you reverted what you thought was a "sock" based on a hunch, and - assuming good faith - did not read the text you were restoring.
    As an aside, the same source that you restored here as "seems relevant" on anti-Polonism, was also used elsewhere on anti-Semitism; there you marked it as "may not be reliable".[16] François Robere (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and please strike those PAs. Icewhiz has about as much to do with your edits as he has with Jimbo's dinner, and there's no reason to bring him up every time either is discussed. He's been blocked for half a year now, and soon we'll have 500/30 in place to mitigate "socking" - something which, as you know, I heartily supported. It really is "getting old". François Robere (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can continue to deny Icewhiz's involvement here, given User:KasiaNL whom I reverted has been clearly identified as his sock. Anyway, nobody is challenging your restoration of his edit, so how about you drop this discussion, given NOTAFORUM? We already had one editor leave this topic area recently citing frustrating and pointless talk discussions as one of the reasons. Let's avoid creating battlegrounds and such, shall we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No one is denying anything, I'm just saying you're responsible for your own edits. Thinking you're reverting "socking" is not the be-all and end-all of editing, and you should be more careful. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It is always good to be careful, I think we all agree about this. The dilemma of revert vandalism to WP:DENY or not because WP:BTW is an eternal one here. I understand what you are saying, I just think there is no perfect answer. FYI, I am still rather upset that a number of admins think that any content added by deleted users can be not just reverted, but deleted - so if a sock starts a new article, some think that DENY justifies deleting it, even if it is otherwise problem-free. Shrug. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
But that's exactly what you did here, Piotrus. You reverted an edit which wasn't obvious WP:VANDALISM, just because you were eager to revert Icewhiz; in effect you put your own quarrel with him above the content. Remember when I wrote in one of those SPIs that I don't care so much about who made a change as much as I do about what the change was? It wasn't about "sympathizing with socks", it was about avoiding partisanship. François Robere (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
But that's exactly what I would have done as Piotrus did. The anon's edit summary was " Contains little information, seems out of place". My first thought wold have been "WTF...."? Piotrus edit summary was exactly to the point: "seems relevant, please discuss on talk".
François, your behavior borders with disruption. The case had long been resolved in a proper way, by discussion here, in talk page.
Edits of banned socks must be reverted on sight because they are banned from our community. Period. We cannot and do not want to talk to them. If someone takes responsibility to reinstate banned person's edits, fine; they have to defend the edit and don't whine. Banned socks are almost always thoroughly hated for the amount of counterproductive hassle they generate to a large number of editors. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I've no intention of being "disruptive", Staszek. AFAIC I've said my bit,[17] and now I'm just replying. If you want me to reply, ping me. If you don't... well. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Whatever these books are, they are examples of anti-Semitism, not anti-Polonism, hence they do not belong here. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, you wrote: "Edits of banned socks must be reverted on sight because they are banned from our community." In fact, WP:BANREVERT says:

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.

Piotrus's restoration of the unsourced allusion to a highly contentious saying—"our tenements, our streets" (and identifying it as Jewish)—based on a suspicious that the person who removed it was Icewhiz, violates that advice. SarahSV (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalists

Interesting how Poles are eager to portray their anti-Ukrainian sentiment in any article. Who was checking whether people who were killing Polish-speaking residents of Volhynia were Ukrainian nationalists? Has anyone checked those perpetrator's party tickets? By what criteria those perpetrators qualified as Ukrainian nationalists? I know how, because they spoke Ukrainian. How about the Smolensk tragedy? Was that also occurred because of the Soviet communists, Ukrainian nationalists or Nazi Germans? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an off-topic speech. If you have questions about Volhyhia massacre, please ask in that page. If you have issues with the current text, please state them clearly. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Polish posters

Soviet poster (1920s or 1930s): Red Army soldier knocks caricatured Polish general off backs of Ukrainian peasants armed with rocks.

This is interesting, simplistical and manipulative way to describe the poster. In reality the poster shows a big soldier dressed in all-red uniform of the Workers-Peasant Red Army who overpowers obese, aged, and small soldier dressed in the Polish Army uniform (judging by the headgear) colored in yellow-blue who holds a whip and falls off the backs of poor, aged, bums who hold rocks. In upper right hand corner there is a verse in Ukrainian. The obese small Polish soldier is not in colors of the Polish flag like the Red Army soldier, but in colors that looks like Ukrainian flag. Now, I see this poster rather anti-Ukrainian rather than anti-Polish. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would rather not jump to the conclusions and explain it by the ignorance of the painter. Blue/yellow combinations did exist in Polish uniform and insignia (but not that prominently like in the picture). On the other hand, there was no Ukrainian flag in 1939, it was briefly in 1920s during the short-lived Ukrainian republics, and Ukrainian peasants hardly expect to remember it. But a valid opinion is that the Soviets wanted to present the early ukrainian state as Polish puppetry (and this poster was to reinforce the idea), but we will never know, and this talk leads nowhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting note on colors, but the hat is shown has clear Polish insignia (the White Eagle). And is it yellow, or just yellowish-greenish-brownish, i.e. the color of military uniforms? And the square top, isn't it Rogatywka? Now, the blue jacket is weird, but seeing the horizontal lines, it is probably intended to resemble a Żupan, kontusz and such, and evoke the connection to szlachta. Now, Flag of Ukraine did exist back then, but I don't think the poster was meant to be anti-Ukrainian. The White Eagle in the end is an obvious giveaway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
Please re-read my post about the flag: it was of no relevance in 1939. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. While researching on poster, I found its author (Havrylo Pustoviyt [18] [19]). I will update the image info in Commons when I find time and possibly write a bio stub about him, unless our Ukrainian colleagues would want to do this themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Polish sentiment in UK

This section seems rather long compared to others; long in fact to the point of distorting the article. There is also some special pleading about Polish-Jewish relations which present such relations as having been entirely positive. There's no problem in mentioning the positive aspects of Polish-Jewish relations (although the relevance is questionable in this context) however to ignore the historical pogroms and legal discrimination (and recent opinion polls) presents a very one sided picture.

I haven't edited the section yet since it's quite a big task and would benefit from discussion first. At the moment, the section reads as if it were written by one person with an axe to grind.

That seemed rather conspicuous and incongruous to me, too. Most of the UK section may as well be retitled "anti-Polish sentiment from the popular press" given that their attitudes seem typically out of step with the majority of people; though with that in mind, perhaps it's not surprising that the UK section is so big considering our press is notoriously toxic. --Vometia (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS

When adding content to this article, please include a reliable source that specifically states that the incident/statement etc. in question is actually anti-Polish. If it's content relating to a non-notable incident, then please consider that Wikipedia is not a repository of news reports—it is probably not WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that incidents should be discussed primarily based on academic sources, or major news coverage. We should not say what is 'anti-Polish' based on our own opinion. Btw, I think this is possibly due [20]. Even more, I think this is also relevant. The Guardian article states "Polish Federation of Great Britain lodged a formal complaint with the PCC that the newspaper had defamed Poles working in Britain... The federation complained about 50 Daily Mail headlines it said all displayed anti-Polish sentiment." We should of course say that the DM reject this at first, and then the sides reached a compromise. But it is a relevant issue discussed in a secondary source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
If it is kept, it needs to be clearly explained that neither the PCC nor Daily Mail accept that the articles were anti-Polish. Also relevant: "Moszcynski [Federation spokesperson] added that the federation accepted that the Mail did not intend to humiliate Poles, but said the effect of some of its articles had been to do that." So it's unclear if anyone believes that anti-Polish sentiment the topic of this article was involved. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's the compromise that allowed everyone to save face without going through an expensive trial. But clearly, anti-Polish sentiment is an issue here, and it is a term directly used by a source. I am fine with rewriting this paragraph, it needs some tweaking to be more clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"But clearly, anti-Polish sentiment is an issue here" Source? Not all bad reporting that shows Poles in an unfavorable light is motivated by hostility to Poles. Sometimes it's just bad reporting. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
If the article mentions the trerm, which it does, it is relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What RS states that the articles are motivated by anti-Polish sentiment?
This article hopelessly confuses the supposed topic, prejudice and bias against Poles, with actions that are (allegedly or actually) against Poles. (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
We are discussing a single incident, not the entire article (which does have a number of issues, certainly). Are you saying The Guardian is not a RS? It reported clearly: "The federation complained about 50 Daily Mail headlines it said all displayed anti-Polish sentiment.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is a RS. The federation is not. If the Guardian said that the articles were motivated by anti-Polish sentiment it would be very different. (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
And we are reporting what the Guardian said, with clear attribution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

2.7 million figure

MyMoloboaccount, I don't have access to this source, so can you confirm that this 2.7 million figure only includes Polish civilians who died as a result of the Nazi occupation? (As opposed to those who were killed by Soviet Union, or soldiers who died in battles; such deaths cannot be attributed to Nazi anti-Polish attitude.) (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

you confirm that this 2.7 million figure only includes Polish civilians who died as a result of the Nazi occupation? The full data is available under this article from which as mentioned I took the source with informaton, although I have articles on the subject too, which contain the same information and source. Circa 2.77 mln ethnic Polish deaths due to German occupation, out of which circa to 500k due to direct war losses, of course unable to determine how many were killed in action and how many murdered.Precise numbers in these cases can never be realistically established of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_Poland --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If around 500k are counted as direct war losses, they should be subtracted, at minimum. It would be ludicrous to add British deaths from German bombing to an article on Anglophobia. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I took a close look here regarding these numbers. Couple problems:
1. The USHMM source does not say 1.8 million. It says 1.9 million. Please get what the source says right.
2. The USHMM is referring to “Polish civilians” while Wikipedia text is talking about “all ethnic Poles”. You can discuss which group is more appropriate to mention (maybe both), but what we can’t do is list the number for one group while we’re referring to the other. Because then we just have wrong information.
3. It’s true that the second source (don’t know about 1st) does not explicitly say that all these individuals were killed due to “anti Polish sentiment” but the Wikipedia text doesn’t make that claim. Rather, it’s providing relevant context. Volunteer Marek 05:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Source removal + sources expectation

@Buidhe - please explain why you have removed this source --> "Wojciech Materski and Tomasz Szarota. Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami. Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Warszawa 2009, ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6. Page 9" and the estimate of 2.7 milion victims. [21]

−
[[Nazi Germany]]'s Directive No.1306 stated: "Polishness equals [[Untermensch|subhumanity]]. Poles, [[Jews]] and [[Romani people|gypsies]] are on the same inferior level." Nazi Germany killed between 1.8 to 2.7 million ethnic Poles, 140,000 Poles were deported to Auschwitz where at least half of them perished
+
[[Nazi Germany]]'s Directive No.1306 stated: "Polishness equals [[Untermensch|subhumanity]]. Poles, [[Jews]] and [[Romani people|gypsies]] are on the same inferior level." Nazi Germany killed some 1.8 million ethnic Poles, 140,000 Poles were deported to Auschwitz where at least half of them perished

Your edit summary states, "rm WP:OR". Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe also please explain why you used "oko.press" as a source in the same edit? See sources expectation - [22] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The issue is that not all Polish deaths during the war were connected to anti-Polish sentiment. The cited source, as discussed above, does not seem to discuss anti-Polish sentiment at all. USHMM's figure is focused on anti-Polish persecutions, which is probably why it's lower and more appropriate for this article (the sentence deals with people deliberately killed).
  • As for the other question, Adam Leszczyński is a noteworthy historian; I am not citing him for anything controversial, just etymology and his own opinion. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Leszczynski, you might want to consult WP:ACADEMIC before you start creating articles on authors. Regardless, point here is that oko.press is not a scholarly publication and thus violates the relevant sourcing restriction. Volunteer Marek 05:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I just looked at the Leszczynski quote and text. The text says he claims that antiPolonism doesn’t exist. He says nothing of the kind. He describes Osmanczyk’s essay, which is where the given quotation comes from (which says that the source of anti Polonism is much the same as the source of antisemitism, attack on weak and vulnerable populations) and then says that Osmanczyk’s essay may be “uncomfortable” for both the right and left. He then says that the RIGHT WING definition of anti Polonism is false, not that it doesn’t exist. Volunteer Marek 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia, and the World, 1939-1941 (1997), by Sheldon Dick ed. Bernd Wegner, p.50
  2. ^ "Poles — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". www.ushmm.org.
  3. ^ Wojciech Materski and Tomasz Szarota. Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami. Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Warszawa 2009, ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6. Page 9
  4. ^ "Poles — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". www.ushmm.org.

“Failed verification” tag in lede

Re [23]. In what way was there “failed verification”? The lede summarizes the article and the article mentions all of these things. Volunteer Marek 06:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost every source in the section “ Invasion of Poland and World War II” says it. Volunteer Marek 07:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It isn't obvious to me that this is the case. Could you please cite it directly? As it is it is not verifiable. (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It ALREADY is cited, so I’m not sure what you’re asking. If you click on the sources in that section, then it even provides quotations which back it up. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Where is it cited? Please be specific. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Like I already said, almost every source in the section “Invasion of Poland and World War II”. For example the first paragraph in that section is the one that is being summarized by the “German Nazis” in the lede. There is a quote given with the source. That whole sentence is needed in the lede to properly summarize this section. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
"This prejudice led to mass killings and genocide or it was used to justify atrocities" is the statement in question. Please cite at least one source which explicitly says that. I don't see how the location that you point out justifies that, especially since we are talking about plurals and a general statement. Verifiability is crucial here. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The lede summarizes the article. In this case the lede is summarizing the following, all of which is well sourced:
” Nazi propagandists stereotyped Poles as nationalists in order to portray Germans as victims and justify the invasion of Poland; the Gleiwitz incident was a Nazi false flag to show that Germany was under Polish attack, and the killing of Germans by Poles in Bromberger Blutsonntag and elsewhere was inflated to 58,000 to increase German hatred of Poles and justify the killing of Polish civilians.[66] In October 1939, Directive No.1306 of Nazi Germany's Propaganda Ministry stated: "It must be made clear even to the German milkmaid that Polishness equals subhumanity. Poles, Jews and Gypsies are on the same inferior level... This should be brought home as a leitmotiv, and from time to time, in the form of existing concepts such as 'Polish economy', 'Polish ruin' and so on, until everyone in Germany sees every Pole, whether farm worker or intellectual, as vermin."[5]”
(...) “ During World War II Poles became the subject of ethnic cleansing on an unprecedented scale, including: Nazi German genocide in General Government, Soviet executions and mass deportations to Siberia from Kresy, as well as massacres of Poles in Volhynia, a campaign of ethnic cleansing carried out in today's western Ukraine by Ukrainian nationalists. Among the 100,000 people murdered in the Intelligenzaktion operations in 1939–1940, approximately 61,000 were members of the Polish intelligentsia.[68] Millions of citizens of Poland, both ethnic Poles and Jews, died in German concentration camps such as Auschwitz. Unknown numbers perished in Soviet "gulags" and political prisons. Reprisals against partisan activities were brutal; on one occasion 1,200 Poles were murdered in retaliation for the death of one German officer and two German officials.[69] In August 2009 the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) researchers estimated Poland's dead (including Polish Jews) at between 5.47 and 5.67 million (due to German actions) and 150,000 (due to Soviet), or around 5.62 and 5.82 million total.[70]”
(...)“ Soviet policy following their 1939 invasion of Poland in World War II was ruthless, and sometimes coordinated with the Nazis (see: Gestapo-NKVD Conferences). Elements of ethnic cleansing included Soviet mass executions of Polish prisoners of war in the Katyn Massacre and at other sites, and the exile of up to 1.5 million Polish citizens, including the intelligentsia, academics, priests and Jewish Poles to forced-labor camps in Siberia.[71]
In German and Soviet war propaganda, Poles were mocked as inept for their military techniques in fighting the war. Nazi fake newsreels and forged pseudo-documentaries claimed that the Polish cavalry "bravely but futilely" charged German tanks in 1939, and that the Polish Air Force was wiped out on the ground on the opening day of the war. Neither tale was true (see: Myths of the Polish September Campaign). German propaganda staged a Polish cavalry charge in their 1941 reel called "Geschwader Lützow".[72] Ukrainian and Lithuanian nationalists utilized the increasing racial segregation to foment anti-Polonism. Followers of Stepan Bandera (also called Banderovites) committed genocide on Poles in Volhynia at 1943.[73] ”
Generally, a “failed verification” tag does not belong in a lede simply because a lede summarizes the article. Volunteer Marek 18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

But the lead claims that anti-Polish sentiment is the cause of all this violence. It is not sufficient for the source to say that there was violence against Poles, we need a source that it is specifically caused by anti-Polish sentiment. It is actually an extraordinary claim because if you look at actual research into the causes of genocide and mass atrocities, ethnic hatred is just one cause, and not usually the primary one. I suspect that if you look into these events, you would find that they are caused by a variety of factors, and that there is not necessarily a straight line from anti-Polish racism to the atrocities as the lead implies. (t · c) buidhe 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of the above paragraphs. Volunteer Marek 18:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
What we see is that there was a) anti-Polish propaganda and b) many crimes committed against Poles by various regimes. We need better sources and analyses that tie these things together. (The first paragraph doesn't count—it states that it's an exaggerated death toll that is used to justify anti-Polish violence). (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The sources are fine. The fact that your own personal interpretation is different is not a legitimate reason for “failed verification” tag. What exactly has been failed to be verified? Please don’t engage in original research. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
We need an explicit source that verifies that "This prejudice led to mass killings and genocide or it was used to justify atrocities". Otherwise, that statement *is* original research. (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
We already have such statements, what you are demanding here is statements which *use your own wording* which for obvious reasons, is unreasonable. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
And this original research claim by you is simply wrong: “if you look at actual research into the causes of genocide and mass atrocities, ethnic hatred is just one cause, and not usually the primary one.” Volunteer Marek 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
See 10.1017/S004388710002089X for a nuanced explanation. (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Is that suppose to be a link to something? Volunteer Marek 18:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a doi of a research paper. (t · c) buidhe 19:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want me to read it, please provide a proper link. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't care less whether you read it or not. What I do care about is that sources that directly support all content in the article and connect all mentioned incidents to the article's subject are added. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
If you are going to try and make an argument based on a source, it is up to you to provide information on what that source actually is. Otherwise, your comments can and should be ignored. Seriously, how hard is it to provide a link to the source, or a title/author and why are you refusing to do so? Volunteer Marek 00:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, here it is since apparently you can't use Google[24] (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, how hard was that? Now, can you please provide a page number or quote which says that genocide and ethnic cleansing are not caused primarily by ... ethnic hatred (sigh)? Per WP:V. I’m also not clear on why a paper which expressly argues for an “alternative” approach to the subject would be relevant here. Volunteer Marek 17:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I've rephrased the statement to reflect what the source says.[25] The rest of the paragraph is given below:

both before and during World War II, most notably by the German Nazis, Ukrainian nationalists and Soviet communist authorities.

Ethnic hatred etc. obviously played a role, but Buidhe is right that the way the lead tied all these paragraphs is WP:SYNTH. François Robere (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not, and Buidhe is not. I don’t know how you can tell that Buidhe is right when they’re repeatedly refusing to provide a source upon which, supposedly, their reasoning is based.
The lede summarizes the article, in this case, by enumerating the various cases that the article is discussing. Please stop it with the original research. Volunteer Marek 00:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
But the article itself is full of synth, assuming causes of events without providing a source. It's completely illogical to assume that if a person is murdered, for instance, the main reason is their race or ethnicity. That's what's being done here. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
It’s actually not. Nobody is “assuming” that everyone who was ever murdered was murdered on account of their race or ethnicity. Rather what the article says - as backed by sources - that in the specific cases listed, the cases we’re discussing here, people were murdered because of their race or ethnicity. This was certainly true of Soviet repression against Poles, of Nazi occupation and of the Volhynia massacres. The fact that these were ethnically motivated is not subject to dispute in the literature. Only on this talk page, apparently. Volunteer Marek 17:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
FR, looking at your edits, I see it removed a note that anti-Polish sentiment was also one of the factors in the "[crimes committed in Poland] by Ukrainian nationalists and Soviet communist authorities". Was this intentional? Is this stuff unsourced later in the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it has suitable sources that connect it to the topic of this article. It's incorrect to imply that anti-Polish sentiment was the only or main cause of these events; for example, wartime opportunity, interwar Polish policies, and Polish determination to hold onto Ukrainian-majority areas into a postwar Polish state were more prominent causes of the Volhynia ethnic cleansing. (t · c) buidhe 10:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, this is your own original research and you’ve presented no sources to such effect. Yes, genocide and ethnic cleansing are committed when “opportunity” arises. This is like claiming that Armenian Genocide wasn’t caused by anti-Armenian sentiment on part of Ottoman government, but rather by “wartime opportunity”
I can’t believe we’re seriously arguing over whether ethnic cleansing is caused by ethnic prejudice. smh. Volunteer Marek 17:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I moved it here (in {{quote}} block above), as I assumed it's an extension of the claim attributed to the USHMM source that failed verification. If it's established later in the article, then I'd happily restore it with the appropriate citation. François Robere (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and we're still waiting for that appropriate citation. If it is so obvious, it should be very easy to find. (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
And it’s already been repeatedly pointed out to you that the information is cited in the body of the article and this sentence just summarizes the article, as a sentence in the lede should. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Causes of genocide and mass killings

It's misleading to present ethnic hatred as the main cause of genocide and mass killings. That does not reflect the state of current research:

The claims are also among the most well known outside the academy: racism, prejudice, dehumanization, ancient hatreds, and antiSemitism (in the case of the Holocaust)16 are often the first ideas that spring to mind when the causes of genocide are considered.
The books under review challenge these related claims or seek to move beyond them as single causes of genocide. Of the authors under review, Benjamin Valentino offers the most explicit challenge, arguing that "unusually deep, preexisting social cleavages are neither sufficient nor universally necessary conditions for mass killing" (p. 17). The authors make several related claims. First, deep divisions, prejudice, and discrimination are more frequent occurrences than is genocide. Many societies are fractured ethnically, racially, culturally, and religiously, but only in a few does genocide materialize. Second, cultural explanations cannot explain the timing of genocide. Deep divisions, prejudice, and discrimination are fairly constant; genocide is not. Third, evidence from several cases suggests that divisions, prejudice, and discrimination do not necessarily predate the violence. Rwanda and parts of Bosnia were fairly integrated, for example, with much interaction and intermarriage across ethnic groups.17 Fourth, authors cite social-psychological experiments and studies of perpetrators showing that individuals do not necessarily commit violence because of ethnic or religious hatred. For these reasons, the scholars under review look elsewhere to explain why and when genocide occurs.[1]

And as for specific cases, just look at the Volhynia for instance, the scholarly consensus is that it wasn't genocide[2] and according to Timothy Snyder, "The crucial matter [leading to the ethnic cleansing], however, was the basic disagreement between Ukrainians and Poles over the legitimate control of particular territories, sharpened by the Poles’ uncompromising belief in their continuing right to lands populated by Ukrainians and their fear of making concessions in time of war."[3]

You expect anti-Polishness to be automatically accepted as the cause of these tragic events, without providing any reliable source. That is textbook original research. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s all and good but what does it have to do with the subject? Yes genocide and ethnic cleansing are not ALWAYS the end result of ethnic prejudice. But are you seriously arguing that ethnic cleansing is not based on ... ethnic prejudice? Just because there are other factors involved, such as opportunity or disagreements over land, does not mean ethnic prejudice wasn’t a factor.
You’re doing original research. You’re saying “oh look, other factors were involved so ethnic prejudice wasn’t an issue”. But you don’t actually have a source which says that (and there are sources which clearly says the opposite). Again, this is like arguing that the Armenian Genocide wasn’t caused by ethnic prejudice but rather “opportunity of war” or “land disputes between Turks and Armenians”. It’s absurd.
The question whether the massacres in Volhynia were a genocide or “just” ethnic cleansing is irrelevant. This isn’t an article on “Genocide of Poles”. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Snyder doesn't mention "anti-Polishness" (or any variation thereof), "anti-Catholicism", "prejudice", or "racism" in the paper at all. That leads me to believe that it is not one of the most important causes of this event. Perhaps other sources dispute that, but it's up to you to provide them.
It often happens that political dispute + wartime conditions + depraved disregard for human life leads to genocide and mass killings. Many historians would agree those are the main causes of the Armenian genocide, rather than a deep seated anti-Armenianism. (t · c) buidhe 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Ummmm... what does Snyder have to do with anything? Are you confused about which one of the many disputes you’ve currently engaged yourself in, you’re commenting on? Understandable, since you’re involved in like half a dozen of them (all of which you started) but I think this comment of yours was meant for the Massacres in Volhynia talk, not here.
And you’re seriously arguing that ethnic prejudice against Armenians had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide? And claiming that “many historians” believe this? Seriously??? Volunteer Marek 18:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Ronald Grigor Suny writes an entire paragraph on the causes of the armenian genocide

The causes of the Genocide were both long term and immediate. To understand what happened and why, I explore the lengthy historical trail of events and experiences, the genealogy of attitudes and behaviors. The environment in which Genocide occurred—the imperial appetites of the Great Powers, the fierce competition for land and goods in eastern Anatolia, the aspirations and aims of Armenians, and the ambitions and ideas of the Young Turks—shaped the cognitive and emotional state of the perpetrators (what I call their “affective disposition”) that allowed them, indeed in their minds required them, to eliminate whole peoples.17 In the context of war and invasion a mental and emotional universe developed that included perceived threats, the Manichaean construction of internal enemies, and a pervasive fear that triggered a deadly, pathological response to real and imagined immediate and future dangers. A government had come to believe that among its subject peoples whole “nations” presented an immediate threat to the security of the state. Defense of the empire and of the “Turkish nation” became the rationale for mass murder. Armenians were neither passive nor submissive victims, but the power to decide their fate was largely out of their hands. A “great inequality in agency” existed between Young Turks and their armed agents and the segmented and dispersed Armenians

"ethnic prejudice against Armenians" is not mentioned at all. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
WOW. I am genuinely shocked.
It’s not mentioned at all because 1) it’s obvious and 2) you’re cherry picking.
Yes, genocidal groups commit genocide when the opportunity presents itself rather when it doesn’t. That’s almost banal.
Yes, there usually is some kind of dispute over resources or desire to seize land or other economic factors. So what? This is like the neo-Confederate argument that slavery in the American south wasn’t racist because, you know, the slave owners just wanted to make some profit. So you, see, they weren’t racist at all (sarcasm). The point is that the ethnic prejudice is used to justify the resolution of these economic disputes in horrible ways.
I would love to see you go to the article on Armenian Genocide and try to argue there that it didn’t have anything to do with anti Armenian prejudice.
You’re doing original research and drawing unwarranted conclusions from the sources. Volunteer Marek 19:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you consider it "obvious", sources have to be cited. WP:NOR is a policy, it's not optional. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
What? We’re talking about Armenian Genocide here. You’re claiming that because this section of the source does not mention anti Armenian prejudice as a motivating factor in Armenian Genocide, then that means that it wasn’t. Which is NOT what the source says.
What you need here is a source which explicitly says “Armenian Genocide was not caused by anti Armenian prejudice”. What you have instead is just a source which mentions other factors.
Anyway, please take this to the appropriate article on Armenian genocide and good luck convincing editors there that Armenian Genocide had nothing to do with anti Armenian prejudice. Then you can try convincing the editors at Slavery in the United States that that had nothing to do with racism because the slave owners just wanted to make money. Volunteer Marek 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought that this discussion was whether certain events should be described prominently as caused by anti-Polish prejudice. My position is that any such claims require strong, explicit sourcing; to make them based on your own assumptions about what the cause must be, is "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This particular discussion was about whether ethnic prejudice plays a role ... in ethnic cleansing and genocide. I tried to use the example of Armenian Genocide to show how absurd the claim that ethnic prejudice has nothing to do with ethnic based killing is. But then... you actually tried to make that argument in all seriousness. And here we are. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: Are you confused about which one of the many disputes you’ve currently engaged yourself in, you’re commenting on? Understandable, since you’re involved in like half a dozen of them (all of which you started) Please stay on topic and avoid personal comments.
  • Several years ago you and I had a discussion on whether Polish railway drivers were "collaborators" or not. I thought it obvious that they were; you argued that unless a source explicitly states so, then we shouldn't. Buidhe is making a similar argument: the lead can summarize the article, but not draw inferences from separate parts of it, as such inferences would constitute WP:SYNTH. François Robere (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is whether the lede should summarize the article or not (it should). The article covers Nazi atrocities, Soviet terror and UPA massacres. All of this IS explicitly sourced. The lede therefore should summarize this content. There’s no “inferences drawn”. It’s just a summary. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Then you can cite the sources from the body that support that statement and be done with it. François Robere (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I can understand your confusion though since the discussion got derailed into an argument over whether “ethnic cleansing” is caused by ethnic prejudice (!!!) and whether the Armenian Genocide had anything to do with anti-Armenian prejudice (!!!!!) Volunteer Marek 18:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Straus, Scott (2007). "Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide". World Politics. 59 (3): 476–501. doi:10.1017/S004388710002089X.
  2. ^ McBride, Jared (2016). "Peasants into Perpetrators: The OUN-UPA and the Ethnic Cleansing of Volhynia, 1943–1944". Slavic Review. 75 (3): 630–654. doi:10.5612/slavicreview.75.3.0630. scholarly consensus that this was a case of ethnic cleansing as opposed to genocide
  3. ^ Snyder, Timothy (1999). ""To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947". Journal of Cold War Studies. 1 (2): 86–120. doi:10.1162/15203979952559531. S2CID 57564179. The crucial matter, however, was the basic disagreement between Ukrainians and Poles over the legitimate control of particular territories, sharpened by the Poles' uncompromising belief in their continuing right to lands populated by Ukrainians and their fear of making concessions in time of war.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Polish_sentiment/Archive_11&oldid=1223044388"