Jump to content

Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Poland

Regarding the question of scale of Polish collaboration with the Nazis, see:

  • "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2016-07-12.
  • "The Noble and the Base: Poland and the Holocaust". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2016-07-12..

François Robere (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note. For the reply by historian Danusha Goska (author of The Brute Polak Stereotype, ISBN 1936235153) regarding the above incommunicado review of books in The Nation, see: Bieganski the Blog. Poeticbent talk 15:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Your sources in fact support the statement in the article There is a general consensus among historians that there was very little collaboration with the Nazis among the Polish nation as a whole, compared to other German-occupied countries. Bold of my hand. Your tag "lopsided" is in my opinion overdone. The Banner talk 16:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to change (but not remove) the tag if you're so inclined. I disagree with both "very little" and "compared to other countries". The USHMM ref. shows widespread support and collaboration (resulting in a much higher percentage of local Jewry being exterminated than in any other country, including those with a pro-Nazi gov.):

As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel... Individual Poles often helped in the identification, denunciation, and hunting down of Jews in hiding, often profiting from the associated blackmail, and actively participated in the plunder of Jewish property... There were incidents... where local Polish residents—acutely aware of the Germans’ presence and their antisemitic policies—carried out or participated in pogroms and murdered their Jewish neighbors.

The The Nation item also notes widespread collaboration:

Rather than being heroic, Poles appear in Golden Harvest not so different from other Europeans in their willingness to aid Hitler in destroying the Jews... Historians still agree that the overwhelming majority of Polish Jews were killed by the Germans... But they estimate that some 10 percent of Poland’s Jews escaped deportation... The great majority of these Jews (probably more than 80 percent) did not survive until liberation because Poles helped Germans hunt them down...  Polish historians have long known about Polish collaborators, whom they described as marginal, the dregs of society. Now a consensus is arising among researchers that the denouncers came from all walks of life.

On a personal note - and do not take it as "original research", which I do not purport it to be - I believe I am yet to meet a single Holocaust survivor of Polish birth who could not tell a story of betrayal or extradition by non-Jewish Poles, and I've met many. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Even a small group collaborators can cause a lot of damage. What I know from the war in the Netherlands is that the group of active collaborators/Jew-hunters was rather small. Still about 101.800 Jews are murdered, from the 140.000 present when the war started. (About 75% casualties, against 87% in Poland).
But your quotes give no evidence that the group of collaborators in Poland was significant bigger than elsewhere. The Banner talk 21:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Poland is a country of six million Holocaust stories. It is the country in which the Nazis killed the largest number of Jews and one of the highest percentages of Jews. It is the country that had the largest number of rescuers of Jews and it is the country from which Yad Vashem has recognized the largest number of (non-Jewish) Righteous Among the Nations. Why? Because it was the country with the world's largest pre-war Jewish population. And just like the sources cited above, none of that has much to do what this Wikipedia article says, which is that "[t]here is a general consensus among historians that there was very little collaboration with the Nazis among the Polish nation as a whole, compared to other German-occupied countries." Unless sources can be provided that directly contradict that sentence, I recommend removing the "lopsided" tag. What you're doing here is original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
User:The Banner I'm not claiming that the relative number of collaborators was higher than anywhere else, just that it wasn't significantly lower, as the article claims. In other words, my claim is that Poland was, in the very least, neither more or less heroic than any other country. Insofar that it constitutes "original research", I would claim that a) that impression stems mainly from suppression of such research in Poland itself (something all the sources agree happened); and b) that there's a glaring discord between the level of antisemitism in Poland at that time (again something all the sources agree was extremely prevalent) and the claimed lack of collaboration with the Nazis. But again per WP:NOR the most that that can be mentioned is "despite a lack of research on the subject, there is a general consensus that...". I'll go through the sources (both those mentioned, and others) and ask that the tag remains for several days until I do so.
User:Malik Shabazz See above. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I have removed that template. You give no evidence that the section is really in unbalance. And sorry, we are working in a source-based manner, so you have to prove that your opinion is backed up by reliable, prior published sources. The Banner talk 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Correctness and trueness

User:Iryna Harpy, wondering why, reverting two edits, your edit summary asserts a link being a 404 one when it is not --> http://war.163.com/15/0814/09/B0VH2CU100014J0G.html. Carlotm (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Carlotm: Moving content from own talk to the relevant article page. Please note that the link was not working yesterday, but I found an archived version (link provided in my comment below). It is a blog/forum, and is not attributed, nor does it provide sources.:
Collaborationist manpower

Your reverting is noticed. As far as I am concerned, nothing in the contents was my original research, everything was simply translated from the link. The NetEase is a major internet player in China, and I do not see anything in that NetEase article more unreliable than the original figures in the article. There are no linked sources to support the 1 million or even 2 million claim, yet it seems to have been deemed reliable by you. I'd say this looks like double standards.WW2Editor (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC) If you may, I'd like to be enlightened on why a military article in one of the biggest internet players in China is deemed not reliable, but totally unsourced claims are considered reliable and permitted to stay. WW2Editor (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Take it to the talk page of the article if you think it's reliable, plus explain where you want to use the information. My position on it's not being WP:RS stands: it's a blog. Aside from that, the link you provided was a dead link. I tracked down the reference to this archived version. 2. You're going to have to do some serious work convincing other editors that it can be understood to be anything than WP:BIASED and WP:UGC and WP:RSSELF. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I must say that I can understand the revert by Iryna completely. In fact, I was bothered by the edit myself. Main reason for that was the absolute vagueness of the info.
But I suggest a new text: The military forces of these puppet regimes, known collectively as the Collaborationist Chinese Army, were rumoured to have numbered more than a million at their height, with some estimates that the number exceeded 2 million conscripts. However, these claims greatly exaggerated the number of collaborationist units by counting the barely armed so-called self-defence formations. The only thing is that we need a reliable source for that. This short peace can replace the unsourced original text and the Chinese sourced text from WW2Editor. As far as Google Translate reaches, that war.163.com source seems far from neutral although GT is so poor that I can not see/understand what the status of this page is. The Banner talk 23:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm amenable to the change on the proviso that it be tagged for needing a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for belated reply, I was busy during the day. For Iryna Harpy, it is strongly suggested you do a few things before you proceed with reverting: a. try the link on another computer. You insist the link is 404 while it is clearly not. I open it today again and it works well. b. try to use google translate to at least see what the page is talking about. It is NOT A BLOG as you claim, the text of the page clearly says it's called "Celebrity Column" with the editor group called Jingbingtang which belongs to NetEase News Center. c. please clarify why the totally unsourced wild claims are being allowed to remain whilst the article written by editors in one of the most important internet players in China is not. Is this bias? WW2Editor (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Collaborationist Chinese Army lists a few sources, which might contain useful information, especially the book Rays of The Rising Sun, Armed Forces of Japan’s Asian Allies 1931-45, Volume I: China & Manchuria. It says the British Intelligence estimated the number of collaborationist troops in China stood at 345,130 men in March 1943. I will try to confirm it.WW2Editor (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Typical of Wikipedia. Even if nothing can justify the exaggerated number, it still stays, and no explaination is given. If the contents satisfy those with managing power, then no RS is required at all; anything does not satisfy them will be immedately deleted citing RS. WW2Editor (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 20:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. 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) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration in Poland

It's truly interesting to see the country that produced collaborators only on the individual level has the most prominent notice in this article. This is truly astonishing. I was striving to find well-known names of Polish collaborators but was capable to find only 3 deserving any attention. I've included these individuals along with the related pictures. CheersGizzyCatBella (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ve closely reviewed some references provided in the Caveats part of Poland section and regrettably, have to say that some don't match writing that was inserted. I’ve fixed some of it but now I’m contemplating if we really need Caveats segment at all? This division has been created very recently and doesn't deliver any worthy data to the article. Any thoughts?GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to incorporate it into the main section body. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This is wrong. The whole paragraph is how Poland was innocent and provided resistance, when the title of the article clearly says Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and that is what the whole section should be focused on. With all due respect, it should be completely rewritten.Ernio48 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate addition

In the Poland section of the article the sentence recently introduced reads: ”The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself” It is backed by citing 2 media articles. One from the American LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/13/local/me-9923 and one from the Israeli Ynet news: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4745850,00.html How do these 2 foreign media publicists prove Polish "complicity" in the Holocaust being controversial in Poland itself? There is not a word about it and I have read the articles entirely. On top of that, it is linked to the expression “controversial” to "Polish death camp" controversy article. This doesn’t make any sense and needs to be corrected.

Related discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:François_Robere#Let’s_rest_a_little_Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording has been changed from what it originally was, by yourself, and François Robere (talk · contribs). I find it perplexing that one would take this to talk in that regard since you made some of the changes, but that's just me, I guess. The wording was originally attempting to be supported by the source, and the changes moved it away from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825865100
First version:
Indeed, there is widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825917115
Second version, (which confused The LA Times with Bloomberg):
Some media outlets such as Bloomberg and BBC suggested a widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825865100
Third version:
It is believed by many that the Poles are complicit in the Holocaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&type=revision&diff=826057499&oldid=826052393
Fourth version which added the Ynet link:
The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself,
This answers why it doesn't connect to the current wording.
R9tgokunks :✡ 08:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


Yes, that’s is apparent to me also why the fourth version developed to something bizarre as this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=826056976&oldid=826052393
Every time I fix it, soon it is being turned into something different, without citing proper references.
So this time again, I’ve modified it to reflect the sources supplied:
The issue of Polish collaboration with the Nazis and complicity in the murder of Jews during and after the Holocaust has been addressed by the global media and historians alike, including Poland itself...
I also correlated the Kielce Pogrom as well as Jedwabne Pogrom into the entry. And here is my plea to you people, if you choose to modify it again please, please support it by proper references. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@R9tgokunks: I'm certain in my original wording, I've only softened it up to try and get everyone in consensus. We have sources suggesting denial on all levels, from the commoner on the street to government officials and researchers in key positions. If this isn't "denial" I don't know what is, but User:GizzyCatBella seems to prefer we didn't mention any of it as such. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Look R9tgokunks, I’ll allow myself to be straightforward here.
No, you haven’t softened anything, neither you achieved everybody
consensus, nor introduced any proof that Polish “complicity" in the
Holocaust is being controversial in Poland itself.
All you have performed is a bold reversal to the bizarre phrasing. Consider reviewing the references given again and I'll get back here at the later time.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
1. Please indent your text properly on talk pages.
2. You're not following who writes what.
3. You say there's no controversy. What is the common perception as you understand it, then? François Robere (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m thoroughly explaining that the fact that there is a level of controversy surrounding alleged Polish complicity in the Holocaust throughout the World, especially within Israel and Jewish American groups, but in Poland itself this is not an issue AT ALL. Poland at at-large denies any involvement in the Holocaust other than sporadic acts of violence on the individual level. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly the point about Poland, and hugely ironic at that. Nevertheless, you bring us back to my original phrasing: "Indeed, there is widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust". Are we now in agreement? François Robere (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No François, you see by wording it this way the entry implies that Poland denies without any evidence an indisputable fact of Poland’s collaboration in the Holocaust. But in reality, these allegations are being challenged by Polish historians who support that view by their own historical study. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
First - no, it's not. I've used the phrase "any complicity" rather than "the complicity", which is neutral. Second, I provided multiple recent sources disputing your scant early sources that claim the opposite, plus sources that explain how denial and revisionism are manifested in Poland and why research is so lacking. You've provided nothing to counter any of it. If I were less of a gentleman I would call you out on your own denial - "it didn't happen, but don't say I said so. And by the way - it's Only Israelis, Americans and Jews who claim otherwise, but here's a Jewish-American source that agrees with me, so I'll take it." François Robere (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: You provided two 2003 with limited scopes (one about Warsaw, one about post-war events) to contradict a 2013 sources with a broader scope (multiple areas, across several years). This suggests both WP:RS AGE may be an issues, as well as WP:RSCONTEXT. That's why I asked for specific quotes or page numbers that show contradictions. It shouldn't be so difficult, as we're dealing with numbers orders of magnitude apart. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you being a gentleman François :) but I insist that
the original wording was misleading, I believe unintentionally
but it was. Anyways, I think we should take a break from updating
this article because I'm sensing some anger developing between
you and some other editors. You guys have very strong opinions
on this sensitive issue, so I somehow understand that. That's, why I think the pause is needed to cool things down.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a strong subject backed by strong evidence, from historical studies to very current affair, and they all scream "denial" for anyone who's not deeply in it already (a law? seriously? what normative government with nothing to hide does that?). There's also that magic word we haven't mentioned - "antisemitism" - which is prevalent in Poland since days immemorial, and underlies all of the issues this article is about, but less directly relevant to some of the arguments made here. At any rate, I'll leave that sentence for the night; in the meanwhile tell me how do you prefer to address denial in a non-judgemental way. "Addressed by global media" and the like is non-informative. By the way - my intent is and was to incorporate the "caveats" section in the rest of the section, which seemed apologetic to begin with, but some consensus has to be reached first about this content. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
About "prominent": I usually agree (in fact, in a previous revision I've removed some titles you gave to some people), but in this case there's a reason for that: You're quoting the Schudrich in his capacity as Chief Rabbi, which I contend isn't in a position to convincingly refute specific claims made by Grabowski et al. We don't need the "prominent", but we don't need the Rabbi either. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Tag

@E-960: It's a 2003 book about Warsaw that supposedly refutes a 2013 one about Poland - it's legitimate to ask for a clarification. Also, your reversal undid more content than just the tag. François Robere (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why right in the article text you have this statement "...disputed by prominent researcher Efraim Zuroff." So, the sources are valid, and the differences in estimates are highlighted. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Learn to read, man. Zuroff disputes the Rabbi's statement, not the 2003 book. And you removed the Zuroff reference when you undid the revision. François Robere (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Pls read the criteria for a Dubious tag, because you are misusing it. --E-960 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella it is clear that François Robere is messing with the article text, by shorting some section and placing dubious tags on legitimate sources he does not like, at this point the behavior is becoming disruptive and appears borders on POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
"Shorting some sections"? I didn't remove any unnecessary information, and the tag in question is there so we can keep the other editor's sources. If I had removed material without any consideration you would've had a case, but thus far I kept everything both GizzyCatBella and yourself added. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I even sent you a "thank you" after you reviewed a change and added a translation. I'm surprised you're finding this an issue and not the two vandalism attempts from earlier this evening. Rude! François Robere (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I am. I believe the other editor may have misrepresented the source with no ill intent, which corresponds to "an editor's interpretation of that source" in Template:Dubious. If you prefer any other template take your pick, just keep the reason parameter. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella, @E-960: I searched for the two 2003 books in two university libraries here and abroad, as well as online, and they're not kept anywhere (the Grabowski book is available in both libraries). I did find reviews of both books, and they're not stellar (Chodakiewicz's in particular looks shoddy). Put simply, they don't seem notable, so I repeat my request for specific quotes or the removal of both citations. François Robere (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Section

@E-960: Why did you undo this] change? The two paragraphs are about the same body and some of text is redundant, plus two separate citations of the same book. François Robere (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, The Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police are two separate entities, why else are there two separate Wikipedia article about them? --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a source for Wikipedia... If you want, we can merge the two articles tomorrow, I have some spare time on 17:00.
Both articles make clear the connection between the two, together administering the daily affairs of their community: "The Judenräte also directed the Jewish police" and "auxiliary police units organized... by local Judenrat councils". This results in redundant material between the two paragraphs, not to mention generally bad style. What's your particular issue with the revision I made? François Robere (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No, just stop with the manipulative language, I'm not using Wikipedia as a source, and there is no need to merge the two paragraphs because each discusses a separate topic, one Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
What manipulative language?
The articles themselves maintain that one was an extension of the other, and both are discussed here in the same contexts and in similar capacities, which again results in redundancy and bad style. Do you want specific examples? François Robere (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@E-960: I will be restoring the change later today if you've no further objections. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I do object, because your behavior shows that you are POV pushing and already two other editors objected to your editing, which included adding 'Dubious' tags to other statements in the section, and trying to minimize the details included. --E-960 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I asked you for your exact objections two comments above, and you didn't give any. If you're unwilling to substantiate your claims, don't make them. As for the books, I've explains my objections in the other section, and again you made no attempt whatsoever to counter them. The other editor indeed objected, but as you can see has already given ground on several issues. If this goes to arbitration, you will lose. Do you want to substantiate your objections, or shall we continue? François Robere (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
My objection is simple and is based on the fact that there are two separate articles in Wikipedia one for Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police... those are two separate entities, and have two separate paragraphs in this article — nothing wrong with that — so your edits are nothing more then a 'preference' to shorted the text and I object to it because it is not a substantive change.--E-960 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
But again, Wikipedia isn't a source for itself, so who cares? And I've shown you these weren't separate entities any more than a nation's police and its government, and if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant. In addition, and that is substantive, it gives the wrong quantitative impression. In fact, I suspect whoever added the paragraph about the Ordnungsdienst did indeed intend on referring to the Judenrat there as well. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • François Robere, btw, pls stop making empty threats that "I will lose", because all along it's clear you are POV pushing and other editors are also questioning your edits. Also, even if you do merger those two paragraphs anyone can come in and just add more detail and references to them, so that will be like a pyrrhic victory. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not making threats, I'm telling you you haven't fulfilled your burden of proof. You called my behavior "disruptive" - suggesting ANI and the like - but you've done nothing at all to carry your claims. You can't go about accusing people without proof. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, two separate Wiki articles — Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police — thus two separate paragraphs to show the distinction. After all, you are advocating only a cosmetic change, so this is not such a big issue. --E-960 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
So are we in agreement now? I'll go ahead and do it, then. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No we are not in agreement, my gosh!! Where do you see that I inserted a Wikipedia page as reference (please point it out in the article). What I'm saying is that these are two separate entities, the simple fact that there are two names - Judenrat and Jüdische Ghetto-Polizei — shows these were seperate things, they served different functions, just like in a country there is the "parliament" and "police", it's not just the "governemnt" one single entity as what you propose. --E-960 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Where do you see that I inserted a Wikipedia page as reference - I didn't, I said you're using Wikipedia as a source to justify what you think we should do: The Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police are two separate entities, why else are there two separate Wikipedia article about them, My objection is simple and is based on the fact that there are two separate articles in Wikipedia, Again, two separate Wiki articles.
just like in a country there is the "parliament" and "police" - but we're not talking about a parliament and a police, we're talking about a government and a police.
it's not just the "governemnt" one single entity as what you propose - if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant François Robere (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

...and what about Jewish Ghetto Police working directly with SS and Ordnungspolizei???? --E-960 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Add that reference and see how it combines with the rest. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

PLEA TO ALL LATELY INVOLVED EDITORS

I would like to appeal for some cooldown period and brief departure of your valuable experience and enthusiasm towards editing other articles. Sadly, I'm sensing some hostility developing among you that may lead to undesirable conflict and inevitable administrative intervention. Thank you guys for your time and see you here in the future. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Do you know how to slow down a tsunami (?), because I don't. Fortunately, we do have a WP:BRD rule here in Wikipedia meant to alert other Wikipedians to extreme partisan editing going on. I used the WP:BRD principle to direct your attention to WP:REDFLAG material inserted into this article lately, which I described in my summaries as follows: "all of that "orgy" is utter nonsense → there was no "study", just brief mentions lumping Auxiliary Police Battalions with the locals of all possible ethnic makeup, WP:RECENTISM, hostile commentaries from dailies without research... wrong article" and later: → "another hostile case ready for WP:ANI and spilling out from the "Polish death camp" controversy battleground". — Did any of you actually researched further the following statement in this article? "A 2014 study by historian Jan Grabowski found that in regards to Polish cooperation, "there were no bystanders." His study purports that around 200,000 Jews were kiled directly, or indirectly by Poles during the Holocaust." — Do you know what 200,000 means? There were 110,000 Polish Jews the Lwów Ghetto, in Tarnopol: 20,000 in Stanislawów: 30,000. The author is probably quoting numbers established by the Holocaust historians for the grand total of Jewish victims of shooting operations carried out by indigenous Auxiliary Police Battalions, estimated by Alexander Statiev at 150,000 Jews in Volhynia. Sloppy workmanship in the brief introduction there, with preposterous results in here. — Further information: Statiev Alexander (2010), The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands Cambridge University Press. page 69. Poeticbent talk 21:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
— Actually, if you read very closely that little paragraph in his book to see how he arrived at that number, you will invariably realize that that number is a fabrication with no source of any kind beyond his personal interpretation of someone else's comment. ‘Poeticbent' talk 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I'll take a closer look at Grabowski's study soon because I'm not familiar with his book. I can only tell you right now that I'm amazed that he came up with such a large figure. Garbowski’s claim is as unique as Gross’s claim that the “Poles killed more Jews than Germans". Although Gross is known for making absurd statements as he also did in his work on Jedwabne, I know very little of Grabowski. Nevertheless, heavy highlighting the extreme claims of carefully selected scholars is disturbing indeed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, his work has been cited by numerous outlets recently. Haaretz, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, and the United States Holocaust Museum use his data.(EDIT: Yad Vashem, the world Holocaust Memorial in Israel, cites his numbers as well,) and in fact he was awarded by them in 2014. Just because you've done WP:OR and personally decided that you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it should be banned from Wikipedia, on the contrary, all sides should be included, especially if it was a rigorous study.I think we should all be a little more self-aware about our edits appearing as not meeting WP:NPOV. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Poeticbent:, for what it is worth the Haaretz piece on the book states this: "Grabowski cites a huge figure: more than 200,000. Precise numbers are very hard to come by, he observes, but immediately goes on to explain his calculations. One can start by saying that about 35,000 Polish Jews survived the war in Poland (excluding those who fled into the Soviet Union and returned after the war). We also know that close to 10 percent of Jews fled the liquidated ghettos in 1942 and 1943 – which would give you a number of about 250,000 Jews who tried to survive in hiding. Subtract the first number from the second and you will see the scale of the dark territory, in which the Poles, for the most part, decided who lived and who died." R9tgokunks ✡ 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. No other historian has ever said anything remotely similar to the above wayward claims. Read also WP:REDFLAG, please. Wikipedia is nobody's garbage dumpster. Poeticbent talk 00:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The extraordinary claim here isn't Grabowski's, but "Poland didn't have any collaboration", which is what the article stated before I made my original changes (in fact, you can see it was heavily biased: "Poles did not collaborate, those who did did so reluctantly, and the rest were heroes. Oh, but Jews collaborated."). That's an exceptional claim to make considering rates of collaboration across Europe during the same period of time; and when you dig deeper you realize it was only made possible because: a) the definition of "collaboration" was narrowed down so much you it excluded every possible case of collaboration; b) research was scant and politically biased for decades, both during and after the communist era; and that is hardly enough to prove and exceptional claim like "Poland was the only nation that didn't collaborate at all." François Robere (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella:, I've warned you once about assuming good faith in others, now you insult me? Please go to [1] where this will be dealt with. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
R9tgokunks, I don't think that being on a short fuse and setting up an Admin Incident report is the best approach here, because it just turns up the mayhem. Discussions can get heated, and incident reports are for more serious personal attacks, not simply because someone just used an edgy reference, though an additional warning from your side is perfectly acceptable. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary. This user has been here for over 3 years and should know how to conduct themselves by not making personal attacks. R9tgokunks ✡ 20:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, I can understand you warn the user, but based on this one crude comment, to go to Admins right way is a bit much. --E-960 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

As one editor suggested we all do, I took a day's break from this article. Unfortunately, others have continued editing it, some adding dubious or irrelevant material. I've decided to take a "snapshot" of the article with my suggested revisions as well as some of the others, before more changes pile up. I'll explain my changes below momentarily, please be patient. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Material with a reference source is not dubious, your only motivation is to create confusion with these misleadings statements. If you do not stop with this POV pushing, I will open and Admin Incident report against you. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Included a second source in the article, which confirms the material is not dubious, it states: pl: "Żydowscy agenci gestapo z Żagiwi udawali poza gettem żydowskich uciekinierów, by wydawać Niemcom Polaków pomagających Żydom, partyzantów i autentycznych uciekinierów żydowskich." en: "Jewish Gestapo agents from Żagiew pretended to be escaped Jewish refugees from the ghetto, in order to denounce to the Germans, Poles who helped Jews, partisans and authentic Jewish refugees." --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
E-960 Please stop being a douche. I asked for your patience and stated I'll explain everything soon. Would it kill you to hold down for an hour? I've waited a day while you were doing your changes. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

First, as I previously noted (both here, on my talk page, and in the ANI), the article in its original form seemed to reflect the contemporary Polish position, and read more like an apologetic press release than a critical historical review; that is, except when it came to Jewish collaborators, which are rightly but singularly castigated. Others noticed that as well ([2]).

Summary of the edits:

  • No need for the Boguslaw Pilnik mention. This isn't a timeline.
  • "however whether [statistics based on resistance death sentences] are indeed reflective of the actual number of collaborators is still debated" is extremely relevant and properly sourced
  • Mentioning the national Righteous Among the Nations statistic in the Blue Police paragraph is out of place, and I think in general is out of place in this article. It implies Poles were particularly righteous, when there are adequate alternative explanations to the number - such as Poland having the largest pre-war Jewish population, and the fact most of the atrocities took place on its soil. So without supporting sources implying the above is misleading, and we shouldn't mislead the reader.
  • Several sources were supplied both here and on other pages to support numerical estimates that are frankly just ridiculous:
    • Tadeusz Piotrowski's book is 20 years old. We have more recent sources that dispute his numbers.
    • Hans Furth's article is from 1999. Same comment.
    • Richard Lukas's books are from 1989 and 2001.
    • Paulsson's book is from 2001 and of limited scope (see discussion above). I asked for direct quotes or even page numbers and didn't get a reply.
    • Chodakiewicz's book is from 2003, of limited scope and reviews suggest is pretty bad (see discussion above). I asked for page numbers or quotes here as well.
If 2003 is the most recent estimate you can find to support your thesis in a field that's constantly advancing, then you have a problem with your thesis.
  • Another quoted source is Poland's Chief Rabbi (see discussion above). I don't think he's relevant here, for two reasons: First, he's not actually a researcher AFAIK, so there's no paper we can look for to find how he arrived at his conclusion. Second - and you can view it as OR, but it's relevant nonetheless - he sits in Poland trying to lead a tiny, historically-persecuted minority in an age of rising antisemitism, including from members of government (I've given sources elsewhere); he has all the motivation needed to try and avoid friction with the Polish majority, regardless of whether he believes that estimate or not.
  • Having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and Jewish ghetto police causes unnecessary redundancy (see discussion above), as they both had some shared functions and one was accountable to the other. In addition it creates a wrong quantitative impression, that is that there were more Jewish collaborators than there actually were. If this was an apologia like some other editors are trying to make it for Poles, then we would mention how many of them viewed their role as the "lesser evil" and hoped that they could save some of their fellow Jews by answering to the Germans despite all ill fate, but it isn't. We're not here to protect anyone's emotions, we're here to create a comprehensive, accurate and readable account of events.
  • Some editor removed the section I added on caveats regarding the Polish narrative. This is unacceptable. The current Polish narrative is so full of holes it's impossible to find an article from world media or a foreign researcher that doesn't address at least some of them. As I commented earlier, my intent is to incorporate that content in the article body, but consensus on existing content has to be reached first.
  • The opening sentence in the "denial" paragraph is meaningless (see discussion above). What does "addressed by global media" even mean? The fact of the matter is some of editors here want to avoid us even mentioning the possibility of Polish complicity, so we can't use "denial" (because only the guilty deny), and even "controversy" is too much (because, as one editor suggested, in Poland it's not controversial at all that it didn't happen). This is ridiculous, and has no place on Wikipedia.
  • An IP editor changed the reference to the IPN law twice. "Contrary to the facts" doesn't soften the blow - the contrasts "the Polish nation" with "the actual perpetrators" (ie. the Germans) later in the paragraph - and the "artistic or scientific activity" exception is plain nonsense, given how censorship laws like this are usually applied. The law also extends IPN's mandate to "protection of reputation of the Republic" and "crimes of Ukrainian nationalists", in a clear attempt to shift the blame further. It's a bad law, and everyone knows it, and no reason to dance around that fact here.

François Robere (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on Boguslaw Pilnik (I’ll remove it since it’s my entry). FrançoisI'll go through the rest of your list tomorrow.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
François Robere, I don't agree with most many of your proposals because they are designed to push a particular POV. For example your critique of Tadeusz Piotrowski, Cheif Rabbi, etc. and their estimates. It does not matter what you what to think, Piotrowski's book fits the criteria of a reliable source and this is just one example where scholars have conflicting estimates regarding an event, just look at the estimates proposed regarding troop strengths in the Battle of Grunwald. They are all included, not hidden because an pushy editor does not agree with some of them — btw, I was able to find a second reference source which quotes similar numbers and added it to the article. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Seperate Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police paragraphs do not causes unnecessary redundancy. This is nothing more then your personal preference to merge and thus shorted the text. In fact the two paragraphs show the reader that there was a distinction between the two. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Polish narrative paragraph, I'm a bit lost on this one, but this article is about collaboration not Polish attitudes. Just seems redundant if you ask me if it's out it should stay out. --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't remove the Piotrowski reference, unlike others that should be removed (like Paulsson's, Chodakiewicz's and one of Lukas's - a book thirty years old, from before many archives even opened up to the public). My reservations about the Rabbi's estimate pertain both to WP:RSOPINION (he didn't publish anything, so go figure how he reached that number) and WP:BIASED (not implying ill intent, but he is in a vulnerable position [3]). Conflicting numbers aren't the problem, the sources they're claimed to derive from are.
I've shown you these weren't separate entities any more than a nation's police and its government, and if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant
You're apparently lost on most of it. The fact of the matter is that many, many Poles collaborated on many levels with the occupiers, yet it's denied wholesale using word games and fallacies like no true Scotsman. That's how this section could state that "there was very little collaboration", or no "true" collaboration, that it was "marginal" and so on and so forth. I've given plenty of sources showing the depth and even timeline of the politization of history in Poland as it pertains to antisemitism, WWII and the Holocaust, necessarily leading to a skewed historiography - hence the relevance here. François Robere (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you don't understand... it's not for you to decide which source to keep, if a reference is a reliable source and these are reliable sources. It's becoming clear you are pushing a POV, by insisting that this material should be removed. Again look at other articles that include many estimates. --E-960 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw, your argument provided no concrete merits, just a bunch of chatter saying that you want to remove various text and reference sources. Also, I'm going to give you a fair warning, to watch how you talk to other editor, you calling me this "E-960 Please stop being a douche." or making repeatedly rude statements such as this "You're apparently lost on most of it." is adding up. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Polish National Institute of Remembrance PDF: [4] also states the number is around 120,000 in 2008 is that too old as well? --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, you've accused me of POV and destructive editing several times here and here, without doing even a minimal effort to prove it, right up to the point I mention Moderation and other "procedures"; then when I asked for a bit of patience (top of this thread) you went ahead and reverted my changed without even waiting for me to explain. So you're a douche.
Second, it is up to us to decide which is a relevant source, and if you can't demonstrate that an estimate from 30 years ago is still relevant, or that the Rabbi's number is anything but a personal opinion, or that the 2001 and 2003 books actually say what you claim they say, then they're not relevant. And you haven't. Curiously, I do not remember you defending relevant and up-to-date sources that contradict your position, like Gross and Grabowski, sometimes (as with Zuroff) removing them yourself. BTW, what's with the Polish financial magazine that you added? Or "Salon24"? What the hell are these?
Third, I explained the historiography issue several times already (on several talk pages) as I have several other issues like "using Wikipedia as a source for itself" and "merging paragraphs with redundant text". One can only be patient for so long.
Fourth, I don't know what you're referring to in "concrete merits", because your one-liner isn't clear on which of the other seven points it's meant to address. As I said, you seem uninterested in discussing any material point that doesn't support your story.
Actually the IPN booklet says 30,000-120,000, without citing sources (one of which may very well be Piotrowski), and you added it as if it unequivocally supports the higher estimate. Are you trying to cheat? François Robere (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are so glib... For some reason you keep using this term "relevant sources" to describe reference material (and you want to decide on what's "relevant"), while in fact, per Wikipedia guidelines its RELIABLE SOURCES not relevant sources, i.e. material which has been published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses. Both Lukas' and Piotrowski's works were published by reputable publishers University Press of Kentucky and McFarland & Company. Also, per Wikipedia guidelines, age by itself is not a disqualifying factor of reference sources, in fact Wikipedia guidelines say that both new and old sources may have drawback and benefits to them, and one does not automatically take precedence over the other. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you expected them to be? Depressing? This topic is depressing enough as it is.
As for "relevant sources": We rarely quote all sources or all claims on a matter, especially when they're dated. We could quote Gray's Anatomy from 1858 - I mean, it's from a reputable publisher, isn't it? Only knowledge has progressed since. Some of the newer sources give wildly differing opinions than the ones quoted above, some of which make "exceptional claims" (Three million Polish savers? Who are you trying to kid?). All of this is to say, in short, that we have some degree of editorial discretion in picking sources. Thus far my concerns about some of the sources haven't been answered (as have several of my concerns in general), and I'm far from convinced they're either relevant or actually supportive of the claims they're supposed to back up. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"Gray's Anatomy from 1858"? Really, great example... can you find a more unreasonable and childish comparison? So, based on your criteria books by Steven Hawkins form the 1990s are unusable as Wikipedia references, also based on this dumb criteria of yours, apparently we can't use anything of Einstein because his junk is over 30 years old and completely useless. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you prefer Gray's from 1984? There were over 40 editions to pick from, and most wouldn't be quoted here as current.
this dumb criteria of yours - you mean WP:RS AGE? François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring and cleanup

As I mentioned earlier, this section was heavily biased, and read like an apologia to the bravery of the Polish nation rather than an account of collaboration. The exception, of course, was Jews - that tiny minority of Jews who collaborated was not shown the same lenience some other editors gave the Poles. One cannot but ask the question what this article is about: Is it about the relationships of occupied nations with the Nazis - the collaboration, the resistance and the passivity - or just about collaboration? The article's lead makes it clear that it's the latter case, and indeed there's not a single section in this article that reads quite like the one about Poland. As mentioned earlier, other editor took notice of this; this clearly has to be fixed. The stories of bravery and resistance will have their place elsewhere.

Major changes:

  • This continues from where I left last time (above see change list above). However, I've incorporated some of the later changes made by others.
  • I've restructured the section. It was disorganized, and now it's (hopefully) clear and readable.
  • I've removed some of the photos. We had 5 photos of collaborators, 3 of which of Jewish collaborators. Jews did not constitute 60% of collaborators, so that is misleading.
  • We need more information on collaboration in the "Blue Police". Between the mounds of text meant to extoll them there's surprisingly little about what they actually did.
  • The same goes for the collaboration within the resistance. The one unit that did collaborate (according to the cited sources) is qualified as doing so "tacitly", and there's no mention anywhere of the interactions between the resistance and Jewish fugitives, which was at times... problematic. We need more information about it.
  • The sections on the German minority are problematic: The statement implicating them in collaboration is unsubstantiated by the cited source, the statement on Volksdeutsche listing considered a "high crime" contradicts is not in line with the following paragraph, that casually mentions that "some estimates are higher... including the 'Volksdeutsche'". If there are three million such people and they're all collaborators, then the other estimates are significantly higher than Lukas's "several thousands", and something is seriously amiss. When you remove those bits along with the irrelavant apologetic ones ("were treated with particular contempt") you're left with very little. We can add back some of material if we have some supporting sources and can incorporate it with the rest of the text properly.
  • I've rephrased the paragraph on the "Żagiew" and Group 13 to reflect the fact they were criminal groups rather than "mainstream" organizations.
  • Details that do not bear on collaboration were removed. For example, the "Righteous Among the Nations" count has no little relevance in demonstrating collaboration, and in addition it's misleading (providing just the count without context gives the impression of particular "righteousness" on behalf of the Poles despite there being alternative and equally valid explanations for the that), so it was removed
  • Most references remain, though I've reformatted some using citation templates.

François Robere (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted your massive and disruptive edits; blatant POV pushing, removing reliable sources and long standing material, all the while adding one-sided statements, which create issues of un-due weight within the Poland section. Also filed an ADMIN'S NOTICEBOARD/INCIDENT report, to prevent further disruption of such massive proportions to the article [5]. --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
So now that your ANI ended with the determination that it's a content dispute; I've done nothing wrong; "books a third of a century ago probably won't say what they do today"; and comments by others that "[I] might actually have a... basis for [my] changes" and that the arguments I've made "seem reasonable", as well as a reprimand of User:Poeticbent for his uncivil comments - can we go on with the process? François Robere (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Go on with what? It's still just you pushing your POV, as a matter of fact a new comment by Slatersteven below stated that if RS are reliable removing them and the statements supported by them can be considered as vandalism. --E-960 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
If it carried on and is done against consensus yes it might well end up being viewed as disruptive. Also (François) The ANI did not say you were right, it said that this is a content dispute (it made no judgement as to which of you ism in the right). Please be aware of WP:TE, this is heading that way.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Which, at the moment, is User talk:E-960's problem, not mine. If a vote was taken now, I suspect, there will be 4-5 editors for my changes, and only two against.
As for Policy: I knew what I was doing when I made those changes, and I knew the other user will have no reasonable claim against me. While it is about content as far as I'm concerned, the fact the other editor has reversed my changes time and time again with no substantial discussion has certainly moved it to WP:TE territory. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
And as I replied to Slatersteven: Unfortunately for User:E-960, his ANI complaint against me resulted in nothing, so you can take that off the table.. Stop making accusations and start making arguments for your claims. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Do or do not the sources support what is in the article, and do you have any sources that contest the claimS, did you or did you nor remove sourced material?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Some sources do, some sources are questionable - I've asked for clarifications about those, but didn't get them - and some do, but the content itself isn't relevant for the article (that is, not about the subject of the article).
I sourced everything. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
It is very hard to discus an edit when it removes so much. As you admit here some of it was sourced, yet you still removed it. Can you please make a separate section for each sources or fact you think should not be here, and we can discus each one without trying to guess what material you think is irrelevant (as opposed to poorly sourced (for example)).Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I didn't even intend on making this edit until after we agreed on some of the major parts (and I told as much to one of the editors when they messaged me), but it was impossible to achieve one, and not for lack of trying on my part. What I eventually decided to do is to make the edit and thoroughly explain it, then let discussion proceed from there whether it's reversed or not. Unfortunately, as you can see throughout this page, User:E-960 hasn't made an effort to engage on most of the points.
As for your suggestion: I'm sorry, but I won't. I know it'll save you work, but I've already listed all of it on this page, and more than once (see the bullet points above for a start), and a summary of my position was given on the ANI. I'll happily go along with what you're doing below, but I've more than fulfilled my burden of proof already, and it's becoming bothersome to repeat it again and again. François Robere (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing and deleting statements with reliable reference sources

Stop deleting text from the Poland section that you don't like — it is sourced material. At the same time you added details that you see as important, but do not allow other to included material with reference sources. Over the last few day, you are POV pushing and you need to stop. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for your patience while I was writing all of the above, but obviously you can hold it. Read first, react from your gut later. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
E-960 You're making it impossible for others to work on this article. By the time I explained my changes above, in goodwill and with the intent of promoting discussion, you made three changes in six revisions, and like your previous edits they're solely focused on Jewish collaborators, while rolling back any change implying (non-Jewish) complicity. I don't think you're actually interested in achieving consensus, and it smells badly. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Please... what about all your questionable edits and the arguments with GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent. All the dubious tags and text on Polish collaboration. Seriously, your content was allowed to stay, do the same for others. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Every single one of my edits is explained on this page, and everyone can see exactly when I added or removed material and why. It's also clear when you you decided to engage (when Arbitration was mentioned), and questions I asked that didn't get answered (like the tag - singular - you keep complaining about without explaining). Are you going to start discussing changes, or not? François Robere (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You are arbitrarily removing RELIABLE SOURCES of mainstream academics—whose work was published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses—which don't fit your narrative. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

IF rs say it so can we, removal of sourced material can be seen as vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately for User:E-960, his ANI complaint against me resulted in nothing, so you can take that off the table. François Robere (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
François Robere, despite your delusional thinking, the conclusion of the ANI did not say it's ok to remove reliable sources (Wikipedia rules are still in place), but to return to the article talk page. Also, you still need to gain consensus. So, if you think that the Admins gave you a carte blanche, keep dreaming. --E-960 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
You recall the administrators' warning that "Everyone mind their words, though. Behavior's still on the table."? Watch it. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so that should give you a moment of pause, since twice during the course of these ongoing discussions you called ma a derogatory word:
  • Please stop being a douche. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So you're a douche. François Robere (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
--E-960 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you like to: a) count how many times you made baseless accusations against me of "POV pushing" before I made those remarks? b) quote my entire message, to clarify what you did that entitles you to that particular brand? François Robere (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Can the pair of you stop talking about each other, this is about discussing the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Beauty and personal hygiene have nothing to do with it, and I'm not one to gossip anyway. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha... so funny — not --E-960 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Switzerland

This country is not mentioned yet but is very important to know the total collaboration of Swiss banks in the removal of holocaust victims bank accounts and other indirect collaboration with the nazi regime. That's because Hitler didnt invade Switzerland. The neutral nation was not so neutral. Nestle also collaborates from Switzerland with the nazis.

Many used neutral countries as a way of doing business with the 'enemy'; Sweden is another example, but it was the business community doing it, not the governments. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer's opinion

The statement in the Poland section which reads: "Yehuda Bauer calls the claim that 60,000 Poles saved Jews 'a blunt lie': There is no doubt that a very brave minority amongst Poles aided Jews. But if it was 60,000, the history of the Holocaust in Poland would've looked completely different." should be removed, as it is cited from the Hareetz newspaper article clearly marked as OPINION, offering no evidence or explanation as to why other research conducted on the subject is wrong (just using weasel-words and rhetoric calling everything a "blunt lie"), yet this statement is presented in the Poland section as if it was a reference to an academic work. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it is an opinion and it is cited as such already. Second, you defended keeping the Chief Rabbi's opinion - an opinion not backed by sources, by someone who isn't a scholar, who both himself and his community are under threat of physical violence (encouraging bias); then referenced a Polish financial newspaper and a magazine called "Salon24" as proof of what looks awfully like a blood libel, with no additional sources; now you have a problem with an Israeli paper of record quoting one of the world's leading Holocaust researchers? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Ohh okay, so you do agree that this reference is just an OPINION piece form a online news website, and I'm just going to make a wild guess here that this one lowly statement is what you are basing your opposition on to actual academic works by Paulsson, Lukas and Piotrowski. --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
What's the problem with a well-respected scholar expressing an opinion in his field of expertise?
I'll assume you're hard of reading if you still think I made no case for my objections:
@GizzyCatBella: You provided two 2003 with limited scopes (one about Warsaw, one about post-war events) to contradict a 2013 sources with a broader scope (multiple areas, across several years). This suggests both WP:RS AGE may be an issues, as well as WP:RSCONTEXT.
@E-960: It's a 2003 book about Warsaw that supposedly refutes a 2013 one about Poland - it's legitimate to ask for a clarification.
I believe the other editor may have misrepresented the source with no ill intent, which corresponds to "an editor's interpretation of that source"
I searched for the two 2003 books in two university libraries here and abroad, as well as online, and they're not kept anywhere (the Grabowski book is available in both libraries). I did find reviews of both books, and they're not stellar (Chodakiewicz's in particular looks shoddy). Put simply, they don't seem notable, so I repeat my request for specific quotes or the removal of both citations
If 2003 is the most recent estimate you can find to support your thesis in a field that's constantly advancing, then you have a problem with your thesis.
a book thirty years old, from before many archives even opened up to the public
if you can't demonstrate that an estimate from 30 years ago is still relevant... or that the 2001 and 2003 books actually say what you claim they say, then they're not relevant
You, on the other hand, haven't:
In addition, and that is substantive, [having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and ghetto police] gives the wrong quantitative impression
Having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and Jewish ghetto police causes unnecessary redundancy... [and] creates a wrong quantitative impression
what's with the [citations of a] Polish financial magazine that you added? Or "Salon24"? What the hell are these?
Actually the IPN booklet says 30,000-120,000, without citing sources (one of which may very well be Piotrowski), and you added it as if it unequivocally supports the higher estimate
you defended keeping [...] an opinion not backed by sources, by someone who isn't a scholar [...] then referenced a Polish financial newspaper and a magazine called "Salon24" as proof of what looks awfully like a blood libel, with no additional sources; now you have a problem with an Israeli paper of record quoting one of the world's leading Holocaust researchers
And you have the nerves to accuse me of "POV pushing"...
François Robere (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All this chatter don't change the fact that you are pushing un-due weight onto the article by placing over-emphasis on this one OPINION piece from an online news website, not even using it as a simple reference, but quoting it word for word at length in the article, as if it was an academic work. --E-960 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You're really quite impervious to discussion, are you? One who can't change their mind through discussion is redundant in it. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Cause your rants consistently miss the point:
  • This OPINION statement should be removed all together because it does not talk about instances of Polish collaboration, but it talks about how many Jews were saved by Poles, this is not the subject matter covered in this article, So, why did you add it in the first place? --E-960 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree, after all many Germans saved Jewish lives, I doubt anyone would use that as evidence that Germans did not also help the Nazis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point regarding Lukas, Piotrowski, Paulsson and all of the other sources E-960 argued for keeping. If we agree on this, we can just as well restore the changes I made and be done. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
What they have argued that because some Germans helped Jews the Germans did not help the Nazis', can you provide the quote for this please?, and if you cannot then how is my point exactly the seam as yours?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No. These sources (apart from Lukas, actually) provide estimates of the number of Poles who helped Jews, which in the context of this article is both apologetic and irrelevant. That's one reason I suggested removing them. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
See, this is how you blur things and sow confusion, the statement by Paulsson is long standing—it was on this page way before you started objecting to it—and it provides a comparison of numbers between who collaborated vs. who assisted. --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
If the sources do not say that we cannot imply it (that is OR), so do the sources make that link?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the source states exactly that, these same figures by Paulsson were actually used by the Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki during a recent discussion with foreign Journalist on the issue. The whole meeting can even be viewed on online.--E-960 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
And that does not say anything about comparing this to Polish collaboration, so if you think nit does I think we need the quotes form the sources saying something like "thus it is clear that polish help for the Jews implies a low level of collaboration". If the sources do not explicitly say something of the kind polish help for Jewish refuges is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing blurry about it. First, to quote from the ANI discussion: User:E-960 appears to be making an argument that because it has existed unaltered, that it's right. Although that supports an argument to seek consensus before changing it - it doesn't support the argument that it is right.
Second, as I've said over and over again, that comparison is irrelevant both here, and in general. It's posed here along with many other statements as sort of a "counter" to the issue of collaboration ("some collaborated, but look! so many people were just!") which is so irrelevant that it isn't done anywhere else in this article; and as it's provided without any context it also biases the text towards your narrative. And then you go and accuse me of "sanitizing" the facts? Shame on you. François Robere (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This last note is not intended as reference in the article, just a note to user François Robere, that Yehuda Bauer's opinion is not an authoritative statement, that's all. --E-960 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bauer's opinion isn't the issue. Get over it.
OK, so we all agree that we can take out that statement. --E-960 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No one has said that. I see no reason why a leading Jewish opinion is irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust. I do have issues with including statements about the number of Jews saved without an indication that this is a counter point to collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Now wait a minute, so you have an issue with the statement that Poland never surrendered, because it does not talk about collaboration, but in this case you want to keep a statement form a how many Poles saved Jews, even though this is not a topic of collaboration? --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • After all this is your first comment: "Tend to agree, after all many Germans saved Jewish lives, I doubt anyone would use that as evidence that Germans did not also help the Nazis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)." Seriously, this is causing serious confusion. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said lets try to keep arguments in one thread at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So, as a start, can we all agree on removing Bauer's statement and estimates that follow it? --E-960 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it has been removed - which I support. This statement might be relevant to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, but not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany_and_Fascist_Italy/Archive_5&oldid=1165511647"