Talk:Żegota/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Berman's letter

According to a letter by Adolf Berman, the Jewish Secretary of the Zegota, to Teresa Preker(owa), dated Feb. 26, 1977, there were others, especially meritorious in that activity, and he mentioned: Prof. Maria Grzegorzewski, a distinguished theatre artist, Irena Solski, psychologist, Janina Buchholtz-Bukolski (q.v.), Irena Sawicki (q.v.) educator. Further there was Dr. Ewa Rybicki, scouting activist, Irena Kurowski, school principal, Prof. Stanislaw Ossowski and Prof. Maria Ossowski, Dr. Jan Zabinski, zoo director (q.v.) and his wife Antonina, a writer, (q.v.). Still others were Stefania Sempolowski, the unforgettable director of children's theatres, Jan Wesolowski (q.v.) Sylwia Rzeczycki, (q.v.) Maria Laski, Maria Derwisz-Parnowski. Great merits had Zofia Latallo, Zofia Rodziewicz, former Senator, Dr. Regina Fleszar and others. Beside the university educated people there were others, like Waleria Malaczewski, Antonina Roguski, Jadwiga Leszczanin, Zofia Debicki (q.v.). Manual workers were not absent either, like Stanislaw Michalski, tailor, Kajszczak, from Lomianki and Pawel Harmuszko, farmers, Kazimierz Kuc, laborer and many others. Only those who have the letters (q.v.) after their name have been recognized as "Righteous"up to the end of 1999. See: Prekerowa, op. cit. Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Żegota funding

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to include a statement regarding Żegota being under-funded. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Regarding this change: Should we state Żegota was under-funded? 19:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Four Multiple high quality academic sources presented (and it seems there are yet more), on an issue that was of pivotal importance to Żegota and the extent of its operations.Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  Updated to reflect additional sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• No - per my comment below. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• No. Please name some World War II entities that were not, or did not consider themselves to be, "underfunded". Nihil novi (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, per the sources. François Robere (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: per the sources. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• No if this refers to the text that FR is trying to insert into the article. I'm open to discussing the fact that Zegota had limited funding but that can be done in a neutral manner. Basically, this RfC is malformed because it asks a misleading question. It pulls a little switcheroo. It asks users to support a relatively non-controversial (maybe somewhat controversial, but supportable) position (Zegota was under funded), but the purpose of the RfC is to justify including much more extensive, and much more POV, text in the article. Please stop playing games and do this right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Try to focus on the RfC, Marek. WP:ASPERSIONS already got one editor blocked. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

How about you "focus" your RfC (and format it properly) so that it doesn't propose one thing, and then tries to sneak in another? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Marek, are you okay? Did you read the RfC? It's two sentences. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just fine. Watching Peru-France game and it's pretty good. Then I'll eat some pretzels and read a book. Oh, and the coffee is almost ready, so I'm gonna have my first cup of the day. Actually, I'm looking forward to Argentina-Croatia, that should be a good one too. Generally, I prefer watching the games in Spanish because the announcers are so much more into it. Oh yeah, later in the day I might go to the swimming pool. Also have to walk the dog at some point and it's freaking hot outside. But otherwise, it's all good here. You? How's your day going? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

More to the point here is the problem with this RfC and your "two sentences": in the first sentence you say "Regarding this" and link to an edit which adds not just "Zegota was under funded" but also other stuff. Then you ask "Should we state Zegota was under funded". So what is this RfC about? Is it about all the text you wish to add (no), or is it just about saying that Zegota was underfunded? It's perfectly reasonable (in fact, I think it's THE correct position) to think that Zegota was indeed lacking funds, while at the same time objecting to the rest of your text. But you sneakily packaged it all together and I presume, will try to insist on restoring all of the text. So... what is this RfC about? All of the text you've been edit warring to add? Or just the sentence "Zegota was under-funded" (even that I'd word differently).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The diff is quite clearly presented (though per additional sources we should also mention diversion of American Jewish funds earmarked for Zegota to the Polish underground state). @François Robere: - I do suggest that instead of a diff and a short comment, that you present the diff coupled with the actual proposed text in a blockquote).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It states that it was under-funded, then it gives a couple of details to elucidate that. That's two sentences and four sources, all of which hang the blame on the Polish authorities (something I did not explicitly state, because I did not want to look opinionated). As for your aspersions: I find them disgusting. Everything is above board, and if you had concerns you could've raised them in the discussion we already had [1]; instead you blocked the change as "undue" and "cherry picked" [2][3][4][5], forcing me to start this RfC, and now you're claiming I'm dishonest? François Robere (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, it's a simple question - is your RfC about the specific phrase "Zegota was under-funded", or is it asking for a blank check to revert back in your entire text? Stop trying to muddy the issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: My iVote is for the diff that's listed at the top of the RfC: [6], as supported by sources provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman could you explain why? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Per sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes per K.e.C (Summoned by bot) because of the sources provided and I agree with the wording. 2 issues if anyone wants to take care of them: RFC has no name to go along with date, it would be helpful to have a name (3 tildes before time stamp), also this page is 136k bytes, archiving some of it would be helpful. whether the line is drawn at the June 2 2018 discussion or all the way up to this RfC is anyone's decision, there is too much unhelpful orthogonal discoursediscord floating around that is of no use to either improving the article or to getting outside help. The use of Cots and Hats would help some. Thanks, ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No idea how to archive here, but @198.84.253.202 occasionally does that on other pages. François Robere (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: the funding issue does need to be discussed. Yad Vashem - The World Holocaust Remembrance Center:

  The Provisional Committee conducted its operations on a very limited scale, as it lacked broad public support. It received a very small subsidy – practically a token sum – of 50,000 zlotys per month from the Delegate of the Government-in-Exile. The Committee assumed responsibility for 180 Jews in hiding (mostly children), 90 of whom were in Warsaw. Aid was extended to a dozen people in Cracow, and three children were brought from there to Warsaw.
   The average subsidy was 500 zlotys per person per month. It was by no means a large sum, nor could it even assure a minimal existence, but in any event it did help those in need. In special cases, such as impoverishment due to extortion, or if public or cultural leaders were involved, larger grants were provided. There were also instances, however, in which the Council, plagued by financial difficulties due to the tremendous increase in the number of the needy, was compelled to reduce the average monthly grants to 300-400 zlotys per person. 
   Due to the pressure and urgent demands of the Council, the Delegation raised its monthly remittance from 50,000 to 150,000 zlotys, and later to 300,000- 400,000 zlotys and more. Yet even this amount was merely a drop in the bucket. The Council could not expand the scope of its activities until July 1943 when the Jewish organizations – the Jewish National Committee and the Bund – began to receive relief funds sent directly from abroad. 
   After the liquidation of the ghetto, in the latter half of 1943 and in 1944, when the number of those requiring assistance increased, the Council’s budget was again greatly augmented http://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/resources/zegota-in-occupied-poland.html

Peter K Burian (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment : The word "underfunded" comes off as contentious. It implies there was a level of funding that was adequate, below which funding was inadequate. Yet, no claim of what would constitute "adequate" funding is present in a source. Therefore, the term itself, the one at the flux of this RfC, seems quite out of place.

All the sources show that the organization had very little funds, the funding was practically "symbolic," and so on. Paraphrasing all that into a single, judgmental word ("underfunded"), does not seem appropriate. We better use the language found in the sources (in whatever level of of detail is deemed necessary), which might be saying essentially the same thing but Wikipedia should be neutral and somber in the presentation of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Superbly stated. I entirely concur.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Actually that's exactly what this discussion was about when in started (specifically these edits: [7][8][9][10]), but some of the other editors kept removing those quotes and we ended up with this phrasing as a compromise that would cleanly pass an RfC. That said, two of the opposing editors are now banned, so I doubt anyone would object restoring those quotes. François Robere (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Made a change per the above [11]. François Robere (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The restored materials remain light on financial specifics and heavy on ("expert") editorializing.

Also, will information be added on sums provided to Żegota by Poland's western Allies, who disposed of far greater resources than the Polish Government-in-Exile in London?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You wanted source quotes, there they are. If you've something to add, bring it here and we can discuss. François Robere (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the direction offered in the diffs sampled above by François Robere. The extended text is far preferable to the one-word summary, as far as WP:NPOV and WP:V are concerned; it allows users to formulate their own view about the issue. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The excessive quotes present only one side of the discussion. While Zegota was underfunded, that was nothing special. All underground organizations were underfunded; it was very difficult to smuggle money into German-occupied Poland. It is worth mentioning every aspect of the debate, but this can be done in a neutral way without quote-spamming. There are sources detailing the financial situation precisely with figures, and these should be used.

Could you please supply the additional figures to the article's "Financial situation" subsection?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, MyMoloboaccount for the additional data on Żegota's funding by the Polish Government-in-Exile, in London.

The article's "Financial situation" subsection states: "Martin Winstone writes that Żegota fought a constant battle for funding and received more support from Jewish organizations than from the Polish Government-in-Exile."

Could someone please provide us information on which Jewish organizations supported Żegota, how much financial support they gave Żegota, and by what means they conveyed it to Żegota in German-occupied Poland?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually not, because those would be WP:PRIMARY sources, and the quotes are from secondary sources and are thus preferable. Also, this is a straw man argument, as the claim isn't that "Żegota was underfunded relative to some ideal level of funding", but that "Żegota was underfunded relative to other organizations" (or in other words: that it was low on the government's order of priorities), and that's supported by both numbers and testimonies about Żegota's struggle for recognition within the "underground state".

Oh, and one last note: If you think these four quotes are too much, may I enlist you to cutting down this section? François Robere (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• The sources are as follows:
  • Winstone (2014): "Żegota faced a constant battle for funding, receiving more from Jewish organizations than from the government-in-exile, whilst the right-wing parties refused to support it."
  • Polonsky (2004): "Zegota's successes—it was able to forge false documents for some 50,000 persons—suggest that, had it been given a higher priority by the Delegatura and the government in London, it could have done much more. We have the testimony of one of its members, Wtadyslaw Bartoszewski, that the organization was regarded as a 'stepchild' by the central underground authorities. According to Yisrael Gutman, Zegota's achievements were 'very little considering the dimensions of the tragedy,' but 'considerable in light of the conditions and spirit Of the times.' This assessment was shared by Emanuel Ringelblum, who wrote: 'A Council for Aid to the Jews was formed, consisting of people of good will, but its activity was limited by lack of funds and lack of help from the government.'"
  • Krakowski (2003): "Allocations of financial resources for Zegota’s activities were very modest. While no exact numbers are available, we can state that they did not exceed a quarter of a million dollars, including the sums from Jews abroad, which the Home Army couriers helped smuggle into occupied Poland. This was indeed very little considering not only the needs of the council and the immensity of the Jewish tragedy, but also the resources at the Polish underground’s disposal. The main Polish underground forces, those subordinated to the Delegatura, received funds during the war from the Western powers to cover their activities. This included about $35 million and 20 million German marks. Of course, they could have been much more generous in allocating resources needed to save human lives."
  • Kermish (1977): Kermish discusses the sometimes strenuous relationship between Zegota and the Polish government delegation, portraying an organization constantly fighting for resources and recognition of refugees' needs.

François Robere (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• What makes this so important? Everyone struggled for funds at that time including the Polish Government in Exile [12], the main sponsor of Żegota GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that multiple RS chose to address it. François Robere (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a polling company, seriously these constant surveys to flog a dead horse are counterproductive.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• By itself, saying that Zegota had limited funds is not that problematic. The problem comes in trying to blame the situation on the Government in Exile, rather than, oh, I dunno, the freakin' Nazi occupation of the country??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The government in exile, made a decision on funding here. A significant chunk of the funding was from Jewish organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please provide specifics. So far, we've been receiving only unsupported generalizations. Nihil novi (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See Kermish... He also mentions an occasion where the delegatura withheld funds from Jewish organizations (donated by, and intended to) because it objected Jewish organizations buying arms with it. François Robere (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That source is basically one long attack on any historian that Kermish happens to disagree with. Which is fine, that's his right, but it very obviously shows that scholarly consensus is different (or at least was, this source is from 1970 or something) then what you're trying to add. After all, the fact that he has to go to these lengths to insult these people, means that these people - historians - wrote something other than what you want to use him for, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Additional sources:
  1. Paldiel
  2. Janicka1 - who notes the skimming of Zegota funds by the Polish underground (she cites a journal article in French for this - François Robere - perhaps you'll track it down (Marcin Urynowicz, La Délégation du gouvernement de la République polonaise de Londres et le financement du Conseil d’aide aux Juifs (Żegota), in Jean-Charles Szurek et Annette Wieviorka, eds., Juifs et Polonais 1939–2008) - Moreover, within the narrative of Polish assistance to Jews in the public space surrounding the MHPJ, there is no mention of the significant participation of Jews in Żegota, nor is there any information about their involvement in the much more extensive rescue of Jews outside of Żegota. There is nothing about funding Żegota with the money of American, British, and Palestinian Jews. There is no information about how often the money – transferred to occupied Poland via the Polish underground state channels – never reached Żegota or were paid to Żegota in Polish zlotys, according to the official German rate instead of the much higher black market one.14 There is no trace of the reflections of Jan Karski, which I quoted above. There is no trace of Irena Sendler’s explicit objection to being used as an instrument of the Polish politics of memory - it would seem that per Janicka Zegota has become an item in modern memory politics.
  3. Janicka2 - Then, there is the question of the Council for Aid to Jews (Żegota), which was establishedand exploited by the Polish Underground State for propaganda and financial purposes. At the same time, its organizational possibilities were restricted and, with them, its scope for action (Urynowicz, 2009). From the Museum’s explanation, we learn that both Żegota and the Jewish National Committee (Żydowski Komitet Narodowy, ŻKN) were co-financed by the Polish government-in-exile, whereas in reality it was the other way around. The money from Jewish organizations was only partly forwarded to Żegota and the ŻKN. The rest subsidized the coffers of the Polish administration. There is no information about how often the money – transferred to occupied Poland via Polish Underground State channels – failed to reach Żegota for other than objective reasons or was paid to Żegota in Polish zlotys according to the official German rate instead of the much higher black market rate.
  4. This book.
  5. This book - A small amount of funding came from the Polish government- in-exile in London and was channeled through the Warsaw Delegatura (its representative in the underground) and from a newly established organization called Zegota, a Polish committee to help Jews. The largest donations, however, came from Jewish organizations abroad: the American Joint Distribution Committee, the Jewish Labor ....
• No lack of evidence here - And I'll note that we have a WP:FRINGE concern due to modern propaganda around this issue (notably - propaganda efforts objected to by Irena Sendler).Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What is "Janicka1"? There's obviously context here which you're omitting since she's obviously referring to something or someone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I see Janicka2 is some criticism of some particular Museum exhibition. What the hey does this have to do with anything? Is this an article about the museum? No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Both Janicka journal articles - which I cited quite clearly - address the modern Polish government commemoration of Zegota, the memory politics around Zegota, and the myth making - they are quite on topic - and directly address the funding issue (and the modern misrepresentation of the Polish role).Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can only see one Janicka article. It appears she went to visit a museum and it was disagreeable for her. She apparently wanted it to be a Museum of Something Else rather than the Museum of What It Was. So she wrote a long rant about it full of strange and unfounded assertions. Still don't see why it should be used in this article. Maybe if we had an article on the museum itself... maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I cited two journal articles by Janicka, one in East European Jewish Affairs from 2015 and the other in Studia Litteraria et Historica 5 in 2016. This was published in an academic setting, and contains on an anlysis of the memory politics employed bynthe Polish state, and the historical inaccuracies thereof. I do suggest you strike the BLP violation above, each and every one of her assertions is back up with citations, and passed a peer review.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

On a constructive note, we should add material on the Polish underground taking funds sent to Zegota by American Jewish organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

" each and every one of her assertions is back up with citations" - that is plainly not true. These are not high quality sources, the assertions are unbacked and raise some serious WP:REDFLAGs, she's not a specialist in the area and frankly, has no idea what she's talking about. Criticizing a source is not a BLP violation. And you really need to stop making absurd claims with the purpose of provoking other editors. WP:REDFLAG is a thing and so is WP:POINT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There are quite clear citations in the peer reviewd journal articles. There are no red flags here - this is quite inline with general attitudes towards the Jews in Poland. What we do have is a WP:IJDLI arguement against a peer reviewd publication by a historian at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (ISS PAS).Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"There are quite clear citations in the peer reviewd journal articles." - this is, again, another completely false statement from you Icehwhiz. The citation to Urbanowicz which you mention elsewhere is for the preceding statament. There is NO CITATION to the claim about funding which seems pulled out of thin air. Hence, WP:REDFLAG.

More generally, the article is very thin on citations (not surprising since it consists mostly of authors subjective "impressions" and complaints that a museum exhibition is not laid out to the author's liking). It does cite numerous... films and fictional works (either to complain about them or to use them to complain about the museum - "the museum doesn't include this thing I saw in this movie once!") or to obscure stuff that hardly anyone's ever heard about (Urbanowicz), or it straight up misrepresents and cherry picks sources (like Marek Edelman, the Ghetto Fighter who was quite proud of his Polishness). It's a junk source and it raises a lot of redflags - despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary, most of the claims do not appear in any reliable sources I am familiar with. Wait, there's more...

" a peer reviewd publication by a historian" - yup, also a false statement. Janicka is not a historian, she's a ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... a photographer! You're doing that thing again. Where you make false claims which are trivially easy to show are false. Stop it. It's adding up. Once or twice could be a mistake, but doing this constantly is going to get you into trouble sooner or later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:IJDLI of a East European Jewish Affairs journal article does not amount to much (and citations there are clear). Nor do BLP policy violations towards Janicka, a woman of many talents (a historian and a photographer), who is Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences. per Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History - yet another peer reviewed journal who published her work. You should strike your BLP violating stmt that this esteemed academic is not a historian.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the memoir story of Zenon Neumark’s written by Zenon Neumark himself a RS??? [13] Icewhiz you did not like Mundek story[14] you said "not a RS memoir of a son." [15] and reverted. And this source [16] is ok all of a sudden? How come Icewhiz? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Zimmermann about the funding - Żegota obtained 10% of social help fund, which was proportional to the pre-war ratio of Jews. Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Exchange on possible error with Legobot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
François Robere, just to let you know that the RfC shows up in a bizarre fashion on both RfC pages (and the links to here don't work). I tried to fix but as it is bot-controlled, I thought I might do more harm than good. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Update: Links to here seem to be working now. Pincrete (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC) I'll check. Thanks for the notice! François Robere (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC) It was an encoding issue with the "Ż" in "Żegota". It should work now without disrupting the bot. François Robere (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The D in BRD

The WP:STABLE version is clearly from 13:07, 22 August 2018 - which sat undisturbed for 3 months. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss as opposed to reverting en-masse changes contested by multiple editors. Specifically, I contest the following changes:

1. diff - edit summary "undo change which was made w/o consensus. Undue and can't say it in Wikipedia voice. Remove communist source, reorder for readabiity". Unclear what lack of consensus this refers to. Sendler's views on the organization she ran a significant section of are clearly DUE. The reordering does not seem to improve readability (it does hamper understanding the change), and contrary to the edit summary (of "just reordering" and removal) - content sourced to marginal Polish state funded sources (which is contradicted by mainstream sources) was inserted. The removal of Krakowski seems to be justified in the edit summary as "communist source" - charge made towards a WP:BDP with little substantiation or - for that matter relevance (even if this were true - so what?) - this is a book chapter published by Rutgers University Press in 2003, and edited by Joshua D. Zimmerman - the author is a noted historian. As of 2003 (the date of publication), neither Krakowski, Zimmerman, or Rutgers University Press were "communist".
2. diff "restore sourced" - unclear from when this was restored. This is a sourced to a state-funded publication for schoolchildren, which is not a scientific publication. The source is also non-English, and given that we have much higher quality English sources (actual scientific publications) - per WP:NOENG - they should be preferred

Please discuss.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Bulletin of the Institute of National Remembrance is not a "state-funded publication for schoolchildren". It is state funded, yes, but is a scholarly popular science journal, and I am not aware of any criticism of its reliability that are not fringe/undue. Per pl:Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej it is a ' miesięcznik popularnonaukowy' (popular science magazine) published by a renowned historical institute. Take it to WP:RSN if you want to discuss this further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The IPN Bulletin is not a scientific publication even by a cursory glance - the writers are not academics, generally it lacks citations in its articles, and the language is filled with vitriol. This has been noted in WP:RSes which cover Polish memory politics - e.g. it being mainly distributed to children in schools and being filled with missionary language,The Post-Communist Condition: Public and private discourses of transformation (chapter - Power, knowledge and faith discourse)), and: Research at the IPN differs from academic work in several respects (Behr, 2011). First, researchers do not only conduct scientific projects; they are also required to take part in educational and public outreach initiatives such as exhibitions, short publications designed for lay readers and youth (like the monthly IPN bulletin), websites, and even board games. The purpose of this deliberately synthetic history, reduced to a playful and attractive format, begs the question: does it seek to popularize knowledge about the past, or to turn it into a political tool?.Behr, Valentin. "Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland: a sociological approach to the narratives of communism." European Politics and Society 18.1 (2017): 81-95.. It would be one thing if we were discussion a work by an IPN researcher that purports to be scientific (e.g. "Pamiec i Sprawiedliwosc" (Memory and Justice")) - the IPN Bulletin has no such pretensions.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I should note the Sendler quote corresponds with the more general statement that precedes it, which has been part of the text for some time. François Robere (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AK-soldiers Parasol Regiment Warsaw Uprising 1944.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jan Wesołowski

I am not sure if the link to pl:Jan Wesołowski (academic) is correct. [17] mentions this name as a director of children's theater. He is also mentioed in [18] whic describes him as a communist, (PPR) and the following sentence suggests he was a Zegota member. Snippet view makes it difficult for me to get full context. A bit more info about this person: [19], [20], [21]. He was a middle level commie party member after the war, d 1993 ([22]). I will see if I can stub an entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I found the time and stubbed pl:Jan Wesołowski (dyrektor teatralny). So yes, the Żegota JW (theatre and communist activist) is not the same as the scientist JW.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

After "Żegota's children's section in Warsaw,...." paragraph reinsert a statement removed in 2018 for unknown reason: "The largest cell of Żegota (Felicja) was led by Mieczysław Herling-Grudziński, a wealthy lawyer, who hid 600 Jews (out of the 3,000 helped by Żegota in Warsaw) on his suburban villa in Boernerowo (today Bemowo). Pfajer (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pfajer (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Looking back on the history, there was a huge edit-war through most of 2018 so finding the exact point when it was removed and the reason given is fairly pointless. Prior to this edit war this statement was unsourced and tagged with citation needed. The request includes an attempt at a citation but the actual citation contents are empty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Risks to Żegota operatives from neighbours

I've restored the statement with a link to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland.[23] There are a lot of sources on this, though not necessarily that are specific to Żegota (which is not a surprise, given that there's a general shortage of research on the organization). I would just mention here this quote by Irena Sendler, which is mentioned by several historians: "łatwiej było ukryć czołg pod dywanem niż jedno dziecko".

Any objections to the statement? François Robere (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it may be relevant but this really needs to be cited. Also I am a bit worried that readers can be confused about the fact that the primary danger came from Germans, both their regulations and the enforces. The collaborators, like szmalcowniks, which were undeniably a major threat, where empowered by the Germans and would not exist without them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

But then, as sources repeatedly state, the Germans wouldn't have been able to tell who's a Jew and who isn't without local collaborators.

The book I'd like to get on this is Anna Bikont's Sendlerowa. W ukryciu (Czarne, 2017), but I can't find it in a digital format. Two of the chapters are named "Ponieważ moje dzieci są Żydami i mam kłopoty od sąsiadów" and "Łatwiejbyło ukryć duży czołg niż małe żydowskie dziecko". François Robere (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Which sources state "Germans wouldn't have been able to tell who's a Jew and who isn't without local collaborators"? It's interesting, and while obviously collaborators helped, Germans also had German citizens who spoke Polish (translators, etc.) and in some cases, sources also state that such judgments were based on looks or legal documents (Mischling Test, etc.). PS. I tried to find the book but I can't find any free version I think the only way to do it is to buy an ebook :> Frankly, being able to buy an ebook is still rare, a lot of the older books are physical library-option only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to look for precise citations at the moment since this isn't for an article, but the idea is that only Poles could tell the differences in language, gesture etc. between different Polish communities (geographic, ethnic, socio-economic), while Germans couldn't - hence the emergence of szmalcowniks and other snitches among Poles.

Yep. I suspect it also has to do with a slow adoption of digital publication in some markets. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The objection is that there’s some WP:SYNTH going on here. I don’t think anyone anywhere argued that the task of hiding Jews wasn’t very difficult, which is what Sandler’s statement says. But this is being SYNTHESIZED with other snippets from other sources to suggest that this was due to “hostile population”, rather than a myriad of other possible factors. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't quote Sendler in the body, but we do have plenty of sources on the hostile population. François Robere (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

the Germans wouldn't have been able to tell who's a Jew and who isn't without local collaborators.' Most Jews were identified by genealogical records kept by synagogues and churches(for converts), plus a large portion of Jews who lived in Shtetls did stand out from rest of Polish population. Another sign was circumcision which wasn't practised in general by Poles, this made easier for Jewish women to hide than men as noted in Sexual Violence Against Jewish Women During the Holocaust edited by Sonja Maria Hedgepeth, Rochelle G. Saidel A particular physical one is obvious, because in Eastern Europe usually only Jewish men were circumcised page 125. Or in Teaching about the Holocaust and Genocide, Volume 2 University of the State of New York, State Education Department, Bureau of Curriculum Development, 1985, page 283 Hiding boys, he said, was dangerous, as they were circumcised and could be easily detected. or even by Grabowski in Szantażowanie Żydów: casus Warszawy 1939-1945 Przegląd Historyczny 99/4 wyłapywanie mężczyzn (z oczywistych przyczyn) było stosunkowo proste Catching men(for obvious reasons) was relatively simple hence the emergence of szmalcowniks and other snitches among Poles. Poles? Szmalcowniks were very mixed and consisted out of Poles, Germans and Jews.Why exclude the other two?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)