Talk:Żegota

In favor

A great summary of Żegota's achievements during WW II. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.106.1.229 on 14 April 2004.

Pronunciation of name

How does one pronouce "Zegota"? Long 'e'? Just curious. --Bk0 20:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

You know, for Poles there is no difference between long and short 'e', at least for me - i was never quite able to grasp it. :-D Szopen 08:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

The long e is still there, although covered by the grammatical accent. Anyway, I added the IPA pronounciation key. Hope you like it. Halibutt 03:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

What syllable is the accent on? --Espoo 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The second; the last syllable is unstressed. -- Deborahjay 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. The dot over the "z" makes it something like the "z" in "azure," or the "j" in the French "jour." The "e" is as in the English "bet." The "o" is open (short) as in "got," not as in "oh." The "a" is open. And in Polish, one almost always accents the penultimate (i.e. next to last) syllable (in words of more than one syllable). So it's "zhe-GO-ta." 140.147.160.78 13:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Clarification: "...under its care"

Who is meant by this, Jews?: had 180 persons under its care within a short time. Or did the author mean to say this?: "soon had 180 helpers at its disposal" --Espoo 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Difficulties hiding Jews

The article says, "A difficult problem therefore was to find hiding places for persons who looked Jewish." It would be good to elaborate on this with two points. With men and boys, it was easy for the Nazi occupiers to check, since Jewish men and boys would have been circumcized and non-Jewish Poles would not. Also, I understand that there were Jews living in Poland at the time who were so lived so completely in the Jewish community that they spoke only Yiddish and could not speak Polish; they could not be passed off as non-Jewish Poles. 140.147.160.78 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Polish feminine surnames

The author is writing:

e mentioned theatre artist Prof. Maria Grzegorzewski, psychologist Irena Solski, Janina Buchholtz-Bukolski*, educator Irena Sawicki*, scouting activist Dr. Ewa Rybicki, school principal Irena Kurowski, Prof. Stanislaw Ossowski and Prof. Maria Ossowski, zoo director Dr. Jan Zabinski* and his wife Antonina*, a writer, the unforgettable director of children's theatres Stefania Sempolowski, Jan Wesolowski*, Sylwia Rzeczycki*, Maria Laski, Maria Derwisz-Parnowska.

unless these ladies, from Prof. 'Grzegorzewski' onwards, were Americans with Polish ancestors, which they were not, afaik, their names must be given in their Polish forms, i. e., GrzegorzewskA, SolskA, Buchholtz-BukolskA, SawickA, RybickA, KurowskA, (Maria) OssowskA, Sempolowska (or rather: Sempołowska), RzeczyckA, LaskA. Strangely enough, the author quotes the last surname, Derwisz-Parnowska, in the correct form. Their husbands, brothers (if any) and father were called 'GrzegorzewskI', 'SolskI' --- they were not. -A, not -I. This is the law in Polish. 131.220.251.28 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wojciech Żełaniec

I found a few of the names in sprawiedliwi.org.pl, so I changed them to -ska. I'm assuming savingjews.org (the quoted source) was wrong in quoting the names. I can't imagine all these women would have opted for the male form of the -ski name. I have met with women bearing the -ski names, but rather for less usual names: Biały, Jasny. I could not, however, find Ms. Laski in any source, so I left it unchanged. LMB (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong conclusion

"Over 700 Polish heroes, murdered by Germans as a result of helping and sheltering their Jewish neighbors, were posthumously awarded the title Righteous Among the Nations; given the alleged involvement of over 200,000 Poles in the precarious underground hidings provided to Jews, this indicates that the death penalty was used as a deterrent rather than as a frequently executed punishment.[6] They were only a small percentage of thousands of Poles reportedly executed by the Nazis for aiding Jews."

The reason why there is such a small number of executed people recognised as Rightous is because the Jews they were hiding died along with them, so there are no Jewish witnesses. In my family's hometown three families were executed for hiding Jews and none of these people is recognised as Righteous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.6.63 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"More specific estimates indicate that some 100,000 to 300,000 Poles met Yad Vashem’s criteria, having been directly engaged in rescuing Jews despite the threat of death, which did deter others"

Total nonsense this and all the other guessings about Poles involved in saving Jews. If 100 - 300.000 Poles would met YV criterias there would not be 6.706 Polish Righteous but at least 100.000. Meeting criterias means providing evidence for those acts, not only "I heared my grandmother/grandmother saved Jews"! No evidence = no Righteous, easy as such. However, there are even Poles who "saved" Jews by including them in the family and instead to hide them he let them work on his farm in bright daylight! Noz long as another Pole became aware about and informed the German authorities. As result all Jews were killed as the Pole with his family. And this Polish farmer&family incl. small children were considered "saviour of the Jews " while the father caused in reallity the death of all persons! BTW, as the Poles are allways showing off with their big number of Righteous: 35000 000 Polish inhabitants (during WWII) and only 6706 Righteous makes exactly 0.019 Percent. O.019% of the Polish population was able to provide enough evidence to be considered as Righteous, the other guessed "saviors" not. That speaks for itself. Austrianbird (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Photoshopped Image

The guy standing in the right of the image has clearly been photoshopped in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.150.178 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? By what indications can we conclude this? --Jüber (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Jüber (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Anna Poray - SPS

@GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent: Any policy based justification for reverting back in a WP:SPS source? Such sources, per policy, are not suitable, failing V. Also note, that though unlikely (due to the subjects' age) - unless you verified via RS that all those named are dead, there is a BLP issue here - as per WP:BDP we assume anyone younger than 115 (1903 birth year is alive).Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• User Icewhiz, you are clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. — Please stop assuming that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it... Anna Poray is not a WP:SPS publishing historian because she is deceased. Your kind of disruptive editing makes me physically sick. Sorry to say that, Poeticbent talk 23:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Poray self published the book prior to being deceased - her death does not make a self published work published.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

What is your point about self-publishing? There have been many non-self-published books that have been worthless. Nihil novi (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know myself what Icewhiz's is talking about often times and what is his point, I'm forcing myself to read those massive walls of text and I was wondering if that was only me... really what is your point about self-publishing?GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

82 Words (above - counted both posts, without the sig) a wall of text? Hardly even a fence. Per WP:SPS (which is policy) - or that reason, self-published media, such as books, ... personal websites ... and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Certainly there are worthless published books, but self-published books are generally considered, by Wikipedia policy, to be unacceptable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen destructiveness like our Siamese twins' since the Russian depredations of some 10 years ago.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There can be good reasons to self-publish. Among other things, it prevents publishers' editors, who like to show their mettle, from wrecking authors' texts.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good reasons, perhaps, but it also prevents the editors (in a reputable publisher) from verifying the factual accuracy of the text, and exerting their editorial influence and prevent factual errors (and other such issues) from reaching the printing press and besmirching the publisher's name. That this was not accepted for publishing, and has not passed any form of review is a red flag, and per policy - this is not an acceptable source, particularly since Poray hasn't published in the field in a RS and the possible BLP issue here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there controversial claims being sourced in her book? Is there any reason to assume she is lying or mistaken? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You got this backwards - the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include (otherwise we would include any random web page no one bothered to criticize) - WP:SPS clearly calls for her exclusion given she never published in a RS on this topic. However, yes, an interview with her has been mentioned as an illustrative example (in a footnote) of promoting the WP:FRINGE polityka historyczna Historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna often cite the number of Christian Polish rescuers of Jews honored to date by the Yad Vashem Memorial Institue in Jerusalem, numbering approximately 6,350, as a tool to "normalize" the dark past. By employing this data, they claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, in order to restore the image of Poles as solely heroes and martyrs (note 33)..[1], footnote: [2]. She is being used to source information on possible BLPs - in this article for instance (in which she is used to source information on some 27 names - and unless you have a RS proving each and everyone of them is dead (many are) - we assume per WP:BDP that as possible post-1903 births - they are alive) - which is a no-go per policy.Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Also in “I will never forget what you did for me during the war”: Rescuer — Rescuee Relationships in the Light of Postwar Correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949 - For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennik in footnote 85 - whose context is Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85). So her work/views are clearly referred to as a myth in an actual RS (all be it - relegated to a passing mention in a footnote). In the interview in question she describes her work at the savingjews website which in the online copy of the self-published book.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Poeticbent: - I've been puzzling over your Anna Poray is not a WP:SPS publishing historian because she is deceased - which doesn't square with the website (which was up in 2004 and mentioned by Poray in her notrious Nasz Dziennik interview) and book (which per google was published (by A.Poray - so quite obviously self-published) in 2007. USHMM actually doesn't have a publication date - [3] - it is described as a Personal Web site - and archived in 2007). Poray herself died in 2013. Which brings me to the point - would you be so kind as to explain the connection of Project InPosterum to savingjews.org? and, if you may, what else do you know about whomever is propagating this?Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

@Piotrus:, @Nihil novi:, @GizzyCatBella: - are there still objections to the removal of Poray? Please speak up. If you are still objecting, I intend to take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard per WP:BLPSPS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

She seems to be cited in few academic works ([4]; sample reliable work citing her Tilar J. Mazzeo (27 September 2016). Irena's Children: The Extraordinary Story of the Woman Who Saved 2,500 Children from the Warsaw Ghetto. Simon and Schuster. pp. 289–. ISBN 978-1-4767-7850-1.). She seems fine to be used for non-controversial claims, if not others. Which claims of hers are controversial? She may not be notable, but it doesn't mean she is not reliable. Again, I'd not cite her for some outrageous claims, and I'd prefer to see academic sources. Anyway, I've reviewed [5] and we are using her to cite names of some members of Zegota. Hardly controversial, through a bigger issue may be the fact that this para is pretty much a copy/paste copyvio. But anyway, Poray seems to cite a more reliable source: "Prekerowa, Teresa. "Konspiracyjna Rada Pomocy Zydom w Warszawie 1942-1945. (Conspiratorial Council for Aid to Jews in Warsaw) Warszawa, PIW, 1982. The book is translated into French; the English edition will appear soon." It is indeed a problem we cite Poray, and not Peterkowa. Sadly, I am not seeing that her book was in the end ever TLed to English ([6]), and so to verify this claim someone would need to get a Polish copy and check it (hopefully it has an index mentioning Berkman). But frankly, I don't think we have any reasons to suspect Poraj invented this claim, and we could just update the citation to Peterkowa, page number needed, and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Irena's children (which is a mass market book, not an academic publication) citations (for a rather minor detailed) were probably mined from Wikipedia - it is citing not the book, but savingjews.org (the online version) with the same URLs. Poray herself is covered (very briefly) in RSes as propagating a myth[7], political history[8], and being an extreme proponent in the far-right press of " lack of Jewish gratitude"[9]. It is up to whomever supports inclusion to show this a RS - not the other way around - particularly for BLP/BDP content - but also generally. Unless you verify Peterkowa yourself - this can not go in - we can not count on Poray's citation of her. per WP:BLPSPS - we can not include this material to a self-published source - which this clearly is. Should I take this to BLP/n?Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Żegota.Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that the list/letter (with the * next to names for Yad Vashem Righteous awards) is WP:UNDUE if we can't find any actual RS referring to it. Quite a bit has been written about Żegota - if this letter and list were significant, one would expect to find a reputable source for it (which I at least haven't found - and I did look).Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What in the world does any of this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:BDP, WP:BLPSPS. The 27 named individuals, unless you have a RS for each one confirming death or birth year prior to 1903, are presumed alive per BLP policy. Self-published sources are strictly forbidden as a source for any material about a (presumed) living person.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP/n discussion

Please note that the BLP/n discussion while possibly not agreeing on whether this is a BLP situation, was conclusive in terms of excluding this content on a number of different grounds.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Attribution to Gunnar S. Paulsson

I looked at the edit history of the underlying article and spotted this "I am the author. I removed a paragraph that misrepresents the book by cherry-picking a quotation from it, which removed this statement:

• How many people in Poland rescued Jews? Of those that meet Yad Vashem's criteria – perhaps 100,000. Of those that offered minor forms of help – perhaps two or three times as many. Of those who were passively protective – undoubtedly the majority of the population. — Gunnar S. Paulsson }}

References

So it seems that the author, if we are to believe the edit summary, disclaimed this statement. I suggest it be removed from this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I will note that even if Paulsson made this estimate - most estimates are much-much lower, mainline scholars (as opposed to "Polocaust" proponents, Paulsson is probably mortified by this cherrypicked quote being propagated by the KPK) viewing the rescuers as a very small and repressed (by the Germans and the vast majority of Poles) group. At the very least, as with other contentious claims, this needs to be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Paulsson indeed said such things; note how this is being cited:

• More specific estimates indicate that some 100,000 to 300,000 Poles met Yad Vashem’s criteria, having been directly engaged in rescuing Jews despite the threat of death, which did deter others.

References

I have a feeling that his quote is being misrepresented, or else why cite www.savingjews.org? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

the citation is wrong, though. The article linked to isnt by Paulsson it’s Mark Paul. The whole pdf is almost 300 pages, there should be a page number. And it should not claim the author is Paulsson. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Anything on savingjews.org (mainly for Poray's work, but it seems the site has been used to host other similar documents) is highly suspect. Poray's thesis, such as it was, was that some 1 million Poles saved Jews and that Jews are ungrateful. I have caught dubious stuff in Paul's books a few times (in cases he was copy pasted into Wikipedia as opposed to cited (which I challenge as SPS)) - typically a misrepresention of 1-3 sources (either Jewish primary sources ("the Jews admit it!") or established historians) with a cherrypicked overstated quote often omitting stuff (e.g German with the help of locals? Goes to Germans) - and then goes off on it own OR tangent loosely based on the sources (and if there are numbers involved - with its own math) - and the whole thing ends up with a conclusion opposite to anyone else.Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so going to the original pdf which is by Mark Paul, not Paulsson, on page 287, Paul gives a long quote from Paulsson. What Paul says Paulsson says is "How many people in Poland rescued Jews? Of those that meet Yad Vashem’s criteria—perhaps 100,000. Of those that offered minor forms of help—perhaps two or three times as many. Of those who were passively protective—undoubtedly the majority of the population. All these acts, great and small, were necessary to rescue Jews in Poland." So right off the bat - we've got several issues. One - the citation makes it look like Paulsson's work is hosted on savingjews.org, which it isn't. Second, the citation fails to properly cite what is being cited - it should be saying where the information came from - i.e. something like "Paulsson cited in Paul, p. 287" would be correct. Third - it's misrepresenting what Paulsson said (if Paul's quoted Paulsson correctly). Paulsson said that perhaps 100,000 met Yad Vashem's criteria. He doesn't say that anything about 300,000 meeting YV's criteria. He says that two to three times the "perhaps 100,000" offered minor help. And he's very clear that these are "perhaps"... not "more specific estimates". So we have a problem with misrepresentations of sources here. It's not supported by the source given and needs to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And here's the edit where this error was introduced - at least as far as the 100,000 to 300,000. Basically, a copyedit without consulting the sources. And here is where the referencing error began. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Paulsson article in question [10].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

quotes: This is work-in-progress and it is too early to report a definite results, but on the early returns it does not seem that those who have been officially recognised represent as many as ten per cent of the deserving cases. Keeping in mind that these cases are drawn from published memoirs and from cases on file at Yad Vashem and the Jewish Historical Institute, it is probable that the 5,000 or so Poles who have been recognised as 'Righteous Among the Nations' so far represent only the tip of the iceberg, and that the true number of rescuers who meet the Yad Vashem 'gold standard' is 20,50, perhaps even 100 times higher...... summary (last paragraph in article): How many people in Poland rescued Jews? Of those that meet Yad Vashem's criteria - perhaps 100,000. Of those that offered minor forms of help - perhaps two or three times as many. Of those who were passively protective - undoubtedly the majority of the population. All these acts, great and small, were necessary to rescue Jews in Poland.. I would be wary regarding Paulsson hedging his estimates with the "work in progress" bit in terms of using this article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is from 1998 - and Paulsson continued his research subsequently - a later journal article (or book - as long as it isn't a translation of an older work) would perhaps be better.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul did not misrepresent Gunnar Paulsson’s statements. As anyone can see for themself, Mark Paul cited Paulsson’s publications verbatim: http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf (p. 287). (Also http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc). At no time did Mark Paul attribute a 300,000 estimate to Paulsson. Any such allegation is demonstrably false. Tatzref (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul is not RS and stop arguing about it. If you want to cite an RS then cite the RS, not Paul. François Robere (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Żegota faced a constant battle for funding..

This - 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 ---> is not it the book apparently suppose to be on page 181-182 - see search results [11] GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ignore above I found it - GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as how the initiative for the Council came from right wing (Catholic) activists like Kossak-Szucka, this is a cherry picked quote with the purpose of pushing POV. Also, which "right-wing parties"? I mean, I'm sure some did, but this is devoid of meaning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And did you read the source, Marek, or are you just assuming bad faith? Here's the entire segment, with quoted portions highlighted:

Extended content

A particularly acute issue was the role of the leadership of civil society. In many respects, the underground state took a clear stand, most notably with the creation of Żegota (the code name of the Council to Aid Jews) in late 1942. Partly funded by the government-in-exile, Żegota came too late to save most yet it proved indispensable in supporting thousands of Jews, primarily in Warsaw, by providing hiding places (and replacements when apartments were discovered by the szmalcownicy), food, medical care and financial support. The children’s section, headed by the indefatigable Irena Sendler who had been involved in helping Jews from the beginning of the occupation, placed hundreds of children with families or in institutions such as orphanages or nunneries. It is rightly a source of pride in Poland that Żegota was the only organization of its kind in Europe. The Directorate of Civil Resistance, which issued moral guidance to the nation and oversaw the underground’s courts, issued an uncompromising condemnation of the murders in September 1942, followed by a declaration in March 1943 promising severe punishment for blackmailers. Biuletyn Informacyjny frequently condemned those who exploited Jewish misfortunes. However, positive judgements must be qualified. 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. Relatively few sentences were passed against blackmailers. Of greater importance was the fact that the underground leadership in Warsaw had only limited control over its subordinates, especially the partisan units in the forests which began to emerge from 1943 especially. To be fair, groups of bandits or unaffiliated forces sometimes claimed to be part of the Home Army (AK), just as many Jewish fugitives assumed that all Polish partisans were members of the same organization. Even so, there were simply too many accounts to deny that some AK units participated in killings, with only the affiliated Socialist Combat Organization universally exempted from blame. That said, it is equally true that a greater threat to Jews came from right-wing paramilitaries such as the National Armed Forces (NSZ), whose units sometimes killed Jews, Communists and even agents of the underground state.

As for Bartoszewski - do you know for a fact that that particular statement was retracted, or are you guessing [12]? François Robere (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how the quoted segment has anything to do with "assuming good faith" or what your point is. You're not actually addressing the issue at hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

1. It's not the quote that has to do with AGF, it's your edit summary.
2. You claimed "cherry picking" - I quoted the entire thing. Now you - or anyone else - can check for themselves if it's an adequate summary or a "cherry pick".
3. You didn't answer my question: Did you read the source before claiming the quote was "picked"?
4. My other question: You claim Bartoszewski retracted some statements later in life. Do you know for a fact this particular statement was retracted?

François Robere (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Look FR; you began your quote insertion from this:

Żegota came too late to save most yet it proved indispensable in supporting thousands of Jews,

but you dropped everything after the coma:

,primarily in Warsaw, by providing hiding places (and replacements when apartments were discovered by the szmalcownicy), food, medical care and financial support.

Then you picked another two lines

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. Relatively few sentences were passed against blackmailers.

but omitting an opening line

However, positive judgements must be qualified.

and all text before it and after. Is appears to be cherry picked 3 lines that if read without the full context return only negative connotation. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So you want me to quote: a) material that's already in the article; b) an opening phrase of a paragraph; c) material that isn't about Żegota at all. François Robere (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I would like you to not cherry pick lines that if presented out of contexts have a negative connotation, do not illustrate what is actually said and are potentially misleading. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's roll back a couple of lines: You didn't show I "cherry picked" anything. François Robere (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Where exactly am I "stonewalling"? The last messages here were mine, with questions to you: 1) Did you read the source before claiming the quote was picked, and 2) Do you have specific information about this quote by Bartoszewski? If the answer is "no" to both questions, then your claim has no basis. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

the Bartoszewski quote is obviously cherry picked. There's two long paragraphs there about Zegota, about how it operated, what it achieved etc. Yet somehow you pulled out the one sentence which manages to cast Poles in bad light. That is textbook cherry picking. Additionally, it's not clear where exactly Bartoszewski is supposed to have said this. There's no citation. There is a citation for the next sentence, to Yisrael Gutman, so perhaps this is Cesarni quoting Gutman quoting Bartoszewski, which would make this a tertiary source. If that is indeed the source of the quote, then it's from the statement that Bartoszewski made to Yad Vashem in 1963. Here he explains that he simplified lots of things in that interview and that his statements shouldn't be viewed as definitive but rather more as a document illustrating the times when the interview was given. Bartoszewski has literally given scores of interviews about Zegota. Yet, this whole "stepchild" thing does not appear to appear in any of them. More so, it's hard to find ANY interview where he blames the lack of funds on the underground. So yeah, cherry picked and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to quell your criticism of "cherry picking", here's the text:

Extended content

Under these circumstances, the initiative for responding to the genocide fell to the underground authorities in Poland, both civilian and military. The Delegatura and its head were basically sympathetic to the Jews, but realized that they lacked the power to impose their will on the various groupings that made up the underground. It was only in April 1943 that Stanislaw Jankowski, then the head of the Delegatura, issued an appeal calling on Poles to hide Jews. Sometime before this, however, at the end of 1942, Zegota had been set up by representatives Of the Front for the Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups, and it succeeded in obtaining a degree of support from the London government. Between 1942 and the end Of the war, Zegota was granted a total of nearly 29 million zlotys (more than $5 million), which it used to provide monthly relief payments to a few thousand Jewish families in Warsaw, Lwow and Cracow. According to Teresa Prekerowa, one of its historians, by the middle of 1944, between 3,000 and 4,000 individuals were benefiting from Zegota's financial support. In addition, it provided Jews with the false documents they needed to survive on the Aryan side and established a network of "safe houses" where those who had an "unfavorable appearance" could hide." 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."

So, you can see the second paragraph is a sympathetic, but critical look at its lack of support, with Bartoszewski's quote placed between the authors' criticism ("had it been given a higher priority... it could have done much more"), Gutman and Ringelblum. But regardless, it's not that important. I gather you have no objection to the Winstone quote? François Robere (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

These quotes seem to accurately represent the authors' statements. I will urge editors to consider that "casting Poland in a bad light" is not an editing rationale - we accurately reflect the sources. Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article should reflect what the references say, not cherry-picked information. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How is each one of these two sources "cherry picked"? And if they are cherry-picked, as you claim, perhaps the constructive editing move (as opposed to straight up reverting) would be to add more text from the source to balance alleged cherry picking? That way perhaps this issue will move towards a compromise.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like only words with a negative undertone have been chosen, don’t you think? I think I added a full quotation but it has been removed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Emanuel Ringelblum wrote this in his diary back in 1943: "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." What was his opinion based on? The war was not over yet. Has been that confirmed by modern scholarly sources? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like only words with a negative undertone have been chosen No. We're not obliged to "balance" everything by the word. The source is critical of Zegota's environment, and the quote reflects that.
What was his opinion based on? As he was a community leader and the unofficial archivist of the Warsaw ghetto, Zegota's main area of operations, one can assume he had some knowledge of their activity. François Robere (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Żegota's main area of operations"?Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems Żegota was funded by the JDC quite a bit, and that its funding issues are covered in secondary post-war sources. Ringelblum wasn't writing a diary, but a historical account, and modern scholars use him quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but how did he identify back in 1943 all details of Żegota financial situation throughout the war? The war was still ongoing, Ringelblum died in 1944.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an RS accompanying your objection, meaning it's OR, meaning it's none of our business. François Robere (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You reversed this change [13] saying "still lacks consensus", but I'm not seeing any policy-based argument here, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to object a change. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You are going in circles FR, all of the above discussion is about cherry picking quotes and opinions. No, there is no concuss to include that.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just throwing cherry picked around when most mainline sources refer to this is not a policyy based rationale. It is a shame this will have to end up at DRN or something similar when this is so well sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Or ANE, where we ask admin NeilN to impose the source/representation restrictions here as well, so Bella can't claim "cherry picking" (which is either a true claim of misrepresentation, or a false claim that itself misrepresents a source) without proving it. François Robere (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Really quickly, a purely technical matter - in the text you quote Winstone, with the part "supporting thousands of Jews" then a bunch of ellipsis (...), then you add in your own "However", then you continue the quote with "faced a constant battle for funding...". What's the part that's missing from your quotation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to be a smartass, no one is hiding anything. The full quote i upstairs in the first "extended content" block. The sentences I redacted are descriptions of Zegota's or other organizations' activities, which are either already elaborated on elsewhere in the article, or irrelevant to it. François Robere (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: - take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, there has been no concrete objection to this very well sourced material other than repeated "cherry picked" asssertions (odd assertions - as it seems that most sources covering funding cover this) - this should be open and shit there.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've opted for an RfC, as this is a fairly straightforward question given the RS. François Robere (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Berman's letter

I'm open to presenting this information in a different way or paraphrasing it but I'm categorically against removing this well sourced information wholesale. And what the BLP discussion states is that it is NOT a BLP issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The BLP discussion was inconclusive on whether this is a BLP issue - and was conclusive in that most commentators thought this was simply poorly sourced and irrelevant WP:LISTCRUFT that should be in the article. As is - the whole passage (following changes on 1 June) is a blatant misuse of sources - citing some 25 sources that do not support the passage (but do apparently mention some of the individuals in a different context) - I do suggest you self revert this blatant misrepresentation of sources (and yes - there is a WP:BDP issue here as well) that you decided to revert. The sole source supporting the existence of this letter is Poray, which as WP:SPS (coupled with severe WP:FRINGE concerns - as Poray, when she is mentioned (briefly!) in RSes, is mainly mentioned as propagating a myth)) - which is not a WP:RS. Constructively - if some of the other sources (25 of them) support adding a description of the activities of some of these individuals to the article - then that may be a constructive change here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies, Simon Dodd, and Pincrete: (BLP/n participants) - please see above. Note that the some 24 sources that were added to this passage do not support it - and do not mention such a letter by Berman in 1977. This WP:LISTCRUFT remains sourced to a fringe self-published book and our current text is a boderline copyvio of it ([14]).Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought the issue might be technically a BLP issue, but not a substantive one. I did definitely agree with a prev. editor on that page (S Dodd?) that this list imparted little useful information and was WP:LISTCRUFT-y. Even the few names notable enough to have a WP article which I followed, did not mention their WWII activities, so following the links did little to inform about this article or subject. Unless the article goes into some detail about the activities of some individual or group - what is the point of knowing the name of a particular farmer/teacher/whatever?

Having read some of the discussion above, I have to add that IF the umpteen sources attached to these names do not explicitly confirm the presence of their names and other info about them in the Berman letter - then I have to concur with Icewhiz, the sources are being misused to create a false impression. VM, I'll ask you that question directly, as, whilst you may not be responsible for inserting the many sources, you are probably the most experienced editor defending this text - do these sources confirm the presence of these names in the Berman letter? If they don't, what are the sources meant to be confirming?

I cannot access many of the book sources, do not speak Polish, and would not claim expertise - beyond a general knowledge of what happened on 'the Eastern front' in WWII. My involvement and expertise does not go beyond having responded to some recent RfCs. That's my disclaimer - I may be ignorant but I'm neutral. Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The list appears to be taken from this source, but it looks like someone went to the trouble of finding "independent" confirmation - and spot checking a few of the names it checks out. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is to describe the contents of the letter generally, then put the individual names in a footnote? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Volunteer Marek, for tracking down the source about the Berman letter.

If the "Jewish Virtual Library: a Project of AICE [the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise]" is a reliable source, I would think its article on [15] "Jewish Resistance: Konrad Żegota Committee" could be cited as-is (with perhaps our article's present added notes kept as additional corroboration and sources).

Nihil novi (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

JVL is a borderline source - discussions in RSN (it was seriously discussed in 2010, not really since) ended with a rather mixed result. It is better than Anna Poray's personal website (which would be unusable all together). JVL is enough for me to not challenge this as not passing WP:V (I trust them enough to quote a letter) - if it replaces Poray, I will be 80-90% content. I still think it is WP:LISTCRUFT - and would encourage writing a section with details on the more notable names there - however that isn't as pressing as the V issue.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

See - this diff - in which the citations on each name (which did support the passage on the 1977 letter), citations at the end that did not support the 1977 letter, and the Anna Poray SPS were removed, and replaced with JVL.Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Listed persons aren't linked.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything Poles do is wrong

Żegota was too late and so on ... . Non-Poles did apparently better. Who and where? Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

limited by lack of funds and lack of help from the government - do you know that the government of Poland was tolerated in London, where it financed Polish soldiers fighting for UK? It explains the lack of funds, doesn't it? lack of help - did the government help ethnic Poles in occupied Poland? Xx236 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone specified the financial contributions to Żegota from the Polish Government-in-Exile in London, and from "Jewish organizations"? Nihil novi (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is getting into off topic territory but that's actually a relevant and interesting question - what was the PGiE's budget and how big of an expenditure was this? what were its sources of revenue? What else did it spend money on? Etc. Man, there's a PhD dissertation waiting to be written on this topic (the broad one of PGiE's finances).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit about it here, by Joseph Kermish. I read more about it - I'll try to look it up. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That source potentially contradicts the POV text you and Icewhiz are trying to cram into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

From my reading of it, it actually does. Nihil novi (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't give a total, so no. You're welcome to calculate, though. François Robere (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that due to the mix of zlotys and dolllars (and varying official (via 3rd party) or black market conversion rates during the war) in the article, such a calculation is far from simple (and I am not sure that there is a reliable timeseries for zloty/usd during wwii).Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Which is another reason not to include this stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Or... we trust RS. François Robere (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Or... we don't do OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Żegota funding

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 [16]; instead you blocked the change as "undue" and "cherry picked" [17][18][19][20], 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: [21], 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)

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 [22], 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??? [23] Icewhiz you did not like Mundek story[24] you said "not a RS memoir of a son." [25] and reverted. And this source [26] 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)

Only country with secret aid structure

I reverted this. Besides puffery issues, the cited source doesn't say this (merely saying Żegota was unique - which is undoubtedly true - each and every organization has unique circumstances) and is a Poland-specific source that doesn't cover cross-European rescue efforts. As might be seen in USHMM JEWISH AID AND RESCUE and USHMM Rescue other secret rescue organizations existed in Europe, e.g. Œuvre de secours aux enfants or the Slovakian "Working Group" - making the assertion that "Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe where, during the war, there existed such a dedicated secret structure" - demonstrably false.Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed Ground->Group.Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is imprecisely worded and needs a better source, but the general point is legit. The activities of the organization were in fact unique in many respects. The Slovakian Working Group (Ground?) was a different sort of an organization - it sought to put a stop to deportations by bribing officials rather than to aid Jews in hiding. I'm not as familiar with Œuvre de secours aux enfants and that article is too much of a mess. Maybe you could work on improving that article? It really needs it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I added an extra reference. Please feel free to reword if required fellows.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

this source that was added is published by AuthorHouse and is a WP:SPS (and the authors do not seem to be experts in the field - it does seem they have published quite a few AuthorHouse books). This reference is rather strictly forbidden per policy.

As for uniqueness - There were some unique aspects to Żegota - but the same is true of other aid organizations. The main "uniqueness points" of Żegota revolve around "uniqueness points" of Poland (namely - having the largest pre-war Jewish population, and having a government in exile that had some "feet on the ground" back in the home country). There really is little reason to push a false claim of exceptionalism into the lede - Żegota's record is laudatory on its own factual NPOV described merits.Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No such group existed in any other German-occupied.. page 88 [27] GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Google-search sourcing. For starters, the sources says "No such Christian group existed in any other German-occupied country" - you omitted Christian from the middle of the quote. I'll note that the assertion that Zegota was "Christian" is questionable, as there were both Christian and Jewish members on the council. The book itself is not a history book, and is essentially a travel log of sorts through post-Communist Central/Eastern Europe (this assertion is made in the midst of an interview).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I came across another source by Martin Winstone - Żegota was the only organization of its kind in Europe [28] page 181. I’m querying what did he mean by saying Żegota was the only organization of its kind in Europe. Any hints? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like another source claims the same - [29] Poland was the only country in Nazi-occupied Europe where such an organization, run jointly by Jews and non-Jews from a wide range of political movements, existed. This one is by Paul R. Bartrop and Michael Dickerman. Hmnn.. interesting. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly - Żegota with all of its particular features was one of a kind. But the same can be said of just about all other organizations that rescued Jews in other countries in Europe - who also tended to have unique local features.Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

So it wasn't exceptional, except for that exception, and that exception and that exception, and... come on! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of the sources is that it definitely was exceptional - Żegota members operated at great risk - from the Germans and other Poles. There is no doubt that this was a noteworthy and noble organization. However - being exceptional does not make Żegota into a one of a kind (in terms of Jewish rescue in occupied Europe) - in terms of scope of operations, it is definitely one of a very few.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"all other organizations that rescued Jews in other countries in Europe" what were they, can you name few? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I already did - see the first post on this thread.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

So Paul R. Bartrop all others are wrong? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it, and they are entirely different organizations. YISHUV (Yishuv) was not even in Europe. Neee.. it appears that you are confused Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The Yishuv sent forces to Europe, but I was referring to examples such as Œuvre de secours aux enfants or the Slovakian "Working Group". As for Bartop - he qualifies the stmt with "such an organization, run jointly by Jews and non-Jews from a wide range of political movements" - which is a very narrow stmt (other organizations being only Jewish, only non-Jewish, or being jointly Jewish and non-Jewish but holding a fairly monolithic political view) - so sure - if you add specific qualifiers (in this case - joint Jewish/non-Jewish with wide range of political movements) you end up with a singularity.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Neee...OSE worked mainly in Vichy France not occupied Europe and the Slovakian Working Group acted mainly to halt the deportations by bribing key people in the Slovakian Nazi regime and in the German consulate. Totally different organization and Slovakia also was not occupied. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Following Case Anton in Nov 1942, Vichy France was also fully occupied (and status pre-Anton is debatable) - so your assertion on Œuvre de secours aux enfants (which operated also outside of Vichy) is incorrect. Amelot - operated in Paris, which was fully occupied, and was formed in June 1940 - well before Zegota in Sep/Dec 1942. Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow... It appears that Żegota was not only unique but also the most most dangerous conspiracy in wartime Europe. [30] Code Name: Zegota: Rescuing Jews in Occupied Poland, 1942-1945: The Most Dangerous Conspiracy in Wartime Europe Should we append - "the most dangerous organization"? I think we should.GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that is a WP:RS - it is also hard ascertain what "most dangerous conspiracy" means.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Icewhiz, how about instead of poo-pooing all the sources that say otherwise, you come up with the source that says "Zegota wasn't unique" or something like that. Otherwise, all we got here is your own personal original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all - we still have false information in the article - rising to WP:HOAX - that "Poland was the only country..." - based on no reliable source saying that specifically (and I'll note, all the sources provided above are Poland-specific (by non-specialists) - and not by scholars addressing the Holocaust rescue efforts as a whole). As for a source, sure - here's a journal article by an established scholar in the field - Browning, Christopher R. "From Humanitarian Relief to Holocaust Rescue: Tracy Strong Jr., Vichy Internment Camps, and the Maison des Roches in Le Chambon." Holocaust and Genocide Studies 30.2 (2016): 211-246. Group rescue, the third form, was carried out by organizations such as Żegota in Poland or Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee in southern France. These organizations were created explicitly for the purpose of helping Jews and other victims of Nazism. - equating Varian Fry#Emergency Rescue Committee with Żegota. QED.Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. But pause….Varian Fry’s network had a group of volunteers smuggling people across the border to Spain. Fry himself would dodge the processes by French authorities who would not issue exit visas out of Vichy France… and wait... Fry was forced to leave France in September 1941 after the Vichy French government, and US State Department had become angered by his activities[31],and on top of that Marseille was located in Vichy France, and Vichy France was not German-occupied Europe… That’s entirely different than Żegota I’m afraid. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Museum dedicated entirely to the history of Polish Jews (POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews) in Warsaw also tells us that Żegota was the only institution in all of occupied Europe officially established and supported by a government with the aim of saving Jews.[32] And they affirm that twice, here also [33] “only state-sponsored organization in occupied Europe which was set up with the aim of saving Jews”. Wow… it was something remarkable indeed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

False memory politics dismissed by scholars. However, this political myth making does mean we have to contend with WP:FRINGE material.Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"The work has been prepared at author’s own expense” scroll to the bottom and by the way who is Janicka Elżbieta again? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind..I found her - Elżbieta Janicka (born in 1970) - Polish photographer, PhD in humanities[34]. Icewhiz, are these your sources? Seriously? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all the source is 2 peer reviewed journals. Second - you got the wrong Elżbieta Janicka. She's Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (ISS PAS). After an M.A. from the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot, she received her PhD from Warsaw University. Her research interests concern the cultural patterns, narratives, and phantasms legitimizing violence and exclusion.[35]. Sometimes there are a few individuals with the same name - do take care when jumping to conclusions.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, this is the same Janicka, the same person. Look at Bibliography here [36] from Polish Wiki and compare it with what you wrote and your link [37] you can also go to "Linki zewnetrzne" at the bottom here [38] and compare this [39] with your information about that person. Ice you are pointing to the individual, and you don't even know who she actually is. Really? Oh well, you don’t read Polish I assume. But seriously, is she your source for real? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not rely on the Polish Wikipedia as a source, as it is not (what is there may or may not be correct). I do see her publishing in East European Jewish Affairs - which is a long running and respected peer reviewed journal. I see she's described as a historian of literature at the Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences (ISS PAS) with a PhD from Warsaw. So - PhD, academic position in the field, and the publication itself in a well-regarded journal. Does she do photography also? Maybe. It doesn't really matter - as she is credentialed in the field, specializing in a relevant sub-field, and publishing a very relevant journal. This is about as iron clad a WP:RS as you can get.Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There exists a difference between studying history of Poland and history of Polish literature. in the field - which field?

If someone robbed the Home Army, he should be named.

According to Janicka a Jew is a Polish citizen and should be helped but if a Jewish citizens helps, it's a special help. The only way of selecting Jews is a Nazi one. So Nazi narration is still valid.Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope that Janicka will some day describe the cultural patterns, narratives, and phantasms legitimizing violence and exclusion of Polish people from the anti-Nazi alliance.

It's the same Janicka who speculated about homosexuality of Szare Szeregi heroes, even if there existed no accounts.

Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Janicka doesn't say there existed any similar organizations. She criticizes alleged fianancial crimes. Generally people steal, both Poles and Jews, especilaly in the underground. She finds strange that Jews helped Jews. Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A few notes:

1. If it was the only such organization in Europe per RS then we should mention it. But it's not clear that it was.
2. And in defining that we should be wary of an overwhelming exception. I recall the editor behind this change already doing so, citing one obscure Polish writer who "some think is a monk", as "one of the most important Polish-Canadian historians writing on this subject" (how many are there..?).
3. And of course, this shouldn't be presented in a way that overly-glorifies Polish efforts. Zegota was a small, under-funded organization, constrained by hostile politics and an anti-Semitic environment. Its activity is a badge of honor for its operatives, and no one else.
4. And with all due respect, we're not in the business of handing out citations to governments; but if we were, it would probably go to Denmark, not Poland.
5. This looks like another point-to-point game by a certain editor: I open an RfC on funding, so they insert an (undue) statement on uniqueness (and by the same source they rejected on the RfC). This tit-for-tat is immature, fallacious, and harmful for Wikipedia.

François Robere (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

You guys are losing it

Hey, Icewhiz-Francois Robere tag team (man! look at that time between edits, you guys are so quick! You have a mental link or something?) you're losing it. You're mixing up your blind reverts [40] [41]. This text isn't about Zegota's funding. It's about its uniqueness. There's no RfC regarding that question. Your edit summaries don't make sense. You're not even bothering to read the edit you're reverting!

See WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TEND, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:GAME. Freakin' a, if you're gonna start an edit war at least put some effort in making your reverting look semi-legit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)