Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former good article nomineeRescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024

[edit]

In the Bibliography, please remove the errant ref tag after the listing for Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (2005) 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV template

[edit]

This article has been the subject of a Peer-reviewed article which identifies many problems of bias, which I feel still remain. It particularly understates the degree of Catholic Polish people's collaboration with the nazis in the extermination of their Jewish countrymen. A complete rewrite with more focus on this aspect is necessary. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Co-founder in 2003 of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, in Warsaw, Poland, Grabowski is best known for his book Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland (2013), which won the Yad Vashem International Book Prize."
Though the author of this article represents a particular view in academia that merits acknowledging, it seems difficult to diesntangle his own career accomplishments and interests from a baseline neutral historical perspective. 12.52.139.133 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, in both the linked article (which, to me, reads more as polemic rather than systematic review as claimed) as well as other publications, Grabowski has betrayed a certain personal investment in how his scholarship is represented on Wikipedia. My understanding is that he is currently appraised to be a well respected but nonetheless controversial historian in his field of study. It would seem convenient for him to be able to frame his critics as well as Wikipedia editors exclusively as disgruntled Polish nationalists. 12.52.139.133 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which, to me, reads more as polemic rather than systematic review as claimed

Frankly, this is not for us to say in mainspace purely on the basis of our own estimations. If other reliable sources have criticized it as such, we may instead note that, in proportion to the relative prominence of those sources.

Grabowski has betrayed a certain personal investment in how his scholarship is represented on Wikipedia

This is, once again, entirely irrelevant to the question of whether and how to present a scholar's work on Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia policy that says a scholar's investment in his own representation on Wikipedia is anything we should take an inherent interest in, whether for better or worse, and certainly no policy saying this is a reason to minimize the amount of ink we expend expressing the views of this scholar.

My understanding is that he is currently appraised to be a well respected but nonetheless controversial historian in his field of study.

Solely going off your source, he is appraised to be politically controversial—a direct quote from the third sentence of that very review. This is not the same as being controversial in his field, which is history. While the review yourself cites some examples of historians—almost exclusively Polish, mind you—who have taken exception to his work, the review itself is generally quite positive about his work, noting that what few errors the work may have are doubtless marginal, and However, the thrust [of Grabowski's critics] here is political, because it is more about discrediting some overall statements and conclusions through criticism of details. This is a popular defamatory discourse strategy along the lines of: ‘If footnote 1376 is incorrect, everything else must be wrong as well’. Bringing attention to a few minor corrections, he is hasty to note that all of this is more of a nuisance than a reason to doubt the key findings of this impressive work. To the extent this review disagrees with the main thrust of the book at all, it isn't to minimize the Polish contribution to the genocide at all, but rather to emphasize the sheer banality of Polish collaborationism: Of course, genocide on this unprecedented scale would not have been possible without the participation of the occupied and the collaborating nations. It is certainly necessary that this be said for the political education of responsible European citizens. However, the basic requirements – the perpetrators and their actions – must not be pushed into the background. In all of this, the overwhelming German responsibility must be clearly stated. Somehow, I doubt this is a view that you wish this page emphasized. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusquedandelion Fair analysis. Just a side note, since this is undue here, but it would be good if our biography of him cited this and reflected this. Perhaps you could stop by that page? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop by when I find the time. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incoherent argument that would have us disregard the views of all historians, including those already cited in this article, because all historians build their careers on writing about, well, history. Or perhaps you are emphasizing specifically the fact that he won awards for doing history, which would lead us to the even more absurd conclusion that we should include historians as sources, but only if they don't do history too well—so well that they win prizes.
Here I must note that in modern history and historiography, the idea of a "neutral baseline" is generally discarded as not useful. All historians and histories are biased. Importantly, bias is not a synonym for false. It isn't enough to point that out; it says nothing useful.
Now Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not a historian, nor a part of the community of historians, nor is it the job of Wikipedians to act as historians. Wikipedia takes a different view re: WP:BIAS in that we actually do try to avoid bias, however successful or unsuccessful anyone may judge us to be in that regard. The key here is in how we define and avoid bias. Simply: ee recognize that bias exists in the real world, but rather than trying to avoid biased sources ourselves as a matter of principle, instead, in writing articles, aim to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources, as noted by WP:DUE. In other words, we don't exclude biased sources, but rather try and include all reliable sources in proportion to their prominence, not bias.
Thus, in fact, the writings of a historian decorated for their work in history, which has been widely discussed by historians, should receive greater, not lesser coverage on Wikipedia compared to a more obscure work of history, even if, in your estimation, the latter were less biased.
Now your own comment acknowledges that the author of this article represents a particular view in academia that merits acknowledging, which makes one question why you bothered to write the rest of the comment at all, since none of it is even relevant here per Wikipedia policy. It seems like a textbook case of casting WP:ASPERSIONS, except with regards to a reliable source rather than other editors. If your intention was merely to idely muse about this subject, remember, talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By counterexample, it would be equally inappropriate to render undue focus on Polish rescue of Jews in the article "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland." For this reason as well, the existence of Grabowski's publication does not merit a complete rewrite as opposed to simpy ammending the article with occasional counterexamples when appropriate and perhaps a link to the equivalent Collaborationist article in the "See Also" section. 12.52.139.133 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to that article (Collaboration in German-occupied Poland). It is quite possible this article here needs some c/e to ensure it is not too apologetic or hagiographic, but we need to discuss specifics, not generalities (particularly coming from a rather problematic essay. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how writing Wikipedia articles work. By and large, they should be self-contained entities, and it is not the case that one article is "allowed" to be biased simply because another article is biased in "the other direction". Each and every Wikipedia article, taken alone, must strive to fairly represent the views of all reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of those views in those sources, and the relative promimence of those sources. While articles should remain focused on their subject, it is inconceivable that you could rationally argue that Polish collaborationism with Nazi Germany and the rescuing of Jews by Poles in Nazi Germany are completely unrelated subjects. Both articles must necessarily speak about both subjects, obviously stressing one, but never failing to ignore the other, and in particular, not ignoring the general historiographical discussion about the relative importance of each. Otherwise, exactly in which article do you propose this discussion be included? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brusquedandelion Well said, but of course, what is WP:DUE or not is in the eye of the beholder... This reminds of some old discussions (quite heated, to say the least) related to our articles on various Jewish ghettos and whether they should mention information on the rescue; the point of contention was that USHMM Encyclopedia of Ghettos generally does mention this topic (rescue of ghetto inmates or other efforts to aid them by gentiles) at all. Our articles, on the other hand, tend to discuss this topic at some length... Personally, I believe this makes our articles better as more comprehensive (WP:NOTPAPER), but not everyone agreed (and presumably, agrees). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide concrete parts of the article that have problems with POV. Also take into the account that this is article about rescue not collaboration, which is only a context for the former. At this moment I'm removing the template, which shouldn't be misused. Marcelus (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been restored, the details of criticisms of the article are found in the article linked above.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what @Marcelus wrote above. Your current rationale is too generic, that one article was critical of this is not sufficient - we need specifics, and we need a consensus that they are due. Have you linked the extensive critical analysis of the paper you mentioned that I linked, or any of the two others substantial critiques of it - all should be linked through PubPeer. PS. To be clear, I do agree this article needs improvement, but it is not Featured or Good, it is just a mediocre draft that needs much work (expansion, better sourcing, and quite possibly some minor fixes for neutrality here or there). But there is no need to drop an copyediting template on it - it is sufficient that it as assessed as B-class here (if you would like to downgrade this to C-class, I would not object). Lastly, for any parts in the body you think are not neutral, rather the not-very-helpful top level NPOV template, I encourage you to use {{npov-inline}}, or just rewrite them.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, most of the things talked about in the paper have already been addressed, it would seem, but I agree the article should be assessed at C-class presently. Andre🚐 23:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre I am pretty sure there are some more errors, weak sources, biases, omissions, etc. in this article. It's B/C class, after all. Someone needs to improve it - and these days I am not very motivated to work on this topic area (if it's less "toxic" than in the past, it's simply because nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot long pole... at least that's my impression). I'll update the ranking of this to C. I see you've done it, tnx. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of this topic from French Wikipedia

[edit]

Kind of sad, not much to be done about this, I am afraid. See fr:Discussion:Sauvetage de Juifs par des Polonais pendant la Shoah/Admissibilité, and even interlanguage links are now censored: [1]. Not much to be done here, except to record this folly for posterity. PS. French Wikipedians involved in the censorship believe the article here has been hijacked by "Polish far right editors", apparently... it would be laughable if it wasn't causing real damage to encyclopedic content. A good illustration of how small group of editors can cause damage, particularly in smaller projects, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024

[edit]

Please kindly update the below:

By January 2022, 7,232 people in Poland have been recognized by the State of Israel as Righteous among the Nations.

to:

By January 2023, 7,280 people in Poland have been recognized by the State of Israel as Righteous among the Nations.

The source provided at the end of that sentence as it appears in the article supports both the new date and the new number of people.
Thank you in advance. —79.163.189.91 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]