Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Gnome (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 12 August 2018 (→RfC on Żegota funding). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jewish history C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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).., footnote: . 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 - - 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 Misplaced Pages: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 (; 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 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 (), 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 Misplaced Pages - 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, political history, and being an extreme proponent in the far-right press of " lack of Jewish gratitude". 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)

Misplaced Pages: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

1. Gunnar S. Paulsson, "The Rescue of Jews by Non-Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland,” published in The Journal of Holocaust Education, volume 7, nos. 1 & 2 (summer/autumn 1998): pp.19–44. Reprinted in: "Collective Rescue Efforts of the Poles," p. 256. Quoted in: "Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy. The Testimony of Survivors," at the Wayback Machine (archived February 6, 2008) with selected bibliography; the Polish Educational Foundation in North America, Toronto 2007.

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

1. Gunnar S. Paulsson, {{cite web |url=http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf |title=“The Rescue of Jews by Non-Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland,” |accessdate=2007-07-01 |deadurl=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080110231526/http://www.savingjews.org/docs/clergy_rescue.pdf |archivedate=January 10, 2008 |df= }} published in The Journal of Holocaust Education, volume 7, nos. 1 & 2 (summer/autumn 1998): pp.19–44. Reprinted in “Collective Rescue Efforts of the Poles,” p. 256

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 Misplaced Pages 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 .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 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:

As for Bartoszewski - do you know for a fact that that particular statement was retracted, or are you guessing ? 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:

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 ().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 " is a reliable source, I would think its article on "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)

Exactly. An RS says the organization received more funds from Jewish organizations etc., so why are you bothered with a "potential contradiction" you can't prove without making your own calculations? François Robere (talk) 14:55, 25 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 ; instead you blocked the change as "undue" and "cherry picked" , 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: , 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, 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, and below which it 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 Misplaced Pages should be neutral and somber in the presentation of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:19, 12 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 , 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)

• Misplaced Pages 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 (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??? Icewhiz you did not like Mundek story you said "not a RS memoir of a son." and reverted. And this source 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

1. Winstone, Martin (2014). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi rule in Poland under the General Government. London: Tauris. pp. 181–182. ISBN 978-1-78076-477-1.
2. Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews. Holocaust: critical concepts in historical studies. Vol. 5. book chapter by Antony Polonsky, edited by David Cesarani & Sarah Kavanaugh. London ; New York: Routledge. 2004. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-415-27509-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
3. Contested memories: Poles and Jews during the Holocaust and its aftermath. Joshua D. Zimmerman (ed.), chapter by Shmuel Krakowski. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2003. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-8135-3158-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
4. Kermish, Joseph. "The Activities of the Council for Aid to Jews ("Żegota") In Occupied Poland". www.yadvashem.org. Retrieved 2018-06-20.
5. Saving One's Own: Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust, Mordecai Paldiel, page 33
6. [Janicka, Elżbieta. "The Square of Polish Innocence: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw and its symbolic topography." East European Jewish Affairs 45.2-3 (2015): 200-214., quote: 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}}
7. Janicka, Elżbieta. "The embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relations." Studia Litteraria et Historica 5 (2016).
8. American Jewry and the Holocaust: The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee 1939-1945, Yehuda Bauer
9. Hiding in the Open: A Young Fugitive in Nazi-occupied Poland, page 75

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 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 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 - 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. 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,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. And they affirm that twice, here also “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. 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.. 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 from Polish Wiki and compare it with what you wrote and your link you can also go to "Linki zewnetrzne" at the bottom here and compare this 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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

And this. François Robere (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"If it was the only such organization in Europe per RS then we should mention it. But it's not clear that it was." <-- um, no, actually "per RS" it was. So why are you trying to remove it? I have no idea what you're going on about in the rest of your points.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not my problem. As for sources - as I said, the discussion isn't over. This was hardly the only organization of its kind in Europe, and saying it was "government-sponsored" is barely legitimate considering their position in the underground establishment. François Robere (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

For balance, I've added the information on the significant skimming of funds to the government - certainly as the only government in exile sponsored (I'm not entirely sure that "established" here is correct) organization - such government-in-exile connection being the unique attribute of this aid organization - it is quite relevant to note the use the government of exile made of funds that were intended to be transferred to Żegota.Icewhiz (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this info, this is why - 1-Janicka used as a source is not a historian, she is a artist. 2-No consensus has been reached to include financial situation in the article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Janicka, Elżbieta. "The Square of Polish Innocence: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw and its symbolic topography." East European Jewish Affairs 45.2-3 (2015): 200-214., quote: 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
2. Janicka, Elżbieta. "The embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relations." Studia Litteraria et Historica 5 (2016).

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 . 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)

I mean this edit summary in particular is straight up evidence that Icewhiz did not even bother to read what he was reverting. The text has nothing to do with funding yet he goes on and on in the ES about funding! Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The text has been disputed, per BRD, please discuss. We have an open RfC on a closely related issue here regarding funding (and "government supported" is related to funding). Entering puffery in Polish exceptionalism in the lede is UNDUE, as well as having factual issues (due to the relatively small government role in Zegota, and the skimming of funds (which might be exceptional as well). This article is about Żegota, not about "Poland was the only X" (I will also note that Sendler in her lifetime was quite opposed to this newfound government use of her personal efforts).Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary has nothing to do with the text you're reverting!!!!!!!!! You didn't even look at what you reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm the author of that entry and one who referenced this information to the RS. The “established and supported” by government means organized/formed and backed with its large secret arrangements in occupied Poland. I attempted to inform readers about the uniqueness of the organization. Please refer to the sources that were attached to the removed text (sources are now also removed); there is nothing that pertains to funding or money.

• 1- Pogonowski, Iwo (1997-09-01). Jews in Poland: A Documentary History. Hippocrene Books. ISBN 9780781806046.
• 2 - Winstone, Martin (2014-10-30). Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland under the General Government. I.B.Tauris. p. 181. ISBN 9780857735003. Żegota was the only organization of its kind in Europe
• 3- Bartrop, Paul R.; Dickerman, Michael (2017-09-15). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection . ABC-CLIO. p. 737. ISBN 9781440840845. 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.
• 4 - "The History of "Żegota" | Polscy Sprawiedliwi". sprawiedliwi.org.pl (POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews). 2018. Retrieved 2018-06-22. By the spring of 1943, the Council had branches in Kraków, Lwów, and the Lublin area. In all of occupied Europe, it was the only institution officially established and supported by a government, with the aim of saving Jews.

Volunteer Marek is correct. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The exhibit at POLIN is not a RS, and has been strongly criticized in a couple of journal articles (Janicka) as a gross historical misrepresentation of history for politics. The other 3 do not support the sentence as they have qualifiers missing. And finally - even if we were to have a RS, it would still be UNDUE as this is not the "only in Poland" article, but an article about Żegota.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the actual content issues here, what's really troubling is your behavior - blindly reverting an edit you didn't even bother to read and writing an edit summary which is about a completely different issue! Can you at least acknowledge your, um, "mistake", and self-revert? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I made no mistake. I was referring to "government supported" when the flow of funds was in reverse per a rather strong RS. I do suggest you start discussing content and not tue contributor, as well as discuss instead of attempting to push this newly iNtroduced content to the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I made no mistake - I agree, it probably wasn't a mistake (except for not hiding the obvious blind reverting). As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum! "No consensus for this counter factual lede sentence introdcuced aftermthe RfC was opened. " <--- Lemme highlight the relevant part "aftermthe RfC was opened". What RfC??? There's no RfC on this text. YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING. And your attempts to blatantly, um, present a false picture of your actions, right here and now, just makes your behavior worse! You're showing that you have no intention of acting in accordance with policy or acting in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Żegota#RfC on Żegota funding. government-established and -supported - government supported is close synonymous with funded. As long as we have the RfC open - can be stop attempting to push government support related content to the article (all the more so the lede)? Nothing blind here. This poorly crafted addition to the lede has been challenged. The correct thing to do is to discuss - not attempt to edit-war this in during a RfC. There is clearly no consensus for these lede sentence in this form, and WP:ONUS is on you. Please, also address content, and not the contributor. Now - will you self revert? Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note reg. the above comment - This RfC is about Żegota funding/underfunding only (financing/under-financing). This is clear to all the participants of the RfC with not a single mention of the uniqueness of Żegota issue. (please refer to actual RfC to confirm) Icewhiz is incorrect. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify:

• Polin is a museum - POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw dedicated to the history of Polish Jews.
• Elżbieta Janicka (born in 1970) is a Polish photographer with a Ph.D. in humanities GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not undersell Janicka, 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 (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.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - in the original conversation from June 22 regarding Elżbieta Janicka Icewhiz didn't know who she actually is (you got the wrong Elżbieta Janicka Icewhiz wrote). I had to tell Icewhiz that this is the same Janicka, a photographer with a Ph.D. in humanities he is referring to Eventually she ended up being described as “a woman of many talents”.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I indeed fail to notice she was also a photographer - as I did not really look at the Polish Misplaced Pages. However, this does not detract from her position as a historian published in peer reviewed journals. Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

She is primarily a photographer and an essayists. Marek Volunteer Marek please take a listen what she is saying helself. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Funny, cuz right up above you’re swearing up and down that's she's not a photographer. I guess now she is. Anyway, she's not a historian. And this is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: No, I did not swear up and down. I did say once I thought GCB had the wrong link. As for her credentials, this is an actual RS: 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 (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.Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History - I do suggest you strike your repeated BLP violations - as she clearly is a historian.Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol, ok, a "historian of literature". Was her PhD in "history of literature"? This is a promo blurb. Come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Your comment is indicative of occupational stress, which you may wish to resolve by taking some time off. François Robere (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making passive-aggressive personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Volunteer Marek,

Quick question: on a scale of one to ten, how would you rate any of the following in terms of civility?

• 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.
• 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?
• And once again you're borderline violating BLP by trying to smear a prominent historian... Rather what you're trying to do is to remove ANY mention of prominent AK members who have been recognized by Yad Vashem:
• As for your clumsy attempt at an explanation ... bunkum!... YOU. DIDN'T. READ. WHAT. YOU. WERE. REVERTING.
• Please, come up with better excuses for reverts.
• And of course many, many fallacious accusations of "POV pushing", "cherry picking", misleading editors and the like.

What do you think? A seven? An eight? François Robere (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

All of these address content or explicit edits made to this article/talk page. Your phony "you sure you ok?" and "indicative of occupational stress" are comments on me personally and my emotional well being (which is fine, thank you very much). Hell, these could even be construed as threats ("nice house you got here. shame something happened to it"). So I'm going to ask you one final time. Stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. All of your comments address editors' intent - the definition of aspersions. You habitually ascribe bad faith to others, and you've been doing it for as long as I can tell. Please, take this to ANE. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's false. But hey, I've asked you to stop it with the personal attacks, at this point, that's all I can do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Completely false. François Robere (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you articulate the relevance of your link? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Uniqueness

Text under dispute: "Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe where, during the war, there existed such a dedicated secret structure"

• "Zegota was the only organization of its kind in Europe" - . Pretty unequivocal on the uniqueness.
• "In all of occupied Europe, it was the only institution officially established and supported by a government, with the aim of saving Jews." - . Pretty unequivocal on the uniqueness. It elaborates one of the aspects that made it unique.
• 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." - . Pretty unequivocal.

My understanding is that the "dedicated secret structure" part was added to appease some editors. But if need be, we can just change it to something like:

"Poland was the only country in German occupied Europe where such a unique institution, with a dedicated aim of saving Jews and which was run jointly by Jews and non-Jews, existed"

Can't argue that that's not based on sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The text above - with the qualification of (run jointly by Jews and non-Jews) does indeed pass WP:V (which is a step forward). However, V is not sufficient for introducing this to the lede in this form, particularly when cross-European sources - e.g. sources dealing with rescue efforts at large, have the following to say:

• 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.

I would suggest text along the lines of:

Other dedicated organizations such as Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee existed elsewhere in Europe, however Żegota was unique due to the Jewish and :non-Jewish collaboration in an organization operating under the auspices of a government in exile.

Thoguhts?Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's classic WP:SYNTH. And this is an article about Zegota, not Varian Fry, so a short sentence on its uniqueness, without any original research tacked on is sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And here is more:

• "Poland was the only state among occupied countries that established an organization whose specific purpose was to rescue Jews" - . Pretty unequivocal.
• "Zegota, the only group in Nazi occupied Europe dedicated specifically to saving Jews"-
• "the story of the only secret organization in occupied Europe set up for the sole purpose of saving Jews." -
• "A small, unique organization" -
• ". "Zegota", the Council for Assistance for Jews, a Polish organization, unique in Europe, affiliating people from various social strata, played a special role in helping Jews." -

Now, can we have some sources which say it wasn't unique, rather than original research and WP:IJDLI? Otherwise, let's drop this ridiculous topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Another two -

1. "Within Nazi-occupied territories, children's aid organizations such as the Œuvre de secours aux enfants in France and the Żegota, an auxilary branch of the Polish underground resistance, proved particularly successful in removing young children from concentration and internment camps and concealing them from Nazi authorities in a series of safe houses and children's homes." Children during the Holocaust, page 324, Patricia Heberer, AltaMira Press.
2. "These include Żegota (in Poland), the Naamloze Vennootschap (NV) and the Piet Meerburg Group (in the Netherlands), and the Oeuvre de Secours aux Enfants (OSE) and the Garel network (in France). These organizations helped to hide ...". Plight and Fate of Children During and Following Genocide, Samuel Totten, Routledge.

If you want to stress uniqueness, we should also mention similar organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there were other organizations which rescued Jews. That's not what made Zegota unique. What's your point? Again, this is WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine - add a punctuation point and remove the "however". If you want to discuss uniqueness - an appropriate source would be a source discussing rescue organizations across Europe as opposed to a source focused on Żegota only or Poland only.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about "rescue organizations across Europe". It's an article on Zegota. And multiple reliable sources call it unique.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

unique, in relation to other rescue efforts or lack thereof. If you want to discuss uniqueness, you opened the door. And many sources who discuss Zegota do so in conjunction with other rescue efforts - mentioning them in this article is relevant (either in see also, or in text) and will convery better which aspect of Zegota were unique.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a big HOWEVER. Poles helped Jews also outside Poland - together with Sugihara in Lithuania and Japan/China, in Hungary and producing false documents in Switzerland. Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a footnote in which we can say something like 'While majority of sources call Zegota unique, several scholars drew comparisons to smaller and lesser known organizations like Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee, Œuvre de secours aux enfants, Naamloze Vennootschap (NV) and the Piet Meerburg Group (in the Netherlands) and the Garel network (in France). What made Zegota unique was... ' TBH, I am not exactly sure what made it unqique - size? But the point is many sources call it unique. Remember, WP:NOTTRUTH... we report what the majority of sources say, with occasional footnotes and clarifications. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

They are most definitely not lesser known in the wider Holocaust literature. Żegota, incidentally, was actually relatively unknown - until the mid-2000s (see Michlic, Joanna B. "'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." Yad Vashem Studies 39.2 (2011): 169. on the Polish campaign circa 2007, and on evolution of this into apologetic discourse - "The Righteous Defense in all its variations allows for the gradual shift of Jewish victims to the periphery of the historical account and their systematic replacement with noble Gentiles. The first step in the process of de-Judaizing the Holocaust places the Righteous Poles at the center of each and every account. No occasion can be missed to invoke the brave rescuers; to introduce the underground Żegota rescue group, “the only organization created specifically to help the Jews in occupied Europe;” to highlight Jan Karski, “who tried to warn the world” about the ongoing extermination; or to make a reference to Irena Sendler, who saved Jewish children. The results have been, at least initially, very awkward. The Holocaust becomes a theater that provides a stage upon which Righteous Gentiles can perform noble deeds on the largely undefined and obscure crowd of anonymous Jews in need. Over time, however, and repeated often enough, the “national claim” over the Holocaust starts to sound more and more plausible. Given the near monopoly of Polish state institutions in representing the country's history abroad, achieving the expected results is only a question of time." Most of the sources point out the uniqueness of Żegota (and yes - there were some unique aspects) - tend to be Poland specific (this can also be a non-Polish writer), and they mainly echo this claim without actually checking it. The relevant literature for stating uniqueness is literature that covers a number of countries and actually makes comparisons.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"They are most definitely not lesser known in the wider Holocaust literature. Żegota, incidentally, was actually relatively unknown - until the mid-2000s" - this is your own personal opinion and nothing more. Michlic's work appears to be about something else. I have no idea what the relevance of Grabowski is here (and we've already discussed the problematic nature of this author's work). Likewise, it's strange to attack sources which discuss a Polish organization for being "Polish specific".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski is an award winning scholar accepted in mainstream academia - criticism coming from very particular quarters. A source that only examines a single country (Poland, France, Latvia - whatever) is much less qualified (and probably cites someone else making the claim) to make a cross-country comparison than a source that has actually examined rescue in a number of countries.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Swiss organization was known but the Polish participation in it wasn't. Slawik's organisation - any letter about it? How many Dutch and French citizens died participating in the mentioned organizations?

The Polish state was cancelled about 1944 and replaced by Communists. Who exactly informed about the Żegota, when AK officers were tortured and killed? Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: It think it's important to stress the discussion on "uniqueness" isn't about Żegota or any of its operatives, most of whom I doubt would have wanted this kind of attention anyway. This discussion is about Poland's reputation. The phrase "the only government-supported rescue organization" places the emphasis not on the organization itself (whose uniqueness or non-uniqueness in Europe is of very little importance), but on the fact that it was "government-supported". Being "unique" in this sense is supposed to reflect on the Polish nation more than on the organization itself, which if funded by the Chinese would've changed very little for its operations. More than anything else, this proposed addition is a hijacking of this remarkable organization for the sake of national ethos. François Robere (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Żegota's sponsorship by the Polish Government-in-Exile would seem to reflect on the moral stance of the legitimate representative body of the Polish people, at a time when the other Western Allies of World War II disregarded the Polish Government's pleas to do something to stop the German carnage of Jews, Poles, and other nationalities. Nihil novi (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And it does, but not necessarily positively. The "funding" discussion above shows the difference between principle and practice - or more specifically the gap between the statements of the government in London, and the resources allocated by its representatives in Poland. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please provide documentary evidence of the various funding allegations. Nihil novi (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources quoted in the RfC..? François Robere (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The allegations are potentially so serious that we need specifics. What specific information would you add? (Not just authors' generalizations, but specifics.)

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's relevant here now that we have the RfC, but Krakowski states that Żegota received no more than $250,000 out of the $35m + DM25m that were available to organizations subject to the Delegatura. François Robere (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Refutation of the note: I think the problem is not Żegota, but the rejection of Polish culture as "lower". Dutch - very good, French - perfect, but Polish - disgusting.

As far as I know, Poles of that time were very "nationalistic", so please prove that Żegota workers were exclusively cosmopolitan. Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Righteous Defense in all its variations allows for the gradual shift of Jewish victims to the periphery of the historical account and their systematic replacement with noble Gentiles."

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches maintain cults of saints. Even some lay ethics accept the idea of sacrifice for other people. The Righteous are also acceptable as model personalities in Polish culture.

We should remember victims, but if they don't decide, they aren't ethical models. Any Polish family has its own group of WW II victims. It's impossible to replace family members with foreigners. Even if the number of Polish gentile victims is lower than the number of Polish Jewish victims, "our victims" are psychically closer than the Jewish ones. The idea that Polish people should reject their own culture and replace it with a cult of Jewish victims is absurd.

A number of Polish activists restore the memory of Polish Jews. Absurd criticisms formulated, e.g., by Joanna Michlic destroy dialog.

Attacks on Polish culture and politics are similar to criticisms of collaborating nations like Romania. It's moving Poland to the Axis side. The majority of Poles won't accept any such politics. Poland fought Nazi Germany 1939-1945, not only in Poland but in Western Europe, the U.K., North Africa, Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Varian Fry was an American. Please name one American who traveled to occupied Poland to help the local Jews. Fry acted in a Vichy France that was not occupied by the Germans; he contended with French people, not with the Germans. Was Vichy France "Nazi"? Fry was not risking execution by the Germans. "fight on two fronts: against the Nazis, but also against Vichy France" (The Guardian). Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Zofia Kossak-Szczucka#"Protest"

Polish authors connect Zofia Kossak-Szczucka's "Protest" with Żegota. Why is this being ignored here? Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Żegotaphobic escalation

I detect an ongoing escalation in our Siamese twins' deprecation of Żegota and its good works.

First, according to the twins, Żegota did not do all that much for Poland's Jews who were being persecuted and murdered by the Germans. Then Żegota ceased to be "unique", when compared with the good offices of American journalist Varian Fry in southern, non-German-occupied Vichy France, where Fry could go about his good deeds without fear of being assassinated by the Germans.

Then first, according to our twins, Żegota was not sponsored by the Polish Government-in-Exile in London. Then Żegota did receive some funds from the Polish Government-in-Exile. Then Żegota received less funding from the Polish Government-in-Exile than from "Jewish organizations". Then the Polish Government-in-Exile stole most of the funds that it received from the Jewish organizations to help Żegota. Then, we learn from Yad Vashem, from July 1943 Jewish organizations (the Jewish National Committee and the Bund) "began to receive relief funds sent directly from abroad."

I would like to see a precise accounting (not just a broad general characterization by a "Holocaust scholar", published in a "peer-reviewed journal" or in a book issued by a publisher of "reliable-source" studies) of Żegota's material support, over its lifetime, by the Polish Government-in-Exile, by "Jewish organizations", and by internal Polish resources within German-occupied Poland.

Of course Żegota was not adequately financed. What Polish agency was, or could be? And despite the Polish Government's pleas to its western Allies to do something to help Poland's Jewish-Polish and ethnic-Polish populations, which were being brutalized and murdered by the Germans – if only by Allied bombing of the rail lines leading to the German death camps – the Allies chose first to disbelieve the information provided by the Poles, then to totally sidetrack the matter, expecting it to be resolved by eventual Allied victory in the war.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The twins? Is that an editor or a source? Note there were Jewish rescue organizations other than Fry's - there were a few in France, including one in occupied Paris (and Vichy became fully occupied in 42), Belgium,the Netherlands, Slovakia, and probably a few more countries I do not remember off the top of my head. Certainly Żegota was exceptional, and its operatives outstanding - all the more so due to the widespread complicity (leading to 200,000 deaths per some estimates) as well as, per Janicka, the pilfering of Jewish funds to Żegota by the Polish underground. These difficult circumstances only accentuate Żegota's accomplishments, and we should highlight the adverse environment. Misrepresenting Żegota's difficult operational environment only diminshes what they accomplished.Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, shame on you regarding your 200,000 myth. According to Rzeczpospolita paper 40,000 . Please don't discuss mathematics because you don't understnd it.Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Any organisation pilfers, eg. Mr. Netanyahu is accused of accepting bribes, why only the Żegota is bashed? Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't you really understand, that you are the one of the twins (Siamese is politically incorrect, it's Conjoined twins). Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The UK government robbed the Polish one. The Polish politicians should have collected scrap metal and this way finance the Żegota? Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Overhauling the article.

I'm doing a major revision of the article that's mostly copyedit and disambiguation tags; other changes that are worth explaining here follow. I had to alternate between the "visual editor" and the source view; hopefully the switches didn't introduce any errors.

• Removal of the "meritorious individuals". Why? Because it doesn't really relate to anything else in the article. My first choice was to spread it as a list it its own section:

Spread like this, it becomes pretty clear that most of these people are anonymous as far as the reader is concerned. What does mentioning people the reader doesn't know and can't read about (as they don't have an article here) contribute to the article? Usually in these lists ("former members", "alumni" etc.) we mention people who in and of themselves are of interest to the reader (or to some reader); here we simply don't provide enough information on most of them to make them of interest to the reader. There is one benefit to this list, however, which is showing the range of people who volunteered for Żegota, but for that we don't need the actual list. François Robere (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• The statement It is estimated that about half of the Jews who survived the Holocaust in occupied Poland were aided in some shape or form by Żegota is taken from p. 118 of Piotrwoski, from a paragraph about the varying estimates of the number of survivors. This isn't a statement of fact by Piotrowski like it's presented here. François Robere (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• The statements The systematic killing of Jews began to take place, so it was hard to save Jews already in the ghetto. That is why they only protected Jews located in hiding in Poland is poorly-phrased, mis-cited (Piotrowski, p. 118), and contradicts the statement about Zegota helping prisoners in forced labor camps. François Robere (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• The statement ...for every Pole (the head of the household and his or her entire family) living in a house where Jews were discovered. is poorly-worded and poorly-cited. François Robere (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• The reference to the Committee of Democratic and Socialist Physicians misrepresents the source: the committee and Żegota were two different organizations. François Robere (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Bartoszewski's estimate on the number of Poles who helped Jews isn't Żegota-specific as far as I can tell from the text. François Robere (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the list of individuals - some of them are notable, and are relevant. I am not sure if all of them should be listed here, I think we should discuss them one by one; those who are not notable for stand-alone article may also not be worth mentioning here.

I've restored the estimate of Z's effectiveness sourced to Piotrowski and moved it to the lead, it seems reliable and very relevant. As far as other sentences mentioned here, I agree that either the sources where poor, or the content was not that relevant here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The first is acceptable. I don't mind about those who do have articles already. The second - well, I'll add a bit more from the source. François Robere (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding:

• This: We are saying that "participation in Zegota was dangerous". Both of these are important.
• This: The sources aren't neutral on this, they're opinionated. No reason we shouldn't be.
• This: First, it seems redundant to say "the Council to Aid Jews was established specifically to save Jews". Second, the "Poland was the only country" etc. is an overwhelming exception designed to glorify Poland, and doesn't belong here (Denmark was the only country that didn't need to, because they already saved almost the entirety of their Jewish population). Plus, given its neglect by the delegatura (see above on funds), and the fact that it was a tiny organization, this really isn't presented here as it should. François Robere (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• • The claims in lead do need refining, we had this discussion before and I agree that 'the only' needs tempering, nonetheless it does seem that out of those organizations Zegota was the biggest/most famous, and quite a few reliable sources seem to generalize it as 'the only one' (or at least, the only one that mattered). This needs to be reflected here. Regarding the danger, well, it wasn't the best comparison - because the danger can be written about. Being underfunded needs better sources, and I had trouble accessing some of the ones you used. Could you provide relevant quotes? Information on Z's budget etc. is certainly relevant, but editorializing by suggesting more funds should've been funneled is not a good idea. If a specific, reliable scholar, makes this criticism, plainly, and states that funds were mis-appropriated, or mismanaged, or such, we can look at said source/quote and discuss it. I'd be very wary of such claims, however, since who paid, for what, who made decisions, based on what info, is quite important. Any claims that would suggest that Zegota's funding was cut because of anti-semitic attitudes or such need pretty good sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Again, this is an overwhelming exception. The US was the only superpower to establish a War Refugee Board (see here). Britain was the only country that admitted a Kindertransport. Denmark was the only country that saved nearly all of its Jewish citizens. etc. etc. Narrow the field enough and you can make whatever claim you want. Plus, making those "exceptions" belittles the efforts of everyone else, including unaffiliated individuals throughout Europe; this is something we should not do. If you insist, I suggest we use "unusual" rather than unique, and explain what circumstances enter this account.
    • Regarding funding: We have four very good sources on that, one further quoting sources like Bartoszewski and Ringelblum. It doesn't get any better than that. If you want quotes, they're upstairs on the RfC that supports this. François Robere (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      • And the War Refugee Board article (which needs improvement) should mention it was the only initiative of its kind. That said, take a look at Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews, which shows why it was established (electoral year pressure following a hushed up anti-semitic scandal in the US govt). The anti-semitic attitude of the US DOS may also be relevant to our discussion here re: funding o Zegota, since presumably some funds for Zegota came from the US DOS, and the Report... talks about US DOS purposefully denying funding for rescue of Jews operations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not acquitting anyone of ignoring the Holocaust, and we can and should have as many articles and as many sections as needed to give the full picture on that. What I object is the use of "unique", which I see as both political, as well as downplaying other heroes' sacrifices. I see several options here: Using "unusual" or "remarkable", per the discussion below; using "unique", but phrasing it such that the emphasis is on the organization rather than the government (similar to the "only" statement in this revision, but correct); removing that statement altogether. On funding: still - we have the sources, we have the RfC, and we will have to put that statement back eventually. François Robere (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not to take away from the courage and integrity of the Danes, I suspect it may have been easier for them to resist the Final Solution due to their Germanic descent and western European location. The Germans were interested in Lebensraum in the east, at the expense of the non-Germanic Slavs, whom they planned to exterminate just as they were exterminating Europe's Jews. Nihil novi (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Danish sailors demanded money for transporting the Jews to Sweden. It was business as usuall praized by the Yad Vashem, there are apparently double standards. Germans didn't oppose the transport. They were able to kill any sailor and any Jew and sink or steal any Danish boat or ship, but they didn't. FR, yuou have apparently double standards, you verify any Polish story but you believe Danish legends. Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Surely it was, but they too were at risk: The Nazis could've easily crushed Denmark, deposed the king, and took away every bit of their autonomy if they pushed them too far. Which brings us back to the this: saying "they were all special, but this one was unique" takes away from others who were just as unique, and as in much danger, in addition to being factually incorrect. François Robere (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I find the statements about the unique nature of Zegota to be undue in the lead. The fact that a functioning (albeit underground) state would create a government department concerned with the well-being of its persecuted ethnic minority is not remarkable. To be sure, the circumstances that Zegota operated in were exceedingly dangerous and its operation required extraordinary bravery; it may be more appropriate to highlight this in the lead instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously remarkable becasue of the Polish Holocaust propaganda spread in the context of the IPN law. The Polish state did not design the Holocaust (like several European nations did) but helped the Jews (obviously not enough, but who did help enough? Western Jews did very little to prevent the Holocaust of Eastern Jews).Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. François Robere (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources stating that Zegota was exceptional or remarkable, all we need to make sure is to make sure we are being neutral and representing the sources. What we have is a lot of sources for unique status of Zegota. I've added a mention of other organizations, but the two French ones were clearly about helping all refugees, Zegota's seems unique for being dedicated to helping Jews only. Btw, I couldn't find much about Naamloze Vennootschap (NV) and the Piet Meerburg Group (in the Netherlands), Garel network (in France); they don't seem to have (English) Misplaced Pages articles, and they could be errors of some sorts (for example Naamloze Vennootschap seems to be simply a generic term for a Dutch corporation). Please at least stub, with reliable refs, entries on other organizations before linking them here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Remarkable? Certainly. Unusual? No doubt, and I've no problem stating it here in Wiki's voice. Unique? "Unique" is too unique a word for this use case. François Robere (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a very unique and special organization and this needs to be mentioned for completness of the article, supported by sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Made an edit as per the preceding discussion. François Robere (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: Explain? François Robere (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The information, as documented, would appear to speak for itself.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a TV manual. Please explain. François Robere (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, the Emergency Rescue Committee and the Œuvre de secours aux enfants (the Society to Rescue Children), in France, with which Żegota has been compared, were not government agencies. Nihil novi (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

But that's in your revision as well, and it's properly sourced (and the source doesn't make that distinction). François Robere (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: at the very least, the content should be moved out from the lead into the body of the article. I would suggest the section Żegota#Operations as the logical place for it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've moved that paragraph accordingly. Nihil novi (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Vaad Hatzalah

So many experts in Żegota's vices, noone helps to write Vaad Hatzalah.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

So many experts but noone to verify the USHMM collection

Large wooden crate used by Zegota, a Polish underground group, to hide false documents

Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

130,000 zlotys were sent to the Poniatowa camp, and 100,000 to the camp at Trawniki

You won't find this information in the text. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the text states that Zegota also supported work camp prisoners. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not name the camps? Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see any benefit for the reader, but if you insist on it then feel free to add it. François Robere (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Name

I think this article should be renamed to the English version of the name, Council to Aid Jews or Council to Aid Jews "Żegota". Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're right. How on earth didn't anyone think about it earlier? "Council to Aid Jews", with a redirection from "Żegota". François Robere (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"Polish Council to Aid Jews"? Nihil novi (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There wasn't one in Bavaria. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

So it was unique. Nihil novi (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that, but that's not what I said. François Robere (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: should it be "Council to Aid the Jews" (with the article)? Zimmermann uses "Committee to Aid the Jews". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Precise information about financial aid can be found in this article

Waldemar Grabowski. Rada Pomocy Żydom „Żegota” w strukturach Polskiego Państwa Podziemnego. „Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej”. nr 11 (120), listopad 2010. IPN.

It contains tables showing overal transfer to resistance in Poland, month by month analysis of aid sent to organizations saving Jews and discusses various aspects of financial help and obstacles involved with this.

It is available online here --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Finance

At 22:39, 13 July 2018, to the "Operational difficulties" section, User:MyMoloboaccount added the following information, which was deleted on 12:27, 14 July 2018:

During the war, the Polish Government-in-Exile continually increased its funding for Żegota. In May 1944 the monthly support was raised from 30,000 zloty to 338,000 zloty; by the end of the war, to 1,000,000 zloty. The Polish Government's total financial contribution was 37,400,000 zloty, 1,000,000 dollars, and 200,000 Swiss Franks.

1. Aleksander Gella, Zagłada Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej: 1945-1947 (The Destruction of the Second Republic: 1945–1947), 1998, p. 129.
2. https://sprawiedliwi.org.pl/pl/aktualnosci/75-lat-temu-powstala-krakowska-zegota Mateusz Szczepaniak, "Żegota Was Established in Kraków 75 Years Ago" (English translation: Andrew Rajcher), 14 March 2018, POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph is subject to an ongoing discussion, as well as an RfC (which should already be closed). I think it good manners to wait until the discussion is concluded before adding that material. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Any other comments about the content of the paragraph? Nihil novi (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We already have the total in dollars, which gives a more meaningful (if imperfect) comparison for most lay readers. Also, the Gella source requires verification or context, as it contradicts another source. François Robere (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't object adding the totals, but I'd like a verification of the source as it's unavailable to me. François Robere (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't link a disambiguation

BundXx236 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman/Krakowski 2003 or rather Zimmerman 2018 - Polish edition?

Does the new book support the number? What is "only"? Were the money offered for Jews and bad Poles robbed them? Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Zofia Kossak was arrested and deported to Auschwitz. Such information is avaliable in her biography here. She has published her account Z otchłani. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What is Jewish National Committee?

Unsourced.

Joint helped Jews in Warsaw ghetto. Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Operatives of rescue organizations ...

A lead should summarize the text.

This page is about Żegota only, not about rescue organizations in general, so including such a comment in the lead is biased, as it minimizes the meaning of Żegota. Any comparisons should be described inside the text, sourced, and perhaps summarized in the lead.

If we mention other organisations here, why don't those other pages inform about Żegota? Double standards. Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Very good points.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Irena Sendler

Probably should be mentioned among activists/key people.Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• C-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• C-Class Poland articles
• Mid-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles