Talk:Żegota/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

In favor

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

Clarification: "...under its care"

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

Difficulties hiding Jews

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

Pronunciation of name

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polish feminine surnames

The author is writing:

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

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

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

Photoshopped Image

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

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

Wrong conclusion

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

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

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

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

Anna Poray - SPS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP/n discussion

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

Attribution to Gunnar S. Paulsson

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ([11]).Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If the "Jewish Virtual Library: a Project of AICE [the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise]" is a reliable source, I would think its article on [12] "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)

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 [13] GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

Look FR; you began your quote insertion from this:

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

but you dropped everything after the coma:

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

Then you picked another two lines

Żegota faced a constant battle for funding, receiving more from Jewish organizations than from the government-in-exile, whilst the right-wing parties refused to support it. Relatively few sentences were passed against blackmailers.

but omitting an opening line

However, positive judgements must be qualified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

Under these circumstances, the initiative for responding to the genocide fell to the underground authorities in Poland, both civilian and military. The Delegatura and its head were basically sympathetic to the Jews, but realized that they lacked the power to impose their will on the various groupings that made up the underground. It was only in April 1943 that Stanislaw Jankowski, then the head of the Delegatura, issued an appeal calling on Poles to hide Jews. Sometime before this, however, at the end of 1942, Zegota had been set up by representatives Of the Front for the Rebirth of Poland and some underground socialist and left-wing groups, and it succeeded in obtaining a degree of support from the London government. Between 1942 and the end Of the war, Zegota was granted a total of nearly 29 million zlotys (more than $5 million), which it used to provide monthly relief payments to a few thousand Jewish families in Warsaw, Lwow and Cracow. According to Teresa Prekerowa, one of its historians, by the middle of 1944, between 3,000 and 4,000 individuals were benefiting from Zegota's financial support. In addition, it provided Jews with the false documents they needed to survive on the Aryan side and established a network of "safe houses" where those who had an "unfavorable appearance" could hide." Zegota's successes—it was able to forge false documents for some 50,000 persons—suggest that, had it been given a higher priority by the Delegatura and the government in London, it could have done much more. We have the testimony of one of its members, Wtadyslaw Bartoszewski, that the organization was regarded as a "stepchild" by the central underground authorities. According to Yisrael Gutman, Zegota's achievements were "very little considering the dimensions of the tragedy," but "considerable in light Of the conditions and spirit Of the times." This assessment was shared by Emanuel Ringelblum, who wrote: "A Council for Aid to the Jews was formed, consisting of people of good will, but its activity was limited by lack of funds and lack of help from the government."

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

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

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

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

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

Emanuel Ringelblum wrote this in his diary back in 1943: "A Council for Aid to the Jews was formed, consisting of people of good will, but its activity was limited by lack of funds and lack of help from the government." What was his opinion based on? The war was not over yet. Has been that confirmed by modern scholarly sources? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Volunteer Marek: You reversed this change [15] saying "still lacks consensus", but I'm not seeing any policy-based argument here, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to object a change. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [16] 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 [17] 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 - [18] 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. [19] 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[20],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.[21] And they affirm that twice, here also [22] “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[23]. 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.[24]. 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 [25] from Polish Wiki and compare it with what you wrote and your link [26] you can also go to "Linki zewnetrzne" at the bottom here [27] and compare this [28] with your information about that person. Ice you are pointing to the individual, and you don't even know who she actually is. Really? Oh well, you don’t read Polish I assume. But seriously, is she your source for real? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few notes:

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

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

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

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 [29] [30]. 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 [4 volumes]. 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[31]) 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 [32] 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 [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences. per Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - in the original conversation[33] from June 22 regarding Elżbieta Janicka[34] Icewhiz didn't know who she actually is [35] (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 [36] Eventually she ended up being described as “a woman of many talents”[37].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 Wikipedia. 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.[38] Marek Volunteer Marek please take a listen what she is saying helself[39]. 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 [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences.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)

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)

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)

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" - [40]. 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." - [41]. 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." - [42]. 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" - [43]. Pretty unequivocal.
• "Zegota, the only group in Nazi occupied Europe dedicated specifically to saving Jews"- [44]
• "the story of the only secret organization in occupied Europe set up for the sole purpose of saving Jews." - [45]
• "A small, unique organization" - [46]
• ". "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." - [47]

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 [48] 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)

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)

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

[49]

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)

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[50] --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.

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)

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)

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:

Extended content

Prominent activists In a letter from February 26, 1977 Adolf Berman mentions the following activists as especially meritorious: Theatre artist Prof. Maria Grzegorzewska Psychologist Irena Solska Janina Buchholtz-Bukolska* Educator Irena Sawicka* Scouting activist Dr. Ewa Rybicka School principal Irena Kurowska Prof. Stanisław Ossowski and Prof. Maria Ossowska Zoo director Dr. Jan Żabiński* and his wife Antonina* Writer Stefania Sempołowska Director Jan Wesołowski* Sylwia Rzeczycka* Maria Łaska Maria Derwisz-Parnowska (later Kwiatowska*) Former Senator Zofia Rodziewicz Zofia Derwisz-Latalowa Dr. Regina Fleszar

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) Wikipedia 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)

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. [51] Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What is Jewish National Committee?

Unsourced.

Joint helped Jews in Warsaw ghetto. [52] 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)

Recent changes (funding)

Re: [53]. The additions seem fine, but I don't see the point of removal. Please try to combine both and avoid loosing useful info. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There's actually little material removed there - it's just a better summary:

Text

Before: The Polish Government-in-Exile, based in London, faced immense difficulties funding its institutions in German-occupied Poland; this affected, as well, funding for Jewish organizations and Żegota. Part of the funds had to be sent in via highly inefficient airdrops (only some 17% of which succeeded), resulting in financial difficulties for Poland's underground structures. Waldemar Grabowski notes that the Polish Government-in-Exile had difficulty funding itself and its own institutions in occupied Poland, and some of the funds raised could be delivered only in the late period of the war. According to Marcin Urynowicz, the percentage of funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to social help for Jews, including Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population. After: The Polish Government-in-Exile, based in London, faced immense difficulties funding its institutions in German-occupied Poland; this affected funding for Żegota as well. Part of the funds had to be sent in via highly inefficient airdrops (only some 17% of which succeeded) and some could only be delivered late in the war. ... In response, Marcin Urynowicz claims the percentage of the funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to help Jews, including through Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population.

François Robere (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

What is your evidence for Marcin Urynowicz's information being "in response" to something, presumably written by one of your authors?

Why did you delete (before Piotrus restored them) all the specific sums donated to Żegota by the Polish Government-in-Exile, quoted by MyMoloboacccount?

If the Polish authors are able to quote specific Polish Government-in-Exile donations to Żegota, then why are your authors unable to do the same for donations to Żegota by unnamed "Jewish organizations"?

I repeat my unanswered previous question: Which Jewish organizations supported Żegota, how much financial support did they give Żegota, and by what means did they convey it to Żegota in German-occupied Poland?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your evidence for Marcin Urynowicz's information being "in response" to something - that's a good connective. If you prefer, change it to "however".

Why did you delete (before Piotrus restored them) all the specific sums - I stated it both in the edit summary and, in part, in the previous thread on this ("Survey", above): First, they're raw numbers - we might as well quote Żegota's ledger directly - which means they're a WP:PRIMARY sources that violates WP:STATSBOOK. Per Wikipedia's guidelines we ought to prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, which is what the expert quotes provide. Second - those numbers don't give anything to the reader: What can a lay reader understand from these numbers alone? That Żegota was over-funded? Under-funded? Properly-funded? The reader can't compare it to anything - the reader doesn't know what portion of the pie the other organizations received, nor what it's worth in current monetary terms - if we wrote that Żegota received a billion dollars and one trillion franks the reader would be none the wiser. So the raw numbers quoted a dozen times really give very little, which is ironic given Molobo's complaints about "quote spam".

If the Polish authors are able to quote specific Polish Government-in-Exile donations to Żegota, then why are your authors unable to do the same for donations to Żegota by unnamed "Jewish organizations"? - I just received word from Joseph Kermish - he says the numbers are in the top drawer to the left, next to the Wiki policy saying "don't ask silly questions".

I repeat my unanswered previous question - we've been at it before. The "means" are well publicized - through the GIE and the Delegatura (that didn't necessarily pass them on time, or according to one source in full), and perhaps by other means as well - American organizations, British spies and the like, but I'm not certain about those at the moment. François Robere (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you refer to the amounts of Polish Government-in-Exile donations to Żegota as "primary-source" material? They were published in books and in the Bulletin of the Institute of National Remembrance. Those are secondary, not primary, sources.

You say the means by which "Jewish organizations" sent funds to Żegota in German-occupied Poland are "well publicized". If that is so, I expect you wouldn't mind giving them a little additional publicity, on Wikipedia?

You say the sums donated to Żegota by the Polish Government-in-Exile don't convey much to a present-day reader. I suggest you provide a scale of comparison by adding to this article section the figures for the Jewish organizations' contributions to Żegota.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

But the data is primary. If all they are is a sum of rows on Żegota's ledger, then they're a plain calculation that we could've done ourselves just as well had we had those ledgers in front of us. The place of publication doesn't matter in this regard - they could've just as well published a facsimile of the original ledger - a primary source in its own right. For these numbers to constitute a WP:SECONDARY source they have to include "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts", and they do not - they merely sum a row of numbers as easy as a spreadsheet function.

I expect you wouldn't mind giving them a little additional publicity - I'd be happy to, I just don't see how it's relevant to the discussion. You wanted quotes [54], now that you have them you're not happy with what they say, so you interrogate the sources. It's not a "pick your quotes" buffet.

I suggest you provide a scale of comparison by adding to this article section the figures for the Jewish organizations' contributions - So you're looking to cast historical blame on Jewish organizations instead of accepting the sources we have on the Polish government, of which they were citizens?

Notice you haven't answered my objections by actually providing context to the numbers, so we're left with a pile of numbers that are basically meaningless to a contemporary reader. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about writing quality, neutral articles, not a blame game.I suggest you seriously reconsider your edits, if you don’t understand this basic core concept. The numbers are highly relevant, informative and relevant. Furthermore your justifications for their removal are baseless, the rules you invoked speak about excessive use of statistics that make articles unreadable and are excessive. The information here is neither, and frankly suggesting that section about financing should lack data on finances is absurd.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How are these numbers relevant to the lay reader? What can a reader deduce from them?

the rules you invoked speak about excessive use of statistics - no, they're not. The rule itself has two parts - the first about statistics in general, the second about excessive use of statistics (highlights mine):

(I) Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. (II) Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.

So you see this is applicable even where the statistics aren't "excessive", but even if it wasn't - throwing a dozen sums in several foreign, dated currencies at a reader, without as much as adjusting them for inflation, is clearly "excessive". : And then there's WP:PRIMARY, which is relevant regardless of the number of sums you quote.

So back to my question: What can the reader conclude from a statement like "The Polish Government's overall financial contribution to Żegota and Jewish organizations came to 37,400,000 złoty, 1,000,000 dollars, and 200,000 Swiss francs"? Are 37.4m złoty a lot? A little? Is it more or less than was allocated to other underground operations? Is it enough to win a war, or barely enough to feed a village? François Robere (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"According to Marcin Urynowicz, the percentage of funds allocated by the Polish Government-in-Exile to social help for Jews, including Żegota, was based on their percentage in Poland's prewar general population."

Please answer my above questions about the "Jewish organizations'" contributions to Żegota, and we can discuss the interpretation of the Polish Government's funding for Żegota. Otherwise, statements such as "Antony Polonsky quotes Emanuel Ringelblum that 'a Council for Aid to the Jews [Żegota] was formed, consisting of people of good will, but its activity was limited by lack of funds and lack of help from the government.'" remains an empty generalization.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Marcin Urynowicz also appears in my revision. What's your point?

Please answer my above questions about the "Jewish organizations'" contributions Excuse me, but no. This discussion isn't about Polonsky, Ringelblum or any of the other half dozen respectable sources that all say the same thing, and you're not going to deflect it there. This discussion is on whether a dozen sums given in several historical currencies, with no context or interpretation, mean anything to a contemporary reader. I say they do not, and neither you nor Molobo explained why or how they do. François Robere (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tabulated the data and added some more from the other sources - you're both so keen on numbers, I doubt you'll object. Now tell me, what does a lay reader get from that data, other than the impression that it's a mess? François Robere (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally, WP:NOTPAPER, we have room. The table can be helpful to someone, a researcher, for example. I think we are better off with it than with out it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we're better off with a table listing multiple sources and giving context, than we are with a pile of numbers spread over three paragraphs context-free. François Robere (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with the table, thank you for creating this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Is it enough to win a war, or barely enough to feed a village" Hmm, please read the article. Zegota wasn't a combat organization.These received seperate funding(and were underfunded as well). In general, no Poland had no money to win the war, or even to fund the Government in Exile, neither its underground forces had means to defend ethnic Poles from genocide, far less even in regards the Jewish people.I am very surprised by your question. If you believe Poland could have won the war against Nazi Germany by increasing its funding, that seems very out of touch with history of Second World War to say it lightly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Does Zimmerman discuss the subject in his recent book? I have asked the question some time ago, no answer.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The lead?

The lead should explain the context - the Holocaust and German terror in Poland. Many Wikipedia raeders don't know basic facts.Xx236 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)