This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Government Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). Poland Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Polish Communist government is a bit of a stretch of the truth. Poland did not have a government that had any significant impact on laws or their enforcement until after the "thaw" brought on by Stalin's death in 1953. The Poles are, by this measure, arguably free from guilt or the burden to pay restitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.37.157 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses primarily newspapers, some of them clearly POVed (ex. Israeli newspapers - reliable, but of course biased towards Israeli/Jewish POV; currently no Polish sources are used to show the POV of the other side). It's interesting how the demonstrators are called nationalists, and even more so, Polish. Not Polish American? Did Polish government flew them in from Poland to protest in New York? Also, the claim that "The nationalist Polish government denies that the Poles were culpable for the murders of Jews in the Holocaust." is exaggeration. I don't think that any government statement claimed that not a single Pole was involved in this. While it can be fairly argued that the current Polish gov't is trying to minimize the public view of the scope of Polish collaboration, to say that it claims there was no collaboration/complicity at all is clearly wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited in the article are in English and reliable. Israeli, British, and American newspapers all cover the same thing here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with this (in addition to the fact that you're using the crappy Newsweek article, and another article which is more or less a reprint of it - only Haaretz here is reliable) is that none of the sources actually make the claims you put in there *in their own voice*. They all explicitly state that these were claims made by some "artist" who saw the demonstrations. If the sources don't say it in their own voice, then we definitely CANNOT say it in Wikipedia voice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The JC is not a reprint of Haaretz nor Newsweek - all three sources are independent and are not copies. They all state in their own voice that Polish nationalists staged a demonstration in New York. Haaretz says, in its own voice, "Hundreds of people participated in the protest on Sunday in Foley Square and some employed anti-Semitic rhetoric". Really - there are multiple videos of the whole ugly affair - no one had to rely on Crabapple for reporting - it is all verifiable from the multiple videos of the event - and sources are using their own voice. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they didn't have to rely on an artist that witnessed it, but they did, and the presence of anti-semitic signs is attributed by all of them to her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Haaretz, the only reliable source here, does indeed attribute all the commentary to Crabapple, aside from the headline (which by itself is NOT RS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Newsweek and The Jewish Chronicle are reliable, as is Tablet. While some sources do quote Crabapple, the also report in their own voice:

1. Haaretz reports in its own voice that "Hundreds of people participated in the protest on Sunday in Foley Square and some employed anti-Semitic rhetoric".[1]
2. Newsweek - "But according to video of the event and the accounts of activists in a counterprotest, some of the participants were also perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes and repeating Holocaust denial myths. One man could be seen holding a sign with the words “Holocaust Industry.” - attributes both to activists and the video of the event.[2]
3. According to later reporting in Tablet - "The question posed by Bachom in New York, which could have been about any of the demonstrations that took place that day, was more pointed than simple curiosity: These were not routine political gatherings but demonstrations aimed at rewriting the history of the Holocaust that featured open displays of anti-Semitism in major American cities." and " In New York, however, it was evident that the protest was aimed as much against Jews and Jewish suffering in the Holocaust as against the new law itself. Anti-Semitic posters, anti-Semitic gestures and anti-Semitic slogans went hand in hand with a defense of the dignity and honor of Poland." [3]

Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If "Newsweek is reliable", then go put that the Home Army was a "driving force" behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and that the Ghetto Uprising involved Christians and Jews "rising" against Nazi occupiers together, in the relevant article. Unless you're willing to do that, it's hard to take your assertions seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Haaretz puts Crabapple's tweet right below that assertion and attributes the claims to her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mention of The Holocaust Industry / [4] antisemitic? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, OK I can see a POV issue here, but I am also unsure how serious this really is. Maybe any claims (it is, in effect, a BLp issue) should be attributed. Or just use a non "Jewish" source.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Newsweek "Jewish"? Are you seriously coloring sources as "Jewish"? American, British, and Israeli sources I might add. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "nationality" or "ethnicity" of sources is irrelevant. The problem is that the Newsweek article is crap. As outlined above and below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if they are (I have not looked into their ownership). But (as I said) I can see why an "Jewish" source would not be neutral. This is I say I am not sure how serious this is, I do not know of they are Jewish or not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Israeli sources Jewish? Or is saying so incorrect or offensive? Just wondering for future reference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Most Israeli newspapers are unaffiliated with any religious, social or political institute, and tend to present a secular POV just as most newspapers in the West do. As for "Jewish" - the same rules apply here as everywhere else: if such usage suggests sources of a Jewish ethnicity or religion are unreliable by virtue of being Jewish, then it's inappropriate and in most likelihood false. François Robere (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual point, rather then the accusation that brought me here. It is clear that both Heratz and Newsweek attribute most the accusations about the protesters, so should we. Moreover we should not put any of the accusations in Wikipedias voice.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Attribution is required for controversial / potentially offensive claims. I think such description of the protesters originated with Molly Crabapple? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crabapple is one of many who described the protests in this way. According to Professor of History and Literature Jonathan Brent in Tablet- "These were not routine political gatherings but demonstrations aimed at rewriting the history of the Holocaust that featured open displays of anti-Semitism in major American cities.", "In New York, however, it was evident that the protest was aimed as much against Jews and Jewish suffering in the Holocaust as against the new law itself.".[5]. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. There's a "Alger Hiss endowed chair in History" at Bard College? Wtf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we can attribute Crabapple and Brent then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent is published in a RS, not as an op-ed - an expert in the field on the byline of a NEWSORG. Add Haaretz - "Hundreds of people participated in the protest on Sunday in Foley Square and some employed anti-Semitic rhetoric" - which says so in its own voice. Add to this "But bystanders and anti-fascist activists reported that the protesters were not only condemning S447, but also carrying anti-Semitic placards and repeating Holocaust-denial conspiracy theories. (so bystanders + anti-fascist activists), and "But according to video of the event and the accounts of activists in a counterprotest, some of the participants were also perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes and repeating Holocaust denial myths" (so video + said activists)[6]. Oh - and we can throw in the Simon Wiesenthal Center - which is an expert source on antisemitism - saying so in its own voice.[7]. Also Sandi Bachom,[8] if you want to enumerate activists - so we end up with - "bystanders, anti-fascist activists, Brent, Haaretz, and Simon Wiesenthal Center". Icewhiz (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the anonymous bystanders were indeed bystanders or just more activists (at least one of which was reported as masked...). But generally I am fine with attribution, the more, the better. Btw, it's a bit OT, but any idea what is meant by this from the SWC: "Weitzman, who [...] exposed an attempt by Polish anti-Semites to spread their propaganda in the US last spring"? Which incident this can refer to? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last Spring (Spring 2018)? Probably - [9][10][11][12] - a whole series of events with Antoni Macierewicz known for: Polish defence minister condemned over Jewish conspiracy theory, Guardian, 2015 who said "Experience shows that there are such groups in Jewish circles" in regards to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Ewa Kurek known for her remarks of ghettos and fun,[13], and possibly a few other such speakers. Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other side

"Polish nationalists" have also been described "Polish-American activists" or just "Polish-Americans" by Polish sources. [14] ("Dzień protestów Polonii w Stanach Zjednoczonych" pl:RMF24); [15] ("protestowała w weekend amerykańska Polonia", pl:Gazeta.pl). But it was not all Polish-Americans; the Polish American Congress explicitly refused to endorse the protesters ([16]), [17] ("Amerykańska Polonia protestowała przeciw ustawie S. 447" TVP). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOENG - we have ample English language sources, and there is no need to use Polish language sources (for an event in the United States!), which are under government restrictions regarding Polish Holocaust complicity.[18]. Per my WP:OR and TPM - [19][20] - the organizers were not mainstream Polish-American organizations (though some of the organizers were formerly associated with such) - who generally try to refrain from such discourse. All English language sources reporting on this simply use "Polish nationalists". Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polish sources are not less reliable than others. We should present their description just as we present others. The neutral way would be to say that protests by some groups of Polish Americans, described by some sources as Polish nationalists, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering these groups were repudiated by the more mainstream Polish American Congress (as you pointed out in - [21]) - describing the protesters as Polish-American, besides not being inline with coverage in English sources, would be non-neutral in regards to Polish Americans (who are generally opposed to such discourse). Do you have any English language RS describing them as anything other than "Polish nationalists"? Every single English RS I've seen (around 10) - uses "Polish nationalists". Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources are not required. PAC, while being critical of the protests, doesn't describe the protesters as nationalists, just demonstrators. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While not required, per WP:NOENG - "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". There is no reason to favor Polish language sources from Poland, some 5770 miles from NYC, over English language sources based in NYC. Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go any further and get to your continued misuse and abuse of WP:NOENG, how about you answer the question about Newsweek posed above and below? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple other sources exists as well. consensus for Newsweek at RSN, as summarized at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, is that "There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable". For WWII history, per the WP:HISTRS essay, better sources exist. However Newsweek, which is headquartered in New York and writes in English should be a superb source for a 2019 protest by Polish nationalists in New York.[22]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're evading the question with irrelevancies, which strongly suggests that you KNOW that in this case the source is junk. Do you agree that the Home Army "was a driving force behind the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising"? Just answer that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that we should be using Polish language sources (per NOENG and much better sources available), but the gazeta.pl piece cited by Piotrus - [23] - seems to describe antisemitic vitrol (in the streets and on twitter) as well as praise by Robert Winnicki (president of Ruch Narodowy) - whom Volunteer Marek - diff - saw fit to qualify with "far-right" (unsupported by cited source, though supportable elsewhere). Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting to ignore the "Polish nationalists", but NPOV/UNDUE have to be respected. As should common logic. Those where clearly Polish-Americans, not Poles - or do you disagree on that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there were probably (WP:OR) Polish-Americans there, saying for a certainty that all the protesters were Polish-American? No idea, really. Every single English RS I see calls them "Polish nationalists" - which seems to me an apt description of the Chicago chapter of the NSZ. Icewhiz (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No OR here, since we have sources for Polish-Americans. (Polish language sources). Perhaps some of the organizers, like Chicago NSZ, could be aptly described as "Polish-American Polish nationalists", through that's a bit of an unwieldy phrase. Anyway, typical Polish nationalists in Poland, be it NSZ or Ruch Narodowy members and sympathizers, are usually young and can evoke one's vision of neo-nazis or white supremacists or such (google for Polish nationalist Warsaw for images), but the photos shown in all the sources, including yours, show a different demographic - middle-aged to old. Those fit the common view of "(older) Polish-Americans" rather than the youthful Polish nationalists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None English language sources are not prohibited, and can be sued when there are POV issues to balance an accusation or statement.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOENG is policy. English language sources are preferred. Some of the Polish language sources presented above are quite dubious in terms of RSness, and they don't quite use "Polish Americans" - "amerykańska Polonia" is a bit different. "Polish nationalists" is not an accusation - but a factual description used by several RSes. Piotrus' assertion above that middle-aged to old Poles (based on his photo analysis) can't be "Polish nationalists" - well - this doesn't amount to nothing. Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred doesn't mean exclusive. If we have an equivalent English and foreign language source for a fact, English is better. But foreign sources can be used if English do not exist - or if they provide a different view/argument, which is the case here. As for the "Polish nationalists", yes, it is mentioned in reliable sources and so should we - BUT it is also non-neutral, and NPOV policy has a thing or two to say about that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article has gems such as: "They also lauded the efforts of the anti-Nazi Home Army, which was a driving force behind the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers in the national capital."

It's a poor quality source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Newsweek had a better error-checking reputation. Wow. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek has gone to the dogs in the past few years. They've turned into a sloppy sensationalist tabloid in an attempt to buff up revenues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The full paragraph is "They also lauded the efforts of the anti-Nazi Home Army, which was a driving force behind the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers in the national capital. The following year, Poles launched the Warsaw uprising that also failed to liberate the city.". Now - what is your specific problem? Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all know here that that paragraph is just plain wrong. Why are you asking a question which has an obvious answer?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you'd like to go to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article and put in the lede that "The Home Army was a driving force behind the ghetto uprising"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per our own Home Army#The Warsaw ghetto uprising (which indeed has NPOV issues) - the Home army did assist in the ghetto uprising - with supplies and attempting to blow up the ghetto wall. In any event, this is background divorced from the actual events in New York. What's your specific problem with Newsweek? Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... the Home Army was a "driving force behind the ghetto uprising"? You want to add that to the Warsaw Ghetto Article? Yes? No? Not a trick question. I mean, it kinda is, because we both know what the obvious answer is, but it seems you don't want to state it outloud because that would involve admitting exactly what the "specific problem with Newsweek" is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek was reporting about a 2019 demonstration in NYC. News media, in general, should be used as sources for current events - not for historical nuance - and definitely when such historical background is provided in a very brief blurb. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're trying to evade the question. Do you think that the Home Army was a "driving force behind the ghetto uprising" as Newsweek reports? Yes or no? There's no "historical nuance" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People in the West ignore the difference between 1943 and 1944 uprisings. Even a German president did.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not even mention the topic of this article. This is classic WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - from the article - "Last year, President Donald Trump signed the Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today Act, which requires the State Department to monitor the activities of European countries on the subject and report their progress to Congress.". Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it's barely mentioned in passing. And doesn't relate it to the specific case here. Still SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)P[reply]

The article is on Jewish property restitution in Poland. It covers the bill, and subsequent action by US senators. It is clearly on topic. Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It briefly mentions it in a single passage. The article is about a specific person. It's SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is that the organisations want estates without heirs, which is illegal in Poland (and probably in the USA).Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is it being used as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer to this is not forthcoming, I think we can remove this source as unnecessary external link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For restitution (of property with clear heirs) efforts in Poland - this in an in-depth piece written after the JUST act was passed and that covers the JUST act as well as the subsequent US efforts (e.g. the 59 senators).Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Organizatorzy protestu przedstawiają się jako środowisko patriotyczne i nie chcą być utożsamiani z inicjatywami politycznymi. " [24] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOENG - we have ample English language sources, and there is no need to use Polish language sources (for an event in the United States!). Your quote above of Polish "patriots" from Polish media (rife with problems) does not conflict with "Polish nationalists" which is what all English language sources use. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that "Polish" sources are inappropriate? The source is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We have" - sure, you have your biased sources. Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say?Slatersteven (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the quote above: "Organizers of the protest describe themselves as a patriotic community and do not want to be grouped together with any political factions." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have to agree with Icewhiz, I am not seeing the difference, but then I also do not see why (in a spirit of compromise) we cannot say patriots).Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I just cited this as my bet attempt to answer the question I asked in the heading before we found a better list of named organizations behind the protests. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we are agreed it can be changed to patriots.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I removed the previous sections due to what I perceived as serious NPOV issue, the protests were a notable event that after some rewording I think that section should return to the article. This is how the section looked when I removed it:

Here's how I think it could be reworded as a more neutral one: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should follow English language WP:RSes. Every single English language RS uses "Polish nationalists" - in their own voice (and really - are you going to advocate calling NSZ Chicago anything else?) - saying this label comes from "counter protesters" is WP:OR in regards to the cited sources. The Polish American Congress is WP:UNDUE - it is lacking both in reputation and in relevant expertise. We should also take care not to repeat or give UNDUE weight to antisemitic discourse. I suggest:

Which actually follows language in the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of Poland are Polish nationalists. How do we call supporters of Israel? Wise and righteous humanists?Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You rewrite the history of the Holocaust accusing Poles and ignoring a long list of Germans, Austrians and their allies.

What is anti-Holocaust law demonstration? Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protesters carry antisemitic signs - how many of them:

-all

-many

-some

-few?

Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even extremely biased Molly Crappable writes This thread is in no way meant to detract from the heroism of the Polish resistance or of the many Polish people who rescued Jews (more than any other group in Europe), nor to minimize the Nazi murders of 3 million Poles.. Please icewhiz, use this formula with any of of your anti-Polish comment.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Xx236's text. It is a lot more complex (the situation) then the original text implied.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I don't think XX236 proposed any text. From top, the three versions here are 1) Icewhiz v1 2) mine 3) Icewhiz v2. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the second one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three Icewhiz's 2nd version looks like a good compromise, but we should mention PAC did not endorse the demo. That being said, I personally prefer conciseness, and would trim both the list of participating organizations and the list of sources (but not the sources themselves). François Robere (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is some and all are not the same. Looking at the sources it seems some of the protesters were Polish patriots, and some were just Polish, but we say that they were all nationalists.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: - please back up your assertion with sources. Per multiple English language RSes: "Polish nationalists protested in New York City"[27], "A large group of Polish nationalists took over a major square in downtown Manhattan"[28]. Haaretz and Newsweek are reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. They (as well as other RSes in English) use "Polish nationalists" as a description of those in the NYC protest.Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to, I just have to point out that your sources do not say all the demos were, for example the Newsweek sources is about one demo only (in one city), thus it cannot be used to claims any others were.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protest that received most coverage was in NYC - you are correct we need to separate that one (which has several top-line sources) from the others). 15:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I do not agree with either of the versions that ignore this, and support the one version which takes it into account.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out to you numerous times already, the Newsweek source makes ridiculous claims which are plainly factually inaccurate. That makes it garbage. If you are serious about treating this article as a reliable source, please go to the article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and change the lede to reflect the claim made in the newsweek article that "The Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising". Otherwise, stop pushing it here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either is important. It's enough to state that "according to multiple sources, signs carried by protestors (/tweets/anthems etc.) included nationalist and anti-Semitic messaging." François Robere (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Piotrus' version is a huge improvement over Icewhiz's over-the-top POV version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RSN disagrees. And I quoted Haaretz as well. Here's The Forward (also HQed in NYC): "Polish nationalists demonstrated in Manhattan Sunday against a proposed U.S. law that would provide compensation to victims of the Holocaust who had their property seized during the war"[29] Perhaps after watching the video in the Forward piece, you would care to explain the national connotations of Rota (poem) - the top two verses of which:

are sung in the first minute of the video (in NYC) presented by the Forward. Care to elaborate on the connotation here? To help you along - according to Michał Buchowski (who seems to be an expert in the field - profile) - this anti-German oath/anthem is sung as an "opening act at various ceremonies held by self-acclaimed 'patriotic' organizations" - giving All-Polish Youth as an example. (source: this book, page 25) (All-Polish Youth being deep in the radical right - see this book).Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rota is also anthem of centrist Polish People's Party. This information has been omitted by Icewhiz. As you can see - you have to verify any information by Icewhiz. Even if he praizes Buchowski, he censors Buchowski. Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more question Hymnem Młodzieży Wszechpolskiej jest Hymn Młodych Obozu Wielkiej Polski, śpiewany do melodii Warszawianki 1831 roku., so Rota isn't anthem of All-Polish Youth. Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm certain the Polish People's Party, with its 14 seats out of 460 that constitute the Sejm, was a major part of that demo. François Robere (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm certain the Polish People's Party, with its 14 seats out of 460 that constitute the Sejm, was a major part of that demo

Glad to hear you agree, with 140,000 members PSL is certainly capable of organizing such demos and attending them.It would be extremely silly to think 14 MP's are all there is to the party.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYC is not the only city i America where a demo as held.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the main one that was covered - the others barely received attention (Chicago was actually more extreme and not small - but still mainly ignored, the rest - were very small - e.g. Boston was around 50 people showing up after church for a very brief demo (anthem, a 10 minute speech, a bit of loitering - and that's it - outside of the state house) - Some of the others were even smaller). Reworded to to reflect sources on NYC:

Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant that they did not get as much coverage, we cannot claim that something is true in all cases based upon the example of one case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree (and originally in the article this was so too) - therefore in the proposal above - sources on NYC speak on NYC. Jonathan Brent, who is an expert in this topic area, does address all of the protests - but most sources do not. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Which implies there was just the one emo, there was not.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my revised version, using some extra information from Icehwiz's proposal(s). Few notes: per WP:NPOV, I believe the prosters should be described as Polish-Americans first, with a later note that they have been described as Polish nationalists. Second, I am busy right now and couldn't find which refs mention Brent, but I am fine with adding his view as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus) (talk • contribs)

This version severely distorts and misrepresents sources. For starters - please specify why gazeta.pl internet portal is a RS for the topic (both due to its general reputation and due to legal limitation in Poland on publications involving Polish Holocaust complicity), and why Polish diaspora in America is Polish-American - Polish diaspora is a term that is a bit wider than just Polish-American. More seriously, the Polish nationalists protesting (a term used by every English language RS covering this) are not "According to the accounts of activists in a counterprotest, who described the anti-bill protesters as "Polish nationalists" - this is a gross misrepresentation of every source you are citing here - which are using "Polish nationalists" in their own voice and not attributing this to "activists". The cited sources are also attributing the anti-semitic signs (of which you chose to display the less severe ones, though I'll note that referring to "the Holocaust Industry" (not a generally accepted concept - this is the title of a very contentious book) in wikivoice is a shocking POV violation)) - to more than just "accounts of activists" - some are using their own voice, others describe videos of the event, etc. Simon Wiesenthal Center did more than just condemn the rally - it described the rally as "In the wake of anti-Semitic slogans and sentiments that were prominently displayed in a demonstration last Sunday in New York by Polish nationalists". Finally - we have expert analysis of the antisemitism on display in all of the protests - Jonathan Brent published under the Tablet's byline - "these were not routine political gatherings but demonstrations aimed at rewriting the history of the Holocaust that featured open displays of anti-Semitism in major American cities" - which has much greater weight than PAC. 05:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is a perfectly respectable Polish newspaper, and as you know, it is even in the opposition to the government, and generally not aligned with the 'nationalists'. There is no proof that there is any effect on the Polish publications as far as any legal aspects - it's has about the same negligible effects as English defamation law or such. While a few people speculated there may be some chilling effects its pure speculation at this point. I am fine with using the term Polish diaspora, except that Polish_diaspora#United_States = Polish Americans, that's the specific article we have on that group; I really don't see what problem you have with the term Polish American. As for the term Holocaust Industry I don't believe there is a consensus that it is anti-semitic? It is controversial, yes, but that's not the same thing. As for as 'voice', this is a wording issue, but it is clear that those accounts are based on said activists accounts. We can adjust it by saying that those claims are based on activists claims published in this and this newspaper. Videos are not generally reliable (which vidoes? who made them? Activists? etc.). And I don't see why a voice of a minor newspaper like Tablet should given more due weight that the statement of the biggest Polish-American organization; which is an authority on issues involving Polish-Americans, just like Simon Wiesenthal Center can be seen as a reliable authority (and as biased, of course) on the issues of Jewish-Americans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gazeta.pl portal (plwiki) is distinct and separate from the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper - it's not the same organization - they are owned by the same very large company (but so are The Wall Street Journal and New York Post (and worse) in relation to News Corp (2013–present)) - please present evidence that gazeta.pl should be regard as reliable generally. Tablet is a reputable published source - and in this case the author is a top-notch expert on antisemitism. PAC is a rather dubious organization. If RSes accept videos of the event - so do we (and most of the videos (which I have watched) - were released by the organizers - not activists). "Polish Nationalists" is not a claim by activists - several RSes say this in their own voice - and they don't attribute it to "activists" - attributing this claim to "activists" - when the cited sources do nothing of the sort is a severe distortion of the cited source. You want to attribute "Polish Nationalists"? then it goes to Newsweek,[32], Haaretz,[33] Jerusalem Post,[34] Forward,[35]. Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed by [36], gazeta.pl and Wyborca are related, the former is just a 'lighter' Internet portal version of it. It's a bit weird, but I don't see why it should be see as less reliable - they have same publisher, really. It's like saying that 1843 (magazine) is less reliable than The Economist because it's less known. Same publisher, presumably same quality standards. Prove otherwise. Ditto prove that "PAC is a rather dubious organization". And I a glad you finally agree that controversial caims should be attributed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to prove PAC is dubious (though one of their chapters hosting material written by a SPLC designated individual and some speaking events are rather convincing - they also aren't a cohesive organization - evident even in events here (Southern California sponsoring, a speaker in NYC holding a position in PAC)) - ONUS is on you. As for gazeta.pl - It's not the same publisher - it's a different newsroom and with different editorial controls. Gazeta.pl is "very light" - and mainly reprints churnalism and press-releases, whereas Wyborcza aims to be a serious newspaper (though under Polish government censorship regarding the Holocaust following the 2018 law). This is evident even in the rp.pl piece you are citing which covers the entertainment nature of gazeta.pl and which says "It even happened that the editors of the paper "Gazeta Wyborcza" officially cut themselves off from the portal. "» Gazeta «has a common owner with it and not much more. Editors of the portal have no influence "- wrote Seweryn Blumsztajn" (translation by google translate). I suggest you try suggesting The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and umm The Sun (United Kingdom) (a tabloid known for Page 3 girls) are of the same quality due to News Corp being the publisher - WP:ONUS on you - particularly after misrepresenting gazeta.pl as Wyborcza. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the onus is on you to show sources that call PAC or gazeta.pl unreliable. Their status as a major NGO or a major news outlet (circulation, impact) is clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to prove a negative regarding PAC's lack of influence. As for Gazeta.pl (which you misrepresented in this very discussion) - unless you have a RSN discussion backing you up - WP:ONUS is on you. This is an entertainment oriented internet portal with a poor reputation for news. Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to prove anything, and neither do I, the policies are clear those sources are reliable per WP:RS (WP:NEWSORG, etc.) and that's all that matters. How 'influential' and NGO is doesn't matter when it comes to reliability. If you don't want to see gazeta.pl cited, take it to RNS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS on you - this internet portal doesn't have a reputation of being reliable - if you are asserting otherwise - take it to RSN. Even if reliable, I will also object to this low-quality internet portal being used per WP:NOENG - as we have much higher quality English sources here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of talking to the wall; we will see what others will say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: You should change "according to activists" to " according to some media reports", otherwise I am fine with it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, we are citing media reports citing activists, so that formulation takes priority. I am fine with that. Btw, can I invite you to comment on the neutrality of the DYK for this article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IIcewhiz believes to be an expert in Polish matters. Such belief is unfounded.Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about him, or his expertise, if you have a complaint take it to ANI, or his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to participate in your games. Either someone is fair or not. Icewhiz is unfair and you accept his bias.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not the place to discuss it, this is about the article, not a user.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsequent English language coverage - e.g. Deutsche Welle (generally well received in RSN, roughly equivalent to the BBC) - [37] - "In April 2019, hundreds of Polish nationalists in New York City protested against the JUST Act." - continues to refer to "Polish nationalists" in New York. Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of signs - I don't think we should get into individuals signs in New York, but here are two rather shocking ones published in RSes - "The Polish victims of Jewish perpetrators deserve to have [their] stories told" [38], "Jewish apologize For Crimes Committed: During communist Rule on Polish People. For using and opening over 28 new concentration camps. Bet 1944-1956 They killed over 500,000 people. Nazi Army included 150,000 of Jewish served in the German Military under Adolf Hitler" [39]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THe DW has published many texts criticizing the Polish government and nationalism. They aren't certainly neutral. Icewhiz as a neutral expert judging neutrality of Deutsche Welle, a very sad example of bias here. Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share many opnions by US Polish activists, but the numer 150 000 is academic https://www.haaretz.com/1.4747962 Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

I reverted this - as it used a borderline non-English internet portal as a source in preference to mainline news organizations such as Newsweek, Haaretz, and Deutsche Welle. This version misrepresented cited sources, and contained WP:OR - for instance the signs (cherry picked for the less extreme ones) are not supported by the citation. Describing PAC as the "biggest Polish-American organization" is OR, and furthermore PAC is sourced to a primary source (itself - and given the fringe nature of many of this organization's statements - this is an issue). The "activists in a counterprotest" did not describe the Polish nationalists protesting as Polish nationalists - this description is used by Newsweek, Haaretz, Deutsche Welle, and nearly every NEWSORG covering this event. Simon Wiesenthal was misrepresented in that the antisemitic nature of the rally, as evident in the statement (title, opening paragraph, and throughout), was not presented in the statement ascribed to them. Furthermore, this revision removed sourced content from sources that were published following our prior discussion, without explanation. Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pl:gazeta.pl is a big and reliable Polish news portal related (if, yes, not identical) to the Polish big mainstream daily Gazeta Wyborcza. You can add more signs if you think the ones noted are not representative. There is a ton of scholarship quoted in the PAC article and to argue it is not the biggest Polish-American organization is ridiculous. If some additional content was removed, you are welcome to restore it, and we can discuss it in more detail here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only jointly owned - editorial oversight is totally separate - gazeta.pl is a tabloidy internet portal with no editorial connection (Gazeta Wyborcza runs its own website, which is reliable) - much of the content on there is copy-pasted from press-releases and/or Polish press bureaus (in this case - the government run Informacyjna Agencja Radiowa - Gazeta Wyborcza AFAIK would generally not run such a piece off the government wire). The citation (Tablet) at the end of the segment with the signs does not contain any of the signs included in the text. Whatever you call PAC - it has to be sourced - the citation (PAC itself - a very poor source regardless) - does not support this. Ascribing "Polish nationalists" to "activists in a counterprotest" was rejected in the discussion above - and furthermore is a gross misrepresentation of the available sources (which simply use this in their own voice). If you want to attribute this - then say "Polish-Americans according to to internet portal gazeta.pl, and Polish nationalists according to Newsweek, Haaretz, Deutsche Welle, .... Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is always a good compromise, glad we can agree on that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gazeta.pl is a part of Agora publishing house. Noone knows internal editorial policy of Agora. Please quote RS that gazeta.pl has no editorial connection with GW.(Copyright Icewhiz)

Gazeta Wyborcza is biased, more biased than Rzeczpospolita or Dziennik - Gazeta Prawna.Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agora owns many brands (as does News UK - The Times is reliable, The Sun (United Kingdom) not so much). Gazeta Wyborcza issued a stmt in the past that they are editorially independent - however, WP:ONUS is on you to show that there is any sort of reputation and editorial connection in the past couple of decades (joint ownership established nothing). I'll also note that gazeta.pl has a past,IAR tagline (no author) - so we probably have to discuss the reliability of the press agency and not gazeta.pl . Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Punted over to NOR/n. Inventing content that is not in the sources you are citing is not something that is done on Wikipedia generally. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boys, please play nicely. We have rules for these things. I've opined on the board [40]; now do carry on. François Robere (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again I will note, a source saying "in New York" cannot be used to say "in the US". Nor should protests outside New York be ignored just because they do not fit the profile.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this version - sources for New York (which are more extensive), are used strictly for New York. Other protests (which received much less coverage) are mentioned in a separate sentence. Observations on the nature of the protests (both US-wide, from historians who are experts in the fields) are presented attributed. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people keep talking as if what happened in NY was all that happened.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally think the Chicago event should've received more attention (organized by NSZ Chicago, muscular men with NSZ armbands on stage, very heated rhetoric) - it seems that most WP:RSes only covered New York. The events elsewhere (Los Angeles, Hartford, Philadelphia, Boston) were small token events. However - all this is an issue to take up with the editors of the publications covering this, on Wikipedia we merely follow the weight in sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there's a mirror discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 about what hook would be neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A sophistiacted allusion to nationality of several editors, me including? Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No [[41]].Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A recent series of changes introduced newspaper articles and columns as sources for historical background.[42] Can anyone tell me for each Polish language citation, who is it sourced to? Is it a journalist, a commentator, or a subject matter expert? François Robere (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG we should not be using Polish media here at all, as top-notch NEWORGs are available in English for this US law (and for background - there is plenty of academic sources in English). Polish media, beyond NOENG, is also censored in regards to the Polish role in the Holocaust as 2018 legislation in Poland places restrictions on what may he published.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific concerns to reliability of any source, please specify them here. Icewhiz-you are repeating yourself, you have raised the same bizarre claim in other articles, the answer is the same, Polish sources are reliable and can be used. Your recent request to have them restricted has been categorically rejected.Please do not try to start this again.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Polish sources when reliable can be used. However,post 2018 media sources in Poland are censored in relation to the Holocaust and are not reliable. Furthermore - WP:NOENG is policy - having us prefer English sources of the same quality. That you, or others, disagree with the NOENG policy is of little consequence.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal view, which has been constantly rebuked for obvious reasons.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been consensus on post 2018 Polish media. As for WP:NOENG - it is quite clear in what it states. That you, or others, disagree with NOENG on multiple talk pages is of little consequence - that's a discussion for the Village Pump.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was a clear consensus that Polish media and sources can be used, and your suggestion to restrict them was overwhelmingly rejected[43].Cheers!--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion generally stayed away from the question of post-2018 Polish sources, so I'd be hesitant to say that they're accepted as a rule. Also, coming back to the question I started with - why are we using newspapers for historical information when we have high quality scholarly sourced available? François Robere (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Any comment here Re: this? François Robere (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why we are describing Poles who have protested against the targeting of their country as "far-right", but we do not apply this same description to Mike Pompeo who serves in the very far-right Trump administration in the US or for that matter the American Jewish organisations who openly support the far-right Netanyahu regime in Israel? The section entitled "Polish opposition and protests" is couched in language which is heavy bias in favour of the view of American Jews and hostile to the Polish people, attempts to attach clever little epithets to smear their side in this dispute. This kind of ethnocentrism would appear to be a clear breach of our NPOV policies. I suggest we re-write this section in language that is less nakedly ethnocentric in favour of one side. Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We follow language in RSes (AP, DW, Reuters, and multiple other leading NEWSORGs) who describe the far right protesters as, well, far right. Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ishbiliyya, I believe you might have a point, how is Pompeo described politically and his faction by RS?

By the way, are you aware of any comparisons between this law and land taken away from Palestinians? I believe I saw an article on this recently. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Netanyahu or Pompeo are discussed here. But it is a sobering reminder that Poland, US and Israel do share the same political outlook these days (nationalistic far-right), and it is why currently Polish and Israel relations are pretty bad (as those groups hate to compromise, and are always promoting 'perfect us vs evil them' rhetoric). But let's try to keep this discussion to the content of the article. Far-right leaning of Poland or Israel are not that relevant here, outside of the fact that any criticism of another country, even if justified, is also going to attract the problematic support of nationalists (which is how a reasonable protest may be ruined by a few nationalist whackos with Holocaust denial signs...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - the protesters in Poland are much-much-much farther to the right than PiS - the protesters in the march were the far-right competitors of PiS, well outflanking the ruling party. Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polish diplomat and publicist. Onet.pl is a reliable source and a mainstream news outlet.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you're quoting him not only for his opinion, but on historical facts. Why use him rather than any of the high quality scholarly sources that we already have? François Robere (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onet.pl is a web portal - it certainly isn't up to snuff in comparison to major news organizations. Furthermore, it is subject to censorship, on this very topic, under the 2018 Holocaust legislation. To top it all off - we have much better English language source on this American law. Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "subject to censorship" under any kind of legislation. Stop making ridiculous claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Freedom House - {[tq|"In February 2018, parliament passed a law criminalizing claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to three years. The government walked back the law following an international outcry, making it a civil offense punishable by fines.}} - should this internet portal (of a dubious reliability regardless) publish information on Polish complicity in the Holocaust - e.g. in regards to pilfering Jewish property (relevant to our article) - it would be subject to a fine. As other media in Poland, it is clearly unable to freely report on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Maybe you have an answer to this? [44] François Robere (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what's your question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Witold Jurasz and what makes him an RS for the purposes of the text you restored? François Robere (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Professor of International Relations and a Polish diplomat, I believe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that question was already answered above, so I'm not clear why you're asking it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Not satisfactorily. Former or current diplomat? Where is he teaching? François Robere (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the goal posts? He satisfies the criteria for RS. If you feel otherwise, WP:RSN is over that way -->>> Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS has not been met for this. As a Polish diplomat, he would also be quite involved and non-independent here. Please also provide sources for his academic credentials. All I see is former ambassador to Belarus - [45], and editing onet.pl - [46] (the Polish Foreign Ministry complaining of a misrepresentation of one of their statements). Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have anything with soccer. I'm merely asking so we can use the right title - "diplomat" vs. "former diplomat" (the latter would actually make him slightly more reliable as a source on history). As for where he teaches - that's standard to evaluating his notability. François Robere (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount and Volunteer Marek: Your attention here, please. François Robere (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff. François Robere (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to comment on Adam Sandauer, who is he and why does he get an entire section to himself? I am also an activist, can I get a section in this article? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Maybe you have an answer to this? [47] François Robere (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It helps dialogue when you actually make an effort to be clear about what it is you're asking? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the headline, and I'd expect you'd know when you restored and edited a short text that mentions him. Who is Adam Sandauer and what makes him an RS? François Robere (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "you have an answer to this" and put in a diff. It wasn't clear what the "this" was. But ok, who's Sandauer. A professor, a dissident, a publicist and an activist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Where is he teaching? François Robere (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per plwiki he is a social worker and medical doctor. It is also unclear from plwiki he is Jewish (they say assimilated for many generations). His credentials for the topic in question appear to be close to nil. Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount and Volunteer Marek: Your attention here, please. François Robere (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this diff: Claiming nationalization laws did not include a "national or racial criteria" is wrong, considering the fact they were we intended to make it difficult for Jews to recover property:

• The 1945 and 1946 laws governing restitution were enacted with the intention of restricting Jewish restitution claims.^[1]
• All other properties that had been confiscated by the Nazi regime were deemed "abandoned"; however, as Yechiel Weizman notes, the fact most of Poland's Jewry had died, in conjunction with the fact that only Jewish property was officially confiscated by the Nazis, suggest "abandoned property" was equivalent to "Jewish property".^[2]
• According to Krzyżanowski, this declaration of "abandoned" property can be seen as the last stage of the expropriation process that began during the German wartime occupation; by approving the status-quo shaped by the German occupation authorities, the Polish authorities became "the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death".^[3]

François Robere (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Claiming nationalization laws did not include a "national or racial criteria" is wrong". None do.Feel free to point to example of law that includes it, none of the sources above claim that Polish laws used national or racial criteria by the way and you are pushing your own original research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they claim that on their own they targeted a particular nationality. Would you prefer stating that "none included a nationality criteria, but several experts have noted that they targeted a specific nationality"? I'm okay with that. François Robere (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't state that either.And we already know that Jewish property was small,only around 15% of all property lost.After all Jews in pre-war Poland were pretty poor.Your sources are also pretty limited and cherry picked, others state that they aimed at helping Jews.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do they state, then, and where are the other sources of a similar quality that contradict them? François Robere (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are rather clear that "abandoned property" laws targeted Jews specifically - mainly since most of the "abandoned" (or Nazi confiscated) property was Jewish, and Jewish owners were less likely to have direct-line descendants. The communist law was indeed egalitarian in terms of wording (naming no particular nationality), however the communist framers were quite explicit in their deliberations on the aims of the legistlation. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is what the sources say, can you provide a quote? I think the sources say that Jews were incidentally targeted by this, but not intentionally. And, if they were intentionally targeted, where they the primary target? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stola, 2008, pp. 244-245:

The authors of the decrees did not conceal the fact that these restrictions had been imposed with, among other things, the possessions of murdered Jews in mind. During the debate in the Krajowa Rada Narodowa [National Council] (KRN), a temporary legislative body set up by the communists, the restrictions were justified, among other reasons, by a warning that without them there was a danger of enormous wealth being concentrated in a few hands. Such a concentration of wealth would, the proponents of the restrictions claimed, firstly be unjust and economically unproductive and, secondly, cause a rise in antisemitism. Therefore, the combination of low survival rates (i.e., the efficiency of the Nazi “Final Solution” in Poland) and the restrictions imposed by the 1945 decree meant that most of the property of the victims of the Holocaust was classified as “abandoned.” Consequently, it came under state administration and after a time (five to ten years) was nationalized.

Weizmann, 2017, pp. 36-37:

Although the decrees regarding the status of abandoned and allegedly ownerless property confiscated by the Germans, published in the beginning of 1945, did not mention Jewish property as a distinct category, Poles and Jews alike clearly understood that one of their primary goals was to prevent Jewish property from returning to Jewish hands... The fact that in occupied Poland only Jewish property as such was officially confiscated by the Germans, along with the unprecedented extermination rate of Polish Jews, suggested that ‘abandoned property’ was in many ways tantamount to ‘Jewish property.

The severe limitations placed on the possibility of reclaiming private property only further emphasized the extent to which the new legislation affected the status of Jewish property. In contrast to the pre-war law that allowed second-degree relatives the right to claim property, under the new, postwar regulations only the original owners or direct heirs could ask for restitution. In light the scale of the destruction of Polish Jewry, regaining Jewish family assets was to become an almost impossible task. Jewish leaders understood this problem very well and led the protests against the new legislation. Polish officials did not try to conceal that the change in the inheritance laws were aimed mainly at preventing the restitution of Jewish property. As the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs explained of the new legalization in October 1945: ‘We will not permit some foreign Jews, for instance Argentinian Jews, to inherit property in Poland.’ In internal discussions regarding the formulation of the new laws, some of the participants argued that their purpose was to prevent the concentration of too much wealth in the hand of ‘unproductive and parasite factors’ and to preclude the inheritance of property by ‘distant relatives in Argentina who engage in despicable jobs.’

[...]

While private restitution could still be achieved [despite the difficulties described earlier, which I didn't quote in full -FR.], communal properties could not be reclaimed, as the Communist authorities had passed a law preventing any postwar Jewish associations from claiming the right to prewar communal property. An official circular dated 6 February 1945, declared that none of the prewar Jewish communities in Poland possessed any legal heirs in the postwar era, thus no Jewish association had the right to represent them or claim their property. In order to consolidate this legal discontinuity, the new regime differentiated between the prewar Jewish communities (Gmina in Polish) and postwar Jewish associations, defining the latter as ‘congregations’ (Kongregracja). Hereby, hundreds of Jewish sites – principally synagogues and cemeteries – became formally ‘heirless.’

Icewhiz has the other source, I believe.

François Robere (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which one specifically do you want a quote from? They all generally agree Jewish property was targeted - Polish official said this in public - e.g. the FM said they did not want Argentinian Jews with "despicable jobs" to inherit - and in any event the vast majority of "abandoned" property was Jewish (as they were expelled/fled during the war, and were destroyed in great numbers - no close relatives remaining next to the property and taking it over during the war)).Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

afaict the Weizman article is referring specifically to property of "Jewish cemeteries and synagogues", not Jewish property in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's explicitly referring to private property in the first two paragraphs; only the third is about communal property. François Robere (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read sources VM - these segments clearly refer to private property. Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish cemeteries and synagogue btw were overwhelmingly returned by the way to Jewish communities post 1989.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after Jewish communities started demanding the same treatment enjoyed by the Catholic Church in post-Communist Poland. We know all about it, and cite it in the relevant article. The laws to which this discussion pertains, however, dates to the 1940's. François Robere (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be read here, the non-binding Terazin Declaration isn't mentioned [48] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RSes, however, tie this to Terezin. As do quotes from the senators initiating this, and State Department implementing it. As for the act - it uses the terminology of 2009 Holocaust Era Assets Conference - which is equivalent, and more formal way, to say Terezin. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is very sad to see misrepresentations hidden in the article. The real issue here is not about the property that can be easily recovered by the survivors or their surviving family members utilizing the Polish justice system. The issue is that Jewish organizations in the US want money for property that was left with no one to claim it. --Stepy345 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back these statements? François Robere (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in several sources already in the article, for example this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the source you just restored that we shouldn't use for historical info? Also, I assume you can see the one-sidedness of Stepy345's argument, which somehow manages to ignore most accounts by Jewish returnees, as quoted in this TP and others. François Robere (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An opedy piece (by a journalist) in a right-wing Polish newspaper making claims about foriegn Jewish organizations... Certainly we could do better here with English language sources covering said non-Polish organizations and the US legislation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove this quote? [49][50] François Robere (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining this edit:

1. I've restored some tags that were removed - I'm not sure why. Please reply here if you have answers.
2. I've removed some popular sources that were used for historical information (see #Usage of newspapers for historical information) - not sure why we need them when we have high quality academic sources for that.
3. I've incorporated the sources from the #"Abandoned" properties discussion.
4. The USDOJ is a primary source, which means the numbers are open to interpretation (are they a lot? a little? we need context). Please find a secondary source on that.
5. I'm still not clear on how "international law" is relevant here if Poland willingly accepted some responsibility under the Terezin declaration. If you can legally eat candy but willingly joined Weight Watchers, then you shouldn't eat candy. If you want to eat candy, quit Weight Watchers. The law has nothing to do with it.

François Robere (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm still not clear on how "international law" is relevant here"-It concerns relations between two countries, so it is relevant here. Terezin decleration is a non-binding statement, and Poland already stated it doesn't cover heirless property. Your personal dislike for this fact has no influence on Wikipedia-we do not base it on personal views of the users.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to "like" or "dislike" here? I'm trying to understand your rationale.

It concerns relations between two countries So is the Terezin declaration, and presumably it supersedes any previous agreement - as is usually the case (and here is the place to point out that "international law" is nothing but than a set of multilateral agreements). If Poland signed it, one can assume Poland knew what it was signing, and that in some way it may supersede or nullify agreements that Poland previously signed. And the same goes for "non binding" - presumably Poland knew that it would be expected to conform, even if no mechanism was set up to guarantee it. If Poland didn't agree with the declaration or didn't plan on conforming, then why sign it to begin with? Throwing all of this now almost looks like an attempt to re-litigate previous agreements. That being said, if you insist on including it, find us the treaty where this is stated and we'll present it in full: "the status of such property was originally determined in... from... signed by Poland on... The Terezin declaration from... also signed by Poland (on...), states however that...". François Robere (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Terezin declaration, and presumably it supersedes any previous agreement".Terezin is a non-binding political declaration that has no weight, and doesn't supersede any international law, Polish FM clearly stated during this decleration that heirless property will not be considered.We already have sources on this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We know what it is and you don't have to repeat yourself. That's not what I'm asking. François Robere (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the declaration explicitly mentions "heirless property"... Now, are you going to find the relevant treaties or are we to rely on your OR? François Robere (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have reliable sources on status of international law.If you believe they are not reliable sources, feel free to raise this on WP:RS --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite any to support that statement. Quote? François Robere (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rather dubious source in a Polish language internet portal you mean? International law generally does not address property rights. The Polish source may have meant to say that most national law systems (around the world) have a provision for heirless property. What it leaves unsaid is that the declaration of said property as heirless has been seen by experts in the field as rather dubious (due to severe, and retroactive, changes to succession laws in Poland following the war and other reasons). This is a pretty big WP:REDFLAG statement, that also contradicts an actual international proclamation - the Terezin declaration.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clear that heirless property returns to the state.The sources are reliable. If you disagre, WP:RSN awaits.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Then you shouldn't have a problem telling me which law or treaty applies here, would you? I don't think that's that. François Robere (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source supporting your claims feel free to add it.Regards--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Once again, can you provide a quote and a translation of the article (per WP:NOENG) where it mentions applicable international law? François Robere (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored information that heirless property is legally part of state.This is the main point of controversy(American organizations trying to claim property from Polish government which they never possed or had links to), which is well sourced.Concealing this information isn't justified, especially as this is pointed out by representatives of both Polish government, parties and numerous reliable sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussions: #Usage of newspapers for historical information and #Cleanup. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See no change in previous discussions. Reliable information is sourced to reliable sources and this information is vital, and sourced as such.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate: What makes RP and other dailies reliable sources on Holocaust and WWII history, or on interpretation of international law? Who are the writers, what are their qualifications etc.? And what sources do you have about "American organizations" etc.? François Robere (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream reliable newspaper-acceptable per Wikipedia rules.If you believe they are not, feel free to raise this on WP:RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to. Per WP:SOURCETYPES: "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." We have good scholarly sources on these things - why do we need the dailies? François Robere (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can add other scholarly sources once they become available.However these ones are reliable and contain vital information, there is no need to remove them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, these aren't scholarly. That's the whole point. And there are alternatives. You can't removed one and keep the other like you consistently do on eg. "abandoned property". Now do answer: Who are the writers and what makes them experts on these topics? François Robere (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The writers are reliable sources in reliable newstream publications.If you believe they are not, I suggest you start a topic on WP:RSN. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS on you to show these Polish internet portals are reliable for this sort of information, particularly due to suppression of free speech in this topic area in Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewiz, please don't invent stories about suppression of free speech in this topic area in Poland. It's not true. Please explain how the government suppresses US Discovery (TVN) freedom of speech. You don't have any idea about Poland, you are indoctrinated by liberal propaganda. Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people protesting against the JUST just lost their twitter accounts. So much about freedom of speech. Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: You keep restoring errors into the article - mainly punctuation and some spelling errors, as well as the removal of a "not in source" tag. I previously asked that you don't (in edit summaries and on your TP). Please fix. François Robere (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any glaring errors there. Feel free to make minor corrections you deem necessary, but do not remove sourced information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not glaring, but still errors: "1,2 billion zloty", missing spaces, the occasional typo, misplacement of ref tags etc. I would gladly fix them on occasion, but not every time. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: You replicated sources instead of using named ones - now we have several identical copies of a couple of sources. François Robere (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Please correct.[51][52] If you have issues with that I suggest passing the text through a word processor before posting, or using some browser addon that would do that. François Robere (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the page is about Poland. Something is wrong.Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but effectively it is about Poland - a combination of most other countries (in the West and subsequently the East) implementation restitution of Holocaust properties and the relatively large amount of victims (and hence, property) in Poland to begin with. As a consequence - most of the RS coverage has been on Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also most of the resistance... Regardless, Xx236 is free to add sources on other countries - we didn't choose to focus on Poland, it's just how the publicity on the issue turned (not least because of the demonstrations around the US). François Robere (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In either case it would be good to have a section for each country, even if to say that it has just complied with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly the results of the reporting associated with the act (as this is about the act, not about the Terezin decl.), or something like that. François Robere (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it would be good to have a section for each country, which may be implemented arount 2137, as far Poles are the only bad guys and the only Holocaust experts edit pages about Poland. They apparently tore away only few pages from a book in their library. Please return to the library and read the other 95% of the book. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this bizarre statement in the text. This is quite wrong.Germany confiscated a lot of private property in Western Poland, for example houses and land taken from around 700,000 Poles that were ethnically cleansed to make room for German colonists in areas like Warthegau.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote is "Jewish property as such", ie on ethnic grounds. François Robere (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange statement. A number of churches obtained properties. It includes Jewish religious communes.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be of some interest that he relies on both authors in regards to sourcing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-hauled one of the sections [53] and would like to explain my rationale as I'm doing so.

1. The law is about properties confiscated by the Nazis, so much of weight given to Communist nationalization is simply irrelevant.
2. The "15%-20%" claim is unsourced, so placing it as a counter to Stola and the other sources is undue.
3. The "restituting Jewish property will create a precedent, primarily for nobility and the church" statement is nonsense - the Church already reclaimed its properties in the early 90's, which created the precedent for Jewish communities to do the same. It's well documented.
4. This also affects the "in 1997 Poland restored communal Jewish property" statement.
5. Putting the "we've already restored so much" paragraph before the actual historical background smells of apologetics.
6. I've removed a source that has been misrepresented: it was quoted for international law,[54] though it doesn't actually mention it. What's more, it mentions several exceptions, including the nationalization of property in the EE Communist states. This isn't the first time this happened.[55][56]
7. I've tagged another source, as I don't have access to it and the citation is wrong: vol. 13 is from 2005, not 2010; 2010 saw vol. 18 published.
8. I did not change anything in this[57] text, but I have to say I find this edit quite petty.

François Robere (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You line seems to be anti-apologetical, so I answer you below.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poland finances:

• Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum
• Sobibór Museum
• Majdanek State Museum with a Bełżec branch
• Gross-Rosen concentration camp museum
• Stutthof concentration camp museum
• Oskar Schindler's Enamel Factory
• Warsaw Ghetto Museum under construction
• many other Holocaust memorials and museums
• POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews
• Old Jewish Cemetery, Wrocław
• Jewish Historical Institute
• Polish Center for Holocaust Research

Poland has paid pensions to Jewish-Polish soldiers of WWII. The pensions were small, but level of life in Poland was low.

There is opinion that such institutions should be financed by a Polish-Jewish foundation organised according to Terezin and JUST rather than directly by the state or local governments.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Poland pays[reply]

The whole nation constructs Warsaw was one of the most popular political slogans after the war. Millions offered money, such donations were sometimes obligatory, so it was a tax. Part of the Old Town was removed to construct the W-Z tunnel. The Old and New Town were (re)constructed on the basis of 18 century pictures by Bernardo Bellotto. I want my part of reconstructed Warsaw, financed by my parents and grandparents.

Warsaw could have been constructed in an another place, which would have reduced value of Warsaw building plots many times. Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://culture.pl/en/article/how-warsaw-came-close-to-never-being-rebuilt Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the 'Criticism' is actually commentary on a law that was implemented in Poland not on the actual reporting that this bill requires. This page is becoming a soapbox for 'all criticism of Holocaust restitution' which is not the title of this article.

> In March 2018, 59 US Senators sent a bipartisan letter to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, stating that draft legislation (published on 20 October 2017,[24]) in Poland would discriminate against Holocaust survivors in the United States. The proposed Polish bill would require claimants to reside in Poland as Polish citizens, and would exclude heirs that are not "first-line heirs".[25] The Polish bill was subsequently withdrawn.[12]

This belongs on a new article about that law. At best a reference to it under 'laws implemented following the JUST Act / Declaration' is sufficient here. Either that or this page needs to give proper coverage on that bill, from reliable sources (like we have for the act this page is supposed to cover).

Philipwhiuk (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek Yesterday you've removed several paragraphs from the article.[58][59][60] You've previously worked on this article and referred to the longstanding version as "NPOV" and "neutral".[61][62] I've looked at your removals and restored some of the material that I deemed important (less than a third), including the reactions of Polish diplomats (which you removed as part of an edit with the summary "who cares what a neo Nazi thinks") and a much abbreviated description of the protests by Polish/American organizations.[63][64] You immediately removed the restored content with the summary "stop following me around, please get consensus for inclusion",[65] despite a) knowing that both you and I have been editing this page since mid 2019;[66][67] and b) having described the longstanding version as "NPOV" and "neutral". Care to explain? François Robere (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The amount of text that was dedicated to Poland was UNDUE and served as a COATRACK. I’m bothered by the fact that you’ve shown up on several articles in the recent past solely to revert me. Volunteer Marek 15:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VM, the problem isn't that I'm following you - I'm not - the problem is that you've been busying yourself purging criticisms from articles across the TA:

• You removed 17 kb from Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017,[68] which has been quiet since February last year.[69] You made no other edit.
• You removed 1.2 kb from Norman Davies,[70] which has been quiet since February 27th.[71] You made no other edit.
• You reverted a 1.2 kb edit I've made on Historical policy of the Law and Justice party after putting it up for discussion for ten days.[72] You made no other edit.
• You reverted thousands of bytes of content on Jan Żaryn added by various editors after intense discussion.[73] You've added little, if any content.
• You've removed 4k from Islamophobia in Poland.[74] You've added little, if any content.

You've made some of these edits under false pretense: you've removed statements by Polish diplomats as "neo nazi",[75] sourced and singular material as "unsourced and redundant",[76] and accurate quotes of a BLP as "misrepresentation of sources".[77] In other cases you seem oblivious to what the sources say, even when quotes have been presented.[78][79][80]

I've reverted some of your edits on some of these articles, because these are the ones I follow and disagreed with. I don't follow the other ones (though I'm acquainted with and/or edited them in the past), so I wasn't aware of your edits there until today. Unfortunately you've been WP:EDITWARRING, casting WP:ASPERSIONS and making WP:PERSONALATTACKs in all of our encounters, leading other editors to comments such as "Please do not use edit summaries to accuse other editors of meat-puppetry" (K.e.coffman)[81] and "please WP:AGF with other editors... If this discussion cannot remain civil, we will need an admin involved" (Brigade Piron).[82] This follows on multiple warnings you've received from El C.[83]

This reeks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:BATTLEGROUND and is damaging for the encyclopedia. François Robere (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted this reply AFTER my reply below (17:30 vs 15:21) but the placing makes it seem otherwise. Can you thread your comments properly? Volunteer Marek 21:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you posted twice on separate subjects (15:20 and 15:21) and I replied to the first, right? François Robere (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theres also multiple tags on the article, obviously, and my edit was intended to at least partly address these problems. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And who put them there, I wonder?[84][85] François Robere (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. Volunteer Marek 00:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That you're trying to address a "problem" of your own making (so to speak) without actually explaining why it's a problem. François Robere (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a problem with this article that had been left unaddressed for a couple years. I just tried addressing it. Again, I fail to see what your objection is. Volunteer Marek 18:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. What's the problem, then - specifically with the parts that I restored?[86][87] François Robere (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, I took a quick look. I think the first one is mostly ok, but not this. It needs to be at the very least shortened, there are obvious Icewhicizms in the form of coatracks like the jab "in a similar fashion to the 2018 Polish Holocaust law". (At least it no longer potrays the protesters in the US as Polish nationalists, but there is still undue focus on one or two antisemitic placards; the majority of the protesters in the US were certainly not expressing antisemitic sentiment and we should avoid misrepresenting the protests as antisemitic). As usual, the issue is with likely UNDUE weight given to some comments. For example, who is Matthew Lenoe and why is their opinion worth quoting? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Matthew Lenoe studies Stalinism and WWII,[88] Jonathan Brent is director of YIVO, and with Rafał Pankowski you're already familiar. Lenoe states exactly what is quoted: "Similar to a 2018 Polish law... the event was the latest attempt to erase complex or negative aspects of Polish history... these right-wing Polish nationalists aim to reinforce a narrative in which Poles feature only as heroes and victims."[89]

I haven't counted how many signs were antisemitic and how many weren't, but the cited sources focus on that aspect. If you think it UNDUE, I suggest finding other sources that legitimize these protests or present other facets of them. François Robere (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article overall is a classic WP:COATRACK. It's barely about the subject itself but rather serves as an excuse/platform for another topic. Which is why the majority of this material (some of which I removed) wasn't even about the Act. And honestly, I kind of doubt this article even passes WP:NOTABILITY, though I'm not familiar off the top of my head what the notability guidelines are for "acts", particularly purely symbolic ones such as this. Volunteer Marek 16:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we all got too focused on the Polish aspect of it early on, which why I only restored 5k out of the 17k you removed, but those 5k are directly relevant.

You can try to WP:XFD it, but given the protests and the number of references I doubt it'll pass. François Robere (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: So can I restore this, or do you still have objections? François Robere (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think that it's ok to restore it? We just went through how that is a WP:COATRACK and you even partially acknowledge this to be true. ??? Volunteer Marek 17:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because:

1. We're not discussing what was here before, we're discussing what I want to restore now. You can't argue that some text is bad just because it shared a revision with another text that is thematically unrelated.
2. There's already agreement for the first part (the diplomats)
3. I haven't gotten a reply from either of you in four days, so I'm assuming you either lost interest or we've come to an agreement.

Of course, we can always RfC this and see what the community thinks. François Robere (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right above, Piotrus is objecting to your "second one". That's what you're now proposing to restore, acting like there's agreement for that. There isn't. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to restore both parts,[90][91] and as noted above there's already agreement for the first part. I'm not "acting" like anything, I'm trying to move the discussion along while voiding any chance of you reverting parts that are already agreed on. François Robere (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, Let's do an RfC and have it over with. I doubt we will arrive at anything workable otherwise... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for your input. François Robere (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 mention the protests against the law that took place in Poland and the US?[92] François Robere (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as nom. The paragraph is relevant, concise and well sourced, and the sources (Rafal Pankowski, Jonathan Brent and Matthew Lenoe) make it clear that the events were unusual and had a large enough attendance to merit a mention. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, although the wording of the edit could use some tweaking - while the protests do seem to have been rooted in anti-semitism based on the sources available, that part of the edit could be phrased more dispassionately and with fewer direct specific quotes. --Tserton (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No The sources are cherry picked, and presented in tendentious matter, contributing nothing of worth to the article. It would be the best if they were removed all together as it would improve quality of the text.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per WP:UNDUE, unless we’re talking one or two sentences. At minimum the relevant text needs to be greatly cut down as it’s way too long relative to rest of article (so this is also a bit of a WP:COATRACK) Volunteer Marek 02:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. DUE, as googling for "Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today"+protest brings up these: [93][94][95] in the first page.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Plenty of coverage, relevant to the topic. As long as the subsection isn't going to balloon to the point where it takes over the whole subsection, it should definitely be included. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. Mention, yes, the problem is with undue weight on them and with trying to frame them as antisemitic just because a few antisemitic individuals participated. One sentence will do, stating that protests happened, and that's it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. It is relevant to the article and one or two sentences suffices. Sea Ane (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - a mention (Summoned by bot) the question asked is whether it should mention to which the answer would be yes, but some of the 'diffs' linked above are so OTT and WP:COATRACK-y that neither my 'vote' nor anyone else's should be interpreted as defending any prev versions. Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pincrete: Only one diff is within the scope of the RfC. François Robere (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember exactly which diffs I looked at - I looked at linked ones and 'history'. The specific diff you link to removes around 8K from an article length of under 17K and most of it comments on protestors not protests, so it is a great deal more than 'a mention'. My assessment holds, the text was OTT and more directed at discrediting protestors than at establishing what objections might have been. That SOME protestors were probably Anti-Sem can be communicated in a sentence. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was OTT, which is why this diff is only 3.8k, of which 2.8k are just refs.[96] I tried to convey the fact that most sources are clear about the nature and context of at least two of the protests,[97][98][99][100][101][102][103] without making judgment about others. The reason I ask about a "mention" is that one editor objected to any mention of this, which I think is unacceptable. François Robere (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the antisemitic protests against the bill and the return of stolen property to Holocaust survivors should be covered. The proposed text is a necessary start that should be expanded upon. --Hum Dum Hum (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm sorry but this RfC is worded in a misleading way. I don't think there's any objection to "mentioning" the protests. What there is objection to is inserting a section on the protests which is longer than the article itself as that clearly violates WP:WEIGHT and is used as a WP:COATRACK. The outcome of this RfC then will be meaningless. Volunteer Marek 12:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is misleading. This RfC is not about a section, it's a about a 134 word paragraph[104] in a 753 word article.[105] François Robere (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then frame the RfC in a proper way saying that. My comment is fine. Volunteer Marek 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Should the article mention the protests against the law?[diff with 134 word paragraph]" is pretty clear. François Robere (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to be the case based on some of the comments above. Most people would agree that it bears the mention. But the RfC is really one of those where you are asking for a carte blanche to put whatever you want in the article. Volunteer Marek 21:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you against making assumptions about others' intent, unless they're of good faith. François Robere (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time following the original discussion, but irrespective of the outcome of this RfC I would support trimming down the section as a whole. --Tserton (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. It used to be much longer ([106][107][108]), but some less relevant material remains. Related discussions: #Who is Witold Jurasz and what makes him an RS?, #Who is Adam Sandauer and what makes him an RS?. François Robere (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]