Poland Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can someone explain the title of this template to me? It appears to be about Holocaust in Poland, which was perpetrated by the Nazis. Unfortunately the title suggests "Poland perpetrators", i.e. perpetration of the Holocaust by Poles or Polish organization. - yet as far as I can see none of the people or organizations listed in the template where Polish, most appear to be German with a couple of other nationalities.

Aside form the title, the template itself appears to be ok and useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just move it to Template:Perpetrators of the Holocaust in Poland. Hopefully the creator will put more thoughts into the title next time... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually now I'm thinking that "occupied" should be added to the template title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's discuss this at Talk:The Holocaust in Poland first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There does not appear to be any recent or pertinent discussion over there at the moment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then perhaps we should start one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously we should add in German occupied Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ummmmm [1] - there was a discussion related to this and Hoops Gza didn't bother to participate. If you're going to undo discussed moves at the very least you should make an attempt to participate in the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the discussion on this page what you're referring to? I do not see much discussion here to move the page to "German occupied Poland" and I certainly do not see a consensus. Your page move was disruptive rather than constructive.

There is no outstanding reason to have a prefix like "German occupied" in front of the nations that the Third Reich occupied. It is not a needed piece of clarification and it creates more problems than it's worth. The Holocaust only occurred in territory that was occupied by the Third Reich, that is well understood by anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject. It is a given that it was "German occupied". The Holocaust was an event perpetrated by Nazis (mostly German) in German-occupied land. If you were to add "German occupied" here there would then be people moving pages for "German occupied France", "German occupied Ukraine", "German occupied Estonia" etc. "The Holocaust in Poland" is more than enough to clarify the meaning of the box. There is only one "Holocaust" that has happened in Poland, and the navbox itself links to the article "Holocaust in Poland" for anyone with doubts. Furthermore, the links within the navbox link back to the main article on The Holocaust for anyone with doubts. Furthermore, moving template titles creates more editing that has to be done to the code on the mother template in order for the mother template to be editable.Hoops gza (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhhh.... there definitely is a discussion above. And there definitely appears to be a consensus to move the page. No opposing voices commented. What you did is move the page yourself, then show up here AFTER I reminded you that you should discuss such moves, declared "no consensus" and "no discussion" despite the fact that it's sitting right there above plain for everyone to see. Not only that but you simultanously accused me of being "disruptive" without any basis what so ever. "Disruptive" how? Because you don't agree with it? Sorry, that's not how it works.

As to the substance, whether "The Holocaust in Poland" is enough is a subjective opinion. The phrasing "German occupied Poland" as used in relation to the Holocaust is found in many many many reliable sources and is pretty much standard. For example: [2], [3], most directly relevant here, [4], [5], [6], and that's just for starters. Additionally, my title is more precise and avoids potential for misunderstanding. While we should and do assume a certain amount of background knowledge in our readers, at the same time it's good to be careful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm thinking that you struggle with reading comprehension. You do not have consensus to move the page to "German occupied Poland". You brought up the idea and it appears that one other person agreed. The titles of these boxes refer to the geographic location where the events took place. The events in this box took place in what is commonly known as Poland. That is what it is known as throughout the world. It is well understood. There is no need for further clarification. In fact it is almost an insult to intelligence to put in "German occupied" before every article relating to the Holocaust. Of course they took place in German occupied land - Germans were the perpetrators. Would you also like to move The Holocaust to The Holocaust in German-occupied lands? You know, to distinguish it from that other, imaginary Holocaust that took place outside of German-occupied lands?

It is very obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject what the title means. This is a case where adding more words to the title might actually confuse rather than help readers.Hoops gza (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm thinking that you struggle with reading comprehension. Please read WP:NPA. Don't make comments like that again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway, above I've provided several sources which use the phrasing I've proposed. You have offered nothing but your own opinion and assertions. I am going to move back the template to the name I've proposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, you do not have consensus. And your sources do nothing to disprove the fact that this is most commonly referred to as, and it is a commonly accepted understanding that, this is referred to as "The Holocaust in Poland", like the main article that the template links to.

I repeat: Would you also like to move The Holocaust to The Holocaust in German-occupied lands? You know, to distinguish it from that other, imaginary Holocaust that took place outside of German-occupied lands? Or perhaps we should move it to The Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Such a move makes no sense and is disruptive rather than constructive.Hoops gza (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A single user - yourself in this case - cannot hold consensus hostage. Other users have agreed with my proposal. Additionally I've provided sources to show that my proposed phrasing is used in sources. You have done nothing, except offer your own opinion. An assertion - which is all that your statement is - is not an argument. Provide sources or evidence, not empty air.

Your analogy with the Holocaust is a false analogy. "The Holocaust" is widely accepted terminology about a very very general topic. Here we are dealing with a particular specific sub topic and hence, here, more precision is better.

And drop this whole 'disruptive rather than constructive' thing. All you're doing is showing your unfamiliarity with what "disruptive" means in terms of Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One user wrote a one line response agreeing with your proposal. That is not consensus. I have not provided opinion, I have provided reasoning, logic and fact. It is not an opinion that "The Holocaust" is accepted terminology which means among other things "the crimes perpetrated by Nazi Germany in German-occupied lands". It is a fact. The title explains itself. Your proposal is somewhat akin to saying "the murder committed by the murderer". The evidence is woven right into Wikipedia. The Holocaust in Poland is the title of the main article and it is also widely accepted terminology. The only reason we even added in "in Poland" was for the purposes of distinguishing the geographic regions of the large event. What exactly do you think "German-occupied" distinguishes, anyhow?

First you should try getting The Holocaust in Poland moved to The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland before you try getting this moved to another title.Hoops gza (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: Trim list to those collaborators with a role in perpetrating the Holocaust in Poland, per the name of the template. I.e. Judenrat, Russian Liberation Army do not apply. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I removed the latest additions as original research: diff. The template is for the perpetrators of the Holocaust, not just collaborators of the Nazi regime in general. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:K.e.coffman - your rationale is a little unclear. Did you mean to remove RONA or not? It looks like you're removing it from one part of the template but adding it to another:

Also, I agree that Judenrat or Kapo don't belong here, Jewish Ghetto Police and the 13 probably due, at least if you're gonna put Blue Police in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, it's hard to see how this guy, or at least the organization he headed, doesn't qualify.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've not come across discussions in Holocaust literature of Judenrate, Ghetto police etc. as Holocause perpetrators; that's why I removed these entries as original research. I did not add / remove RONA; I changed the wl since the article had been renamed. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I see, you kept RONA but took out ROA. Makes sense. With respect to Judenrat and Ghetto police there is indeed a literature on the extent to which these collaborated with the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust. Special "Honor Courts" were even set up for the purpose. For example: [7] [8] and [9]. One could argue here that since the courts decided against broad generalizations and declaring entire organizations culpable, then these should not be included. But then, like I already pointed out, same logic should apply to the Blue Police and such.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note also that these organizations are being listed in the section on "collaboration" (which I guess is different from "participation in"?) rather than "organizations", which makes it even more confusing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces, Tadeusz Piotrowski

"In any case, the Judenrat became an instrument in the hands of the Gestapo for the extermination of the Jews" page 73 --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The above is a misreprestentation of the source; Piotrowski does not say this in his own voice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

??? Who is quoting then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are plenty of scholarly sources describing direct involvement of Judenrate and Ghetto Police in Holocaust.I can provide plenty if required.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I reverted the attempt to reintroduce the contested entries: diff. Suggest providing sources to back up each inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]