Talk:Polish culture during World War II

works of art ?

TV series and rock belong rather to pop-culture. I'm not a native speaker - works of art mean rather pictures and sculptures, don't they?

I have replaced one instance of the word artists by writers, but I have realised that it was a general problem. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Work of art is anything. I started the list there with few positions; of course more are needed. While writers were the most prominent, there were other artists. Song composers, for example; theater artists, scene performers, and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"formal publication of any Polish language book, literary study or a scholarly paper was forbidden" - so what is this: [1] and items no. 2, 120, 134, 147, 163, 181 here: [2]? MCiura (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At least some books were published, I don't know the rules. certainly books for children. Johanna Spyri is a German-language writer, very popular in Germany. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the latter positions may have been published underground. As for the others, I guess there may have been some exceptions, certainly more can written about them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cinemas

Movies were working and Poles visiting them, even if forbidden by the underground state. BTW - the article is Movie theater, not cinema.Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nom on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This could be GA quality but we need to overhaul it to get there.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This is the first portion I'm uncomfortable with. In addition to some minor flaws throughout, there are two glaring instances of prose in need of work. The first is the lede: it's too short and it inadequately summarizes the article. The second is section of WWII's effect on Polish culture. The works listed there should not be in a bullet point format; please prose-ify them with proper citations. In addition, the section on Polish emigration should either be expanded or merged into another header, since one sentence a section does not make.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are mostly in Polish. I have concerns with the NPOV problems inherent in using Polish sources in an article about Poland's suffering during World War II, but I'll deal with that later. The aftermath and emigration sections have no sources, which is a big problem - please find some.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No major issues here aside from the NPOV problems I will tackle elsewhere.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This is my primary area of concern. It is difficult to write about Nazi atrocities in an NPOV manner, but we have to do it. Reading the article I get the sense that the article is not really about Polish culture during this time period, but instead about what the Nazis and Soviets did to Polish culture during this time period. I would suggest a different manner of approaching the topic. First, split off the Nazis and Soviets into two overarching sections - figuring out who did what was confusing at times. Second, separate out the types of culture: the Nazi handling of paintings and sculptures was undoubtedly different than their handling of academic publications and newspapers. Third, put greater emphasis on what the Polish did culturally themselves - what plays, movies, books, etc. were produced during this time period? And fourth, expand the aftermath section and show what the long-term cultural effects were.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   No issues here.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No issues with image usage. Normally for a topic of this scope and time period I'd prefer more images, but given the extenuating circumstances of Nazi looting and being under an occupation, the lack of representative images is understandable for a GA level rating.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck, and please contact me if you have any questions or when you've finished and would like me to look again. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not a native English speker, there is little I can do to improve the prose. I have listed the page with League of Copyeditors; do note that (based on my experience) their backlog is about half a year...

Polish sources are completly acceptable per WP:RS; my count shows that 19 out of 22 sources are English in any case. I have added more sources - I agree the last section was missing them (it is no more).

I don't think we need to split of Nazi and Soviet into sections, as we have only a para about the Soviet actions. I do think it could be expanded eventually, and when it is, I would have no problem with such a split; currently it does not seem necessary.

Changes since your review: [3]

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: more changes include a c/e by User:Nihil novi.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Great changes, I just have one final request...any chance you could expand the introduction a bit? It's currently just two paragraphs that I can barely call paragraphs. A little meat to them and you're good to go! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead expanded.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Promoted. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal Caskets

What is the connection between Queen Bona's 16th-century Royal Casket and Izabela Czartoryska's Royal Casket of 1800, to which it is now linked in the caption? Nihil novi (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this seems to be an error. The 19th century item should be mentioned only, as it is an example of a looted item that is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Both caskets were destroyed by the Germans in World War II, but only Queen Bona's is mentioned in this article — while being unaccountably linked to Izabela Czartoryska's Royal Casket, which is the one that has its own article. Nihil novi (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Could you correct it, as you seem to have more knowledge of this issue than I? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're only using a photo of Queen Bona's Royal Casket, with no reference to it in the article's text, and since you don't mention Izabela Czartoryska's Royal Casket in the text either, simplest thing would be to simply de-link "Royal Casket" in the caption. Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not link them both, since we discussed them here? Also, perhaps we should move the Czartoryska's casket, and create a disambig if more Royal Caskets are notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Is there an article on "Queen Bona's Royal Casket"? Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Is it notable for us to create it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you spoke of "linking them both," I understood that either there was a "Queen Bona's Royal Casket" to link to, or that you thought there should be. As to notability... Wikipedia is not paper... Nihil novi (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about Russian role

The article goes so far as to say that the Soviet zone was little better than the German occupation - yet also quotes reviews describing commitment to Polish culture as stronger than ever before after 1945, and limits this period of discussion to the period between wars. Was the treatment of Poles by Russians during the war much harsher than the Warsaw Bloc status afterward, and if so, how and why? Wnt (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Long story short, after Barbarossa desperate Soviets realized they need every straw (read: Poles) to help them stop and defeat the Germans, and later, even with the relative indifference from Western Allies they could not justify such open hostility to Polish culture (plus they needed to promise that Poland would be a state, not a Soviet republic, and a state had to had a semblance of sovereignty and uniqueness); thus a new policy - "eternal communist Slavic brotherhood" - was chosen. PS. You may want to ask User:Molobo, I believe he knows many relevant Polish publications on the related subjects.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference in treatment was based on difference in policy. Territory occupied by Russians in 1939 was populated mostly by Ukrainians and it was incorporated into Ukrainian SSR. Its Polish minority btw was killed off by Ukrainians during the war, see Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Well, so before German invasion the Soviet authorities persecuted Poles and their culture both for "class" reasons (because landowners, capitalists and priests are evil bourgeoisie) and for national reasons to bring about Ukrainization. Meanwhile, Poland as established after the war was recognized by Soviets as the country of the Poles, hence they had nothing against the local culture there. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish writers and artists

I'm not sure if a reader understands, that the majority of names are non-Jewish, that the majority of Jews died 1942-1943.

Isn't word gentiles equal or even more precise than Christian here? Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish literature means Jewish according to Nazis, i.e. written by ethnic Jews.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Over a million Polish citizens were deported to Siberia

According to Soviet documents less than 500 000. Many of them to Kasakhstan or Arkhangelsk region, which wasn't Siberia.Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Germans allowed culture

Germans allowed to publish uncomplicated texts and to perform in cabarets. Both activities were sometimes illegal from the Polish point of view and punished during or after the war. Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Publication of any Polish-language book - not true, e.g. many books for children were published.Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rozstrzelanie V - execution V - Wróblewski.jpg

The image Image:Rozstrzelanie V - execution V - Wróblewski.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Enrollment in Polish schools

Polish wiki has unreferenced statistic that a year after the invasion, enrollment in Polish schools dropped to about 30% of the pre-war. I am trying to track down the source of this statistic, so far unsuccessfully.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actors and audiences

Kazimierz Braun, in his history of Polish theatre points out that the AK sometimes authorised actors to perform if it was of use to morale or AK operations. Braun likewise points out that many of the theatre shows allowed by the Nazis bordered on pornographic caberet and, ironically, were often visited by AK soldiers themselves. (79.190.69.142 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Feel free to expand the article, but please follow the WP:CITE policy and cite the reference (Braun) properly. Please consider registering before editing the article. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacing of Polish language

Twice in one short paragraph. BTW - the "new" languages were Soviet.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Which paragraph? Please, be more clear, and fix errors instead of making cryptic comments on talk. We have asked this of you many, many times. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of Jewish culture in Poland

The destruction of Jewish culture in Poland should be described, eg. of synagogues (only one s. in Łódź mentioned), Toras. Destruction of Poland's Jewish community is mentioned only in postwar paragraph. The artists were generally isolated from their non-Jewish public and/or coautors and finally murdered. People like Janusz Korczak or Bruno Schulz were important for big part of educated public in Poalnd. "The Messiah" by Schulz was probably one of very important Polish language books.Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Valid points, but as I've explained here 1) those issues were not covered by any sources I've read and 2) this article is about the Polish culture, not the Jewish culture. So, while death of Polish language artists of Jewish ethnicity is relevant to this article (I've added Korczak and Shultz to the sentence listing murdered writers), destruction of Jewish synagogues is less so (as they were important to the Jewish culture, not Polish - but I've added a ref sentence on the destruction of synagogues as well). If you have reliable sources, please expand the article with them. I would love to see a sentence or even paragraph summarizing the destruction of the Polish-Jewish culture, but none of my sources had any useful material. Further, do note that this article links to Holocaust in Poland, so interested editors can find out more info about destruction of Jewish culture in Poland in WWII there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem how much the synagogues were part of Polish culture is very complicated. From the point of view of the Second Republic they were. Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid argument; which is why I added the note to the article. In the future, don't hesitate to edit the article, adding referenced information. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a complicated problem. Depends on whether the adjective "Polish" is being used as pertaining to ethnic Poles or, in a more general sense, to the citizens of Poland. In this last case other minorities, besides Jews, which existed in Poland should be mentioned: Ukranians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Roma, etc. I guess this is not the purpose of this article. Tsf (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Portrait of Raphael

I have removed the following unreferenced addition, with no prejudice to it being readded once its properly referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Portrait of Raphael was the most important painting robbed by Germans. Some authors believe however that the portrait was painted by another artist, eg. Sebastiano del Piombo."

Wprost quotes Józef Grabski http://www.wprost.pl/ar/71316/Kod-Czartoryskich/?I=1152, it would be better to check the original paper by Grabski.Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article; thank you for the link. However I couldn't find the claim that this may be the most expensive painting robbed by the Germans? Also, I couldn't find a reference to any paper by Grabski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Józef Grabski, Zaginiony "Portret młodzieńca" Rafaela ze zbiorów XX. Czartoryskich w Krakowie. Ze studiów nad typologią portretu renesansowego, [w:] Rafael i jego spadkobiercy. Portret klasyczny w sztuce nowożytnej Europy. Materiały sesji naukowej pod red. S. Dudzika i T. J. Żuchowskiego, Toruń 2003, (= Sztuka i Kultura, 4), s. 221—261 Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [4] - 52 000 of objects robbed by Germans, the most expensive painting (if painted by Raphael).Xx236 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that info to the article now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• The last paragraph of Censorship, control and propaganda says "Overall, the purpose and goals of Nazi propaganda in occupied Poland can be divided into several phases", yet only two are listed. "Several" implies more; were there only the two? --Malleus Fatuorum 11:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• From Visual arts and music:"despite German bans on Poles using cameras, photographs and even videos were taken." I don't think the word "videos" is appropriate here. Wouldn't "films" be better if that's what's meant? Videos implies some kind of CRT display compatible recording. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think you are right, fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An observation while copyediting

Words beginning with "anti-" need to be rendered consistently: is it "anti-semitic" or "anti-Semitic"; is it "anti-communist", "anti-Communist", or "anti-Soviet"? Is there MOS guidance on this? Magic♪piano 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question; I'd suggest use the spellings as based on our articles. But there seem to be no standard: we have antisemitism, anti-communism and Anti-Sovietism :D I'd suggest raising this issue at WP:VP or WP:MOS... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've somewhat arbitrarily standardized the usages here: mostly anti-Capitalized, except antisemitic.

My pass through this is article is basically complete; I left you a few tags. You should check the proper use of WP:ENDASHes in citations containing page ranges -- I only noticed that some used dashes today. I'll probably look at the article again in 4-5 days for a slightly less-thorough second look. Magic♪piano 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll work on the tagged issues in the meantime. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Redzik ref

As geocities is closing down, this link should be replaced. It's not in the wayback machine. Related material is at [5] and at [6] LeadSongDog come howl 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are not the same articles (but the same author). It's an online website for an academic conference with academic conference. The link may be removed, but the work is still valid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious sources

The article partially relies on dubious sources, eg

• sources published in Communist Poland, such as Madajczyk, 1970 (used to source numerous statements)
• a pamphlet published by the Polish "Ministry of Information" in 1945 (used to source numerous statements)
• no publishing date given for "Czocher, Anna, "Jawne polskie życie kulturalne w okupowanym Krakowie 1939–1945 w świetle wspomnień " (used to source numerous statements) (meanwhile fixed)
• website article by Ewa Bukowska - not fact-checked/peer-reviewed, not written by historians/scholars (used to source numerous statements)
• website http://www.warsawuprising.com/timeline.htm - not fact-checked/peer-reviewed, not written by historians/scholars (used to source numerous statements)

See my reply at the FA review. Out of these, I think only the MoI pamphlet is in any way problematic. Maybe - I haven't looked at it yet.radek (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A FA (or any other article) should not rely on that kind of sources to back up "facts". I propose Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if this is not fixed in the course of the FA review. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod has a valid point with regard to communist era historical sources in Poland. The wartime losses were generally considered as ‘’Polish’’ without mentioning the fact that the Jews suffered disproportionally . Polish losses at the hands of the Soviets were a taboo subject that were never discussed. In the case of Madajczyk and Luczak the events that they are referring to should be cross checked with Western academic sources to verify their accuracy. Both Madajczyk and Luczak were respected scholars and by no means communist party hacks, they are cited by western sources dealing with Poland during the war. I will be willing to cooperate with the editors here to improve the article by including these English language academic sources in the article. I hope we can work together to improve the article and end this bickering. Lets end this silly food fight and work together as a team.

We must assume that Skapperod is acting in good faith to improve this article. But she should acknowledge that Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles are indeed historical fact, Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles are not communist propaganda and the mention of Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles is not anti-German. I am ashamed to admit that my mom’s ancestors owned slaves in Virginia, that is the legacy I must live with and cannot deny. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Both Madajczyk and Luczak were respected scholars and by no means communist party hacks"

At least Madajczyk was a member of the ruling Communist party. In Madajczyk's favour it must be ammended that membership in the Communist party was semi-obligatory to everyone aiming at a successful career and does not necessarily mean that the member supported everything the Communists said and did. Yet no matter how decent a person was - and in favour of the scholars let's assume they were the most decent persons - there was no way of circumventing the censors' guidelines. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In communist Poland, as in other communist parties, you had to be a Party member to be able to advance your career - but it doesn't mean that one was a "communist party hack"; a lot of people simply got their Party legitimation, paid their Party dues, and didn't give it a second thought. But yes, you are right, there was censorship and such - but censorship usually means that stuff wasn't published (ex. the Soviet terror was hardly studied), not that it was biased. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is not only about striking stuff out, that is just one part of it. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod, how are sources published in the DDR treated in Germany today and on German Wikipedia in particular? Are there warnings given to alert readers that it was published under communist rule? Are they universally disregarded as communist propaganda?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Herbert Aptheker was a well known American scholar of African American history, forty years ago the right wing here in the US would also point out that he was a communist. This was regarded as MacCarthyism by liberals who accepted Aptheker's works as being historicaly valuable.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There looks to be some well-sourced criticism of Czesław Madajczyk in the PL WP article [7] that was not brought over into the EN version. It would be good to include this. Novickas (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, here is the link in English that Polish Wikipedia is referring to, Madajacyk followed the party line for sure, no question[8]--Woogie10w (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The link confirms that Madajczyk was indeed biased. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/cih2gm/

"It is with great sadness that we have learned of the death of Professor Czeslaw Madaiczyk, Chairman of the Polish Committee for the History of World War I and II, who died on 15 February 2008. Czeslaw Madajczyk was an eminent historian, whose scholarly work on 20th Century Polish and European History has been widely acknowledged and respected. His important studies on Nazi occupation of Europe after 1938, and in particular on Hitler’s rule of Poland have greatly enhanced our understanding of the often complicated and obscured processes of German occupation policies as well as of the differing experiences of ordinary peoples under Fascist dictatorship and oppression. These and some of his other books, notably on cultural life in Nazi occupied Europe, on the “Generalplan Ost” and other German war-time plans for Eastern Europe as well as on the Soviet massacre at Katyn, have become milestones of the historiography of the Second World War. He was a co-founder and for more than two decades also the first editor of the distinguished Polish quarterly “Dzieje Najnowsze” (Recent History). Between 1971 and 1983 Professor Madajczyk led the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Besides he was Vice-President of the Polish Committee of Historical Sciences (1971-1985) and later became one of the Vice-Presidents of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War (1980–1995). In these capacities Czeslaw Madajczyk was an ardent supporter of international scholarly cooperation and exchanges, even at times when relations between historians on both sides of the iron curtain were still threatened or questioned by political conditions and developments. The death of Czeslaw Madajczyk is a grave loss for the international community of World War II historians. Gerhard Hirschfeld President of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War"

Enough said...--Molobo (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope this settles once and for all if Madajczyk is acceptable and reliable source by modern stan

The above is taken from an obituary, not a neutral assessment. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So what if it's from an obituary? You've never seen a negative obituary before [9]? At this point it really seems like no matter what evidence is presented you are going to insist that Madajczyk is a no go based solely on a I DON'T LIKE IT. We have numerous, numerous, numerous ... lots ... of non-Communist sources which cite Madajczyk extensively. We have respected Western historians, German ones even!, praising him. We have general respect from the community of academic historians. What else is there? This is just being obstructive and after a certain point (after evidence, after evidence, after evidence is provided), disruptive.radek (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod has a valid point, we need to include western sources that will confirm the Madajacyk material. English readers can then verify the page contents, the English language sources are avaliable, we need to post them ASAP.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When I was in Warsaw in 1970 the Museum of the 1944 Uprising did not mention the important role of the AK Home Army, Madajacyk followed the party line in this regard--Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So? We are not citing Madajczyk on AK, or other issues in which communist bias may exist, we are citing him on his research on the Nazi treatment of Polish and culture, which has been praised in independent Poland (including by anti-communist historians) and international, Western ones. Roman Wapiński in his obituary for Madajczyk wrote wisely, that while some works of Madajczyk particularly on economical history of Second Polish Republic were biased (as was to be expected in communist Poland), those problems should not obscure his otherwise excellent work on other subjects, such as his studies of occupied Poland. EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Piotrus you have put in a a lot of time and effort to improve Polish related topics here on Wikipedia. There are English language sources to back up Madajacyk, we need to include them. As it stands now there may in future be a big red X painted over the articles related to Nazi war crimes in Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am supportive of further expansion, verification and referencing of this article. I would however hope that others can do this, freeing me to write new articles :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Piotrus has done yeoman's work bringing us valuable sources not available to the Polish-language-challenged. It should not be asking too much for others who read English to look up English-language publications (which will probably cite Piotrus' Polish-language sources). Nihil novi (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't read Polish, and the German translation of Madajacyk is not available here in NY. I hesitate to get involved on a page where I can't address the content of Madajacyk. I have pointed out the English language sources in order to help experienced Polish speaking editors improve the page Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources

...that I think are not yet in the article:

• Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, pg. 34 - [10]
• The life and death of Adolf Hitler, by Gibilin, pg. 137 (not much but can be used to back up a fact or two) - [11].

I will try to incorporate some of the info into the article and its refs later. Really busy right now.radek (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We may want to consider these sources: Google books is second best compared to real books

The Other Holocaust by Richard Lukas

Polish Society Under German Occupation by Jan Gross

Polands Holocaust by Tadeusz Piotrowski

All three books are by recognized scholars and were published in the USA, it will hard to refute or nitpick them.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very few of the users of Wikipedia can read Polish, even the Polish readers would have great difficulty to obtain and verify the sources in this article. To improve the article English language sources that can be obtained in libraries and sold on the internet should support those out of print Polish sources now used. Keep them, but include English language sources also.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A few more English language sources - right now with all the other stuff going around don't have time to fully utilize these, so help is appreciated:

• Continuum Companion to 20th C Theatre, by Colin Chambers, [12]
• Musical life in Poland by Lidia Rappoport-Gelfand, Irina Lasoff, [13] (book is on post WWII but introduction covers the occupation)radek (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Brutally"

I would like to state the reasons why I believe the word brutally should be removed the lead. Simply, it fails WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." That the suppression of Polish culture was "brutal" is an value judgment or opinion; it may have support by one author, or even by the vast majority of people, but it is nevertheless an opinion, the same way "Hitler was an evil man" is an opinion no matter how many sources you tag onto it, and we must describe who holds what opinions, not state the opinions as if they are fact as the article currently does. If you are intent on stressing that scholars think it was brutal, then say that: "scholars describe the measures as brutal", although that would run into the issue of weasel words (who are "scholars"?), and quite frankly I think the following sentence ("Policies aimed at cultural genocide resulted in the deaths of thousands of scholars and artists, and the theft or destruction of innumerable cultural artifacts") will get at the moral repugnance quite clearly.

Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone to assume good faith and avoid name-calling, especially when it comes to articles on the main page where where new editors are likely to tread. Thank you. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is was in fact the first thing that struck me about this article. It needs to be out of the introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASF is most useful as a guideline for dealing with topics in which there is notable and significant disagreement among "good" sources. If, however, basically all reliable sources agree that a particular adjective is warranted, negative or positive, it would be POV to omit it - a non-judgmental wimpy POV that never informs readers the general opinion on an act was. "Brutal" is rather different from "evil," too, as it doesn't even have to be judgmental - "the terrorists were captured and brutally tortured" might be a *good* thing depending on a readers' POV, as it describes the style in which an event happened. This wasn't just subtle tax subsidies and school curriculum changes, this was "shoot elites dead." The use of "brutal" helps communicate that fact.

I do respect that you're offering this argument in good faith, to be clear, just... in order to make your point here, you need to show that "brutal" is in fact a disputed opinion and not a steely recounting of the facts of the matter. This means... well, are there any legitimate academics who argue that Polish culture was only "gently" suppressed and guided in WWII? I doubt it, but that's what you'd need to dig up here to prove your point, I think. "Brutal" is fine if it's a noncontroversial assessment of what happened. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wholly agree with DroEsperanto. Brutal is clearly a non-neutral word that should be stripped out of the lead. Nor does one need to affirmatively or explicitly demonstrate that there was a lack of brutalism to justify removal. It's sufficient to dispassionately enumerate the variety of atrocities committed without passing any value judgments (brutal, indecent, bad, immoral, etc.) on them. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the word brutal. Merriam-Webster defines it as "grossly ruthless or unfeeling", "cruel, cold-blooded", "harsh, severe", "very bad or unpleasant". All of those ("grossly", "cruel", "harsh") are judgments, not descriptive facts, the same way that Hitler was "evil" or that JFK's death was "tragic" are judgments. If you wish to communicate that they didn't just suppress it through closing radio stations but through killing and beating, use a more neutral (and frankly more descriptive) word like "violent" (which has a precise, neutral meaning). But like I said, even that descriptor isn't really necessary since the next sentence talks about how the Soviets murdered thousands of artists. — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can find the word "brutal" or "brutally" in English wikipedia in similar contexts, e.g.: "His experiments included placing subjects in pressure chambers, testing drugs on them, freezing them, attempting to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes and various amputations and other brutal surgeries." or "The largest of these operations, the deportation of 100,000 people from the Warsaw Ghetto in early 1943, provoked the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which was suppressed with great brutality." or "Most Polish Jews (90%) perished during the Holocaust, while most Christian Poles (94%) survived brutal German occupation." etc. Maybe you apply your arguments against the word to these sentences, just to see, how they sound. All my examples come from The Holocaust, the wording is not questioned there. Mamurra (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because it exists elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's right.— DroEsperanto (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral with regards to this, it does seem a tad emotional, and The Holocaust does not use any emotional words in its lead. For the record, this was the reference for the word: "Jonathan Rose, "The Holocaust and the book: destruction and preservation", Univ of Massachusetts Press, 2001, pg. [14]" --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

I'm the one who's edited it back to 'brutally' these last few times. Whilst you hardened editors and Wikipedia-librarians will probably regard this comment as low, ridiculous, and of absolutley no use....I'm afraid i'm going to make it anyway. I respect the work that everyone does here, and I respect that great encyclopediae (and if that is not a word, it should be) such as this cannot be cluttered with loose opinion and false facts. I vaguely apreciate all of your points....but I must point out that if you can't use the world 'brutal' to describe the Nazi invasion and occupation of Poland....than when the hell can you use it at all? --86.166.59.112 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule on Wikipedia saying that every word in the English language has to be used ;) Quite frankly, there are many words that should be used sparingly or not at all on Wikipedia because they tend to introduce bias or editorializing: see WP:WTA for more on that. We're not here to tell the reader what was brutal or wrong or evil; likewise, we wouldn't describe a painting as "beautiful" or a person as "brilliant" or a food as "delicious": such words compromise neutrality and give the encyclopedia a somewhat unprofessional tone (last part is just my opinion). — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the validity of using the word "brutal" could be tested by asking if the perpertrator of the brutality would concede. There are cases when brutatlity is an acknowldged and deliberate policy. An administration may wish to squelch dissent, for instance, with mild measures, and move on to harsher ones should the mild measures prove ineffectual. In that case "harsh" would be factual, not POV. A Georgian (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

'Cultural genocide'. Isn't that a rather strong and over-emotional term to be used in an encyclopedia? I would use 'cultural suppression' or something similar. 1812ahill (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Compare the definitions of cultural genocide and cultural suppression, and you'll see why genocide is used here. In other words: it's one thing to cut funding to schools for teaching in a specific language, it's another to confiscate books in that language and burn them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say it's me again. I have The Concise Oxford Dictionary here - "Genocide - the deliberate extermination of a race, nation, etc." It dosen't seem all that emotive to me. --86.166.59.112 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon, please consider creating an account - it will be easier for to discuss the issue with you if we are sure you are one person :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible material to add

I was in no way aware this article existed. It already discusses the role of the Catholic Church to some extent but could say more. I have written some stuff in Reorganization of occupied dioceses during World War II, and there is also useful information in most of the biographies linked in the Poland section therein. I leave it to the authors of this article to decide if any of that is applicable. Savidan 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to link and/or expand both articles; I was unaware of the reorganization article myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

language

The dates give the impression that this article is British English, but it uses American English versions of 'theater'. Which language is it written in? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The language of a non-native speaker (me), copyedited by several native speakers from different English-speaking places worldwide. Welcome to Wikipedia :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This article cites authors and works that are almost exclusively Polish. I believe this leads to rather one-sided view on the subject of German and Soviet 'cultural genocide' and compromises the neutrality of this article. I think the cited opinions should be supported by some oficial documents that clearly show Soviet and Nazi intent of destroying Polish culture. Also, some of the sources seem funny at best. See [1], "For 123 years, Poles lived under Russian, Prussian, or Austro-Hungarian rule. During World War I, all three of these imperialist empires collapsed." We have yet to see a non-imperialist empire, or am I wrong? --188.18.151.57 (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely correct. Empires are by their nature imperialist.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the imperialist empire (indeed, no need for the world imperialist), we should not cite original documnets, as this invite WP:OR. And Polish sources are perfectly acceptable - they are much better then the somewhat revisionist German sources, and much more revisionist Soviet/Russian ones. Of course, when possible, neutral Western sources are the best, and we tried to use them, but the bottom line is that simply, most research on the subject has been done by Polish scholars. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, I'm not talking about original research. I'm talking about official documents and published reports that could shed more light on German and Soviet actions in Poland during WWII. I also do not believe that neutrality of the sources can completely ensure the neutrality of the article itself, even if there is such a thing as a perfectly neutral source. What am I trying to say is, the article is biased in its choice of sources and that leads to possible violations of its neutrality. The discussions on this talk page partially confirm that.--87.226.216.210 (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary (and tertiary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about that policy. But all this article has to offer is secondary and tertiary sources by Polish and British scholars based on primary Polish sources, no? By the way, what makes you think that Polish sources are in any way better than modern German and Russian sources? Because 'ohmygod, we are the victims'? Also, are Polish sources are non-revisionist by default? Are Western sources neutral by definition?

And on the side note..the existence and content of this article may be perfectly acceptable, but the way it's been labeled 'featured' (and perfectly timed too) is a fine display of hypocrisy. Congrats, Wiki staff, on the 1st of September you outdone yourselves!--87.226.216.210 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Polish sources are acceptable. Feel free to expand this article with other sources. And yes, in my experience, it is more common for victimizers to try to withe wash their (nation) past crimes than for the victims to try to blow them out of proportions. And on average, Western sources written by academics with no personal connections to either victim or victimizer country tend to be most neutral. Finally, Featuring this article on a relevant date seems like the right thing to do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Article strongly biased to one point of view

Like many others I came across this article from the front page of Wikipedia. I am very disturbed that such an article exists putting forward opinions as if facts.

There is a movement at present seeking to diminish the unique horrors of Nazism by equating 'Soviet' with 'Nazi' as frequently as possible. The placing of this article as Featured Article is disturbing (how do we make a comment on that decision?).

The following comment was placed earlier today (2009-09-01) and was removed (censored) by another user. Please note - a comment on the 'discussion' page not an edit to the article. Although I do not agree with the strange argument (catholo-fascism???) it deserves to be seen on the discussion page.

This article is disgusting. Its a pity to see Polish religious fascism on the rise again and exploiting the suffering of the Polish people for its own dark purposes. All the harder it is to believe that the article made it to being featured in this current, factually wrong and biased form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.144.34 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also found the article difficult to follow in places (dates not given where needed etc) but that is less important than the POV issue. Sussexonian (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BANNED SOCK BAITING ALERT: Sussexonian (talk · contribs) ----> Sussexman (talk · contribs) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The article also says nothing about collaborators or the strong anti-Semitic strain in Polish culture before the German invasion. Both of these factors must have had some effect on the cultural situation.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised not to see any mention of films that focus on this subject including "The Pianist" and "To Be or Not to Be". Having said that, I agree this article tries to cover too much. There actually needs to be several linked articles that treat this topic.

As for neutrality, that struck my right away. But is it really possible to be "neutral" about this subject? JayinDC (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The movies you mention are not Polish, but about Poland. This is why they are not mentioned - they are not part of the Polish culture. PS. That's also why I removed Maus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Brutannica (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unique horrors of Nazism? That is definately a controversial opinion; Daniel Goldhagen, for example, has been attacked repeatedly for calling the Holocaust unique. The comparisons between the Nazis and Soviets are backed up, and the case could equally be made that it was trying to demonize the USSR i.e. by playing the Nazi card but it's verified, and seems justified. I don't share the hypersensitivity a lot of editors have towards including generally accepted opinions and think this article's comprehensiveness is fine. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. What is apparent is that in the West 1) the horrors of Nazism are simply better known that the horrors of Stalinism, and 2) being a Stalinist (Soviet, communist) apologetic is seen as much less controversial than being a Nazi one. So while there is plenty of research on the horrors of Stalinism, as shown and referenced in the article, we will inevitably hear shocked gasps from people who either don't know about the horrors of Stalinism and will be shocked how anybody can dare to equate Nazism with anything else, or from those who are die-hard communists/Stalinists/Soviets and will try to rewrite history to protect their favorite utopia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Union hostile to Poles ?

"During World War II, Polish culture was suppressed by the occupying powers of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, both of whom were hostile to Poland's people and culture."

I never heard that Marxism-leninism is per se hostile to any people or ethnicity. Mitch1981 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between theory and practice. You may also want to read the Black Book of Communism. That said, Soviet Union with its M-L ideology was less interested in destroying ethnic groups than in destroying certain classes of people (kulaks, etc.), compared to Nazi Germany. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marx (or Engels) was hostile toward Bulgarians, sometimes also Anti-Semitic. His (their) attitude toward Poles was changing. If Soviet Communism was Marxist? Rather not, Marx wrote about developed countries and Russia wasn't one.Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin shared the goal of obliterating Poland's political and cultural life, so that Poland would "cease to exist not merely as a place, but also as an idea"

Is this a quote from Hitler or Stalin or from Ferguson? It is unclear from the article.--Dojarca (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic example of how Wikipedia fails!

The major problems on this site is the adherences to the sites protocols, that ultimately result in throttling the whole process. Firstly, is this even a good article? Did experts in the subject edit this article? Did anyone have any understanding of the complexity of this subject?

The answer to all these questions, is I must admit, after reading this article is NO NO and NO.

By using non-experts to cobble this article together, it just becomes a literary Emmental (cheese) with glaring holes throughout every section. But hey, slaps on the back all round as the article has its precious citations.

The article primarily just talks about loss, the Poles were denied this, the Poles could no longer do that (but they did resist this and they resist that)....the article should be:

Types of Polish Culture repressed by the Nazis (1939-1945)

Because this article lacks a serious encyclopedic examination concerning the methodology of the Nazis.

For instance, there is no mention of these Nazi agencies:

1. RuSHA
2. VOMI
3. The SS Office of RKFDV which was responsible for mandating policy for the Nazi administrations in Eastern Europe.

They all played a key part in the repression of Polish Culture, RuSHA took children away from their parents for Aryanization, VOMI settled Germans in occupied areas, and the RKFDV over saw it all.

There is a brief mention of Generalplan Ost, but it is without context. The article just says the policies that crushed Polish culture were part of the plan. And?

Plain and simple, this article lacks the WHY! Without an authoritative examination of the agencies (their goals etc) that carried out the repression of Polish education, culture and intellectuals you get an article like this.

An article that explain how bad times were for Poland under the Nazis (and its resistance) but without the substantiation of the background, reasons and ultimate purpose of why repression was implemented by Nazis.

It's History Lite - and certainly NOT encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.70 (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to criticize. Care to point to a better treatment of the subject in existence? Or care to try to write a better one? And for the record, encyclopedias ARE history lite, history proper should be published in books and journals (and none has dealt with this subject as far as I know, in English anyway). I'll see about incorporating the agencies you mention in the article; interestingly, they were not mentioned in any of my sources (feel free to prove me wrong or suggest better sources - nobody has done so despite me having explicitly asked for any sources I missed few months back). As for experts reviewing this article - be my guest and try to convince more academics that they should care about Wikipedia :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Nihil novi (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jarosław Szarek

Who is Jarosław Szarek? Why his opinion is so important?--Dojarca (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So important? His article is cited ~5 times; he is a Polish writer and historian ([15]). Bio. He is probably notable and I'll stub him shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This source is now a dead link, and so cannot be independently verified. If the credibility of the reference is no longer at issue please remove the "Verify credibility" tag. If the credibility of the reference is still an issue, then I suggest the reference and the two-word clause in dispute be removed. If you keep the source, you may wish to add a wikilink to Szarek's article. DrKiernan (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

N prints - many times

The subject is mentioned many times. It wasn't a part of "Polish culture", at least not so important. It should be mentioned once.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"N prints"? Would you be referring to Action N? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to move / add / remove images if you think this needs to be done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean all informations about Action N, repeated several times in the article. Once would be enough.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There was also Operation Antyk.Xx236 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Press and newspapers

I have doubts about the consistency of this passage:

"(...) The press was reduced from over 2,000 publications to a few dozen, all censored by the Germans.[53][57] All pre-war newspapers were closed, and the few that were published during the occupation were new creations under the total control of the Germans. (...)" (from the Censorship and propaganda part)

- Where all the newspapers closed or the press was reduced to a few titles? I'm not sure, but it seems that those two sentences together don't make sens. I assume that those few dozens which were still publishing were recreated under the control of Germans - am I right? Please explain that to me, as I'm translating the article now, but I'm not a historian and I don't want to make any mistakes. Thank you! Agnes86 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Polish culture during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506090745/http://www.bu.umk.pl/cymelia/polscy_malarze.html to http://www.bu.umk.pl/cymelia/polscy_malarze.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msz.gov.pl/Rewindykacja%2Cdobr%2Ckultury%2C1775.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303110620/http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php to http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)