Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2022/November

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Hello, please correct the title of "The Holocaust in Poland" by adding the phrase "German-occupied". Correct: "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland". Substantiation More and more often on the Internet I hear the opinion that "Poles murdered 3 million Jews". Those who write this use the quoted title of the Wikipedia article: https://twitter.com/voyaserbreve/status/1385930597017821184 https://twitter.com/voyaserbreve/status/1385940544027774976

Young people who are completely ignorant of history may be misled by the current title of the article.

greetings Lukas Gmurczyk Lgmur (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Then they should read the article and not just the title.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is going to be contentious so please seek a consensus on this before requesting the edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not news, undue

This is WP:UNDUE and it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Volunteer Marek 17:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an awful lot of NOTNEWS! [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] François Robere (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

NOTNEWS means that Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper. Volunteer Marek 20:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly does mentioning a bill that's been in the works for years, on a subject that's widely written about, makes it one? François Robere (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You created an entire section about it, which is clearly UNDUE in this article. Also any idea why a brand new account, Ludwig97, is spamming links to an article you *just* created to so many other articles, trying to raise its visibility? Volunteer Marek 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly is it undue? Does the subject of Polish-Jewish property confiscated by the Nazis not part of the Holocaust in Poland?

Also, do I look like the phone directory? Ask them. François Robere (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was your article and only moments after it was created this strange new account began trying to link it all over the place, so that’s why I’m asking. Just wondering if you have some … insight here. What’s a “phone directory”? Volunteer Marek 20:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean... less than two hours after I finished it you were already there carving it up.[16] How do people find these articles?

Back to my previous question: how is it not part of this subject? François Robere (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I saw the article pop in other articles on my watchlist because that brand new account (now blocked) started spamming it too all kinds of places almost as soon as you created it.

It’s not part of the subject because WP:NOTNEWS - in particular it’s not even clear that this is related to WW2 property at all. Yes, I know some NEWSpapers say that but that’s why we have the sourcing restriction in place for this topic - we can wait till there are serious academic sources on the subject. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It took you all of seven minutes to notice the article, read the sources, and start cutting it up?[17][18] François Robere (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Was seven minutes how long it took for that brand new account to show up and start spamming this brand new article everywhere? Really, that quick? But yeah I’m a fast reader and it’s not like this article was long or something. Doesn’t take that long to read a paragraph. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's how long passed from their first post to you starting to delete things. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

ah, ok, that’s how long it took me to remove the false information from the article. Since you did that calculation, can you also add up how long it took for that sock puppet account to start spamming the article you just created to dozens of other articles? Volunteer Marek 21:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussing this bill a month and a half ago, Poland's PM said that "as long as [he is] the prime minister, Poland will certainly not pay for German crimes. Not a single zloty, euro or dollar."[19] François Robere (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, and? Volunteer Marek 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You said it’s not even clear that this is related to WW2 property at all. Poland's PM disagrees. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s because he was responding to Lapid’s claims. Volunteer Marek 21:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The point is Poland's PM does the connection, as do over a dozen media sources. You can't just dismiss it because you don't like it. François Robere (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Israeli politician tries to make the connection, Polish PM has to respond. But regardless, it doesn’t matter simply because it’s not suitable for a general level article such as this one. Volunteer Marek 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think that's a WP:NOTNEWS situation. The example cited in NOTNEWS is routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. Laws adopted by national parliaments with ramifications for international relations are clearly beyond that. JBchrch talk 20:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not saying it’s not notable (which is why I haven’t AfD’d FR’s new article that the sock puppet account started spamming all over the place). But it isn’t DUE here as this is a general level article with stringent sourcing requirements (part of the reason for the sourcing requirement is that kind of stuff tends to get misreported when it first break). There’s other articles where it may be relevant, like Poland-Israel relations or something. Volunteer Marek 20:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I will let other editors discuss whether this is DUE in this article. Just wanted to point out the issue with the NOTNEWS argument. JBchrch talk 20:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's draft something here, using scholarly sources if possible. (Also please note that indef-banned editor has been active socking in this area, see [20], it's possible they'll try to disrupt the discussion here too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My edit included two component: a small structural change, and a short mention of this law.[21] The structural change follows the norms in similar articles (The Holocaust in Slovakia, The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia), and the addition is well-sourced. François Robere (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see something based on academic sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

On what exactly? François Robere (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The first and lasstences are not controversial, but "The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war." requires more foolproof sourcing. Also, we should discuss whether this is DUE here at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• WaPo/Bloomberg: "[The law] makes it more difficult for Holocaust survivors to reclaim property that was seized by Nazis in Poland, leaving many Jews whose families perished in Poland and had their properties confiscated with no recourse to restitution but also a sense that their history is being denied."
• Politico: "The law... imposed a 30-year time limit on legal challenges to restitution claims and ending outstanding claims for the return of seized property that have not reached a final decision in the last 30 years — effectively cutting off many cases."
• AP: "...a law that restricts the rights of Holocaust survivors or their descendants to reclaim property seized by the country’s former communist regime..."
• Reuters: "...a new law that could have an impact on the restitution of Jewish property after World War Two... Poland's parliament passed a draft bill in June which is expected to make it harder for Jewish people to recover the property..."
• Guardian: "...a new law is expected to pass its final stages in the Polish parliament that will set a 30-year time limit on legal challenges over confiscated properties, in effect axing thousands of claims."

Links given in my previous message. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, who supports what?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In

• Everything? François Robere (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing? I am not convinced this is DUE at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That looks like an option to not have it, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Property restitution

Should the following paragraph be entered into the article? 11:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In August 2021, Poland passed a law to address restitution of property seized by the communist regime that ruled Poland after the war. The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war. In protest, Israel recalled its charge d'affaires to Warsaw.

References

Survey

• Yes, per a multitude of RS establishing accuracy and notability.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] François Robere (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No really not about the Holocuast.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) - the three sources given in the proposed section are clearly relating the new law to Holocaust victims in Poland; no reason to exclude. The prose is factual and neutral, and while I don't know where it's intended to be placed in the article I'm sure it can be balanced with any new developments, or removed if it turns out that nothing comes of this (unlikely, I think, since Israel has recalled their ambassador over it). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector See my 'no but' below. The issue should be mentioned, but the proposed prose is not neutral. It only outlines grievances of one side ("survivors and their descendants"), and not the other (such as tenants, who are often mercilessly evicted, as well as the issue of widespread corruption and criminal intermediaries, see [37], [38]). Instead of adding the emotional argument for the other (tenant) side I think we should avoid playing on readers emotions at all. The issue is controversial, but we should avoid trying to generate sympathy for either side (and this is what the text proposed above does, hence, it fails NPOV test). Second issue is that the proposed addition is an example of recentism, suggesting the issue arose just this year, whereas it has been an issue since at at least 1989. See property restitution in Poland, a dedicated article which for unknown reason is not even linked in the proposed sentence to be added. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  For that we have the main article, Piotrus. Putting everything here would be a WP:COATRACK. To quote one of your sources:[39] "the proposed restrictions have been received with dismay by many heirs to prewar owners, including organisations representing Holocaust survivors and their heirs, who argue that they should not be held responsible for the crimes and unethical practices of a minority of claimants. “This focus on ‘wild reprivatisation’ is threatening the legal, normal restitution processes of people who constitute the majority of claims and had nothing to do with this illegal behaviour,” says Grocholski, [a] lawyer representing heirs to prewar owners."

  @Ivanvector: The paragraph was originally inserted under a new subsection: Legacy / Restitution.[40] François Robere (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly, for those details we have the main article. The article here should not be used to POV push one side's grievances. We should mention there is a controversial issue covered in a subarticle - nothing less, nothing more. NPOV is the key policy to observe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  But this isn't "tenants vs. Jews", Piotrus, it's "Holocaust survivors and their kin vs. the government of Poland". Unless you can clearly show that all of these other claims (evictions, corruption, etc.) actually concern Holocaust survivors and their kin, then I see don't how any of it is even relevant here; and if it's not, then why should it stop us from including material that is?[41] François Robere (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  ” it's "Holocaust survivors and their kin vs. the government of Poland". ” — uhhh, what??? Does the “government of Poland” own these properties or something? No. What are you talking about??? The only way that “government” has been involved in this process so far is that some politicians have been caught and prosecuted for accepting bribes to GRANT fraudulent restitution claims (see the fraud in Warsaw article already linked). I’m sorry FR but your comment makes absolutely no sense here, and that’s not even getting to the part about “Holocaust survivors” whose claims are completely unaffected by this or any other law (the issue is always about “heirless property”). Volunteer Marek 20:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree. "Holocaust survivors and their kin vs. the government of Poland" is just one of several possible POVed ways of framing this. The sources cited here and in the main property restitution article clearly show this is all intermixed (ex. the following example of corruption related to a claim by "Holocaust survivors and their kin" A number of figures involved in “wild reprivatisation” specialised in obtaining claims to buildings whose Jewish prewar owners had died during the war. Some obtained properties on the basis of dubious claims about absent claimants – in one case, a court accepted testimony arguing that an absent 130-year-old owner was alive but could not be located. Others specialised in buying claims from heirs who had grown tired of waiting for a decision from city hall.) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any source state this has anything to do with the survivors and their kin, only that the process itself is flawed. That, again, is not reason enough to omit this issue from this article, any more than this aspect would be reason enough to omit it from eg. Warsaw, if it was due there. We don't cover every aspect of an issue in every article, just the pertinent ones. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. The law is about restitution of property seized by communists and it addresses restitution in general - there's nothing in it specifically about Jewish property or anything like that. It's purpose is to address the rampant and widespread corruption, fraud and abuse in "wild reprivatizations" that have occured since fall of communism (see for example Reprivatisation fraud in Warsaw) which have resulted in a quasi-legal secondary market in restitution claims (where one person buys claims to property which may have been seized by communists from another, then sells it to a third person, who then sells it to a fourth person, who then sells it to some developers or organized firms etc), thousands of unfair evictions (often of low income long standing residents), several bribery scandals, involvement of organized crime and such. It is only tangentially related to the Holocaust, if at all. As such it is WP:UNDUE in a *general level* article such as this one, even if the info does belong somewhere else, like Property restitution in Poland. The attempt to squeeze it into here smacks of WP:COATRACKing. Volunteer Marek 13:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No but. In the current form proposed above this is recentism, and POVed too. That's not acceptable. But the article should neutrally mention that the issue of Jewish property restitution in Poland, an obvious artifact of the Holocaust era, is a recurring controversy in Israel-Poland relations, attracting some international media attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• No for this cherry-picked form. The issue is wider than that. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hatting !vote from, and extended back and forth with, sockpuppet of banned user due to massive size
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes. A simple search for Holocaust+Poland+Jewish+property yields an incredible amount of news, books, and scholar results. The The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust has significant content on Poland, so do The Polish debate on the holocaust and the restitution of property and Unsettled possession: the question of ownership of Jewish sites in Poland after the Holocaust from a local perspective]. In addition there is significant coverage in sources likes the New York Times: 'a Narrow Window to Do Justice' for Those Robbed by Nazis, A Quest to Reclaim a Family Home Unearths a Past Buried, and Holocaust Survivors in Poland Find Restitution Claims ‘Like a Carousel’, the Guardian: Anger as Poland plans law that will stop Jews reclaiming wartime homes. Clearly the plunder of Jewish homes and property by the Poles and Nazis as well as Poles taking over Nazi wartime plunder of Jewish property after the war, is a significant aspect of the Holocaust of Poland. Over 90% of Polish Jews were murdered by the Nazis, their property overwhelmingly was in Polish hands after the war. As for other property disputes from the communist era, that's a separate subject, which is less relevant to this article. What is relevant to this article is the massive coverage of the plunder of Jewish property and coverage of the refusal of Polish authorities to return the property to its owners, descendants, remote heirs, and the Jewish community at large.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of Icewhiz Astral Leap, I can see that you're using purposefully inflammatory language (" plunder of Jewish homes and property by the Poles ") which, apart from being false and NOT supported by sources (for example, would you care to tell us what exactly this source, which you claim has a "significant content on Poland" actually says? AFAIK it talks about plunder by Germans WITHIN Poland) appears intended to provoke other editors. That was indeed what User:Icewhiz was banned from this topic for. And now, strangely, you're doing the exact same thing ([42] "made unnecessarily inflammatory comments ([6]), made negative insinuations about Poland ([7]), and made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments") Please cut it out. Additionally this RfC is not about the general issue but this particular restitution law which was just passed and which actually DOES NOT say anything about pre-war Jewish property - it's mostly about the property nationalized by the communists. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC) I am sorry Volunteer Marek that you consider language in reliable sources as "purposefully inflammatory", perhaps that explains your multiple bans from Jews, anti-Semitism, and Eastern Europe. Some quotes from sources: This clause clearly violated the most basic rules of international law and obligations undertaken by Poland under a number of international conventions of which it is a signatory. Such a stance actually legitimizes the plunder of Jewish property by German occupation authorities. (pages 103-104 of The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust) The relative visibility of peasants denouncing Jews, murdering them and plundering their property is accompanied by an invisibility of the intelligentsia and its essential role in rein-forcing the exclusion and the antisemitic patterns of behavior before the Holocaust which facilitated direct involvement in these events, as well as an invisibility of the intelligentsia’s own participation in the events of the Holocaust. (abstract and page 2 of paper) Antisemitic practice was not restricted to blackmailing, it also involved the pillage and plundering of Jewish property . A dispatch in Agencja Prasowaof October 7, 1942 on the Polish response to the deportation of the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto reports mass pillaging by all classes (page 9, ibid) The plundering of Jews was not incidental or abusive, it was “a social practice rather than a criminal activity or the deviant behavior of some rogue individuals. That plunder-ing was widespread and sanctioned is revealed precisely by the forms of reference to it captured in language” (Grudzińska-Gross & Gross, 2012, p. 77). Many people treated the seizure of Jewish property as a patriotic duty of reclaiming property for the sake of Poland ; all social classes had a part in it: not only the peasants plundering utensils, clothes, huts, money, and valuables; but also the bourgeoisie plundering townhouses, apartments, and factories; and lawyers taking part in the procedure of “reappropriation” (Grabowski, 2005) (page 13, ibid) For Gross, the Polish obsession with Jewish property is the key to understanding the brutality and persistence of Polish antisemitism . The Poles, he argues, wanted whatever the Jews had, from their homes to the gold in their teeth. academic book review An analysis of Polish textbooks published between 1977 and 2006 found that where the Holocaust was mentioned at all, Catholic Poles were usually depicted saving Jews while resisting German aggressors, a description that glosses over difficult facts of Polish complicity in the plunder of their Jewish neighbours during the war (Struggling to deal with the difficult past: Polish students confront the Holocaust, page 443 The post-war housing situation of Polish Jews was shaped primarily by: wartime and post-war displacements, deportations, escapes, and migrations; the plunder of Jewish property (by the German occupiers, and by Polish society) during the war, and post-war Polish legislation regarding its restitution; Housing Situation of Holocaust Survivors Returning to Their Hometowns in Poland after the Second World War. Examples from Kraków and Łódź, page 109 Ms. Cie´sli ´nska-Lobkowicz then reminded the participants of the proceeding that it was not only the Nazis who plundered Jewish homes and rid the Jews of their personal possession, but also the local Polish population. She asserted that many of these looted objects eventually made their way to the public collection after the war to be purchased by private owners and antique stores. A Moot Issue-Rethinking Holocaust Era Restitution of Jewish Confiscated Personal Property in Poland, page 695 In December 1995, the EU adopted a resolution demanding the return of plundered property to Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe. In its resolution, “the Parliament recalled the first additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. . .and in particular Article One [of Protocol Number One to the European Convention on Human Rights] thereof. . ..”181 Based on the EU’s commitment to these issues, the Parliament called on member states to adopt legislation regarding the plunder of Jewish confiscated property.182 Poland has yet to comply. ibid, page 703 In Poland and Slovakia the theft or redistribution of formerly Jewish-owned property constituted “one of the largest social revolutions of the Second World War” (p. 64) This plunder implicated substantial numbers of local Gentiles in the Holocaust. ... The new “owners” were not eager to return property they had acquired. In both countries, the number of survivors was small, and few were ready to pursue the return of their homes or belongings: it was dangerous for lone Jews to challenge the new situations, while the new (and sometimes old) authorities were content to let the new arrangements stand. book review of Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944−1948, pages 546-547 Ignoring Polish elements such as state textbooks, far right politicians, and beneficiaries of stolen property, the Polish plunder of the property of Jewish Holocaust victims is described by reliable sources and is not inflammatory at all. Sources also describe how the Polish state supported the beneficiaries of this stolen property and how it repeatedly failed to meet its international obligations.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC) sock puppet Astral Leap. It is perfectly clear that you are trying to provoke me here, with your false accusations and statements like "perhaps that explains your multiple bans from Jews, anti-Semitism, and Eastern Europe." I have NOT had "multiple bans" from "Jews, anti-Semitism". You. Are. Lying. In order to provoke. Likewise, I didn't say that "language in reliable sources was purposefully inflammatory". This is you purposefully misquoting and lying about what I said. I said YOU - you, Astral Leap, a new account about whom serious issues have been raised right since the beginning - are using "purposefully inflammatory" language. You've ALREADY had an indef interaction ban with one user [43], then been blocked [44] for repeatedly trying to post defamatory (and outing) info about ME on Wiki. In fact, the justification for your block specifically warned you [45] for exactly the kind of behavior you're engaging in again: You have been acting in a manner that is both suspect and provocational for a while now. If this AE block (and AE topic ban above) doesn't serve as a wakeup call for you, expect sanctions to escalate. (my emphasis) Since your sudden arrival in this topic area, the question of whether you are a new account or a banned user has been repeatedly raised [46] and statements such as these lend credence to the accusation, made by multiple editors, that no, you're not. Your cherry picked and misrepresented citations (for example, your very first source refers to GERMAN plunder of Jewish property) doesn't help your case either. Volunteer Marek 07:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Its clearly relevant, and as noted above, plenty of RS to support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)k
• No (Summoned by bot) somewhat COATRACK-y and cherrypicked account of an issue with only a tentative connection to the holocaust. Israel recalling its representative 75+ years after seems especially un-connected. The content belongs elsewhere clearly, but not here.Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

*No - I was thinking about it for a while now. I believe I have to agree with Pincrete's judgment above. This does not belong to the article about the Holocaust. Property restitution in Poland is a way broader issue that affected all Polish citizens. Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Germans, and so on. Poland was a multiethnic society before the war. This certainly belongs elsewhere, not here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• yes - The article cited from Reuters states "Israel on Saturday condemned Poland’s approval of a law that restricts the rights of Holocaust survivors or their descendants to reclaim property seized by the country’s former communist regime." This clearly relates directly to Holocaust survivors from Poland and makes this relevant to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak yes. I understand the arguments about coatracking, since essentially the problem of restitution of i.a. Jewish property (and the one that makes most political clout is about the property in Warsaw) arose, in fact, after the war due to the nationalisation of land and properties in the capital in order to make reconstruction less burdensome, and the Holocaust survivors (and victims) are only one of the several categories (though one of the more significant ones, if not the most significant, given that pre-War Warsaw had 30% Jewish population, according to the 1931 census; by contrast, Ukrainians, Germans etc. did not even constitute quarter of a percent; in other cities, Jews were still a substantial minority and Ukrainians, or Germans, in the cities now belonging to Poland, have AFAIK almost never constituted more population in proportion than Jews. Maybe Gdynia and Bydgoszcz were exceptions to that rule). That said, the notability, in my opinion, has been shown very well, and the question belongs to the article as directly concerning Holocaust survivors, and as placed in such context by numerous sources, including scholars.

I would rather make some tweaks to the text, because without them, I'm reluctant to support it as is. First, the law applies uniformly regardless of nationality of expropriated citizens, so that should be made clear in the text; secondly, it must be made clear, if we want to include it, that the question of property restitution is a contentious issue in Polish-Israeli relations (which it doesn't, because we can only guess, in fact, why would Israel want to recall its ambassador in the first place), and an explanation on how we have come to that problem. After these changes, I think it's OK to include. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Could you propose a draft new wording? Maybe in the 'discussion' below? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, working on it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No Per coatracking and due the fact that the sentence is extremely cherrypicked to present an extreme POV view, as property restitution affected all Polish citizens.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. The proposed text addition, "In August 2021, Poland passed a law to address restitution of property seized by the communist regime that ruled Poland after the war.[1] The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war.[2] In protest, Israel recalled its charge d'affaires to Warsaw.[3]", would be incorrectly understood by readers as relating selectively to Jewish "survivors and their descendants" (this being an article on "The Holocaust in Poland").

The proper place for the question of property restitution in Poland, to persons of any ethnicity, is the article on "Property restitution in Poland".

Nihil novi (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, per Piotrus, not as written. A more general sentence about the controversy over restitution might make sense, but singling out this one law and incident, when we are not currently discussing restitution at all, is giving it WP:UNDUE weight (and falling into obvious WP:RECENTISM given that it just happened last month); it's the sort of hyper-specific detail that belongs on Property restitution in Poland instead. This article should just summarize the broad overarching issue rather than engage in a blow-by-blow over individual laws. --Aquillion (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• No The proposed wording is cherry-picked and POV. Some alternative, more polished wording, like the one proposed above by Piotrus, would be acceptable more.--Darwinek (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, based on reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, except for the recall of the ambassador, there are many reliable sources which make this connection. I understand that the law makes the restitution impossible for everyone, but the suggested text makes it clear. The recall of the ambassador is only tangentially relevant and belongs to the relations article. Alaexis_¿question? 07:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. Sure, this is a notable and well-sourced controversy, but it is about modern day Poland and partly Israel. Hence this belongs to other pages. This is not about Holocaust in Poland or memorials to its victims. Yes, it belongs to Property restitution in Poland. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

The old version goes this way:

In August 2021, Poland passed a law to address restitution of property seized by the communist regime that ruled Poland after the war. The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war. In protest, Israel recalled its charge d'affaires to Warsaw.

The new version, which incorporates my conditions of support of the text is more or less this one (be free to propose edits for this one):

After World War II, the Polish government nationalised most properties, which disproportionately affected property formerly held by the Jews, who died during the Holocaust and/or were expropriated by the Nazis. After the fall of Communism, citizens and organisations that were expropriated demanded that the issue be revisited. As Poland did not sign an indemnity treaty with Israel, nor did it enact a comprehensive restitution bill, descendants of the Jews submitted claims to return property.

The issue of restitution became contentious both in Poland and Israel, and the problem was worsened by reprivatization fraud in Warsaw. Finally, in August 2021, in a bid to resolve the issue, Poland passed a law that barred all appeals on administrative decisions made by special administrative bodies older than 30 years, which effectively meant that owners of property seized in the communist era could no longer receive compensation. While the law concerned all proprietors, regardless of nationality, it sparked outrage in Israel, whose citizens had pending claims in courts, who believe they have been unfairly treated. As a result of the controversy, Israel recalled its ambassador "until further notice"; so did Poland. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC) :The main problem is heirless property claims Szmenderowiecki, you omitted that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, they don't make such a distinction in the law, and both legitimate heirs (under pre-August 2021 definitions) and Israel in general were demanding some sort of compensation. Propose a specific change to the text, please. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

::: As far as I can recall, they don't make such a distinction in the law - that’s why none of it belongs to the Holocaust article. ...and Israel in general were demanding some sort of compensation - some sort of compensation for what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I believe that since it does concern heirs of Holocaust victims and property of Holocaust victims who were killed in families, leaving no heirs; and given the coverage in scholarly literature and in the news that ties the question to the Holocaust in general, it does have a legitimate place in the article.

2. As is known, some of these Jewish organisations claim property on the premise that the families possessing the properties, before being murdered, have been Polish citizens, and that, according to the Law of Return, any Jew may become an Israeli citizen, hence they claim some property/compensation for property which had been Jewish and would have been so were they not murdered. We don't argue here whether their interpretation makes sense or if they should in fact seek compensations from Germany (whose wartime administration murdered and encouraged others to murder Jews) or Poland (to which country these proprietors had allegiance, where the property lies, both pre-war and post-war and whose citizens, under duress or voluntarily, killed/expropriated some of them (not a large proportion of them, but still)), and don't even try doing that. The controversy is notable (it has its own article) and is directly related to Holocaust victims, hence another argument for its inclusion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

:::::Okay, lest try this. Show me a single word “Holocaust”, “Law of Return”, “Israel", “German” or “Jewish” in that law. There is none. The legislation was introduced to combat property reprivatization fraud, which was a major problem in recent years. All you wrote as your proposal illustrates only a fraction of the wider problem, but most importantly, it has no place in the general article about the Holocaust. And yes, you are right here - Israel advancing claims to heirless properties of Polish citizens of Jewish descent murdered by the Germans in Poland during WW2 is a separate issue not to be discussed here, but also belongs elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In the same way, it could be argued: show me the word "Democrats", "Republicans", "Blacks", "Latinos/Latinas" etc. in a law establishing lizardly electoral districts in, say, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina or elsewhere or any of the laws that tightens state electoral regulations. It doesn't mean we should not create articles on gerrymandering in these states, or talking about that in Voting in state X article, or actually write a separate article on voter suppression (there is one, in fact). And yes, you can of course say that the law is intended to bolster election security, ensure that people not impersonate each other (all valid concerns, in fact), but have the side effects of which the lawmakers are well aware of. Of course no one would officially introduce a bill saying "we want to reduce Black turnout".

I don't say the law was intended to harm Jews (or at least I have no RS to back this claim). I say that the law's consequences are significant for those who are Holocaust survivors and their heirs, and the organisations trying to negotiate on behalf of them as well as generally lobbying for restitution. And lawmakers who were passing the law knew of it (at least because Israel was reminding of its position), not speaking of general merits of such regulation. Again, lawmakers would never introduce the law by arguing, "Hey, let's deny heirs of Holocaust victims a possibility to inherit property", and actually, the Polish MFA tried to counter that the law would not deny it, so the govt was perfectly aware of what is happening and what the discontent is about. The logic that "if the law does not say 'Jews', it's not about Jews at all" is at the very least misguided.

I don't personally understand your underlining of "Polish citizens", because, as I said, I'm not here to debate the quality of the arguments of these groups. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

:::::::: I don't personally understand your underlining of "Polish citizens", because, as I said, I'm not here to debate the quality of the arguments of these groups. - me neither.

I don't say the law was intended to harm Jews (or at least I have no RS to back this claim) - additional argument why this law doesn't belong here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this too long? As I said, a neutral sentence, maybe two, would be enough here, per WP:UNDUE. Two paragraphs is what we dedicate here to much more relevant issues such as "Background", "Antisemitism" or "Auschwitz-Birkenau" - and more than to "Postwar trials" which just has, well, two sentences and desperately needs expansion. Btw, you - and all the other interested editors here - may want to help with the Property restitution in Poland, which still needs much improvement. Also, as I noted there, we need a general article on property restitution! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't able to come with a shorter version, though you can of course help with that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "The issue of property restitution in Poland, which concerns property nationalized by the Polish-post war communist government, remains controversial in Poland. As some of that property belongs to Holocaust survivors or their descendants, this issue has also occasionally affected Israel-Poland relations." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

:::: @Piotrus, we don't need anything of that. This article is about the historical record of the Holocaust, not about the restitution law, descendants or issue of Israel producing claims to heirless Polish properties. All this belongs elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)