Talk:History of the Jews in Poland

Not disputing the claim but I think in the introduction section it should be clarified that tolerance means specifically towards the Jewish community Cpawk (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The references needs a bit of work.

• Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2014. There is a harv error on it. Is that a book, or is it actually the ministry?
• www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org is NON-RS.
• https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/01/09/pol1-j09.html That is complete junk. NON-RS.
• Geni.com is non-rs.
• Ref 203 doesn't have a page number?
• Ref 34 doesn't have a page number

scope_creepTalk 23:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Scope creep I've tagged JVL and Geni. But what's wrong with

<onowiki>It is one of the world's largest Jewish museums.^[1]</nowiki>

The claim doesn't seem controversial and a news site is ok to cite for that. But if you'd prefer to replace WSWS with something else, how about reuters - makes the same claim here "POLIN, which opened its main exhibition in 2014, is one of the largest Jewish museums in the world". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: I not sure why the WSWS site is not considered unreliable, but possibly the source of the external funding they may be getting. Reuters is always more reliable. There seems to be a lot of these Jewish Virtual Library entries on Ref 11, 94, 95, 212 and 213 that need to go. Again I don't know the specific reason, they are being pulled all over the shop. Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2014 doesn't have a destination. I tried to fix, it needs refid probably but couldn't find a destination. I removed the Gitelman reference that had a list-reference error. A lot of a references are bare urls that could do with a pass to convert into full size refs. Many of them are on Gbooks and would be very quick to convert. I wonder why they're is so many. scope_creep^Talk 09:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for improving the article.

Re: [1] - I think the content is useful and the source looks reliable? The author is an academic, the book is published by an academic publisher. (@Jayen466)

Re: [2]. Agreed. But why mention some relevant content (ex. Piłsudski) in edit summary but not in text? I'd encourage adding a sentence based on the edit summary comment to the article. (@Gitz6666)

Re: [3]. Perhaps this source would help to restore this: [4] {{tq|"...antisemitism of early twentieth-century Poland, were, in a sence,, a by-product of changes and antisemitic propaganda prelevent in Western Europe at the time.") The source seems reliable

Also, it's worth checking some comments above for other issues with this article (and there are many... it's a big topic to cover). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Re this edit summary [5], I encountered some difficulties in adding Melzer's content to the pertinent section Between antisemitism and support for Zionism and Jewish state in Palestine. Since the very title, the section presents an opposition between antisemitism and support for Zionism and Jewish state. I haven't yet finished reviewing the sources, but with regard to Polish support for Jewish emigration to Palestine, Melzer makes it clear that that policy was a consequence of antisemitism rather than an expression of friendship for the Jewish people. Without removing text and sources that I had not yet reviewed I couldn't include much of Melzer's content, apart from this minor replacement [6].

This edit [7] was a no-brainer, since the removed text was simply not supported by the quoted source. However, we're touching on the possibly delicate issue of whether Polish interwar antisemitism was only the expression of broader European trends or whether there was something peculiar to it. The lead seems to expose the first theory: Antisemitism was a growing problem throughout Europe in those years. However, the source now quoted to support this claim (Hagen 1996) actually argues that there was something peculiar to the "new" German and Polish antisemitism of the 1930s, that is, the economic appetites of the Christian middle classes - according to Hagen, they basically wanted to kill them all and take their stuff, since they were eager to reap the rewards of capitalist modernization at the Jews' expenses. Note that also Ilya Prizel mentions that the decline in Jewish assimilation was contrary to the prevailing European trends of the time [8]. So if we restore the increase in antisemitic activity in prewar Poland was also typical of antisemitism found in other parts of Europe at that time, perhaps we should also qualify that sentence with what Hagen and Prizel say on the issue. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note that the essay by Anna Sommer Schneider in Alvin H. Rosenfeld (ed.), Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives starts with the statement It is not clear whether antisemitism, in all its forms, is a “by-product” of the growth of antisemitic propaganda in Western Europe or a Polish phenomenon ... One of the questions that needs to be asked is whether there is a “unique” type of antisemitism found in Poland (at p. 236; she's also referring to the anomaly of persistent "antisemitism without Jews" in contemporary Poland). The essay is also significant for the following excerpt, which seem to directly challenge our lead:

For decades, the argument has prevailed in the public discourse in Poland that while a number of European countries tried to banish their Jewish citizens, Poland became a kind of asylum for those refugees, due to privileges granted by Polish rulers that secured Jewish rights and safety. The seventeenth century, which witnessed the high point of the development of Jewish cultural and religious life in Poland, was labeled the Paradis Judeorum (Jewish Paradise). It should be recalled, however, that despite the atmosphere of tolerance and the securing of safety, a number of events took place that exerted a stigma and led to the creation of negative stereotypes

Gitz (talk)(contribs) 11:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Schneider, I think, gets it correct, by admitting we don't know the answer. In social sciences, such issues are blurry. I think we will end up finding that some scholars say A, and some B. The smartest, IMHO will say A+B or A/B. Hence I expect the best thing we can do is to say something similar to her, maybe even quote her directly.

Btw. All these years and Antisemitism in Poland is still just a redirect. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The text omits the colonization of Palestine by the Zionists. There were already a people living there, despite one colonizer (England) handing it off to another (Zionists) . The pogroms instituted on the Palestinians by the Zionist doesn't get any mention. I would say this makes it look like a biased account. 75.25.143.2 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

<ref name="Gitelman">Zvi Y. Gitelman, A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the Present. [https://books.google.com/books?id=3f2rng6jDW4C&pg=PA70 p. 70]</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 09:12, February 19, 2023 (UTC)

Article says: In contrast to the prevailing trends in Europe at the time, in interwar Poland an increasing percentage of Jews were pushed to live a life separate from the non-Jewish majority. The antisemitic rejection of Jews, whether for religious or racial reasons, caused estrangement and growing tensions between Jews and Poles. It is significant in this regard that in 1921, 74.2% of Polish Jews listed Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language; by 1931, the number had risen to 87%.

However, such a comparison is impossible, since the 1921 census did not ask about language, but asked about nationality and religion; while the 1931 census asked about language and religion. These two declarations cannot be treated as the same. The authors of the source, Ilya Prizel and John B. Dunlop, made the mistake of misreading the source. Besides, it cannot be considered that people who speak Yiddish or Hebrew fall among those who profess Judaism, after all, very many users of Yiddish or Hebrew may have been of another religion or atheists. Likewise with Jewish nationality.

It is another matter to equate assimilation as an indicator of the level of anti-Semitism. In a tolerant society, two communities can exist side by side, the larger does not have to absorb the smaller. Marcelus (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with this good faithed edit [9]. I don't think we anonymous users are in a position to question Prizel and Dunlop's expertise in dealing with primary sources. If Marcelus had a RS questioning either their scientific expertise or the soundness of their conclusions, my position would be different. But I don't agree with the removal of well-sourced content based on the assumption that the sources got it wrong because Marcelus knows better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree; it verifies to Prizel & Dunlop; if there are other RSes that say something different, we should tackle that, but not with WP:OR. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gitz6666 @Levivich

1. To be precies 1921 census did ask about the language, but such results were never published (only those about nationality were), 1931 census was asking about language and the results were published. Since we don't know how many people were speaking Yidish or Hebrew in Poland in 1921 we cannot make such comparison. This is simply faulty reasoning, there is no point in repeating it. In general, the whole thought expressed by Prizel & Dunlop is strange and illogical, because they are comparing intermarriage in Germany and Hungary with language assimilation in Poland. First of all, these are two different things. Second, what does it mean that intermarriage reached 50% in Germany? 50% of what? 50% of all marriages? All marriages of Jews? I don't understand.

This is a wrong comparison at all because before the war there were no mixed marriages in Poland, as there was no such thing as a civil wedding (except in the former German partition), and Catholicism and Judaism forbade marriages with other faiths believers. And no one recorded what ethnicity the spouses were.

2. It's not my WP:OR to qoute historian: Therefore, the results of the 1921 census are insufficient for determining the nationality structure of Poland at that time, even though the census form included questions on nationality, native language (these results were not published) and religion. It did not cover all of Poland's territory or population (only 25.7 million, the next census 10 years later already almost 32 million). It certainly underestimated the number of national minorities, especially Ukrainian (Ruthenian), German and Lithuanian. In addition, part of the population equated the question of nationality with citizenship of the reborn Polish state, which further inflated the number of Poles (Marek Barwiński, Censuses in Poland in 1921-2011 - determining or creating the nationality structure?, 54-55)

3. The very idea that Polish language speakers were declining among Jews in pre-war Poland is strange and most likely wrong. Historian: I will now turn to the complex process of language change, described here thoughtfully by Abraham Duker. The process as a slowly growing mass phenomenon began in the middle of the nineteenth century and reached its peak after 1918. In 1938, Tartakower estimated that 750,000 Jews in Poland used Polish as first language, which was still a minority, but not at all a marginal number, if we take into account that in the neighboring Weimar Republic in 1918 there were about 600,000 Jews. (...) One also has to take into account substantial regional differences caused by the impact of the partitions—while Polish-speaking Jews in Kraków or Lwów were no exception, in the former Russian parts of Poland the situation was different. But the phenomenon of linguistic Polonization had found its way also into the strongholds of the Yiddish language in the northeast such as in Vilna, Białystok, Brest, or Baranovichi. (...) The linguist Mosze Altbauer, who researched the mutual influences of Yiddish on Polish and vice versa, confirmed this situation in1929 and asserted that Polish had become the colloquial language for the Jewish inteligencja in Poland and that the command of Polish was spreading also among the lesser educated. About the knowledge of Polish among Jews in Poland he observed: “Of course they knew it, some better, some worse, because they had to know it for their relations to the Christians.” The development of language change therefore mirrored a long-time relationship of Christians and Jews in Poland, but also a cultural integration and a desire for participation in Polish institutions of higher learning and for social advancement. Policies of Polonization pursued by the Polish governments during the interwar period should also not be underestimated (Katrin Steffen, Contested Jewish Polishness: Language and Health as Markers for the Position of Jews in Polish Culture and Society in the Interwar Period, p. 371-372. Marcelus (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gitz6666: @Levivich: Take a look at this removal by Marcelus as well. Does that seem like a good faith removal or hiding of something again? This raises concern about WP:NPOV. Pinging administrator @Bbb23: who recently (10 days ago) blocked Marcelus for edit warring because it seems like a provoking of another edit warring in Poland-related topic by removing content referenced with WP:RS. It should not get into massive edit warring as nobody need that, especially since it is recognized as "contentious topic". Moreover, Marcelus also censored this reliable reference in another article (see: HERE). -- Pofka (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

How does this quote out of context add substantive value to the article? Have you read the novel at all? Or at least the source it quotes? You know it's from the novel and it's not Dmowski's words, but a character from the novel into whose mouth he put them. Dmowski was an anti-Semite, but this quote is redundant and does not prove it. (Another thing is that I tried to find this quote in the novel itself - without success).

Was your edit in good faith? Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unlike your previous edit in which you attempted to remove a Cambridge University Press source (1), my edit was according to a easily WP:VERIFIABLE source. I do not read Polish, so I cannot confirm whenever your attempts to find that quote in the book is in good faith or bad faith, so I fully trust the initial source. Your acknowledgment that Roman Dmowski was an anti-Semite only strengthens the possibility that he used such wording. -- Pofka (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I repeat it only once more: this qoute if from the novel. And you shouldn't qoute novels written in language you cannot read. Marcelus (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Convincing analysis. I think the content in question belongs in a subarticle about demographics or history of Jews in the Second Polish Republic, where it can be expanded with contradictory sources you cite, but not here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quote "The antisemitic rejection of Jews, whether for religious or racial reasons, caused estrangement and growing tensions between Jews and Poles." has nothing to do with demographics and should stay here, especially since it is supported by two references of which one is published by the Cambridge University Press, so it is undoubtedly a WP:RS. -- Pofka (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just proved that this source (Cambridge University Press) isn't reliable, also the second source are the results of the census from 1931 so it refers directly to the demographics, and it's a WP:PRIMARY. Marcelus (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gitz6666 why you reverted my change? Aren't the things I said enough to remove the factualy incorrect statement? Marcelus (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I suggested in my edit summary [10], you might consider discussing this at WP:RS, but honestly I think you are misunderstanding the role of us editors vis-a-vis the sources: we should check that they are reliable, not that they are accurate (truthful). You might benefit from the reading of this essay, "Verifiability, not truth". So even if you open a thread at RSN, I don't think editors there will agree with you that Ilya Prizel, National identity and foreign policy, Cambridge University Press, 1998, is not reliable and/or accurate. I know, it's disappointing, but this kind of self-restraint on the part of the editors is also vital - we are anonymous amateurs, and we don't have the time nor the inclination or the ability to check the Polish 1921 census and compare it with the 1931 census. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I see that Prizel is relying on Rozenbaum Włodzimierz, "The Status of the Jews in Poland between the Wars: 1918-1939: An Overview". In Poland between the Wars: 1918-1939. A Collection of Papers and Discussions from the Conference "Poland between the Wars: 1918—1939" Held in Bloomington, Indiana February 21-23, 1985. Edited by Timothy J. Wiles. Bloomington: Indiana University Polish Studies Center. 1989. pp. 161-169. I couldn't check that source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

A reliable source can still have errors. We can't say the source is wrong without finding a reliable source that criticizes it, be we can remove it (and the fact it cites) if we have reasons to believe the source is wrong. We should not misinform the readers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand that, but I think I've convincingly shown the source to be wrong on this matter. Marcelus (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

•   Comment: I restored content removed by user Marcelus. The source is published by the Cambridge University Press and present facts about the worsening situation of Jewish people in the interwar Poland, thus removal of such facts violate WP:NOTCENSORED. @Gitz6666: @Levivich: I don't think that censoring content and then starting a discussion is a good faith edit. By the way, user Marcelus also attempted to remove Polish Army's repressions against Lithuanians and Belarusians in another article (see: Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#RfC: content of the section on Belarus). So this is not the first time when his actions are questioned according to WP:NOTCENSORED principle. -- Pofka (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @Pofka please don’t bring your lengthy disputes with Marcelus from other topic area into this area. That revert of yours now doesn't look good and might be challenged (as what motivated you into getting engaged here). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@GizzyCatBella: The Marcelus' removal was challenged by two users before me already (Gitz and Levivich). I restored status quo. Marcelus should seek for justification/WP:CONS to remove old content referenced with WP:RS instead of vaguely claiming that online source published by the Cambridge University Press is "dubious". Dubious according to who? Wikipedia user? That would be WP:OR. -- Pofka (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but don’t carry disputes you have with Marcelus in other topic area into this area because it might be seen as you came here just to get back at Marcelus. (Sadly now that’s what it looks like it). Also, that Dmowski quote you inserted possibly is WP:UNDUE because this article isn’t about Dmowski, add that quote to article about Dmowski if you want. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@GizzyCatBella: Dmowski was a chief ideologue of the National Democracy in Poland and such quotes proves that it was antisemitic. So since he was such a notable person in interwar Poland - his opinion about Jewish people certainly is important and should not be censored. He also was a Minister of Foreign Affairs, so a high-ranking Polish statesman, not random author. We include mentionings of "Sigismund II Augustus followed his father's tolerant policy and also granted autonomy to the Jews", so why censor Dmowski which was not positive in this case? This does not seem like a balanced WP:NPOV. By the way, it is Marcelus who is hunting my edits in Dmowski article as well. -- Pofka (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moved off topic here --> User talk:Pofka#Marcelus GizzyCatBella🍁 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Pofka Just :) to you, good to see you here also Marcelus (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: The argument from Marcelus was: To be precies 1921 census did ask about the language, but such results were never published (only those about nationality were), 1931 census was asking about language and the results were published. Since we don't know how many people were speaking Yidish or Hebrew in Poland in 1921 we cannot make such comparison. -- so the data was collected, no? What is the reasoning to suggest that this data was not available to later researchers?

Separately, the source in question was published by a. professor in a related field (Ilya Prizel is/was professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh); b. by a high-quality publisher (Cambridge University Press); c. the book itself has not been shown to be heavily criticized. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Data was collected but never compiled, officially due to lack of funds. They are not available to modern researchers. All the census cards would have to be counted and compiled, and they are scattered or destroyed today. This is simply impossible. Marcelus (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• @Gitz6666: @Levivich: @K.e.coffman: @GizzyCatBella: @Piotrus: I found a source that I hope will dispel all doubts:

This excerpt says "closer analysis of the results of the 1931 census shows that the drop in the number of Jews who gave Polish as their native tongue from number who had given Polish as their nationality...". How is this different or incompatible with what Prizel (based on Włodzimierz) report, that is, in 1921, 74.2% of Polish Jews listed Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language; by 1931, the number had risen to 87%"? It seems to me that both Lichten and Włodzimierz claim that the number of Jews who spoke Polish as their native tongue decreased, and that Włodzimierz/Prizel interpret this tedency as a sign of a decrease in assimilation. Yes, I know: in the 1921 census they were not asked about their native tongue, but only about their nationality. And yet also Lichten acknowledges that "One can assume that a Jew whose native tongue was Polish and who was raised in Polish culture belonged to this group [those who gave their nationality as Polish]". There seems to be no contradiction between these sources. Perhaps we could replace listed with spoke, based on the same assumption made by Lichten: those who in 1921 listed "Jew" as their nationality also spoke Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

1. Did you read the entire piece? After all, Lichten clearly distances himself from such a way of determining the level of assimilation. Lichten certainly doesn't claim that number of Jews speaking Polish decreased, quite contrary. He explicitly says that there should have been more than in the 1921 census, because even Zionists (and they were the largest group), with few exceptions, spoke Polish as their native language, even though they sided with themselves as Jews in nationality. And quotes Aleksander Hertz, who states that using census data to determine the level of assimilation makes no sense. And while he states that one can assume that a Jew whose native tongue was Polish and who was raised in Polish culture belonged to this group, the entire rest of the argument proves that such an assumption is wrong. One can assume.

2. Combine this with the other sources I quoted above, which confirm that assimilation was proceeding with difficulty, but progressed. And it was certainly not going backwards.

3. Moreover, Włodzimierz Rozenbaum, who is the author of this erroneous simplification, does not attribute this change to the influence of anti-Semitism, but to the growth of Jewish self-consciousness. He says: Nevertheless, Polish Jews succeeded in creating in Poland the most important center of Yiddish culture as well as in developing their own communal organizations, youth movement, press, theater, even party politics. This contributed greatly to an increased snese of national conciousness among Polish Jews. In 1931, there were 3,113,933 Jews, who constituted 9.8 percent of the entire population in Poland. Of these 87 percent gave either Yiddish or Hebrew as their native tongue (in 1921, 74.2 percent).

4. In any case, we can't say in the article that in 1921, 74.2% of Polish Jews listed Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language, because this is simply not true. Marcelus (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can see you have access to Włodzimierz Rozenbaum's essay. What does he say about the 74.2% figure? How does he report that figure and compare it to the 87% one? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I quoted the entire passage from Rozenbaum in which he refers to the 1921 and 1931 censuses Marcelus (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Re your assimilation was proceeding with difficulty, but progressed, it would be useful to have a verbatim quotation on this; if there's disagreement among historians on this, then we could not say in wikivoice "In contrast to the prevailing trends in Europe at the time, in interwar Poland an increasing percentage of Jews were pushed to live a life separate from the non-Jewish majority", but we should attribute this claim to the source(s). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why you added Rozenbaum as the source if the entire passage needs to be removed as false? Marcelus (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The sentence is well sourced, and the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Unless we have a source claiming, as you do, that in interwar Poland "assimilation was proceeding with difficulty, but progressed", I don't think we should remove the first sentence (In contrast to the prevailing trends in Europe at the time, in interwar Poland an increasing percentage of Jews were pushed to live a life separate from the non-Jewish majority. The antisemitic rejection of Jews, whether for religious or racial reasons, caused estrangement and growing tensions between Jews and Pole). Analogously, unless we have a source explaining that it is wrong to infer the native language from the figure on nationality in the 1921 census, we shouldn't remove the last sentence It is significant in this regard that in 1921, 74.2% of Polish Jews spoke Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language; by 1931, the number had risen to 87%. We editors are no historians - we're just paper-pushers. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lichten and Barwiński aren't good enough sources to remove the last sentence? Marcelus (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think not, for the reasons I have given, but let's hear from others. If nobody joins in, WP:RSN is always an option to get input from uninvolved editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you repeat those reasons, because I'm not sure you actually given any. Let me repeat, the part It is significant in this regard that in 1921, 74.2% of Polish Jews spoke Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language; by 1931, the number had risen to 87%. is proven false by both Lichten and Barwiński.

BTW. Włodzimierz is a first name, Rozenbaum is a surname. Marcelus (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

OOK, if you insist, I will repeat myself.

First, on the methods. I don't think that it the job of us editors to assess if the sources are right or wrong in what they say. We must determine that they are reliable but not that they are also accurate or truthful. We should stick to the idea that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth".

Secondly, with regard to your sources, I don't think they prove that Rozenbaum (and Prizel relying on Rozenbaum) are wrong. Barwiński says that "the results of the 1921 census are insufficient for determining the nationality structure of Poland". It seems to me that this doesn't imply that the comparison between the results of the 1921 census and the 1931 census does not allow any conclusions to be drawn on the number of Jews who spoke Polish as their native language (according to Rozenbaum/Prizel, that number decreased). Lichten explicitly acknowledges that we can infer from the nationality declared in the 1921 census fairly accurate information on the native language of the census-takers (see my comment and quotation here above at 03:41, 26 February 2023). Moreover, Lichten says that "closer analysis of the results of the 1931 census shows that the drop in the number of Jews who gave Polish as their native tongue from number who had given Polish as their nationality", which is exactly Rozenbaum's starting point.

Lichten may be right in saying that "it is extremely difficult to establish how many Jews in Poland, in precise numbers, belonged to or sympathized with the assimilationist movement". But this is not the subject of Rozenbaum and Prizel. They aren not talking about the number of sympathizers with the assimilationst movement; they are inferring from the decline in the number of Jews speaking Polish as their native language a reversal of the assimilation process in inter-war Poland. This thesis may well be wrong. But you you have to find a source that says it is wrong - a source that says that in interwar Poland "assimilation was proceeding with difficulty, but progressed", as you claim. Without such a source, your views on Rozenbaum's errors in interpreting the census results are not convincing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that you just read the sources very selectively. Lichten directly says that the census data is useless, he makes an operation to determine the number of Polish-speaking Jews from the 1921 census, just to show that such an operation makes no sense. Barwiński says outright that the 1921 native language information was never published.

The other is that Lichten and Steffen say outright that language assimilation was proceeding (I will now turn to the complex process of language change, described here thoughtfully by Abraham Duker. The process as a slowly growing mass phenomenon began in the middle of the nineteenth century and reached its peak after 1918.)

You don't have to quote me endlessly these rules. I understand them. But if we have reliable sources that directly prove that other reliable sources are wrong, then for what purpose to repeat the error? After all, there are hundreds of such situations on Wikipedia. I don't know why you insist on what is an obvious mistake by Rozenbaum, repeated by Prizel. Marcelus (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lichten and Steffen say that the process "reached its peak after 1918"? That means that the process declined after 1918, don't you think? Which is exactly Rozenbaum's point. This suggests to me that you're the one reading the sources "very selectively". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, it means it reached it peak after 1918 - in independent Poland. Read the source. Make an effort. Seriously, I'm beginning to have doubts that you take me and the sources seriously. Marcelus (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gitz6666 what do you need to achieve consensus? WP:STONEWALLING doesn't bring us to consensus Marcelus (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

We've already had an extensive discussion on this: WP:STONEWALLING is an allegation of disruptive editing and clearly is not relevant here (Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion). The restored content [11] is fully verifiable and supported by RSs. Your arguments were based on WP:V, but IMHO you have failed to show that other RSs prove Rozenbaum/Prizel wrong. I trust Rozenbaum's and Prizel's reading of the census more than yours. Other editors seem to agree with me (Levivich, K.e.coffman and Pofka) while Piotrus seems to agree with you. Let's wait for others to join the discussion. Alternatively, I suggest you open a thread at WP:RSN. In the meantime, I don't see a consensus for removal. I've said all I had to say on this topic and will no longer participate in this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gitz6666 another source. David Engel in his review of Forgotten Holocaust by Richard C. Lukas says: This, howeer, has not prevented him [Lukas] from either repeating or concocting on his own such sweeping and misleading generalizations as "few Jews understood, let alone spoke, Polish", in the footnote attached to this statement Engels argue:

Lukas's statement regarding Jews and the Polish language is evidently based upon the fact that in the 1931 census "almost 80 percent of the Jews declared Yiddish to be their mother tongue." Lukas overlooks the obvious possibility of bilingualism, a possibility that could not be reflected in the census. In contrast, Celia Heller, basing her conclusions upon sociological investigations conducted under the auspisces of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in Wilno during the 1930s, notes that in independent Poland linguistic acculturation was the dominant trend among the upper and middle strata of the Jewish populace and was gaining ground among the lower strata as well (Heller, On the Edge of Destruction, pp. 66-68)

— Engel, David (1987). "Poles, Jews, and Historical Objectivity". Slavic Review. 46(3-4): 568–580. JSTOR 2498105

Is this convincing to you or not? Also, a small correction, this is not "my" reading of the census, but Lichten's and Barwiński's. And the reading you insist on keeping is Rozenbaum's (Prizel is only qouting him). Besided @Pofka didn't advocate to keep census data, and @Levivich didn't make a stance after I presented sources. Can you all please, including @K.e.coffman and @Piotrus, take a look at all three sources I qouted in this section and tell what you think about the whole thing? If that's not enough I can present more (because really, there is plenty of that) or answe your questions, but really I think it's enough.Marcelus (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since I was pinged, here's my 2c. Maybe we could say something like "scholars disagree", with X saying Y while A saying B? And add more scholars if we have more sources. It seems to me that what we have here are disagreements between scholars on this issue, in which case we shouldn't try to chose one group as correct but report that there are said disagreements. Unless one side is much more mainstream and the other fringe, but I don't get the impression this is the case here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am unclear on what the proposed addition is, and what the proposed sources cited for that addition is. Levivich (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This information about antisemitism in interwar Poland: "In contrast to the prevailing trends in Europe at the time, in interwar Poland an increasing percentage of Jews were pushed to live a life separate from the non-Jewish majority. The antisemitic rejection of Jews, whether for religious or racial reasons, caused estrangement and growing tensions between Jews and Poles" is supported by WP:RS and should not be removed (censored). The Cambridge University Press do not publish unreliable information and statistics may vary based on different sources. However, different statistics can be included to this article without removing this information: "It is significant in this regard that in 1921, 74.2% of Polish Jews spoke Yiddish or Hebrew as their native language; by 1931, the number had risen to 87%." (e.g. in the following sentences). -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Yiddish translation of “Polish Jews” (פּױלישע ייִדן) should be added under the Hebrew translation. 2603:7080:1B05:9F27:4CD0:776C:A4E6:3E4B (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the section "Territories annexed by the USSR (1939–1941)", there are multiple references to unreliable sources, like these:

1. A Geni.com page is cited for the following plus other information:

All private property and – crucial to Jewish economic life – private businesses were nationalized; political activity was delegalized and thousands of people were jailed, many of whom were later executed. Zionism, which was designated by the Soviets as counter-revolutionary was also forbidden. In just one day all Polish and Jewish media were shut down and replaced by the new Soviet press,^{[1][unreliable source?]}

All private property and – crucial to Jewish economic life – private businesses were nationalized; political activity was delegalized and thousands of people were jailed, many of whom were later executed. Zionism, which was designated by the Soviets as counter-revolutionary was also forbidden. In just one day all Polish and Jewish media were shut down and replaced by the new Soviet press,^{[2][unreliable source?]} which conducted political propaganda attacking religion including the Jewish faith.

First of all, none of the above information appears in the cited Geni.com page. Second, Geni.com is a user created genealogy site, so in no way is this a Reliable Source. It is not even clear who the author of that page is. There is a reference to a Pawel Goldstein, who is cited under Profile. When one clicks on that it says; "Dr Pawel Goldstein, the distinguished neurosurgeon, was born in Tsarist Russia in 1884. He died from typhus in Luck, Ukraine during the Holocaust, 24 January 1942.Dr Goldstein was a graduate of the Fre...". Obviously, he is not the author of the Geni.com page, since he died in a Nazi ghetto in 1942, and no other author is listed. Anonymous sources do not belong in Wikipedia, and should be immediately deleted, particularly since the cited information does not even appear in this anonymous source.

2. Also in same section, there is this citation ^[3] to something called Expactica, identified as "The complete guide to expat life" with the slogan "Live. Love, Work." This too does not belong in Wikipedia, and needs to be deleted

3. No pages are provided for any of the 3 sources cited here: Jewish refugees under the Soviet occupation had little knowledge about what was going on under the Germans since the Soviet media did not report on the goings-on in territories occupied by their Nazi ally.^{[4][5]  [6]}

Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply