This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is this title used in English historiography? Further, wouldn't bench ghetto be a better translation of ghetto ławkowe?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Transliteration is enough. We do not translate slogans from another language - unless the expression already exists in the naitive language.
The same is true of Book titles, for example.
Consider this: Velikoe v malom. It's Russian - ans tays so. --Ludvikus 18:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a book title, however. If the phenomena has a name used in English literature, we should use it. The question is - is there such a term?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it has been shown that the term is used in English sources, and is usually translated, I'd suggest moving the article to either bench ghetto (more literal translation) or ghetto benches (less correct, but for some reason more widely used).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to remind people that after Hitler finished with the he planned to do the same with the rest of the Slavs - including the Poles. So maybe we need the following article: Polski ławkowe - that where the Poles would sit when still admitted into German Nazi universities - to keep the Nazis "uncontaminated" by Slavik presence. --Ludvikus 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is incorrect to put Hitler's implementation of his racial theories and Polish antisemitism into the same ballpark. The situation of Jews in the nationalist interwar Poland while certainly a notable example of state-supported mob antisemitism cannot be really compared not only with the situation of the Jews under Reich but also with the situation of Poles under the General Government. Let's not exaggerate thus undermining the Wikipedia's credibility. The situation with minorities in the interwar Poland was bad enough in its own right and does not have to be compared with the Hitler's genocidal regime to make a point. --Irpen 18:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Jews hate Poles more than they hate Germans. That's all there is to say about this article.
Agree with the call to never make undiscussed sweeping moves. Polish anti-Semitism, OTOH, is a notable topic and may have its own article but it would have to be written from scratch rather that having it based on a narrow aspect of it, however shameful. --Irpen 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to a separate article on any notable topic if it is written encyclopedically, carefully, in good faith and academic style rather than to make a point or grind an ax. It is easy to see which is the case from the article's onset. If anyone is willing write such articles, I would have no a priori objections. But if such articles are created in the nonsense Digwuren's ax-grinding style of Soviet occupations of THIS and THAT, it would be another story. --Irpen 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
My comment was wiped out by you beating me to the punch. It appears that this (if accurately described) is an aspect of Polish antisemitism. Are we to have now a little article on every anysemitic phrase or usage in every foreign language? This is a Polish usage, and it seems to small to have a place of its own. What's the problem with starting an article dubbed Polish antisemitism? Or is it that we need an article "Negroe toilets" too (in the South of the US before the '60's)? How about Whites only? --Ludvikus 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Segregated seating for Jewish students in Poland is a notable phenomenon in its own right and deserves an article, this is all what I am saying. The Polish antisemitism is a much wider topic. --Irpen 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghetto benches indeed was significant event in the history of Jews in Poland. But renaming it to the Polish antisemitism would be a stretch. Although it would be very educational to have an article on apologetics of persecutions of Jews and Holocaust denial in Polish historiography, but as this article does not exist yet to call new article on this subject Polish historiography would not be quite fair, despite that similar examples show what some areas of Wiki is not about fairness. M0RD00R 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Piotrus showed 18 hits on Google for "bench ghetto" (some with scare quotes). The hits included scholarly books on Antisemitism. --Ludvikus 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it's true but "Ghetto benches" gives us 224 hits of mostly academic books on google books. So it beats "bench ghetto" on popularity by far. M0RD00R 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Good observation, MORDOOR. I've put that into the article. --Ludvikus 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I just have to accept that Wiki classifications of AS by country are forbidden.
As a result Antisemitism has only One article that covers all countries.
But this article is about Antisemitism (in the Modern Polish Republic). So we must make reference to the Main Antisemitism article. --Ludvikus 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghetto ławkowe and Ukrainians
I remember reading something that there were attempts to put Ukrainian students in such ghettos. Perhaps somebody can find a ref for that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghetto ławkowe (Polish: Ghetto ławkowe), which can be translated as bench ghetto,
Why are you forcing a translation of Polish "shit" into English where it does not exist - and your translation is broken English which is incomprehensible to an English speaker? --Ludvikus 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghetto benches might by not exact translation but the term is used in English literature [2]. M0RD00R 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
None of the English language translations provided here reflect the actual meaning of the Polish phrase “Getto ławkowe” because of our linguistic differences. “Ławka” (as in w “ławka w klasie, w auli”) is not just a “bench” (a long seat[3])” known in English. “Four types of furniture [are] found to be in use in classrooms: sled desks, chair with arm tablet, table with chair and table with bench.”[4] The most accurate English term is offered by The Jewish Journal of Sociology published by World Jewish Congress. That is the "ghetto desk",[5] though NOT “a desk in the ghetto” of course, but rather a “ghetto desk in a classroom”. Btw, “ghetto bench” or a "Ghetto-bp"[6] is a type of workout equipment used for body building. Don't be misled by an avalanche of inaccurate translations from Polish featured online. --Poeticbenttalk 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
But don't forget that "The most accurate" is your POV. "Ghetto benches" beat "Ghetto desk" by landslide in academic and scientific papers. This term was also used by Encyclopedia Britannica [7] so we should go with established English name. M0RD00R 17:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Young Poland League
What's the Polish title of this organization? Without it, its hard to verify its existence, as there are probably several translations of the original Polish name, and this doesn't seem to be very useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Związek Młodej Polski. M0RD00R 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghetto ławkowe was the extension of the Russian Empire's numerus clausus policy
Could someone elaborate on this one? Even if from my own experience here in Wiki I know how the scheme usually works, like for example in Kielce pogrom case "Jews were persecuted because they were communists" > they were persecuted by some outside force - evil barbarian neighbors, "Communists" (and "Communists were Jews") therefore > "Jews persecuted Jews" and no one (except the Jews themselves of cause) is to blame, but still I wonder how come 20 years after gaining the independence sovereign Polish state still was implementing Russian policy. M0RD00R 22:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Cultural contamination, perhaps. After 123 years of Russian rule, some Russian customs and policies were assimilated by the Poles. Unfortunately, anti-semitic policies of Russian Empire appear to be among those. Of course, the fact that such regrettable attitude was on the rise worldwide is another factor, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Piotrus,
While Poland was the Kingdom to which Jews fled in the Middle Ages from the West, from Germany, don't forgey that contemporary Jews were believed by Catholics to be guilty of killing Christ. So whatever influence there was from Russia, Jews were the victims of Catholic Polish antisemitism - independent of Orthodox Russia and the Ukraine. --Ludvikus 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Segregation
I think I need to remind - if not inform - our non-American editors that this seating practice falls under the well-known phenomena of racial or ethnicsegregation. --Ludvikus 12:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Racial nature of this discrimination should be obvious, but somehow it isn't for some. Apparently there are some users protesting the usage of term racial segregation in this case. It would be interesting to see their arguments. M0RD00R 12:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Background
This needs spliting into two parts - beginning with pre-independent, or Poland within the Russian Empire. --Ludvikus 12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The system was not terminated by Polish legislative enactment; but rather, by the Nazi invasion which eliminated Jewish attendance at universities with the systematic destruction of Poland's Jewish community.
The only relevant lead-worthy part here is that the system was not terminated by Polish authorities but rather collapsed along with Poland and its education. Nazi destruction of Poland's, or any other, Jewish community is not the subject of this article. We don't and should not throw all issues, no matter how important overall, to every Wikipedia article. This article is about a narrow issue: discrimination of Jews through segregation in Polish education. While referring to an overall anti-Semitism of the interwar Poland may be warranted, this has nothing to do with Nazi policies and, obviously, cannot be compared to the latter. Let's keep the articles focused. Antisemitism in Polandis a notable topic but if one wants to study present it in detail, this should be done in a dedicated article rather than in the article about a narrow aspect of it.
As for the international reaction, until we have a ref that it was indeed widespread, let's just mention that there was a reaction since this is confirmed by sources. --Irpen 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You've done a good job of copyediting in accordance with the above. And your statement of principle is correct. However, there are still style/grammar errors to be corrected. But I appreciate your restoration of balance between the two extremes.
Furthermore, since this is one aspect of PolishAntisemitism, and we are not allowed to have an article by country, to wit, Polish Antisemitism, I trhink we need to place it in a proper context - how does this phenomena fit the rest of Antisemitism then, there, before, and/or after. Best, --Ludvikus 01:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Who says we are not allowed to have a narrower article about national antisemitism? Not at all! We can have such articles. But such articles should be started very carefully and be well-motivated. To often such articles are started by the user with the sole purpose to grind one's ax and make a point about their pet subject. If the article is started in such way, it is almost always destined to become a miserable failure. The subject of Polish antisemitism has received enough scholarly attention and the well-intentioned user armed with sources, patience and honest interest to write good articles rather than "prove that Poles are Antisemites" has a good chance to put such article on a right track. Unfortunately, the controversial subjects too often attract the users who don't write good articles. And such topics attract the most disruptive users from opposite POVs and articles degenerate into an unrepairable shape. Then they may get deleted. That's why there are so few good articles on the controversial subjects yet. But there are some and there may be one more. --Irpen 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Thereabouts there were no longer any Polish Jewish students sitting on any benches - they had all been deported to ny the occupying Nazis to concentration camps and extermination camps." This is not a direct response to your remark above. However, after careful re-examination, that sentence is appropriate as an accounting of how Ghetto benches became un-necessary. There were no longer any Jews left to sit on them. You may, if you wish, try to find a more "intellectual" way of putting it. I, for the moment, cannot think of any. However, your previous deletion of it was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. You need to try again. The question is: How or Why did Ghetto benches disappear? The answer is that those who sit on them had been exterminated. You may not find that appetising to your need for a cold, dry, reading. Well, you can try and find a way of doing that. But you cannot do it by hiding the truth under your intellectual rug. So I'm sending you back to the drawing board, as I've restored the fact. --Ludvikus 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, please tone down your attitude a little. To the topic now. Ghetto benches were the feature of the Polish educational system in end-1930s. With the collapse of Poland, the Polish educational system seized to exist. There were no Polish universities, there were no benches in Polish universities, including the benches for Jews. In the Soviet part the Universities were soon reopened as the Soviet institutions. As Internationalism was an official Soviet ideology, there was hardly any anti-Jewish policies in the pre-war USSR. Actually, the Soviet takeover opened the doors into the Universities for non-Poles (Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews) much wider than they were in the nationalist interwar Poland. Soviets introduced had their own antisemitic policies, including in education, but at a much later time and this is not the subject of this article. The main thing though, is that Ghetto benches was a a segregation within the Polish educational system that ended with the end of that system. There was no Polish education in partitioned Poland. The horrible future that awaited the Jews in the Germany-controlled Poland in the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators is undisputable. But this is not the subject of the article about the the segregation in the Polish education.
I agree that the issues you keep reinserting deserve to be covered in Wikipedia. But they are off-topic in this article. --Irpen 03:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes Irpen, certainly internationalism was an official Soviet ideology. They closed colleges for Poles and opened for Ukrainians. This was very international indeed. BTW - I have no idea what is worse - discrimination based on ethnicity (Nazi Germany) or based on social status (Soviet Union). And as for Polish Antisemitism - it certainly attracts those users who have little knowledge on Polish history, but nevertheless seek for any chance to criticize Poland. Tymek 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Disappearance of Jewish students
I cannot understand the persistent concealment (by editing or reversion) in an article about Segregation of the fact that that segregation ended because there were no longer any Jews left to segregate. What is with you guys? Where is your logic? The Question is simple, really. How did Ghetto benches disappear? They disappeared not because the Polish authorities decided (like the Americans in the 1960s) "that separate is not equal" (Brown vs. Board of Education). But because there was no longer any need for them - since the Nazis had eliminated the Jews. --Ludvikus 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus there were still lots of Jews in Poland after WWII. The lots of Jews emigrated to Israel or USA during years of communism. And they studied polish Universities either. Name you one world-famouse student? Roman Polański (graduated in 1959). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus, the benches for Jewish students in Polish universities disappeared along with the benches for the Polish students in Polish universities along with the entire system of Polish universities. That Jews were killed afterwards by Nazis and their Polish collaborators has nothing to do with Ghetto benches. --Irpen 05:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust template does not belong here and it is not in the article. The Antisemitism template belongs here all right. --Irpen 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You can put it any way you wish. But you cannot pretend that its irrelevant. Your latest claim is that the whole Polish educational system was shut down. Well then say that: Jewish university students at Polish universities were no longer forced to sit on benches reserved for Jews only because the Polish educational system had been shut down by the Nazis. --Ludvikus 06:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You guys seem desperately wanting to find a way not to state exactly how these Ghetto benches disappeared from Poland - that they were in fact only distroyed by the Nazis - why leave out this ironic fact? --Ludvikus 06:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The obvious fact you guys seem to want to censor is that Poland did not find these benches unjust, or illegal; that Poland never had a chance to continue this practise - because the German Nazis found a better, final solution. --Ludvikus 06:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the fact that Poland did not find this practice unjust and worthy to be banned is important and needs to be said. This, however, has nothing to do with Nazis or the final solution. Nazi Holocaust and Polish antisemitism are different issues and needn't be mixed. Overall, I strongly suggest that you calm down. --Irpen 06:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
We can only speculate what Poland would have done, or not done - and speculation is not for Encyclopediasts to do.
Why you think I need to calm down, I do not understand. I do not insult, or personally attack, any other Wikipedian.
Nevertheless, absurd positions can, and should be, attacked not by any means necessary - if permitted.
Furthermore, you know, I'm sure, that the World is full of Holocaust deniers; how you expect one to be calm in that context is beyond me; and I think it needs to be said to you in this context that six million Jews went calmly, most of them Jewish and Polish, to their death; what you're discussing here is one aspect of that same Antisemitism.
Here in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's the Negros also could not get a seat on the bus where a white person sat. It was the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat in the back of the bus which began the Civil Rights Movement. And, by the way, those who calmly violated the Segregation restrictions were taken out and lynched. So how you expect calmness, or how you can think that what we're discussing here has nothing to do with the Nazis is incredible, but at the same time, understandable, when one recognizes that one lives in a world where there are so-called scholars who say that the Holocaust never happened.
But Peace to you personally, fello Wikipedian Irpen. --Ludvikus 13:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ludvikus - ghetto benches were shameful, but please do not mix them with Nazi Holocaust as these two topics are totally different. Do not compare Poland in 1939 to America in 1960, during those 21 years everything changed. In 1939 segregation of various kinds was commonplace almost everywhere. Irpen is right, Holocaust template has nothing to do with this article, or perhaps you want to add this template to anti-Jewish riots in Detroit in 1943? Tymek 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with that template. We call that a red herring. All I'm asking is to make it clear how Ghetto benches went out of existence. That's all I want. My comparison to the 1960's is my original research, here, on the talk page. On the regular page I just want the pure fact: that the Poles, through their government, never eliminated such segrigation through their legislative process: the did not pass any kind of law making such benches illegal. That is a historical fact. Now I also giving the Poles some kind of excuse: that the Nazis took over. What happened when the Soviets came into power - that I leave to other, hopefully knowledgable editors on the subject. Maybe this will help you understand my position better. The late Polish Pope (Karol Józef Wojtyła, John Paul II) was I Great and Lovable Polish gentleman! --Ludvikus 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the benches disappeared because the Nazis closed down Polish school system is obvious. Polish government didn't have the chance to ban the segregation; whether and when it would have done so w/out WWII it's an open question, but the fact is that the segregation was not reintroduced after WWII.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me tell you all how law generally works. After countries overcome their occupation, their laws are automatically restored. So it's not enough for you to tell me that segregation was not reintroduced - the question is, was it ever abolished? Perhaps it was never re-introduced precisely because the Nazis had killed the Polish Jews off. Since this is an article on the racist practice of segregation, it is our responsibility to tell our readers how that practice ended. From what you are telling me now, it is perfectly legal for any Polish university to set up separate seating tomorrow.
Do not white wash the situation by saying this Polish antisemitic practice was not re-introduced. The more accurate way of stating it right now is that it was never formally abolished - unless you know otherwise! --Ludvikus 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, the after-1945 situation in Poland was totally different from the pre-1939. The pre-war law system was not restored, as Poland was ruled by the Communist puppet government which rejected the interwar Poland. As for formal abolition of the ghetto benches - I have no idea how it was solved after 1945. But as neither of us knows how the Communist government handled this case, I think we should skip this subject until sources are found. So, if you are not sure, please refrain from stating that it was never formally abolished unless you check the existing Polish law. Tymek 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It was also never formally established. Universities had autonomy and Polish pre-war government washed their hands of the issue. The autonomy under Communists was much smaller, practically non-existent during Communist period, so the government obviously did not wish for the ghetto benches to be recreated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Greatings, and Welcome, User:Tymek. Please do not confuse what I say here on the Talk page, with what I might write on the Article page. I agree with what you say about references. What I wish is precisely that - sourced accounting as to what happened to students' seating rights during the Nazi, Communist, and post-Communist eras, right up to the present day.
In addition, the article should make reference to other practices of this kind of Racism. Were Ghetto benches the only forms of anti-Jewish regulations? Were there, by the way, any German benches, or Prussian benches, or Austrian benches, or Russian benches, or Ukrainian benches? After all, Poland had no reason to love these other nationalities. It seems, however, that only Jews received such special seating accommodations. Is that not true? --Ludvikus 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for greetings. There were not any ghetto benches for any other nationalities, even though the system for Ukrainians was considered in Lwow in early 1930s. During the Nazi era, there was no education in Poland, not counting Nur fur Deutsche. Tymek 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. As I recall in one university Ukrainian benches were introduced. It had Polish, Jewish, and "the rest" (designated mainly for Ukrainians) sections. But if memory serves me right it was the only case. M0RD00R 19:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In defense of my Polish brothers and sisters, let me just say that Poland needs feel not much more shame, if any, than the great United States of America. At least Jews had seats in Polish universities. In the USA a Jew could not even get into Harvard or Yale - the two greatest American universities - before WWII; and Quota systems existed here (USA) too. --Ludvikus 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
One American who fell victim to the Jewish quota was late physicist and Nobel laureate Richard P. Feynman,
who was turned away from Columbia College in the 1930s
and went to MIT instead.
In Hungary, for example, 5,000 Jewish youngsters (including Edward Teller)
left the country after the introduction of Numerus Clausus. [Thats the (Jewish) father of the H-bomb. - Ludvikus interjection]
Zbyslaw Poplawski in his book “Dzieje Politechniki Lwowskiej 1844-1945”, Wroclaw 1992. (“History of the Lwow Technical University”, Wroclaw 1992) writes about incidents that took place at the school in the Soviet years (1939-1941). He writes that in November of 1939 there was a meeting at the school, during which Communist Jewish activists recognized pre-war Polish anti-Semites from college. They pointed these persons to NKVD officers, all four were taken out, beaten and then shot. Their names were: Henryk Rozakolski and Jan Plonczak from the student Bratniak organization, Ludwik Placzek and Jozef Obrocki. The meeting was terminated, shocked people left the hall walking past their killed collegaues.
Poplawski also writes that Jews were systematically taking revenge for the ghetto bench system. Harassed were professor Eberman from the combustion engines department, and engineers Jerzy Wegierski and Zbigniew Budzianowski. In 1940 a lecturer of sculpture, Jan Nalborczyk was killed for pre-war excesses.
To avoid questions - Zbyslaw Poplawski PhD died in Krakow on August 1, 2007, he was 95. He was a graduate of the Lwow Technical College, also a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences
IMHO this information could be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymek (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to sign myself, sorry Tymek 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Important observation as to what happened. I personally regret that Revolutions are often the means of terminating injustice. When a system of law and order breaks down, as in a revolution, what is Justice to one, is Revenge to another. Your observations can be applied to the French Revolution as well. Did the French people take their Revenge on the Aristocracy during the Terror? At any rate, you are reporting important historical facts that should be included. It shows at least some sort of retribution against the perpetrators of the bench system. In the USA racist Governor Wallace was shot and crippled, and confined to a wheel chair. Eventually he recanted, as did Henry Ford for his racist activities. Anyway, these facts (you state) are clearly relevant to the Encyclopedia. So you should put them in. Best, --Ludvikus 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Instead of avoiding POV words such as few or many some users tend to push their POV at all costs.
Words like this have no place in the lead, but if you insist on putting "many", referenced "few" also should be present. Philosophical question - if so "many" Poles protested Racial segregation, why then ghetto benches were implemented? Maybe because "many many more" Poles there quite happy about them. M0RD00R 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Pure speculation, quite unacceptable by our Wiki standards. Please provide source for the "many, many." --Poeticbenttalk 19:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
By our wiki standards words like "many" and "not many" are unacceptable (especially in the lead) but for some reason you prefer to insert them by all means possible there it suits you. M0RD00R 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"many many more" Poles there quite happy about them". This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. How about this - many many Jews were quite happy about Soviet persecution of Poles. We should refrain from such stupid comments, don't you think so? Tymek 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In that regard, Tymek, I think you are wrong. We should not use such words ourselves. We can quote any kind of source for that. But it most often is a POV expresion. Don't you agree that just one murderer is too many? So "one" means "many." Or do you think that only a Jew is capable of such logic? --Ludvikus 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Tymek, if/since it's not your position. --Ludvikus 19:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you believe that, Poeticbent? Phrase "many Poles disliked the Jews" can be referenced, and this book is by Oxford University Press so WP:RS written all over it, in big letters [8]. Does this mean that this phrase can be quoted here or in any other article's lead, according to you. M0RD00R 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"many Poles disliked the Jews" is a slightly different expression from "many Poles were happy about (ghetto benches)". Anyway this is a unique phenomenon. Poland was home to the largest number of Jews, in Poland they found refuge and yet relationships between both nations were far from ideal and both sides were guily Tymek 20:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Here we go with "both sides were guilty" tune. But not the both sides imposed acts of racial segregation on each other. Hello! There was one side that imposed segregation, and there was another side upon whom segregation was imposed. M0RD00R 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello! My comment was general, about whole history of Jewish community in Poland, not about the ghetto benches. Tymek 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh excuse me. If we talk about whole Jewish history in Poland, pardon me, but still i fail to see "both guilty sides" for example in blood libel (superstition still alive in Poland in the middle of XX century, may I remind you) pogroms. M0RD00R 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In some cases the Poles were guilty, in some other - the Jews. Jewish collaboration with Soviet occupiers in 1939-1941 is a commonly known fact. Jewish over-representation in Communist Secret Services in 1945-56 is also known, and their willing participation in persecution of Polish patriots. Nevertheless - it does not make any sense to vie each other. I will state again - both sides were guilty of misunderstanding and sometimes hatred. Tymek 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Hello! There was one side that imposed segregation, and there was another side upon whom segregation was imposed"
If Max Bodenheimer would had his way though then indeed one side would be privilaged over the other and not exactly the Poles. At least that is what I read in "Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918" by Isaiah Friedman page 231. Roots of animosity between Poles and Jews are many, but the main point of divergence was XIX century and IWW connected to conflict regarding the orientation towards acceptence of being part of Polish nation from Commonwealth definition or strictly being Jewish people. A lot of bad blood was also in part due to conflict between supporting independent Poland in WW1 or victory of German Empire and Austrian Empire and Poland becoming part of them. Mostly Jews prefered to live in multiethnic AH and Germany rather then in Poland as they believed their rights would be more safe in them then in Poland, so it naturally led to conflict with Polish national movement. And of course the Russian mposed Pale of Settlement also led to change in ethnic situation in Polish territories, and such changes always bring conflicts--Molobo 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone need to go to the bathroom? Anyway, before you do, and I have to go shopping, here in Manhattan, to buy many, many, things. Or mabe it's few things? Anyway, before I go, who is the un-named editor referenced above who is so loose with "few", or "many" as observed above? I'll be away - but I shall return to this lively discussion. --Ludvikus 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh! As I go out the door I see the answer .... --Ludvikus 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I locked the door. But then I returned. I am absolutely shocked, User:Poeticbent that you use such a subjective word as "many"! Have you no intellectual shame/ Have you not understood one word of our discussion here? Tell me, are there many editors like you at Wikipedia who use "many" as you do? Let me say it again, just One like you is too Many. Do you understand that usage?
Now I really have to go, and to the bXXXXXXm too - what Poetichent just did makes me want to tXXXXXXp! --Ludvikus 20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my language. But I did get sick in my stomach. Now here's the alleged source author: Historical Dictionary of Poland (Hardcover) by George Sanford (Author), Adriana Gozdecka-Sanford (Author). That's not the author cited by our editor here. --Ludvikus 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Our editor here has Footnote #2 with the following: Jerzy Jan Lerski. --Ludvikus 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So we need a more exact citation, context, etc., from our Wiki editor. --Ludvikus 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is a blurb on the true author of the cited work:
About the Author
George Sanford (BA, Bristol; MPhil, PhD, London), Senior Lecturer in Politics,
University of Bristol, UK,
is a leading academic specialist in Polish and East European Studies. This is his seventh book;
he has also published numerous articles and chapters in ten books and commented on Polish affairs for the mass media.
Adriana Gozdecka-Sanford (MA, Warsaw), is a Polish-born journalist and author.
She published two historical books as well as a novel in Poland.
This is her second co-authored publication with Sanford since settling in England in 1977.
The answer is this: Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945 by Jerzy Jan Lerski --Ludvikus 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually everything is OK here, these are two different books, and cited information in that book, question is, is this extremely short dictionary entry any good for referencing outstanding claims. M0RD00R 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I want the exact reference. And the context. I find it hard to believe that a scholar would make such an observation. So I want to see the whole paragraph in which that one sentence is lifted from. And I want the chapter heading. --Ludvikus 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's all here just follow this link [10]. M0RD00R 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember conversations with my age-old father who grew up in central Poland before the war. He came from a provincial town where Jewish and Polish populations were nearly equal in numbers: driving forces in the local economy, competing with each other for scarce resources in times of world-wide depression. Was there anti-Semitism? No less than anti-Polonism, visible by way of pranks of little boys on either side. I can only guess, what Ludvikus’ opinion is on the real minorities living there in Manhattan... --Poeticbenttalk 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not, there was a widespread perception that Poland was a virulently anti-Semitic country in the West. Certainly many Jews who emigrated from Poland to the U.S. and Palestine spoke of this phenomenon. Yitzhak Shamir probably being the most famous of them with his belief and subsequent remarks that Poles inbibed anti-Semitism from their mother's milk. Dr. Dan 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Poeticbent's remark above show no understanding of discrimination whatsoever. The Jews of pre-war Poland were a minority. In discrimination, it is always the minority which is the victim. It's just incredible that you can make such a remark: "Was there anti-Semitism? No less than anti-Polonism." That shows ignorance of the highest order. I do not wish to insult you; nevertheless, that is the most stupid remark I have heard in a very long time. It is worthy of a "hwop" - which is my transliteration of the Polish word for peasant; the other response that's appropriate to such a remark is the following transliterated Polish one: that it can only come from an "unalphabeta." --Ludvikus 03:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As for minorities living in Manhattan: I can think of no other city in the world where people for all over the world live together with respect and tolerance for one another. It was not always like this. But there have been great changes for the better since the end of WWII; And I can say that I'm proud and happy to be a citizen of New York City - I would not want to live anywhere else; visit, maybe, but the Big Apple, Gotham City, is my kind of town. --Ludvikus 03:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"In discrimination, it is always the minority which is the victim"-hmm South Africa would contradict that I think.
As to your claims " I can think of no other city in the world where people for all over the world live together with respect and tolerance for one another"...Well:
"An article published in the Haverford College alumni magazine that uses racist stereotypes to describe Greenpoint's Polish community is riling up Polish people across the city."
"A recent graduate, David Langlieb, penned a piece for the magazine's "Moved to Speak" column in the fall issue in which he describes Greenpoint as a community with several problems, including "the high density of Polish people infesting its rowhouses."
""It's obvious bigotry when you call people vermin," the chairman of the anti-bigotry committee of the Polish American Congress, Frank Milewski, said. "Reading the article is like coming from a Jurassic park of Ku Klux Klan times and racial ethnic hatred," the consul general of Poland in New York, Krzysztof Kasprzyk, said. He described the article as "pure ethnic slander."
"Langlieb described a Greenpoint "of the future" that will be filled with lawyers and investment bankers "after the vermin are gone."
The world is complicated and every part of it has its own problems.
--Molobo 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Few/many alleged reference
Look at footnote/reference #3:
Bench ghetto
A form of discrimination against minority students
in which they were forced to sit in designated benches of university lecture halls.
Polish nationalist groups had demanded that university authorities adopt this policy,
and that the parliament introduce the principle of numerus clausus (1923) or numerus nullus (1935).
These policies were aimed above all against Jewish students, and, in Lwow, also against Ukrainians.
In 1935, the Lwow Polytechnic was the first to introduce a "bench ghetto";
by 1937, most rectors at the other institutions of higher learning had done so as well,
a move that had been approved by the Ministry of Religious Faiths and Public Education.
Jewish students' indexes (student identification document where grades are also recorded)
began to be marked with the word "Jewish".
Jewish students protested these policies, along with a few Poles supporting them,
by refusing to occupy the places on the benches, choosing to stand during lectures instead.
A few professors also showed their support, including the philosopher T. Kotarbinski (1886-1981).
(H.W./CM)
Notice the inaccuracy of our editor's work, changing substituting "many" for "few": "Jewish students protested these policies, along with a few Poles supporting them." [Emphasis added]
What is the source of this text? Full citation, I mean. I am afraid ti is not clear what H.W/CM stands for. In other news: Lerski writes ([11]) that it "antagonized Jews, but also many Poles". -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"It antagonized not only Jews, but also many Poles"
I would like to see the whole paragraph from which this sentence (used in our 2nd paragraph) was lifted.
Our editor, User:Poeticbent, writes that it's on page 22 - but that page is unavailable online.
If there was a proposal to set limits to number of students based on their relative ethnicity precentage among the society-what was the precentage of Polish university students and Jewish students ? If places for Jewish students were to be limited to 10% what was the number subject to reduction before the proposal ?
--Molobo 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The numbers are the basis of discrimination. Quota systems are inherently unfair. Why do you want these demographics in an article on discrimination? --Ludvikus 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm ? That was not the question I asked. I'm kind of obsessive about numbers in general, so I was just interested in how precentage of students according to social divisions was. As to why I ask about demographics-well the article already includes information about demographics-mainly that the number of Jews in Polish society was 10% and it was the number nationalists wanted to limit students seats to Jewish candidates-so it's only natural to ask from what number of seats taken they wanted to reduce available seats --Molobo 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. But remember that the article is about segregation and discrimination. And I'm not the editor who brought in the figure of 10%. But if you're interested in that kind of demographics let me refer you to Jewish Bolshevism and The Jewish Bolshevism where there is a Chart posted which the US Senate published in 1924, having lifted it from Pravda; there you'll find a lively debate regarding the fact that the Nazis originated the idea that (whatever that means) Bolshevism was Jewish. So the concern was to find as many Jews as one could among the Bolsheviks. All this, however, is unrelated, directly to this article here. However, we are here also in a related debate - namely that few and many are POV terms and must be used very cautiously - if at all; I think these terms should be mostly avoided by Wikipedian editors. --Ludvikus 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the logic-neither Pravda nor USA in 1924 were Nazi. Also nobody here talks abouth Bolshevism. To claim by being a student one is a Bolshevik seems...bizarre. From what I remember many Jewish organisations in pre-war Poland were on right spectrum of politics. Anyway I am not asking about many or few-I am asking what was the number of Jewish students, if extreme nationalists wanted to reduce that unknown number to 10%- that's all.--Molobo 14:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Here you go, Molobo. According to the Statistical Yearbook of Poland 1929/1930, Jews made almost 20% of students in Poland (precisely - 19.3%). Among law students their percentage was higher - 26%, in philosphy departments - 24.5%. In the 1930s in Warsaw Jews made 66% of all doctors and 37% of lawyers. Tymek 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tymek :) --Molobo 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
However per [12] by 1937/1938 the % of Jewish students declined to 9.9%. Interestingly, in 1923/1924 the % was even higher than in 1929/30 cited by Tymek above - 33%. Another shocking statistic cited is Jewish professors in 1932/33 - 0.1% (20 in 2000).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Per Historical_demographics_of_Poland#Second_Polish_Republic_.281918-1939.29, Jews constituted slightly less then 10% (8.7%). So they were indeed overrepresented at the universities - not that it justifies the ghetto's much (sure, one can draw parallels to the affirmative action, but there is a difference between underlying motivations of political correctness vs. antisemitism, I am afraid).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
My parents were Polish citizens until WWII. Poland was a Republic, and a multi-ethnic state. My parents home town was the same as that from which Bruno Schultz came from. So I am not totally ignorant of Polish history, both good and bad. We are here discussing school segregation - which of course, as an American, I cannot help but see from an American's knowledge of its segregation which only ended decades after WWII. To the extent that Poland was not the "most" antisemitic country in the world, Zionism was clearly the appropriate response to a lack of a pure meritocracy in Poland: Jews were clearly not "equal" to Polish Catholic citizens since their 'numerocity" (at universities) was an issue. Only in a country of their very own (according to Herzl) would they be able to attend school without regard as to their religion or race. That's one aspect of my response to this issue. Then, of course, there's the question of Why Jews attended the universities in the numbers which they did.
We all know that Poland was initially a haven for Jews where they were invited from the West (Germany) under the protection of one of Polands great kings. And that they prospered in Poland and became in it a relatively large minority.
Nevertheless, are we goiing to forget the fact that Poland, as a Roman Catholic country, saw the Jews as Christ killers?
All Christian churches saw the Jews as Christ killers. Read about Martin Luther. I have no idea why you say that Jews were not equal. There were several Jewish MPs, most doctors and lawyers were Jewish, 90% of pre-1939 movie industry was in their hands, they had numerous organizations, sports clubs, hundreds of synagogues. It is a fact that persecution sometimes took place, but in early XXth century, Jews were to some extent persecuted almost everywhere. Ghetto benches was a shameful idea, but this should not cloud the general picture Tymek 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right about the fact that Jews were persecuted elsewhere. However, besides the Soviet Union, and the United States, it was Poland where Jews had their homeland, and homes. You know of course how many millions of Jews lived in Poland before Hitler cleaned Poland of its Jews. So the fact that others persecuted Jews, does not change the fact that it was Poland - right after Russia - where Jews were most persecuted - simply because there were millions of Jews living there.
And it is precisely because Jews did well in Poland, that they were persecuted and discriminated against: Look at that Jew, in his fine cloths, who does he think he is?
Christ (as you know) was himself born a Jew. And he taught humanity that we should love one another as brothers and sisters. But all countries must go through their nationalism phase. And like Russia, Poland now must do that - after the Soviet disaster. But one day, I hope, we will all be Citizens of the Planet Earth. However, this the Russians called Internationalism - a subject attacked in their Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
But even Poland - now that Poland is taking its place in the European Union - perhaps will move in that direction - with Poles seeing themselves not as merely Poles, but Europeans as well - more so than the Russians at least.
Finally, I ask you to look to the Greatest Pole in modern times, and what he had to say about the Jews - look to the definitely saintly Polish Pope - if only Poland produces more men like him, there is much hope. Ludvikus 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Case study, the: Dreyfus affair. May I ask that you review this history? Do you not think France in the 1880's & 1890's, with Dreyfus as protagonist, a good example of how Jews were treated in a modern state? Why do you think Herzl came out with his Zionist views? And do you think the Jews were better off in Poland? Why? --Ludvikus 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that Jews were better off in Poland. All I am saying is that they had as much freedom as Jews in England or Greece or elsewhere, apart from ghetto benches which were shameful but still not the worst thing that ever happened to this nation. As for the rest of your comment - I wish I could agree more. Tymek 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Minister of Education, M. Kamieniecki, declared numerus clausus a violation of the constitution
Polish Ministery of Education condemned the anti-semitic riots at the universities as "Zoological patriotism"
the benches introduced in Lwow in 1935 were short lived due to opposition "inside and outside Sejm"
Minister of Education stated: "Student ghettos would not be introduced at the Polish Universities"
however after a series of riots the Ministry withdrew and objection, hoping it will end the riots
Over 50 "notable Polish professors", the article names prof. Rudnicki. Manfred Kridl, professor of Polish literature in Wilno, ordered the edict instituting the benches to be removed from the official noticeboard. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Piotrus for this interesting and important information. Some users go out of their way to present Poland as the most anti-Semitic country in the world, finding the few sources that would support their preconceptions. As we see - the case is not as clear as some would like to present it Tymek 17:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. There was a noble group opposing the anti-semitism currents. But the sad truth is that they lost. Here's another shocking stat: professor Bartel calculated that anti-semitic riots prevented him from delivering a third of his lectures at at Lwow Politechnic. I recall a sentence from Davies that IIRP was spiraling down into an ethnic civil war - and the more I read about the period, the more I have to agree with him. I believe today many Poles have a way to idealistic vision of that time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A question to user Moroor
You have been removing information about four Poles shot by NKVD, with the inspiration of some Jews from Lwow's Technical University. You claim that it is off-topic. This claim is outrageous, especially when it is written by an editor so keen on counting all Jews killed by Poles during various incidents. Please explain why you keep on removing it, as this sad incident is closely related to the article and stop this practice. Tymek 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This source [14] does not even mention getto lawkowe. Therefore your attempts to connect these events to ghetto bench system is nothing but your original research (let's call it that way). M0RD00R 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It does not take a genius to figure out that activists of anti-Semitic organizations at the college had been promoting ghetto benches. I was expecting more from a person who so loudly trumpets all wrongdoings of Poles. Or perhaps the 4 murdered are not worth mentioning? Tymek 12:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not an easy one. Obviously the killings are important, yet the connection to ghetto benches starts to be problematic. If you can make a specific connection of those killed to the benches, it should stay. If you can't, it's OT and doesn't belong here. Perhaps it can go into its own article or somewhere else. An assumption "that activists of anti-Semitic organizations promoted ghetto benches" is where the problem lies. The project cannot rely on assumptions and speculations. However these killings are relevant, and need to go somewhere. Perhaps you can find some specific relation between the four mentioned, and the benches. Otherwise you should find the information a better home. Dr. Dan 13:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
What you can or can not figure out it is not business of mine. As long as I know WP:OR still is a policy an this article is not an exempt from it. This source [15]does not even mention ghetto benches. End of story. M0RD00R 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me, Ludvikus? Look what you wrote before - that this information is important and should be included in the article. Have you changed your mind? All murders are murders and I am expecting an apology, since you are putting words in my mouth. Your post was of the lowest quality. Thank you Dr Dan for a tip, I will get to it later. As for Moroor - please tell me who was inspiring ghetto benches in Poland. Anti-Greek activists? Tymek 13:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC
I have a better question to ask - is getto ławkowe even mentioned in this text [16]? a. Yes; b. No.
Tip: correct answer is b. I'm afraid. M0RD00R 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm discussing your Logic, not you, Tymek. You are being asked to justify the placing of the death of these 4 Polish victims in this article. And it is said that you must stick to the scholarly sources - not do your own research. That means than unless you show that a true scholar, not some extremist, wrote about these 4 killed individuals in connection with these Ghetto benches, you have no business bringing that unfortunate fact into this article. But also, you seem to have no appreciation that the Jews were the minority - who by the millions, peacefully boarded trains into the death camps the Nazis built all over Poland. Any, by the way, since you refuse to stick to the topic of the benches, do you know what aid the Polish Resistance gave to the Jewish victims - practically none. You should think like this: it's amazing how Few Jewish murderers of Poles there were - very, very, few. Why don't you write an article(s) like this: Jewish murder rate in inter war Poland and Polish murder rate in interwar Poland. What do you think, in persentages, were there more Jewish murders in Poland than Poles? None of this is relevant - except in the discussion of your Logic. But as a person, Tymek, I assume good faith and give you all the respect you deserve as a fello Wikipedian. I only disagree with your Logic. Cheers. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"who by the millions, peacefully boarded trains into the death camps the Nazis built all over Poland"-Incorrect-they were Jewish partisans. "it's amazing how Few Jewish murderers of Poles there were - very, very, few"-People of Koniuch or Naliboki come to mind.
In general you seem very emotional and very selective as to history, or perhaps use very selective sources. As to interwar Poland, Jewish organisations were supported by Polish government, and I think many of the right-wing and nationalist ones would be insulted by the idea they couldn't defend themselfs from attacks by local antisemites before the war. --Molobo 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, User:Molobo, educate me about Koniuch and Naliboki, I'd like to know. There are not even articles about these Polish towns. Instead of dropping names, why don't you start the {{stub}}s. So far, what I see you doing, is what we call here, in the USA, "blaming the victim." --Ludvikus 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ludvikus. First of all, thank you for kind words, I do appreciate it. As for those few Jewish murderers of Poles = well, Jews were the most active participants in the murderous Soviet regime, as their actions are responsible for deaths of thousands of Poles either in 1939-1941 or 1944-45. As soon as the tables turned, they were not victims but persecutors. Tymek 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget that we are talking about ghetto benches here in the first place. All other attempts to "even out" repeating "the both sides were guilty" mantra should go to Polish historiography article. M0RD00R 15:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Tymek, I assume Good Faith on your part personally. Nevertheless you've just written an Antisemtic statement as follows:
As for those few Jewish murderers of Poles = well, Jews were the most active participants in the murderous Soviet regime,
as their actions are responsible for deaths of thousands of Poles either in 1939-1941 or 1944-45.
As soon as the tables turned, they were not victims but persecutors.
It seems that you support both The Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism theses. What you've just uttered, regarding the first period, is completely false. By 1939 Stalin had already purged the Soviet Union of all its Jews in leadership positions. What I do not understand is why you do not see the Jews as Soviet citizens.
But apart from that, how is it possible that I do not find that claim of yours in any stable Wikipedia article? --Ludvikus 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Jews, not Russians, killed Poles during these periods? --Ludvikus 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Timek, here's a USA demographic chart printed in 1924, and taken from Pravda: Demographic chart. Can you be more specific as to your allegation regarding Jewish responsibility in relation to alleged Jewish Soviet crimes of murder against the Polish people? --Ludvikus 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Timek, how come you are so forgiving to your fello Christians and Slavs, the Russians and the Ukrainians? Where they very just to the Polish people during the Soviet period? Were Lenin and Stalin Jews? --Ludvikus 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And Timek, check this out: "An Inquiry Confirms a Massacre Of Jews by Poles in World War II"[17]. --Ludvikus 15:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"Are you saying that Jews, not Russians, killed Poles during these periods?"
Are you saying Soviets equal Russians ? Do you want Soviet war crimes changed to Russian war crimes ?
"By 1939 Stalin had already purged the Soviet Union of all its Jews in leadership positions."
In 1939 Stalin was allied with Nazi Germany, Tymek was talking about post-1941 situation.
"What I do not understand is why you do not see the Jews as Soviet citizens"
Do you want sentences about Jewish Soviets killed in fighting with anti-Soviet resistance changed to Soviet casualties rather then Jewish ?
And an interesting chart, but it if somebody would like to study influence among various ethnic groups a chart detailing distribution among leadership and top positions would be more useful, then just membership.--Molobo 15:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Molobo, where have you been? Your confusing me with Tymek. I am trying to figure out why Tymek is singling out the Jews for blame. I'm not taking any stand now. The ball is in Tymek's court. --Ludvikus 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, I am not writing about Soviet Union and Jewish leadership of this country. I am writing about anti-Polish attitudes of average Jews living in the part of Poland that was occupied by SU after Sept 17, 1939. I am not forgiving anybody, in fact yesterday I improved the article about Massacres in Volhynia. The 1924 chart has nothing to do with my point. Tymek 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll get back to that later, but consider this "POLES AND COSSACKS MASSACRE JEWS; Hang Them by Hundreds and Drive Them from Homes, It Is Alleged. CLIMAX OF WAR'S TERROR Poles Declared to Have Denounced Their Jewish Neighbors First to Germans Then to Russians."[18]. --Ludvikus 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And consider this, Tymek: "WHOLESALE MASSACRE OF JEWS IN POLAND; Slaying and Plundering in Warsaw and Galicia--British Government Appealed To."[19] --Ludvikus 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Now back to your latest comment. That chart to the right represents the Jews in Bolshevism at a time after which they were being purged systematically - and even then they were far outnumber by the Russians and Ukrainians both percentage-wise, and in absolute numbers. So your claim that Poles were the victims of Jews under the late Soviet system, in 1939-1941 or 1944-45, is shocking to anyone's historical sensibility: it is amazing that you can stick to such a time frame: the Nazi period when the Jews were being systematically exterminated - with the help of many Polish collaborators, you find that the Jews were not very nice to the Poles. --Ludvikus 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, your ability to juggle with topics amazes me. I am talking about Soviet-occupied part of Poland, not about Cossaks or Nazis. Maybe it is shocking to you, but not to thousands of Poles who perished in this period. Soviets after invading eastern Poland in September 1939 found willing collaborators with the local Jews who were actively helping them with their purges. Seems that you had taken for granted that Jews were always the victims, but history is more complicated than your preconceived notions. Tymek 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This contentious exchange is getting out of line, and has no relevance to the article. Move it, or better yet, cool it. Dr. Dan 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
OK
It's you, Tymek, who refuses to be logical here. Let me put it as directly as possible.
(1) Stop being vague and general. Be specific, and identify exactly the event(s) around 1939 in which Poles were victims under the Soviet system; and by all means - write as many articles about it as you can justify.
(2) Demonstrated why it is that you single out the Jews - rather than Russian, or Soviets - who you claim victimized the Poles by murdering them, or otherwise killing them.
I do not believe you can do any of these two things. --Ludvikus 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This indeed is too far off-topic. --Molobo 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In a Socratic, or Platonic, dialogue, at the end, someone always has to leave, for one reason or another. Cheers. --Ludvikus 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as hemlock isn't the reason. Dr. Dan 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion should end at this point, anyway it was a nice experience. Should anybody be interested in my point, please check this page [20]. Tymek 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
According to professor Zbysław Popławski,
a graduate of the Lwów's Polytechnic and a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences
during the Soviet occupation Jewish students took brutal revenge for the ghetto bench system.
In the third week of October of 1939 there was a student meeting with NKVD
in which Jewish activists pointed out four Polish students, taken out and shot by NKVD officers on the spot.
I do not wish any disrespect to the Polish people, or any Polish Wikipedian in particular. However, the logic of this argument goes like this:
(1) Jesus, a Jew, was accused of violating Jewish law, by Jews, reported to the authorities (the Romans),
and the authorites executed him.
(2) So the Jews are guilty of killing Christ.
(3) So Jews report the Polish criminals to the Soviets, and the Soviets execute the Polish criminals.
(4) The Jews, not the Russian Soviets, are guilty of killing the Polish Christ(s).
I will refrain from identifying the editor who is responsible for this argument.
But I do not believe that that's the argument of the in Red Polish Prof. Zbysław Popławski --Ludvikus
The only editor who is responsible for this weird logic is the one who started this part. Tymek 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Permit me to explain, the Catholic church has, after the Second Ecumenical Council made it clear that Jews today are not to be blamed for the death of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Catholic dogma remains that the Jews, not the Romans, who comprised the civil authority at the time of the Crucifixion, are guilty of Christ's death. That is Catholic dogma which I will not dispute. However, I find it unacceptable to blame the Jews for the acts of Soviets or Russians. Why is that so bizarre to you?
Your WP colleague claims that Four (4) Poles were summarily excuted by Soviet Russian authorities for the crime of the Ghetto benches. But the Jews who witnessed the crime, and criminals, are responsible for this "brutal" act of "revenge." Do you really not see the incomprehensibility of this kind of blaming. Were the witnesses to the Ghetto benches criminality really expected to keep still and even to shield and hide these Polish criminals against the Soviet and Russian authorities?
But I do not believe the accuracy of this story anyway. --Ludvikus 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
One more point - about Jesus - I, like so many moderns, believe in Religious Toleration, so I would not have found Jesus guilty of any wrongdoing. In my eyes, even if Jesus violated the cannons of Jewish law, was innocent, and I would have found him so, and done everything in my power to shield Jesus. But these Poles of the Ghetto benches - they are more guilty than thieves, bandits, and robbers. --Ludvikus 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Poor Jesus - he was crucified by the Romans. But the Russian Soviets were so merciful to the Ghetto benches Poles -they took them out to be shot on the spot! --Ludvikus 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Back to the sources
Mimo uruchomienia Uczelni w 1939 r. i mimo pierwszych brutalnych interwencji w dotychczasowe struktury społeczności akademickiej, na Politechnice nie nastąpiło uspokojenie, trwały dalsze porachunki ideologiczne. Głównie Żydzi okrutnie mścili się za getto ławkowe i inne demonstracje antysemickie części młodzieży studenckiej, zwłaszcza w następujących katedrach: silników spalinowych u nieobecnego już prof. EBERMANA, którego trudno było podejrzewać o antysemityzm, w obu katedrach budowy mostów i z tego powodu usunięci zostali z uczelni asystenci inż. JERZY WĘGIERSKI z katedry prof. STANISŁAWA BRZOZOWSKIEGO oraz inż. ZBIGNIEW BUDZIANOWSKI z katedry prof. KURYŁŁY
That's it. Source only mentions that certain academic staff was fired in connection with ghetto benches and other antisemitic excesses. So everything else if off-topic and WP:OR. Still we have no sources linking deaths of four antisemites and ghetto benches. M0RD00R 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you just made up four dead Poles, killed by Soviet Russians for which Jews are responsible.
At least, give us an exact, specific, reference (book, page number, etc.).
After that, tell us what justification you have for doing Original Research.
From what I understand now, none of the cited reputable authorities, English or Polish, discusses these un-known four individuals. What kind of sources are you using? --Ludvikus 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
To make it clear 4 antisemites shot by NKVD are mentioned in another source ([21]). But this text does not even mention ghetto benches. What we have here is an attempt to compile two different sources (one that says that academic staff involved in ghetto bench system was fired by Soviets, and another that 4 antisemitic students were shot by NKVD) into one section about "Jewish crimes against innocent antisemitic victims". This is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. M0RD00R 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The Polish language source involved is so titled: "ZBYSŁAW POPŁAWSKI, Represje okupantów na Politechnice Lwowskiej". It's unfortunate that it's not available in English. --Ludvikus 23:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not directly relevant here, but in view of the above, regarding the year 1941, please check out this source that came out six years ago: [22] which begins as follows:
May. 28, 2001
WARSAW, May 28, 01 (CWNews.com) - Poland's Catholic bishops on Sunday sought forgiveness from God and Jews
for wrongs committed by Catholics against Jews during World War II,
especially the 1941 massacre of Jews in northeastern Poland that had until recently been blamed on the Nazis.
Cardinal Jozef Glemp of Warsaw led about 100 bishops in the ceremony in which they sought forgiveness
on behalf of the country's Catholics.
"We want, as pastors of the Church in Poland, to stand in truth before God and people,
but mainly before our Jewish brothers and sisters,
referring with regret and repentance to the crime that in July 1941 took place in Jedwabne
and in other places," Bishop Stanislaw Gadecki said in the introduction Sunday.
. . .
I've translated the following passage in order to show M0RD00R's initial manipulation in the closing paragraph of this article: Głównie Żydzi okrutnie mścili się za getto ławkowe i inne demonstracje antysemickie części młodzieży studenckiej, zwłaszcza w następujących katedrach: silników spalinowych u nieobecnego już prof. EBERMANA, którego trudno było podejrzewać o antysemityzm
"Mostly Jews took cruel vengeance for the desk ghetto system and other anti-Semitic demonstrations of the segment of student youth especially in the following departments: Internal combustion engines under already absent prof. Eberman, whom it would have been hard to suspect of anti-Semitism..." (perhaps because he might have been Jewish?)
However, following is the part of the same Polish paragraph omitted by M0RD00R altogether.
Doszukiwanie się winnych trwało cały czas. W roku 1940 aresztowano i zakatowano w więzieniu artystę-rzeźbiarza JANA NALBORCZYKA, długoletniego docenta modelowania na Wydziale Architektonicznym. Niezależnie od tego trwały aresztowania i skazywania na tle politycznym i to do ostatniej chwili pobytu władz sowieckich.
The search for the guilty continued all the time. In 1940 sculptor Jan Naborczyk, the long-standing assistant professor of modeling at the Architectural department, was arrested and bludgeoned in prison. Aside from it, the arrests and political convictions lasted till the last moment of the presence of the Soviet authorities.
Btw, since when using two different sources in order to support a critical paragraph is suddenly called WP:SYNTH? Both sources were equally valid, though didn't meet M0RD00R's WP:IDONTLIKEIT standard reinforced by his WP:OWN. --Poeticbenttalk 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
User Mordoor is very keen on changing contents of articles and omitting important info, whenever it contradicts his preconceptions. Removing important information about events in Lwow shows his ways of writing history so that it would meet his own criteria. Shame Tymek 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the most disturbing proof of how background information is being squeezed out based on Mordoor's political agendas. The following paragraph was removed altogether,[23] than made to sound false when reinstated with further edits made by two different users.[24]
In the third week of October of 1939 there was a liquidation meeting with NKVD at the Polytechnic directed by lieutenant-colonel Jusimow, during which communist Jewish activists recognized four pre-war Polish members of an anti-Semitic organization from their college, and pointed them out to NKVD officers. All four were taken out, beaten and then shot in the hallway right away while the NKVD orchestra was performing inside. Their names were: Henryk Różakolski, Jan Płończak (from the student Bratniak organization), Ludwik Płaczek and Józef Obrocki. The meeting was terminated, shocked people left the hall walking past their murdered collegaues.[1] Professor Eberman from the Combustion Engines department, as well as engineers Jerzy Wegierski and Zbigniew Budzianowski were fired, singled out by their Jewish students. In 1940 an assistant professor of sculpture, renown artist and Silesian insurgent, Jan Nalborczyk, was killed in prison. Dr Zdzisław Rodewald from Institute of Chemistry disappeared.[1]
^ ab(in Polish) Zbysław Popławski, "Represje okupantów na Politechnice Lwowskiej". Towarzystwo Miłośników Lwowa i Kresów Południowo Wschodnich. Wrocław. 1990. [1]
Perhaps user Moroor would explain his point to us, such brazen attempts to change history should never be tolerated Tymek 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything is explained already x times. If you are not bothered to read I could not be bothered to repeat the same obvious facts time and time again. I'd rather spend my time writing new articles. Simple as that. Cheers. M0RD00R 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was explained, it is your shameful practice of removing information and not answering questions. Hope you will not spend your time writing any articles, as their quality is very dubious and biased. Cheers. Tymek 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Period at the end of the New Ghetto bences. Name
Is this a typo or is there a reason for the period?
KosherJava 14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an obvious typo. M0RD00R 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Reference for murders
As a strong statement of complicity in murder, the shootings allegation needs more than one reference. The single reference is authored by Zbysław Popławski, who appears to be a graduate of a technical school, not a historian, and it also seems to have been published on a commercial website with no academic affiliations. Multiple reliable sources are needed. Novickas 14:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Mark Paul
M. Paul Jewish-Polish Relations in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland,
1939-1941, in The Story of Two Shtetls, Brańsk and
Ejszyszki, Toronto-Chicago 1998, v. 2, p. 207 Xx236 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Move - for the reason(s) given above. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ludvikus , why don't you for once do a little research before you make yet another pointless disruptive move?? A "bench ghetto" is the name for the phenomena of ghetto benches. The title is FINE AS IS. And there are plenty of instances of the phrase "bench ghetto" appearing in English language books--just take a minute to do a search before you start making obnoxious requests and calling other people's work "trash"!. BoodlesthecatMeow? 17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to Ghetto benches. There's nothing pointeless nor disruptive about this proposal. "Bench ghetto" scores just 24 hits on Google books [25] while "Ghetto benches" 286 [26]. M0RD00R (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you are making a third suggestion, Ghetto benches, which is plural and really just a variation on Bench ghetto. To move a title without a clear rationale (eg, it's wrong) is pointless and disruptive. BoodlesthecatMeow? 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think rationale is quite clear. Ghetto benches is ten times more popular name in English books than Bench ghetto. M0RD00R (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent observation. I'm glad I'm not the only one here to sweep clean Wikipedia of its trash (notice the Wikipedia broom on the front page. What does it do? It sweeps Wikipedia out of its trash. Those who take it personally, then I suggest they get Wikipedia to remove its broom. But my point is this - the ONLY source referenced in the article - which is in English - speaks of ghetto benches', not bench ghetto. Furthermore, it's clear to me that bench ghetto is a very recent importation from Eastern Europe (I will not name the country - because I do not wish to offend anyone who might be responsible for this WP:Neologism. At least some of these minority hits on Google, by the way, really come back to Wikipedia. Therefore, the Wikipedians who have nurtured this Neologism of recent vintage or coinage are responsible for its presence on the Web as well. We, as Wikipedians, need to do our best to send this new garbage back where it came from - and not, inadvetantly make it part of our English language. All the other sources cited are in the Polish language. So we do not need our Wikipedian translators to create a new expression which did not exist before. Lets stick to what our one English-speaking scholar has given us in The Battle of the Ghetto Benches, (not "The Battle of the Bench Ghetto") --Ludvikus (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ludvikus , do you even understand what a neologism is? It's a word that is coined, not an alternate translation like "bench ghetto." You have no clue what you are talking about 99% of the time, yet you call things you don't understand "garbage." BoodlesthecatMeow? 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I really do not like where this discussion is going. Why just not stop right there, and discuss things that really matter. See discussion thread started by Novickas right bellow. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, let's be cool-headed. What I'm saying is that the following phrase has effectively been coined (it has not yet taken root - so it's till a neologism, tank G-d): "bench ghetto." And I intend to argue next that it too must go out the window as a neologism effective being created by Wikipedia (see it soon below). --Ludvikus (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Current last paragraph - is the material relevant
The last paragraph was removed by M0RD00R and restored by Poeticbent. Could the latter explain why that paragraph is relevant to this subject. It uses two references. The second is dead and the first one does not contain the word "getto". If that reference does not specifically mention that the incident was related to bench ghettos, then please move it elsewhere. If the reference does state such a connection, please attribute it to its authors, since it is a strong statement. Novickas (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On sitting on a Polish Ghetto bench
Ghetto ławkowe, a Polish languageexpression which cannot be translated, word for word, directly into the English language, though "ghetto" is the same as in English and "ławkowe" is the adjectival form of our "bench" while the nounsingular form of "bench" in Polish is "ławka", the plural being "ławki"(sic). In the Polish (language) "ghetto" is qualified by "bench" which is impossible in English. We can have a "horrible ghetto" but not a "bench or rock ghetto." The closet forced transliteration would be a "benchy ghetto", which does not exist in English, though a "rocky ghetto" does, but makes no sense. The closest translated form requires us to flip the two words to give us, in the singular English form, "ghetto bench", thereby making "bench" the adjective, and "ghetto" the noun, contrary to the Polish language.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, I speak Polish - it is the language of my parents who emigrated from Poland after WWII. But I was born in the Czech Republic, and never learned to write it. However, it is the language in which I speak to my dear mother and (late) father. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's go into more details as to the expression's usage in a sentence. If a Jew sat where he did not "belong", what would a Pole say? In English it would be, I image, something like, "Hey Jew, go sit in/on your Ghetto bench? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm really confused by the article. In the United States, until the 1960's, African Americans, could not sit near or next to whites. They did have special drinking fountains for whites, and for blacks ("negros" back then). And there were separate bathrooms for each race. But the article fails to explain what the expression means as to the practice. It spends time on the law, yes. Was it a sitting arrangement? The article does not say. Was it written on the benches, "reserved for Jews?" I want to know that in the opening. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If Jews couldn't sit on the same benches,I wonder what they would do in a Polish toilet? Could a Jew sit on the same toilet? The article doesn't say. There were, of course, separate bathroom facilities in the South in the US during Segregation. But I am left to my fantasy to understand what the actual practice was regarding "ghetto benches". Did the practice only involve, literally just benches? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the definition given:
"Ghetto ławkowe" refers to the form of segregation in the seating of students
It's so innocuous - and non-descriptive: a "form". How does one sit on a "form"? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it a metaphor? I really do not know. The article confuses me on that more than it informs. Did it mean merely a different area? As with Rosa Parks who had to sit in the back of the bus, but had to stand when too many whites got on? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Now I understand because of the dedicated work of one editor (User:M0RD00R) (--Ludvikus (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)): Encyclopedia of Antisemitism
I think we're making progress. However, I now wish to raise the issue of the Singular case vs. the Plural. We have at least two source, in the English language which use the Plural. Why, then do we translate the phrase as "Ghetto bench" in the very beginning of the opening pharagraph? I suspect the two-word phrase is an idomatic expression, and our scholars have the plural. So why do we have the singular? Isn't that also Original research even if the translation is ultimately correct. Even if the plural is the correct transliteration, we cannot use that fact. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"ghetto benches" = "segregated seating"
According to the Encyclopedia of Antisemitism (by Levy, cited in the article, and available online, and linked here), "Ghetto benches" means "segregated seating" - so why not use that expression, pray tell? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ghetto desks
The above is a prime example of Original research. [28] --Ludvikus (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The so-called reference is merely a Google search of the Online $185 text with this result only:
'1 page matching "ghetto desks" in this book'
But we cannot see the context of the of the expression in the book. I've been trying to get it (the book & the refernce) but have failed thus far. Can we please have the whole sentence using the expression? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
But why can't we get the exact sentence/passage quoted here? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied that the reference supports the current opening:
Ghetto ławkowe (literal translation from Polish: "desk ghetto",[1] or classroom "ghetto benches", "bench ghetto")
Please "prove" the claim. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What's with the "form of"?
It's useless verbosity! I delete, another reverts. What are the different forms ofsegregation pray tell? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a perfectly fine phrase. see here, here, here, here, here, here, just to pick a few found in 10 seconds of searching. Stop with your insulting exclamations and edit summaries if you don't quite know what you're talking about. It's rude. BoodlesthecatMeow? 04:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Look carefully. I'm impersonal. The use of the expression "the form" in this contex is pompise. Who would right that "there are different forms of murder"? What would that mean? Similarly, there are no "different forms of segregation" (the bad and the worse?). There is just "segregation." Let's not invent distinctions which do not exist. That's what it is. I'm sorry you take that personally. But it is you who's engaging in a personal attack. That is disruptive. Please stop. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There are quite a few different forms of segregation. There are different types of murder too. so please stop your endless bickering and please as well stop making edits about things you clearly do not understand. BoodlesthecatMeow? 15:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "form" does not occur in the SegregationWP:DAB page you just cited. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The distinction there made is unrelated to your usage here. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to use the DAB page, in order to be more specific as to what "Ghetto benches" meant then you should write "religious segregation and racial segregation" at least, as that relates to Jews. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Your description about me above "your endless bickering and please as well stop making edits about things you clearly do not understand" is a WP:Personal attack and I urge you to stop. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I ask now that you revert your totally unwarranted latest reversion of my contribution. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I urge to decist in your attempt to provoke me into an Edit War with you - it will not happen. Instead, I urge you to seek consensus, and end your provocations against me personally. Cheers Wikipedian. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The DAB page for segregation cited clearly shows there are numerous forms of segregation. Once again, stop your disruptive bickering. Between your reckless editing and your rude attitude, you are headed towards a block. I am not going to seek consensus about your clearly wrong edits. Look at your talk page. It is littered with the results of interventions against your disruptions. read it over and take it seriously, and stop this follishness. BoodlesthecatMeow? 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop your WP:Personal attack and threat of Banishment respond to my specific query regarding your Reversion to "official forms of segregation" which I regard as appropriate for Copyediting into "racial segregation" and "religious segregation." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to say. BoodlesthecatMeow? 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Two outstanding problems RfC
1. The second sentence in the statement
Poland's Jewish population was urbanized and constituted up to 50% of intelligentsia, while being only 10% of the total population. This statistical discrepancy was a result of anti-Polish discrimination by the partitioners of Poland against Roman Catholic students.[7
is unsupported by the ref given (which makes no mention of Polish-Jewish disparities), and is dubious. The ref being used is the following Special Sorrows: The Diasporic Imagination of Irish, Polish, and Jewish ... It clearly does not support the statement above regarding a discrepancy with regards to Jews.
2. the consistent insertions in the "AFTERMATH" section of the names of supposed Polish victims of Jews violates too many guidelines to list. It is ridiculously POV, and rather offensive, given that the actual aftermath of this period was the total annihilation of Polish Jewry (which Polish anti-semitism helped lay the groundwork for), NOT retaliation against Poles by Jews. Ironically, Poles themselves fell victim to German institution of ghetto benched against Poles following the invasion of Poland. BoodlesthecatMeow? 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reverting both of these claims, and they should be discussed here, given how egregiously they violate basic encyclopdic principles, rather than be blindly reverted. BoodlesthecatMeow? 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Those victims were not alleged. And what do you mean by this obviously inflaming and baseless phrase which Polish anti-semitism helped lay the groundwork for? A gross example of lack of knowledge. Polish anti-semitism did not create Holocaust, sorry to disappoint. Tymek (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose Polish antisemitism during the 1930s, and their imitating, rather than opposing Nazi-like policies such as ghetto benches was a blessing for Jews? BoodlesthecatMeow? 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Antisemitism was common in the 1930s not only in Europe, but also in USA. However, stating that Polish antisemitism helped lay the groundwork for Holocaust, is historical revisionism and shows total lack of knowledge of the person who claims this. Poland in the interbellum period was the main center of Jewish culture, with thriving sports clubs, social organizations, numerous synagogues and whole Jewish communities living their daily lives in peace. Jews freely celebrated their holidays, they had their own schools. Ghetto benches were nasty, but comparing them to Holocaust is a misunderstanding. Tymek (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't compare them to the Holocaust. I said they helped contribute to it, the way any oppressive action helps lay the groundwork for further repression. Polish policies were emulating Nazi policies towards Jews. Of course this helped pave the way for the destruction of Polish Jewry by the Nazis, as did Poles beating Jews in the streets and in the universities, and the support of leading Pokish catholic authorities for Nazi policies towards Jews. BoodlesthecatMeow? 17:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
the support of leading Pokish catholic authorities for Nazi policies towards Jews. This is a very interesting statement, any examples? I would like to find out more about it. What authorities? In what way they supported the Nazis? Where? When? Tymek (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This is covered by a number of historians, including Polish ones. For just one example, see here. See also here. BoodlesthecatMeow? 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, Boodlesthecat, none of the sources you provided confirms your outrageous claim that leading Polish catholic authorities supported Nazi policies. I am asking again for specific examples of such attitude. Tymek (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Read the citations. "Nevertheless, church authorities tended to overlook street violence against Jews, which became more frequent after 1935, and the Polish church did not denounce the attack on Jewish life and property that took place in Germany in November 1938. In fact, several church papers, including that of one of Poland's most important churchmen, Prince Adam Sapieha of Cracow, condoned the violence." In any case, this is not related to the issues in this RfC. BoodlesthecatMeow? 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
church authorities tended to overlook street violence against Jews - so did they overlook or not? Polish church did not denounce the attack on Jewish life and property that took place in Germany - and this means that Polish Church supported the Nazis? How about Norwegian Lutheran Church or US Baptist Church? several church papers, including that of one of Poland's most important churchmen, Prince Adam Sapieha of Cracow, condoned the violence - what papers, when, where they leading papers? Was it Sapieha himself? Tymek (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is not for a debate on issues unrelated to the RfC above. If you wish to be contentious with the sources I cited, you can discuss it with those authors. BoodlesthecatMeow? 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The RFC bot is not working properly - this request has to be manually inserted into the page (it's not there now).
Re #1. The editor(s) who inserted anti-Polish discrimination as a cause of the diaspora's overrepresentation may not be aware that the same situation was present in other parts of the world at the time - see Jewish quota. Including at the elite US universities - see, from the Boston Globe, [29]. But no one seriously suggests anti-WASP discrimination as the cause. There were quotas for both Polish and Jewish sutdents during tsarist times [30] but that doesn't explain the disparity during the 1920s and early 1930s. Those are some reasons why the statement jumps out at a reader and seems unlikely to be referenced by a reliable source. Novickas (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced material
The following keeps getting deleted. It is sourced and relevant. Please do not delete without an explanation here:
Polish independence following World War I was accompanied by a wave of pogroms and discrimination against Jews.[2]BoodlesthecatMeow? 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the text to support such an outlandish, offensive claim. In the aftermath of WWI many people died, particularly in the C/E Europe; Jews and non-Jews; and they died in Poland and outside (in the Baltics, in Russia, in the disputed bordelands, in Germany, in the Balkans...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well let me help since you can't seem top find it: Page 47 of the source: Polish independence was ushered in with a wave of fierce anti-Semitism, a gruesomely fitting inauguration of the kind of treatment that Jews would receive in the independent Poland. The declaration of Polish independence in 1918 was followed by pogroms in many places. As soon as the Germans withdrew from Warsaw, signs calling for a boycott of Jewish stores appeared throughout the capital of free Poland.
And I'm sure you realize that your argument about non-Jews dying in the aftermath of WW1 is a complete non-sequiteur. I am restoring this well sourced statement; please do not remove it again. BoodlesthecatMeow? 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the above claim is that it is only one side of the story (for example, see the Morgenthau Report), and is not written in neutral tone. Yes, there were outburts of antisemitism and even pogroms in the aftermath of WWI in the newly created Poland, but it is not encyclopedic to write about "waves".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Pogroms in Pinsk, Kielce, Lemberg, Lida etc. didn't happen by themselves. It's a simple fact rather than "outlandish and offensive claim" M0RD00R (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither were they the defining characteristic of Polish independence, as the current sentence tries to imply.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement says nothing about it being a "defining characteristic of Polish independence." It is reliably sourced and accurate reflects the sourced information. BoodlesthecatMeow? 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The information is incomplete and the issue to complex to be simply summed with such a biased quote. Piotrowski and Davies (whom he cites) have much more to say on that - see here - and certainly they would be appalled at an attempt to sum a complex issue with just one sentence. Why want you quote instead just Stachura who writes about "Jewish opposition to Polish independence"? Why not qualify it with Levy, who notes that "Jews were the victims of thousands of pogroms, dozens of them in Poland"? Why not use Davies explanation that it was the normal wartime conditions (Polish-Ukrainian War, Polish-Soviet War) and not any targeted antisemitism that led to vast majority of Jewish deaths? Why not quote the contemporary observer, Sir Horace Rumbold, 9th Baronet, who wrote (cited by Davies) that "the condition [of the Jews] in Poland, bad as it may have been or may still be, has been far better than in most of the surrounding countries"? The sentence, as it is currently, shows a biased POV, and needs to be rewritten to be neutral. To say that Polish independence was accompanied by wave of pogroms is as accurate as to say that Soviet liberation of Europe in 1945 was accompanied by waves of spontaneous greetings.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
... and yet it was a state where some (understatement) Poles, not only found it grosely unfair to find themselves SITTING next to the Jews, but also made racial segregation a law. I don't know why, but I feel antisemitism somehow has something to do with it. M0RD00R (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing you have cited, and nothing you have said nullifies the statement "Polish independence following World War I was accompanied by a wave of pogroms and discrimination against Jews." It's a fact--Poles killed Jews, discriminated against Jews, oppressed Jews in that period. You can't dance your way out of a simple historical fact. I'm not sure why you continue to attempt to rationalize this history of antisemitism, but you are not succeeding. BoodlesthecatMeow? 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's also a fact that Jewish politician Max Bodenheimmer urged German politicians and military which planned to use famine to reduce Poles to create a German-Jewish ruled state on territory of Poland. Per your words "You can't dance your way out of a simple historical fact". Isaiah Friedman, Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918, Oxford University Press 1977,Records of the Great War, Vol. IV, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni, 1923. Btw, what's with the "race" thing. I think nobody besides Nazi idiots considers Jewish faith to make people become of different race. Jewish, Protestant, Muslim-we are all the same human race. --Molobo (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Bodenheimer has nothing at all to do with this article. Please don't use talk pages as a soapbox for Jew baiting theories. BoodlesthecatMeow? 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, all. I wasn't too clear about what Piotr (and now M0RD00R too) wanted me to look at, Piotr says that it is this section he was mainly concerned about. I mentioned it below, but I have a bit more to say and will be clearer. I don't think the Boddenheimer stuff is acceptable. Nor is the "Polish independence following World War I was accompanied by a wave of pogroms and discrimination against Jews." They just don't have enough to do with the topic of the article, even considered widely. They're OR, SYN, will raise blood pressure and are fattening to everybody's girlish figure.
We come again to the crucial question of what is this article about, to which I add another distinction: (a) ghetto benches considered narrowly - this particular discriminatory measure (b) Discrimination against Jews in education in Poland (wider) (c) Antisemitism in Polish universities, in Polish education (widest). (b) or (c) seem to be reasonable, popular choices. This is something that people are just going to have to think hard about and come to a consensus. What is OR depends on what we decide the article is about, since it is clear that we are using "ghetto benches" a bit figuratively. Changing the title is a possibility. Under (c), but probably not (b), the replacement from the notes that I suggested, the quote from Meltzer -"In fact, ever since the attainment of independence, the universities in Poland had been strongholds of Endejca supporters and centers for anti-semitic agitation.” would be acceptable. Again, I don't see how Boddenheimer or "Polish independence . . .discrimination against Jews " fits in under any reasonable conception.John Z (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. We need to be careful not to turn this specific article into a general article about interwar Polish antisemitism and education. The more general it gets, the more problems with POV pushing from both sides we will see (and we are seeing...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
^The Jewish Journal of Sociology published by World Jewish Congress[31]
