Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

Check this out

Friday April 23, 1999 Sobering trip to Polish camps strips teens' tough veneer Barbara Sofer

(...) Other critics insist that visiting Poland reinforces persecution complexes and fans jingoism. Still others regret every zloty that drops into the Polish till from Jewish hands.

(...) Very soon into our actual touring, I began to appreciate the teenagers. They listened politely as guides gave long lectures, but it was obvious that they didn't care a whit about Polish history. Neither did I. They had come to see the Holocaust.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/11107/edition_id/212/format/html/displaystory.html

I think it's just stupidity, not a bad intentions, but tells a lot about the origins. --HanzoHattori 09:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, one should also take note of the fact that the Jewish youth to come here to Poland every year are completely separated from the world by the security agents and their supervisors. Their trips usually look like this: Airport - bus - Auschwitz - bus - Kuzmir - bus - hotel - bus - Treblinka - bus - Airport. No chance to even speak with anyone living here, not to mention get to know the country and the people. A friend of mine who eventually settled in Poland told me, that the initial trip to Poland he made at school was a waste of time since he left Poland as stupid as he came here and it wasn't until much later that he learnt a bit about what actually happened during the war... But that's OT here I guess. //Halibutt 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like lots of fun to me. Just like visits of Liverpool FC fans to KKS Lech Poznan: airport - bus - stadium - ER - city tank - bus - airport. greg park avenue 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish death camps (incorrect term)

There is no reason for this article to be at Polish death camps (incorrect term). We don't name the articles like this, imagine what would be if we had something like Geocentric model (wrong theory). :-) bogdan 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I didn't notice Hanzo moved it to where it was... //Halibutt 18:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more - you can't see it's INCORRECT TERM AND SHOULD NOT BE USED until you click this link from, say, Category: Holocaust. One just see: "Polish death camp" - oh, I see, I heard about them something, guess it was all right... Jesus. Maybe at least use the citation marks?? --HanzoHattori 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ESL (English as Second Language)

Term "Polish concentration camps" doesn't necessarily describe concentration camps built and run by Poles. In English language it may mean and probably does - concentration camps in which most persons who were held inside were Poles or of Polish heritage like Polish Jews. Please, correct me if I am wrong. greg park avenue 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A simple solution

If the term gets used, then as Greg park avenue says it can be as a pefectly neutral English expression. If offence is taken because many readers assign some such interpretation as "Camps, built or used by the Polish state, intended to be death camps" then the term is best avoided but its use is in no way derogatory. Many things expressed in any language are capable of taking more than one meaning. The article could be renamed "Death Camps in Poland" with a wee comment that "Polish death camps" carries a certain unintended meaning. By the by, are there Wikipedia standard sources warranting inclusion of teenagers' reaction?--SilasW 13:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps solved

Whether the term "Polish death camps" meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article I cannot say but I leave it existing as somewhere in the world the possible misinterpretation of the phrase needs public flagging. Much of what the media put out is perforce done in haste and not perfectly polished (OMG!); listen critically to TV and radio commentators to catch their misused words, read the corrections printed by newspapers for daily examples. Is such a long list of examples, some undated, really needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasW (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, it is. Nobody calls Guantanamo Bay a "Cuban camp". Nobody calls the 9-11 terrorists "American terrorists". Nobody calls the German ambassador to Poland "the Polish ambassador". This IS a deliberate campaign to defame the Polish people, not "something done in haste and not perfectly polished". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent declaration by the UN (UNESCO?)

Didn't they declared the "German Nazi concentration camps" proper, or something like this? Seriously, modify the title (adress) of this article to inclufe notification it is INCORRECT. --HanzoHattori 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• No. Parentheses in titles are only used for disambiguation. There is no precedent for using them to comment on the subject, and "wrong term" is horribly non-NPOV. Please stop moving the article against consensus. Deltabeignet 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Wrong term is WRONG term (incorrect, false, and pejorative). The TERM is "horribly NPOV" - how about if the German press was writing about the "British concentration camps" as for these on the Channel Islands? --HanzoHattori 05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "misleading term", Mr. Consensus? --HanzoHattori 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. I'm with Deltabeignet about how this article should be named. The article makes it really clear about what the problems are with the term Polish death camp, I don't think people need to be led by the hand by going against naming conventions to figure it out. --Ace of Swords 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Since my comment, now deleted, within the article that
(A) references to English language publications led to pages in Polish and
(B) the name of one publication was incorrect,
the note "(Polish)" has been placed before each reference.
The matter in those references is translated from English and so cannot be held as a primary source. The subject engenders justified passionate "Not us"ses, but that is no reason to allow in second-hand matter which (1) has no meaning to most readers who comprehend what an article is about, and (2) by being "processed" by translation has attendant possibility of error.
Error is possible as shown in the Polish page of reference 12 where the publication is named as "Southern Illinois" instead of "Southern Illinoisian". That page, as most of the others, appears under the banner of Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych (??=Department of State) Rzeczypospolitej Polskies.
As the list of references is not displayed except as "reflist|2" encased in double curly-brackets I'm not trying to emend the text of the article while leaving the actual link as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasW (talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Despite the frequent (and to me non-native hair-splitting) edits to the language of this article (viz English) no-one has followed up my 2 month old comment that the references included one which did not exist so I have deleted that journal from the list. Primary sources cannot include any government's unreviewed publications.--SilasW (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples of issue

I have been adding examples for 2008. Should I backdate them? The PMI records start in July 2005. Jniech (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 section

I've deleted the recent articles dealing with Henry Morgentaler, which appear to have been added as they contained the term "Polish Holocaust survivor". As I said in my edit summary, it is pretty clear that it is a description of Morgantaler, a Pole, who survived the Holocaust. A quick google search reveals numerous other articles on individuals variously described as "Dutch Holocaust survivors", "French Holocaust Survivors", "American Holocaust survivors" and the like. There appears to be confusion here as some are reading "Polish Holocaust survivor" as meaning one who survived some sort of "Polish Holocaust". Might translation be confusing the issue? I wonder. Forgive me, but current headings such as "Alleged but article since corrected hence no proof" and "Article not corrected or proof available" make no sense.Ffighter44 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At no point in the articles is Henry Morgentaler said to be an ethnic Pole nor is there any refer to Germans/Nazi. Therefore the statement “Polish Holocaust Survivor” can be read in two ways as you say. It could be read as either a Pole who survived a holocaust or someone who survived a Polish Holocaust. The term is corrected as often as possible by the actions of Polish Embassies and consulates, organisations, groups and individuals.

I agree there are examples of nationalities but they are not associated with the Holocaust in the way Poland is. Remember German death camps in German and Austria have been called Polish because people associate Poland so much with them. This is the reason Poles and the Polonia campaign against all confusing terms.

What headings would you suggest instead of "Alleged but article since corrected hence no proof" and "Article not corrected or proof available"? Jniech (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In using the words "Polish Holocaust survivor" Morgentaler is being described as an ethnic Pole. While I agree that these words can be read two different ways, the fact remains that this is the structure under which English is used. I venture to say that the vast majority of English speakers read this phrase exactly as intended. There is no mention of Germans or Nazis because they are not relevant to the story.

While the beginning of the article focuses on two descriptive terms only - "Polish death camps" and "Polish concentration camps" - the article provides dozens of "Examples" in which these terms are not used. I suggest the beginning be made more broad.

I've placed a citation request after the statement that the terms "Polish death camps" and "Polish concentration camps" are "evidence of a deliberate campaign to defame the Polish people and move the responsibility for the Holocaust from the Germans to the Poles." I think it obvious that this should be referenced.

I'm sorry, but I can't recommend anything to replace "Alleged but article since corrected hence no proof" and "Article not corrected or proof available", as their meanings are unclear. Clarifications, please.Ffighter44 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Verification tags and title

I've placed verification tags, indicating that the sources provided do not support the associated statements:

1. "While in some cases the intention of the writers is the mere geographical use of the term 'Polish' and no attribution of responsibility is actually intended, there is evidence of a deliberate campaign to defame the Polish people and move the responsibility for the Holocaust from the Germans to the Poles." While the claim is made in the source provided, a brief interview with Poland's Minister of Foreign Affairs, no evidence is provided, and no individuals or groups are mentioned.
2. "Concerns about the use of the term 'Polish death camp' led the Polish government to request that UNESCO change the official name of Auschwitz from 'Auschwitz Concentration Camp' to 'former Nazi German concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau'" This is not supported by the article provided as a source; indeed the term 'Polish death camp' does not appear.

On to a larger issue, namely the title. This article marks the first time I personally have seen the term "Polish death camp controversy". Granted, I am but one person. However, I cannot help but note that a google search for the term -wikipedia provides not a single hit.Ffighter44 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this article is the only one you've ever edited? And can you make an extrapolation based on the following quote from source: "the perpetrators take the role of victims, and the victims become the perpetrators"? With regard to your second claim, here's an example of a number of those: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008 --Poeticbent talk 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)