Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Roman ruins in UK, American bases in Germany and Teutonic Castle in Poland

Daniel Tilles noticed recently on Twitter

Roman ruins in Britain are called 'Roman', not 'British'. US bases in Germany are called 'American', not 'German'. Nazi German camps in Poland should be called 'Nazi German', not 'Polish'. Please can people stop arguing that the adjective denotes location, not responsibility. https://twitter.com/danieltilles1/status/1183006872506376192?s=20

Also Malbork castle is referee by the British frequently as Teutonic castle not Polish castle (also on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbork_Castle) because it has been built by the German knights. Another example from Wikipedia American military bases in Japan that are not called Japanese bases but American bases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan Also Japanese camps in Indonesia where Dutch were imprisoned during WW2 are not called Indonesian camps but Japanese camps https://www.japanseburgerkampen.nl/IndexE.htm I could go on like this forever. Using the term "Polish camps" is an oddity that is not confirmed by similar usages in British and American English so it should not be used ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiśKolabor (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bringing back misnomer dispute

Someone please explain how the "misnomer" request for consensus decided that it was appropriate to say in the first sentence that it is a misnomer. The box says "Consensus is against using in-text attribution.", which seems to mean that it should not be present there. Furthermore, the adjective "Polish" refers to something in Poland, which means it cannot be completely false. Such a statement is like saying "Vaccines have no harmful side effects." While the scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccines, that does not mean that any side effects which have been observed do not exist. Even though reliable sources find "Polish death camps" to be misleading, that does not mean it is entirely wrong and can be objectively characterized as a "misnomer". Even moving the word "misnomer" from being the direct object of the sentence's copula would make a difference to this degree. Wikipedia does not need to follow government's guidelines, whether it be the Chinese, American, or Polish government. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Citation [2] is from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency quoting the Anti Defamation League stating the phrase is a "misnomer". That's a high quality reference supporting the content. If you have found a notable or general-view citation that appears to contradict that, then please supply it here and we can discuss the merits of rephrasing the content per WP:NPOV.
• Conceptually, the analogy of "Vaccines have no harmful side effects" doesn't apply, firstly because there's no citation which verifies the information that vaccines have no harmful side effects. Let's remember the perils of arguments by analogy such as the Watchmaker analogy, whereby philosophers 'proved' god exists by saying the clockwork universe is like a watch, so therefore it must have a watchmaker.
• It's sometimes more useful to test other examples with the same rationale. Would Wikipedia refer to the Alderney camps on the British Channel Islands as British concentration camps? And if people started inadvertently referring to them as British concentration camps, would Wikipedia cite references describing the phrase as a misnomer, or not?
• And where would that leave the British concentration camps? Would it be acceptable for Wikipedia to call them South African concentration camps? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's very POV.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 12:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Meaning? (What is "it"?) Nihil novi (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nihil novi:It's not at all objective to say it's a misnomer. Where else does Wikipedia provide such blatant viewpoints as truth? Even on pages for neo-nazi people it does not say "So-and-so is a racist" in the lead. Wikipedia does not nead to "refer to the Alderney camps on the British Channel Islands as British concentration camps" but it doesn't need to say that they are not "British concentration camps either".

Furthermore, just because someone apologizes for saying something doesn't mean it's "objectively wrong". —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Back when I was still only a couple of years at Wikipedia, I still needed to comprehend just how rooted it is in what we can prove with evidence is verifiable over what we perceive to be the truth, or obvious, or objective. Compare, for example, the Myth of the flat Earth. We describe it as a "misconception". Given plenty of people have assumed that society used to think the Earth is flat, or disagree that Flat Earth is a misconception, what we say is not objective. What we say is verifiable, with references to Russell and Newsweek. Right now, this article verifies a source stating it is a misnomer. It does not have a requirement for what someone perceives as objectivity. I'm hereby repeating myself: per WP:NPOV, until that verification is convincingly contradicted by another verifiable source, Wikipedia has no other way of dealing with it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the question of whether the Earth is flat, whether a phrase used such as "British concentration camp" or "Polish concentration camp" is accurate can be neither true or false. It is possible to say "experts have rejected the phrase" or they consider it inaccurate, but the article should not say "is a misnomer". This is a violation of "Avoid stating opinions as facts." as presented at WP:YESPOV.

If there is any dispute over the "inaccuracy" of this term, which there is, then that is a violation of the rule in WP:IMPARTIAL to not engage directly in disputes but instead describe them. If you can point me to a single other page in which there is a consensus to keep such a direct sentence in Wikipedia's voice for a clearly subjective question, I will accept it.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Avoid stating opinions as facts"

See WP:WIKIVOICE.

For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

You will not find a source that says genocide is not evil. Therefore according to this policy, whether we can find a source saying these ARE Polish death camps is irrelevant. I propose the first sentence be changed to ""Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" are phrases, widely characterized as misnomers, that have been a subject of controversy and legislation."

I shouldn't have to say this, but I have nothing against the Poles and I don't believe they were responsible for the Holocaust. I am aware of how many of them were murdered or enslaved during the Third Reich. I am not an advocate of revisionist history. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• The example is stupid. Genocide is crime, crime is evil. If you go into relativism to say that "evil" is just an opinion, then we are in deep sh*t. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrases are misnomers, precisely because they are "widely characterized" as such. We are not going to split hairs just because some say it is not. We are not writing that "Earth is widely chracterized as round" because there are vocal supporters of Flat Earth. Or may other statements based on scientific consensus rather than measurements. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Earth is round" is an objectively measureable fact. "Polish concentration camp is a misnomer" is an opinion that cannot be verified or falsified. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of statements which are deemed true or false only due to a consensus. "flat earth" is just the first thing that popped to my mind. I could have continued this dispute, but see no sense, because after some thinking I agree with your version of lede. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• BTW, while searching for an example I found a ridiculous lede in wikipedia:

Nicotine is a widely used stimulant and potent parasympathomimetic alkaloid that is naturally produced in the nightshade family of plants (most notably in tobacco). It is used for smoking cessation to relieve withdrawal symptoms.[6][4][7][8] Nicotine acts as a receptor agonist at most nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs),[9][10][11] except at two nicotinic receptor subunits (nAChRα9 and nAChRα10) where it acts as a receptor antagonist

From it one may conclude nicotine is a Good Thing: it is a stimulant, helps to fight smoking, right? I've seen lots of bullsh*t in wikipedia and now mostly DGAF. But maybe someone wants to do something with nicotine. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• After thinking about it, I conclude that Naddruf is right. There is no objective definition of what is a misnomer. RS have occasionally argued that it is not a misnomer because the camps were located in Poland. Ergo, Naddruf's phrasing should be preferred. (PS, our article on Genocide does not state that it is evil, it says that it is against international criminal law). (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  However, I disagree with removing the disclaimer I added in the first sentence that misnomer only applies to Nazi Germany's camps. Calling Bereza Katruska or Zgoda a "Polish concentration camp" is not a misnomer, according to many RS. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Genocide article does not say it is evil because it is a triviality. Neither Wikipedia say that blood libel is evil or Katyn Massacre was evil, etc. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Lembit Staan and Buidhe: I didn't compose that example about genocide myself, it is found on WP:NPOV, a policy. If anybody wants to change a policy, they would have to get consensus. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I am not going to change the policy, even this stupid example, despite the fact there are 1,620,000. google hits for "genocide is evil". What is more, the example in the policy suggests that only John So-and-so thinks that genocide is evil and maybe most people think genocide is OK. The Moon is not made of blue cheese. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I have to undo the change of the lede by colleague Buidhe. After careful re-reading I find that the sources cited describe it as "misnomer". Please find RS that say "widely described as misnomer", then you may re-insert your version. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• "Avoid stating opinions as facts" is a red herring. We cite things from sources. Multiple reliable sources describe it as a misnomer, not "in opinion of some patriotic Poles it is a misnomer" or something. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• After more reading around:

1. I saw at the very top of the page a RFC on the very subject ("misnomer"). Of course, consensus may change, but at the very minimum if you want to change something about the word beating the consensus, you may only do so by a comparable consensus, not just a couple of guys who have nothing better to do :-).
2. I also re-read our article misnomer, which, in particular, says The word "misnomer" does not mean "misunderstanding" or "popular misconception",[2] and a number of misnomers remain in common usage — which is to say that a word being a misnomer does not necessarily make usage of the word incorrect. From which I conclude that the word "misnomer" does not adequately reflect the article: IMHO the whole fuss is not about whether it is nomer or misnomer, but about improper usage of the term. Therefore I suggest to refocus the discussion on how the lede would adequately describe the article content. (I would also note that the usage the term "misnomer" by many people is a misnomer itself. It is so common that dictionaries caution against this. :-) Lembit Staan (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Therefor suggestion: get rid of the word "misnomer" and make a more descriptive description (yeah, I know :-)) of the term. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Inquiring minds

Just a thought! When I read in the "Mass media" section: "In 2009 Zbigniew Osewski, grandson of a Stutthof concentration camp prisoner, announced that he was suing Axel Springer AG for calling Majdanek concentration camp a "former Polish concentration camp" in a November 2008 article in the German newspaper Die Welt. The case started in 2012.", I immediately wonder what happened to the case. Apparently the case was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed, which was also dismissed (March 31, 2016), and in February 2017 the Supreme Court refused to hear the cessation appeal.

It might be noted that the Court of Appeals stated: "the dissemination of such statements is against the law and led to the infringement of the claimant’s personal rights in the form of a sense of national identity and national dignity". At any rate, it seems lop-sided to just leave it hanging (#2). -- Otr500 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Repair dead link under Mass Media in "Polish or German extermination camps?" citation from http://pl.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=12 to http://www.auschwitz.org/muzeum/aktualnosci/polskie-czy-niemieckie-obozy-zaglady,596.html Cheesetron246 talk 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A whole article on this?

Obviously, the camps weren't run by Poland. Who's confused by this? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)