Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the term "misnomer" be stated with in-text attribution ?[edit]

Consensus is against using in-text attribution. This is mostly a discussion of whether the sourcing and per NPOV there needs to be attribution; there isn't too much judging against policy/guideline that can be done on that here so it is the numbers that matter. I suggest if the the term misnomer is considered problematic, to select one alternative and have a proposal and discussion to change to that, to reduce needless discussion/ discussion running in circles Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article "Polish death camp" controversy currently states that "Polish death camp" is a misnomer in Wikipedia's voice in the lede. The cited source is an opinion article where the word "misnomer" appears not in the cited source's voice but in a quotation.[1] There is a disagreement whether the term "misnomer" should appear in Wikipedia's voice or with in-text attribution.[2] Here is the RfC question: Should the term "misnomer" be used with in-text attribution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Support We should use in-text attribution. We should follow reliable sources. The cited source is an opinion article and it doesn't use the word "misnomer" in its own voice. It uses in-text attribution and should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Reliable sources only say the ADL have called it a misnomer. It shouldn't be jammed into the opening sentence as it currently is, and there are better ways of phrasing it. The way it is used in the body of the article is accurate. ("The Anti-Defamation League has called the expression a misnomer."[1]) --hippo43 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The ADL/Foxman is a recognized expert in the field. Furthermore, multiple other sources have called it misleading(wapo editorial boardZuroff, inaccurate,poltifact misrepresentation,(e.g. Yad Vashem) and inappropriate.Yad Va Shem I am not opposed to other wording - e.g. "misleading and inappropriate" - though misnomer is more concise and synonymous.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment - NPOV means we have to "avoid stating opinions as facts". Even if this was the well-informed opinion of every expert in the field, it is still an opinion. Foxman is speaking for an advocacy group, he is not a disinterested expert. The Washington Post quote is from an opinion piece, and calls the phrase "controversial" and "misleading, at best".
What do you think of "...are generally considered inaccurate by advocacy groups and historians"? --hippo43 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
When every single historian, on record, considers it inaccurate and advocacy groups (which are not Polish, and have spoken against the Polish gvmt) consider it inaccurate - I think we can say it is inaccurate in our own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Why? Why not just say historians and advocacy groups consider it inaccurate, per V and NPOV? --hippo43 (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
For the same reason we do not in Earth say that "Scientists and advocacy groups consider that it revolves around the Sun". Or in The Holocaust - "Historians and advocacy groups consider that Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered approximately 6 million Jews". Foxman is an expert. So are others cited above. There are no experts or sources seriously calling this an accurate term - you are creating a false balance by attributing what is generally considered factual by anyone we would deem RS for Holocaust history.Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It's obvious from your other edits that you are a smart person, so I don't think you seriously believe these are equivalent.
If reliable secondary sources typically said "Professor X says the earth revolves around the sun" then that is how we would have to approach it here. That is what secondary sources do with "Polish death camps". --hippo43 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Reasonable people can and do differ about whether this term satisfies the definition of "misnomer" (cf the extensive discussion on this page). It should not be called a misnomer in wikipedia's voice. It is not NPOV. Zekelayla (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per discussion above and the fact that the term is well cited to an expert on the subject. That "reasonable people can and do differ" may or may not be true, but the standard for Wikipedia is sources. And if you're going to cf the "extensive discussion on this page", please note that in this discussion the consensus was very strongly for including the term.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, the RfC is not about whether or not to include the term. The issue is whether to include the term using Wikipedia's voice or to use a more accurate, in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It may be helpful to provide citations supporting use of "neologism", but it should certainly not be mandatory, especially in light of overwhelming editor support for the term. If we create a precedent for footnoting indisputable terms, we will end up with something like The Hermit of 69th Street, where Jerzy Kosiński annotated practically every term in his book. Nihil novi (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (do not include attribution). We should avoid stating facts as opinions, per NPOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The term should not be in the opening sentence at all. Change to ""Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" are terms..." The way the opening is phrased now we are supporting the usage in Wikipedia's voice by referencing a POV quote. This is not valid. --Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Use of misnomer in the lead was settled in an earlier § RFC on "misnomer". Batternut (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as discussed below, without any significant claims that the "misnomer" description is biased, or otherwise not neutral, NPOV is satisfied. We might debate whether misnomer, misleading or even dead wrong describes it best, but as Square states "a square is a regular quadrilateral" without qualifying with "Mathemitician Eric Weisstein says...", we can just use Wikipedia's voice here too. Batternut (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (no, there should not be in-text attribution). The recent RfC reached consensus that Wikipedia should say that it is a misnomer, not that someone else calls it a misnomer, in the lede. An attribution would be too much detail for the lede. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support If you guys are going to insist on including this awful choice of wording to further complicate an article that is already substantively about semantics, the least you can do is use a citation, reducing the chance that people will think there is no difference of opinion about this miserable usage. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The question is not whether to cite, but how to cite - whether in-text attribution is required or not. Batternut (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Regular inline reference seems totally sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - don't include attribution.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any indication in the JTA article that this is an opinion piece.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term is in line with the academic consensus as reflected by multiple RS. François Robere (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We should use in-text attribution. We should follow reliable sources, very few of whom call it a misnomer. Reading this - and the prev RfC, I am appalled at the number of people who think that anything which is possibly misleading, or potentially misunderstandable, or a 'mis-statement' (ie an undiplomatic choice of words which caused un-intended offence), is automatically a misnomer, and who are happy to use WP or dictionaries to justify this designation (aka WP:OR). 'Polish death camp' is not the clearest way of referring to camps which were located in occupied Poland - but it is a perfectly legitimate 'shorthand' which follows standard English usage. Does "American PoW camps" refer to camps run by Americans or camps where US soldiers were incarcerated? First use should always make it clear which is meant, but therafter such shorthand is standard English. Every intelligent person understands that 'slave ships' uses the adjective differently from 'pirate ships' (carrying slaves, operated by pirates). All of these examples are potentially misunderstandable, but none are referred to as misnomers. A French letter may be a euphemistic misnomer because there is nothing French about one and it is not any kind of letter, but everybody understands that French roads are in France, but the French Embassy isn't. How many other uses of any 'national' adjective are perfectly standard English usage? As others have said, there are better, clearer ways of referring to the potential misunderstanding that some see in the term itself - and to the offence it causes them. There are PoV issues to this, since calling it a 'misnomer' in WP voice, is effectively saying that "it is the wrong term", rather than that it is a potentially ambiguous term, the use of which offends some. The ADL is a much respected body, but it isn't an arbiter on the proper use of the English language. Pincrete (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Although French Embassies are not in France, they are French property, French organisations, and actions within them are the responsibility of the French state - quite unlike this case. Nobody has cited wikipedia or asaik a dictionary in this discussion have they? Batternut (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The Polish War Memorial, is not in Poland and has never belonged to Poland. Unlike 'Boer war'/'Crimean war' memorials, it does not commemorate a 'Polish war', because of course there has never been any substantial war between UK and Poland. It is one of the countless different usages that occur when a national adjective is put in front of a noun, and the memorial is not misnamed - though a fuller description of what it is - rather than the common name - would make clear that it is a memorial to Polish airmen who flew - and died alongside RAF pilots during WWII, which was erected after that war. 'Polish sausage' is sausage in a particular style, or to a particular recipe, it may be created by someone who has no connection to Poland. We all use such adjectives on a daily basis to have different meanings in different contexts - and whilst there may be potential ambiguity when one first hears any such term - it is fairly obvious to anyone with the scantest knowledge of WWII, that Poland, and the Poles were primarily the victims in that war. A child might think that an African slave ship was crewed and run for the benefit of Africans - but one cannot remove all ambiguity from shorthand forms of English.
Yes the prev. RfC has people arguing from dictionaries and WP and does not distinguish between 'misnomer', 'mis-statement', (potentially?) 'misleading' and 'mis-understandable'. I have yet to hear of anyone who ever thought that Poland had any responsibility whatsoever for the horrors of Nazism - this appears to be a 'misleading term' which has never yet misled a soul.Pincrete (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
TLDR, your complaints above are about the last RfC. Too late. This, as you know, is about attribution style. Stay on topic, concisely please. Batternut (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The prev. RfC was closed thus: "However, a number of the contributors saying "yes" … have suggested that … an alternative term to "misnomer" could be used, for the sake of clarity ("misrepresentation" is suggested by quite a few)". No one objects to saying that some people feel strongly that the term is misleading - there would not be a controversy nor an article were this not so. I would support inclusion of the 'misleading' viewpoint - attributed - along with the reasons why some people object to the term. What I object to is the use of a small number of sources to state in WP voice that the term is inherently wrong - what on earth is the controversy about if there is only a single viewpoint worthy of consideration? I replied to you because you seemed to be missing my central point which is that a Chinese city, a Chinese district, a Chinese meal, Chinese chequers and a Chinese-American all have to be understood as making a different use of 'Chinese'. 'Polish death camps' is only inherently misleading if one accepts that there is only one possible way - or one obvious way - to interpret the adjective - with zero evidence that anyone has ever actually interpreted it that way. Unless much better sources are found - and preferably some which are not US, it is a matter of opinion that the term is misleading and more informative for being attributed, since we all would like to understand who and why people find the term wrong or offensive - not simply be told it IS in WPVOICE. Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete: - do you have a better term than misnomer? Many of the oppose !votes here (myself included) are happy with other formulations (e.g. "misleading and possibly offensive").Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Attributed, I endorse that some sources believe the term to be misleading, a small number (ADL?) may actually use the term 'misnomer'. It is certainly the case that some find the term deeply offensive (as evidenced here, apart from the real world) and the reason they find it offensive is fairly clear - they believe it implies Polish responsibility. My objection is to stating in WP voice that the term is inherently any of these things, which I believe is not supported by sources or common sense understanding of the many ways adjectives are used. 'Jewish extermination camp', is probably not a term I would ever use, nor is it the clearest and fullest way to describe Auschwitz etc, however - in context - it is not a misnomer, nor inherently misleading. btw, to the best of my knowledge, this is largely a US issue. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support K.e.coffman warns us against stating facts as opinions. I think Wikipedia does well to specify facts as to who's facts they are. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


  • A summary of citations, some mentioned already (my underlining):
"... such misleading references should be avoided," Time Magazine, 1991.[2]
"There is no doubt that the term 'Polish death camps' is a historical misrepresentation," Yad Vashem, 2018.[3]
"... to call the camps “Polish” is misleading, at best," Washington Post opinion, 2018.[4]
"The president misspoke. He was referring to Nazi death camps in Poland. We regret this misstatement," Tommy Vietor (re Obama gaff), 2012.[5]
"The misnomer 'Polish camps' unjustly implies ..." Anti-Defamation League, 2012.[1]
"... the misnomer of Polish camps when referring to Nazi camps in today's Poland," Geneviève Zubrzycki, 2006.[6]
These are still all statements of opinion which need to be attributed. (And the quote you attributed to Time is from a letter from a reader.)
Look at this CNN article for example - it states, in its own voice "the use of terms such as 'Polish death camps'", without comment. So it is an example of a reliable source which does not call these words misnomers, just 'terms'. It then quotes Yad Vashem's view "There is no doubt that the term "Polish death camps" is a historical misrepresentation!", with attribution. That is what NPOV requires us to do here. --hippo43 (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
When these many sources state it, and when THERE ARE NO sources which state the opposite, then no, it does not need to be attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
New York Times - "the phrase “Polish death camps,” a term that scholars agree is misleading." So the NYT, a reliable source, calls it a "phrase" and a "term" in its own voice, and correctly states that "scholars agree is misleading." This is just good, responsible writing. --hippo43 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Hippo43: The quote "... the misnomer of Polish camps when referring to Nazi camps ..." are the words of Zubrzycki, likewise the others above ('Time Magazine' deleted, not sure about that). They said/published those statements. What more attribution do you want? Batternut (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This much attribution: Historian Geneviève Zubrzycki has called the term a misnomer.[7]
NPOV section WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." What is the bias here? Batternut (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone said we should attribute these opinions because they are biased. However, per NPOV, we should avoid stating opinions as facts. Reliable sources, shown by the citations IceWhiz listed above, report these as statements of opinion, as should we. --hippo43 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a significant opposing view, ie that "Polish death camp" is indeed accurate and suitable? Batternut (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not what anyone said, or what the discussion is about. --hippo43 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
If the misnomer labelling is not biased, and there is no significant opposing view, there is no neutrality issue, ie policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is satisfied. Am I missing something? Batternut (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: - you added the POV tag in January - do you still see pov issues? Maybe consider {{POV section}} somewhere instead? Batternut (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Removed - article is in a very different state now.Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
No. That's why this whole discussion and RfC is just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, "Polish death camp" is a technically correct way to describe a German death camp located in Poland. Potentially misleading, yes, but correct. Zekelayla (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Really people? Misnomer is a lousy word that just confuses the issue. There are other choices, such as Hippo43's NYTimes quote. I agree with Marek: this is a dumb discussion. The subject matter itself isn't enough to talk about? Please move on to more substantive semantic time-wasters, like the whole "Polish death camp" semantic controversy itself. Sakuranohi (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I propose we consider replacing "misnomer" with one of Roman Spinner's suggestions of 14 February 2018: "fallacious" expression. That would unambiguously cover all the relevant thoughts. Nihil novi (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. "Polish death camp" is not "fallacious", as "death camp in Poland" is a valid reading. Either the simple "terms" or the completely accurate "ambiguous terms" would be best. --Khajidha (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b White House ‘regrets’ reference to ‘Polish death camp’, JTA, 30 May 2012.
  2. ^ Hadden, Briton; Luce, Henry Robinson (1991). "Time Magazine". Time Incorporated.
  3. ^ Staff, Our Foreign (28 January 2018). "Fury in Israel as Poland proposes ban on referring to Nazi death camps as 'Polish'". The Telegraph.
  4. ^ Board, Editorial (31 January 2018). "'Polish death camps'". Washington Post.
  5. ^ "White House apologizes for Obama's 'Polish death camp' gaffe". The Times of Israel. 30 May 2012.
  6. ^ Zubrzycki, Geneviève (2006). The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226993058.
  7. ^ Zubrzycki, Geneviève (2006). The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226993058.

I must chime in to say that the current state of the lede sentence is unacceptable. If you want to make a flat editorial judgement call of academic/expert consensus of fact, you need more than two sources, at least one of which is an academic/expert source stating plainly that there is indeed some sort of community consensus. Otherwise, there should be four citations affirming the mischaracterization of death camps immediately following "misnomer", or whatever word you decide to use. (As a side note, the very first clause of an article should be the plain no-frills definition of "death camp," following which you can say it is the overwhelming consensus of historians that the term is a misnomer.) For decent examples of ledes for subjects in which there is a popular opinion counter to the expert consensus, see Intelligent design, Creation–evolution controversy, or Global warming controversy. Finally, any such strong affirmation of a negative should then be followed in the next graf with something similarly sourced – a single academic-style review or multiple media/specialized examples – that illustrates what this misconception of "Polish death camps" is and to what extent it pervades culture. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the whole point of this article. "Death camp" is not the misnomer, and it does not need defining. And whence does this "four citations" assertion stem? Batternut (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misnomers, disputed[edit]

I have tagged this statement in the opening sentence as disputed, because it clearly is. Already two editors have reverted it, despite the ongoing discussion and disagreement here. Please do not remove a tag which is obviously accurate. --hippo43 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The current consensus, as established by an RfC is that the word "misnomer" is appropriate. Hence, no, it's not disputed. Yes, there's another RfC but you can wait till that concludes before you continue with your WP:TEND attempts at subverting consensus (which doesn't look like it's gonna change).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It is disputed. Obviously. Numerous editors (User:Zekelayla, User:Pincrete, User:Albin_Schmitt, User:Khajidha, User:A Quest For Knowledge, User:Sakuranohi for example) have disputed it before, during and after the RfC in February. --hippo43 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagging a statement as disputed can be useful to start a discussion. But use of the word "misnomer" has already been discussed and agreed by this RfC. Hippo43 and some others may well dispute the outcome of that discussion, as evinced by the discussion upon the subsidiary question of attribution style. However, that secondary discussion shows little sign of overturning the agreed use of the word "misnomer", so tagging it as disputed is not reasonable. We don't tag RfC outcomes as disputed because there were minority voices against the outcome - if we did the site would be absolutely littered with dispute tags. Batternut (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that the usage in the press and by the supporters here is contrary to the definition of the word. Describing something in Poland as Polish is neither incorrect nor inappropriate. This encyclopedia is supposed to be written in correct English, the usage of misnomer here is incorrect. --Khajidha (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I think calling the Elgin marbles English or Londoner because that's where they currently are would be similarly misnomerish, and probably similarly offensive. But anyway, this again is the #RFC on "misnomer" argument. Get over it, jeepers. Batternut (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
So, by that criterion, the Statue of Liberty is not an American statue? --Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
As so often, it depends on the criteria. Is your criterion its geographical location, or the nationality of its sculptor? Nihil novi (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is exactly the argument you are rejecting by calling "Polish death camp" a misnomer. --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the kind of geographic usage that makes perfect sense. Or does it imply that the Volkswagen factory was to be built and operated by Poland? --hippo43 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

When will the survey be closed? Nihil novi (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, that's some great original research. Unfortunately, that's not how Wikipedia works. There was an RfC. Those arguments have already been made and were rejected. The RfC was properly closed. This is the current consensus. Unless the new RfC closes differently (and it don't look like it) all your strongly held opinions and musings on the proper use of the term "misnomer" are irrelevant. And. Stop. Edit. Warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the person closing the prev RfC very specifically said that there was widespread agreement that some other way of describing the ambiguity/inaccuracy/potentially misleading nature of the term P-d-c, had received very widespread support, but the closer couldn't rule on it as the question had not been asked, merely the binary choice of misnomer yes/no. So could we drop the 'ignoring consensus' stuff, since the closer specifically says that there is room to further discuss how to record the inaccurate or misleading nature of the term other than as a 'misnomer', which, if I remember correctly is used by very few sources (ADL?). Other sources use other ways to describe the (potentially?) misleading nature of the term - while others record that they can't understand what all the fuss is about, which, like it or not, is as valid a stance as any other.
No one on WP thinks that P-d-c is the best, clearest, least ambiguous way to refer to camps that were located in occupied Poland, but "the Thames is a British river", "Theresa May is a British Prime Minister", "Steve McQueen is a British film director", all contain ambiguities or inaccuracies, yet they are used on a daily basis, sometimes even in our leads (we assume that the reader will understand that McQueen is a British citizen - who makes films, not someone who makes British films, whereas May is British PM in the sense of being PM of the UK of GB and NI - commonly abbreviated to 'Britain'). OK this is WP:OR, but misnomer is usually reserved for terms that are wholly wrong (AFAIK, there is nothing remotely French about 'French fries'), not terms that are imperfect because they are ambiguous.
Am I alone in thinking that it would be a great deal more informative to the reader to record WHO finds the term offensively misleading, and WHY they do so - rather than attempting to characterise the ambiguous nature of the term in WPVOICE? Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
What wrong with "the Thames is a British river"? Seems OK to me. Batternut (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Batternut, you are right. The geographical meaning is clear. British river = river in Britain. Just as Polish death camp = death camp in Poland. --hippo43 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Rivers don't have nationality, and 'Britain' has different meanings in geographical or political contexts. 'A river in England/Great Britain' would be more precise and is the wording we would use on WP, but the other form is very everyday usage whose meaning would be understood almost universally. Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"... understood almost universally". Almost? Who on earth is going to misunderstand that? There is no ambiguity or inaccuracy with "the Thames is a British river". None whatsoever. Nope! Uh uh... Batternut (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We would not use it on WP, because a simple alternative is clearer and more precise. You seem to be missing my point. All such 'shorthand' adjectival uses have a degree of imprecision or ambiguity - sometimes it's miniscule, sometimes it's substantive, sometimes it's of a kind that causes offence to some (eg the use of "British Isles" as a geographical term that includes the Republic of Ireland). That is what is distinctive about 'Pdc' as a term, not 'how wrong' it is, but that the nature of the ambiguity is of a kind that causes offence. That is the very essence of the 'controversy'- whether the term inherently implies responsibility, because there is simply zero controversy about whether Poles/Poland was in any way responsible for what happened in occupied Poland - one needs to be historically illiterate to think they were. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the "simple alternative" that you propose? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I've mentioned the simple alternative numerous times, "ambiguous terms".--Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That's the point: many people are historically illiterate, and it's incumbent on us to minimize the adverse effects of that illiteracy, rather than passively (and sometimes maliciously) accept the harm being done. Nihil novi (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete, your statement "there is simply zero controversy about whether Poles/Poland was in any way responsible for what happened in occupied Poland - one needs to be historically illiterate to think they were" is quite mistaken, I assure you. But perhaps you only meant to refer to the administration of the camps, and not to occupied Poland outside of the camps. Sakuranohi (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete, I find the term offensively ambiguous. The camps were German / Nazi death camps located in Poland. Many Poles died there, and on the other hand many Poles were also collaborators in genocide. Lack of precision in description is indicative of lack of seriousness about this very serious historical period. We don't care enough to be accurate? As a reminder, millions of people died in these camps, and shrugging them off with this problematic language is insulting to their memory. Accurate description is not difficult. So I agree that description of the dispute, and who is offended, is at least a useful acknowledgement of the problem. Sakuranohi (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The weight of this controversy makes it apparent that people are more interested in being RIGHT than being CLEAR. Me, if I chose a word and then found it was loaded with other meaning, I'd drop that word like a hot potato and adopt another term that is more agreeable. The big flap over one word is silly bull-headedness. I too have my own interpretation of misnomer -- and I'm not writing it up here. I'd rather say OOPS, WRONG WORD, here is an alternate way to express myself -- lots of words in the thesaurus and if misnomer doesn't work... GeeBee60 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I find it ironic that people complain about the usage of "Polish" because it carries erroneous connotations, but insist upon using "misnomer" despite the fact that it also carries erroneous connotations here. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Yair Lapid's bogus encyclopedic?[edit]

Yair Lapid misinformed about his family. His exact word show his ignorance, because the Holocaust was done by German police and collaboration units (e.g. Lithuanian) rather than by German soldiers, who participated in police actions during their hollidays.Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

While I share the sentiment over some of Lapid's stmts (e.g. the a-historical "[t]here were Polish death camps") while not sharing regarding others (e.g. "hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered without ever meeting a German soldier" - inaccurate perhaps in amount if this is strictly "without meeting") - Lapid's comments were widely commented on - and they should probably be in the article. What we could perhaps do to balance - is add criticism of Lapid's stmts - particularly the "death camp" one.Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Please move the statement to German soldier controversy. Not every dumb statement of anyone about anything belongs here. Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Paris Hilton is certainly more popular that Lapid, but we don't quote her. Some knowledge and logic are expected. Are Israeli politician so dumb, you find his opinions interesting? I don't. I don't terrorize you using Polish politicians' bogus. Xx236 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that in relation to this controversy Lapid received quite a bit of international coverage. However, he was also criticized by experts - e.g. His statements were historically inaccurate on several levels, according to Efraim Zuroff, a prominent historian on the Holocaust and the Eastern Europe director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center ... (+he goes on to say why) Jewish Week.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that Yair Lapid's comments are notable given the wide coverage which demonstrates their relevance. We are not endorsing them merely by reporting them, we simply are reporting that the statements happened, plain and simple, and doing so makes the page more informative. If some Polish politician said something that received the same amount of coverage -- which can be followed by commentary by actual experts about those statements-- it would also be reported, as has been widely done with far more outlandish figures in politics such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky. After all, this page is about the controversy, and commentary such as Lapid's is part of that controversy.--Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Lapid is quoted twice, please explain why.
Some poeple believe everything they read, so lies quoted by Wikipedia become true. Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 Polish law[edit]

This page is dominated by the 2018 Polish law subsection. If you are so interested in the subject, please create a separate page.

The critics of thew law is pure propaganda and lies and even one thousand reliable sources doesn't change it. No person commenting the law knows it. The law was based on Israeli laws. Israel has proven it controls the Holocaust, but the control doesn't have any connection with the Holocaust in occupied Poland. No Axi collaborant obtained so much hate recently like anti=Nazi Poland did.Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Good point. The 2018 Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance had a connection with the defamation of Poles and Poland by the malicious and / or ignorant, but a brief paragraph about the 2018 Amendment in this article should suffice.
There already is a separate page covering the 2018 Amendment. It is part of the article on the "Act on the Institute of National Remembrance".
Nihil novi (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yad Vashem[edit] Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Xx236. I've added this Yad Vashem link to the article's external links.
Had this link been added earlier, I wonder whether it wouldn't have shortened the editing efforts on this article by a few months.
Nihil novi (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No, because Yad Vashem is simply wrong. "Polish death camps" is not an error, it is an imprecise formulation. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
We quote reliable sources. You are not a reliable source.Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
We do not blindly follow sources, if the source usage is wrong we ignore that source or point out its error. I am not invoking myself as a reliable source, I am relying on English dictionaries. As "located in Poland" is a valid definition of "Polish", "Polish death camp" is (by definition) not incorrect or erroneous. --Khajidha (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
What is in Poland? It's a Polish POV that there existe dany Poland during WWII. Auschwitz and Chełmno were in Germany proper and the other camps in GG, which was a criminal Nazi creation. POlish death camps is sometimes extrapolated in such way that all Nazi camps are called Polish.Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
All of them are in areas that were part of Poland both before the invasion and after the war ended, they can all be described as Polish locations or as being in Poland. --Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Stutthof concentration camp wasn't in Poland before ww2. Batternut (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
An example in Spanish Oskar Gröning, de 93 años, habló durante la apertura del juicio en su contra en Alemania. Está acusado de complicidad en 300.000 homicidios agravados en el campo de concentración polaco. [3] The phrase misinforms that Auschwitz was a Polish camp, not a Nazi or German, not in Poland but precisely Polish. It's interesting who is Oskar Gröning, probably a bad Pole accused by good Germans. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea if "polaco" in Spanish has the same degree of ambiguity as "Polish" in English, but Spanish usage is totally irrelevant to English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel's tweet[edit]

Please correct the reference

[4]Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear editors, is this page better without the precise reference? Xx236 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

State TV ran antisemitic crawls on a talk show;[edit]

The same Wolski's comment is listed later without explanation.Xx236 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

the video was removed after widespread criticism[edit]

YEs, but with a nasty comment that Polish Jews are terrorized by Polish nationalists. It's not the same.Xx236 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nasty? We certainly could expound on Polish Jews fearing for their safety (e.g. due to antisemitic stmts made on Polish state TV and elsewhere) and non-Polish organizations tamping down their criticism in a hope that the antisemitic threat level would reduce. Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I have visited a synagogue in Poland in September. There were no armed policemen there, the guide didn't say any word about any threat. But you know better. You know better than the government of Israel. BTW - why do so many Jews ask for Polish citizenship if Poland is so dangerous for them?
Do you find "Polish Holocaust" to be rational "criticism"? It seems to be hate speach. Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
a group of Polish rabbis thanked the Polish Bishops' conference for condemning a rise in anti-Semitism in the controversy, and said they would "continue to speak out against analogous attitudes among Jews" - please contact the Polish rabbis.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The antisemitic threats towards the Polish Jewish community are well covered and source able - e.g. WaPo, CNN, JPost - which is stronger evidence than a personal visit (lack of police BTW - would imply lack of state protection if anything - though generally such protection is covert... Nor would a guide be expected to mention nor emphasize such a threat). The Jewish Polish community is obviously doing what it has to do to scrape by. As for citizenship applications - they generally have nothing to do with Polish residence and quite a bit to do with the Schengen Area. My own, irrelevant, personal opinion is that "Polish Holocaust" is wrong (no - not hate speech, but highly imprecise, and insensitive) - though I understand the motivations behind the campaign. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The recent research result[edit]

This misnomer was created during the editorial correction of Jan Karski article's typescript 1944: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacekVR (talkcontribs) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)