Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment/Archive 10

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

Giles Coren

In the United Kingdom section is this really relevent enough to take up so much space? It seems like a one man band sort of thing, Giles Coren personal views of Poles rather than British peoples views of Poles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i agree it takes a lot of space! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There really exist a pattern of how Poles are pictured in British newspapers as vicious antisemites. Coren is just one drastic example. Most likely similar media-sponsored stereotyping exist in other countries, e.g. USA, France or Israel, but nobody cares to report it. Instead of shortening the UK section, I propose adding examples from other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with timing

The article currently says "In Britain after 1945, the British people initially accepted the Polish servicemen resident in Britain or during the war had served under British command who chose not to return to a Poland ruled by the Communists[35] but as the Soviet started to make gains on the Eastern Front both public opinion and the Government of the UK turned against them." This is completely impossible: the Soviets made no gains on the Eastern Front after 1945!Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Badly written sentence. Suggest: "The British people initially accepted Polish servicemen resident in Britain during the War. As the Soviets started to make gains on the Eastern Front from 1943 both public opinion and the Government of the UK turned against the Poles."Chumchum7 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That would work. Although "both public opinion and the Government of the UK began to turn against the Poles" would be better, there wasn't an overnight switch! Perhaps the article also needs a mention about the Labour government being overly fond of Uncle Joe, far more so than the Tories under Churchill had been? Also perhaps a mention of why trade unionists didn't like Poles? Also, the section does seem to be slightly unbalanced at present, there's no mention of the Polish Resettlement Act or of any help which Poles received from Britain (and very much deserved too!).Varsovian (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry

When he said "and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on" was he actually trying to say that Auschwitz was not in Poland? As many of us know Auschwitz was never in Poland, it was in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. Might he actually have been trying to say "Remember that Auschwitz was not in Poland"? If so, should the article mention this? I think it most cetainly should. If we assume that Fry meant exactly what he said and does "know a little history" (as he put it), the meaning is very different from that which has been taken by many. Varsovian (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Fry was saying Auschwitz was in Poland. There's been a whole discussion about this by some rather annoyed Jewish historians, for example David Cesarani Chumchum7 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
So why didn't he just say ", and remember Auschwitz is in Poland," or ", and remember Auschwitz was in Poland,"? Or just ", and remember where Auschwitz was,"?
Why "which side of the border"? Why mention the border? Auschwitz is nowhere near the border. Or at least nowhere near the present-day border. However it was very close to the 1939-1945 border and at that time it was in Germany.
I must say that when I first read his comments I did think that we were getting more of the Polish Death Camp rubbish but on rereading the comments and looking at each word he said, I think that it is at the very least possible that he meant exactly what he said and that we should 'remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on'. Auschwitz was not in Poland so why should we assume that the only possble explanation is that he meant the exact opposite of what he actually said?Varsovian (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The border was close by during WW2. And Fry was trying to be smart, but failed. If you go to the Channel 4 website you can watch his clip. Nobody thinks he was trying to say Auschwitz was in Germany. And he has never explained that to be the case in the subsequent row.Chumchum7 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That is rather the point: Auschwitz is now in Poland and not near the border. It was near the border, and was at the time when it was near the border it was also in Germany. Fry said "was", not 'is'. Don't you think it is worth mentioning as balance that Auschwitz was not in Poland as it was on the German side of the border? I must admit that I haven't seen any reaction from him at all to this row, do you have any links?Varsovian (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but Oswiecim (Auschwitz) and its death camps WERE in Poland, i.e. on Polish territory, i.e. within the Polish borders. Even though Poland was occupied by Germany (and other parts by the Sovjet Union). When Fry made his stupid remark, he was 'reminding' us that the Auschwitz death camp was in Poland, as if Poland or the Polish people had some kind of responsibility for the camp or for the many Jews (and non-Jews) that were persecuted and murdered there. In doing so, Fry showed his total ignorance of Polish history.Mcouzijn (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is too crazy to discuss it any further. You're going to have to find your own links, on Google or wherever. And find the clip. It was a tirade of bigoted nonsense. Fry has said he knows he has annoyed people about this, and he did not go on to explain that he was trying to say Auschwitz was in Germany. Chumchum7 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Polish sentiment often entails... and false allegations of anti-Semitism

The article lede had the unsourced claim in that "Anti-Polish sentiment often entails modern-day derogatory stereotyping and false allegations of anti-Semitism". Are there any reliable sources which directly and unambiguously support this claim, specifically the latter part about "false allegations of anti-Semitism"? Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The article lead is a brief summary of its content. If you care to read the rest of it top to bottom you'll find more than enough references there. I'm not sure why you're asking this, while a number of editors don't even like referencing the lead especially if the links are multiple, in different subsecs. A tunnel vision maybe? --Poeticbent talk 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you point out the content of the article that supports this statement? Also, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg(talk) 00:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This claim was added again, as follows:

false and inaccurate allegations of anti-Semitism; theories of hereditary or genetic Polish anti-Semitism

Can anyone bring reliable sources that indicate that this is a form of "anti-Polish sentiment", much less common type? Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I would agree with both on this matter. Antisemitism is clearly linked to antipolonism in present days and of course not in the past. However, I would agree with Jayjg that better sources and referenses are needed. Bringing up Josef Glemb and Joanna Michlic is much to less. We would need to refer to some kind of study in subject. I also agree that it is important to discuss the subject and not the person that take time to comment.camdan 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


The section nicely omits important facts. The Polish diplomats were beaten in Russia a week after children of Russian diplomats were beaten by Polish skinheads in Warsaw. [1] Tulungagung (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Are you implying that the beating of the Polish diplomats in Moscow was an act of vengeance? That would be original research unless it's confirmed by a reliable source. -- Poeticbent talk 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The article should mention that like it does here[2]. Someone told me the other day about random attacks on Polish diplomats, and I knew they got their information from Wikipedia. Tulungagung (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Where do you see in the source "Polish skinheads" ? Where do you see any links with both beatings? Both beatings were random and there's no sources that Polish "skinheads" touched any children if something like this occurred at all... "Speculations are that..." - We don't speculate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd wording

The page states:

"[German propaganda] [...] had the Soviet communist party disseminate their fabrications over time.[1][2]"

The second source gives no support whatsoever for this clause. The first source (a wargaming webpage...) states that Soviet media perpetutated the myth that Polish cavalry charged against tanks. It may very well have done so; after all, Western media committed and sometimes still commits the same mistake (as does some Polish literature!). Still, the clause as it stands makes little sense: German propaganda could not force the Soviet communist party do anything. ("Hello, Pravda? This is Goebbels speaking from the grave. Please get this into tomorrow's edition.") Feketekave (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I suggest you keep in mind, that Soviets and Nazi Germans were allies, when invading Poland in 1939. It is not surprising, that their two propaganda machines lied in unison about the subject of their joint attack (yes: Hello, Pravda). Additional sources would be easy to find. -- Poeticbent talk 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course we are all aware of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is not a reason to fall into caricatures. Munich did not mean Chamberlain got his instructions from Goebbels by wireless.
One of the sources given (the wargaming page...) has been expunged by another user; the other source does not support the statement as it stands. I suggest that it be removed or that the wording be changed. It is possible, yes, that part of the Polish stereotypes in the East and in the West derived in an indirect way from Nazi propaganda, but this would have to be properly documented. In this particular case, it is worth pointing out that the pseudo-event of Polish cavalry charging against tanks was alive and well in the West during the Cold War (and even now!), and that, furthermore, it existed in Poland itself: see Wajda's Lotna. Feketekave (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Question to Splette

A failure to mention Jewish suffering is considered anti-Semite e.g. when Poland claimed 6 million Poles died during WWII, it was criticised as hiding Jewish suffering. Why then is a failure to mention Polish suffering not anti-Polish? Jniech (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to use what in some cases may be an overstatement to justify another overstatement. 6 million Poles did die during WWII. If this were taught to schoolchildren without ever mentioning that half of these victims were especially selected as targets of the racial laws as a particularly inferior race, and that the destruction of people in this category was nearly total, we would indeed have a very serious problem. At the same time, not making a distinction in some contexts can also be a good thing: we have the right - arguably the duty - not to adopt the absolute distinctions inherent in the Nazi worldview. The context matters. Le Canard enchaine got it right a short while ago - John Paul II did well in speaking of 6 million Poles, and the new pope Ratzinger did wrong in doing the same. Feketekave (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For what its worth, I'm with Jniech on this content about Germans being selective about history, but I don't think we even need to draw parallels with the subject of anti-Semitism. It is verifiable that Nazi policy was to have sought the extermination of all Poles, and they did start that objective during the War. Add the Federation of Expellees, who champion the victim status of Germans expelled from e.g. Silesia to the modern German lands without (as far as I am aware) any reference to the suffering of Poles expelled from Kresy to Silesia at the same time. Add that in recent weeks German TV referred to Majdanek as a 'Polish concentration camp'. This would be impossible if Germans were being thoroughly educated with the whole truth and the fair and accurate truth about WW2. Add to this the recent German report about 'Polish' (rather than 'unsafe') fireworks on New Years Eve, and you've got a theme that should be highlighted. And there is plenty more material about modern-day German prejudice against Poles as well as German omission of uncomfortable facts. As an act of good will I would invite Splette to put back what he or she has removed. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me make clear that I am completely with User:Chumchum7 on this. Feketekave (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification, since I didn't get what you were trying to say in your post above SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly because I forgot a crucial "not" (we have a duty *not* to adopt...) Feketekave (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Another option gaining academic currency these days is to use the 9 million figure: '3 million Polish Gentiles, 3 million Polish Jews, and 3 million Jews from outside Poland'-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As round figures, these will do, but, again, there are several groups left out of this. Apparently, one quarter of the population of Belorussia was killed (I do not know in what percentages of "Jews" and "Gentiles"). The term "Gentiles" (which an Israeli friend of mine consciously avoids) makes clear again what was stating: these distinctions have to be used with care, because they would have perceived as invidious precisely by some of its targets (and their friends, as opposed to their enemies). Of course, the term "Jew" works in the same way - it is just that this can sometimes cease to be evident because it is the name of an actual religion (and, in Polish, if I am not mistaken, also the name of a language that was already starting to lose much ground). Feketekave (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Well, aparently it is not just German textbooks but 'most countries' that give 'marginal treatment in both history and geography' to Poland in their textbooks, according to your source. If failure to mention Polish suffering equals anti-Polish sentiment, as you suggest, this would mean the entire world hates Poland? Come on. And why did you single out Germany and put it in the article, which is mentioned in just a short paragraph while the source mentions various other countries where textbooks give not as much attention to Polish history as the Polish Foreign Ministry would like. And I don't think the comparison to systematic state-sponsored genocide of 6 million Jews is a good one. My main concern about this article is that its credibility will suffer if it doesn't stick to clear and well-sourced examples of Anti-Polish sentiment but becomes a dumping place for all kind of small, far fetched examples that in the wider sense may or may not be interpreted as such sentiment against Poles. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What, you mean to say that the entire world doesn't hate Poland?! Judging from the perpetual 'poor innocent victims us' attitude so many Poles display, it must be that the entire world hates Poland. Your comment that the entire world doesn't hate Poland is clearly an accusation that a lot of Poles are simply paranoid and thus yet more anti-Polish sentiment. Varsovian (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a very fair point from Splette, and I would suggest the onus is now on Jniech to come up with better sourcing on the subject of German omissions about crimes against Poles per se. Related, here is something recent from Timothy Garton Ash: Watching a German television news report on the trial of John Demjanjuk a few weeks ago, I was amazed to hear the announcer describe him as a guard in "the Polish extermination camp Sobibor". What times are these, when one of the main German TV channels thinks it can describe Nazi camps as "Polish"?[3] -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to all those who have commented as your input is appreciated and hopefully we can reach some form of consensus.

I will formally reply tomorrow (UK time). A few comments designed to get more useful input from you.

The hostility today section has a large section on British views but nothing about German hostility. Splette talk about “why did you single out Germany” ignoring my edits about British anti-Polish attitudes and the large section on British attitudes compared to the non-existence German section. Does the addition really unbalance the article?

Further can I explain that I use references generally only one. If Splette wants to use it for a more general comment about anti-Polish sentiment, I support it BUT personally I think I it is best to use the source once only. Therefore I reject Chumchum7 comments as my inclusion is valid but other editors could use it for a more generalize view of anti-Polish sentient.

I actually considered adding about the fireworks that Chumchum7 referenced, writing “The Germans call illegally imported from the east, "Polen Böller," or "Polish firework". The German press then blame these "Polish firework" for the thousands of injuries and fires each New Year's Eve” but decided against.

Splette said “If failure to mention Polish suffering equals anti-Polish sentiment, as you suggest, this would mean the entire world hates Poland?”. My personal thoughts on this are as follows. Why would school books in South America and Asia talk about the issue? If a Japanese school book failed to talk about Chinese suffering during WWII, I would see it as anti-Chinese. German is responsible for much of the suffering of Poland hence playing up Germany suffering at the hands of Poles and playing down Polish suffering is anti-Polish.

To Splette, personally I believe that Germans today still see Poles in a negative light which the teaching in German schools is an example.

I stand by the addition but will accept a major vote on this page if you agree to this. At the least can I ask for something about modern German views on Poles being added? Jniech (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Splette wrote this: If failure to mention Polish suffering equals anti-Polish sentiment, as you suggest, this would mean the entire world hates Poland? Come on. And why did you single out Germany and put it in the article, which is mentioned in just a short paragraph while the source mentions various other countries where textbooks give not as much attention to Polish history as the Polish Foreign Ministry would like.
The answer to this is very simple: it were the Germans who caused the Polish suffering during WW2. It is thus much more important if the German textbooks fail to mention the Polish suffering rather than for example a textbook in Zimbabwe or Jamaica.  Dr. Loosmark  19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but got sidetracked. My apology to Splette if my comments came across as accusing which they were not meant to be.

Part of the objection was that it singled out Germany. As previous said this article lacks anything about modern Germans views on Poles. I could have used the reference about Polish American Congress complaining to New York Times to show how the current German media discuss the camps in occupied Poland.

Several newspapers in Germany have done this as well. They scrupulously avoid linking the word “German” with anything as evil as Auschwitz or the other German death camps.
In German newspapers, “Polish” is clearly and consistently the preferred way to describe the camps the Germans operated in Poland. That this would be a misrepresentation and a bold deception seems to be of no concern to the Germans.

I agree with Dr. Loosmark that as German is directly/indirectly responsible for the murder of millions of Polish citizens that they have more of a responsibility to cover Polish suffering.

Further the comments by the Polish American Congress show that a failure to mention something can be considered bias against a country.

The source meets Wikipedia requirement hence I urge the editors involved in this debate to support putting back this edit. On times editors may disagree with an edit but I ask you can you live with the change? I will accept a majority. Jniech (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ "POLISH CAVALRY MYTH" by War and Game. Wargaming and History January 4, 2008; (see: last paragraph)
  2. ^ Polish cavalry versus German tanks: die-hard WWII myth by Staff Writers, Warsaw (AFP) Aug 30, 2009
  3. ^

"belittling of the moral effort of ethnic Poles during World War II"

The following has been added to the article as form of anti-Polish sentiment:

belittling of the moral effort of ethnic Poles during World War II, such as the assistance that they rendered to Polish Jews.<ref name="RC">Robert Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska, Rethinking Poles and Jews Published 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742546667</ref>.

I've checked the source, and I can find nowhere on that page that it describes this as a form of anti-Polish sentiment. Can someone here please quote the relevant sentence, describing this activity as characteristic of anti-Polish sentiment? Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about this though unfortunately I don't have the time to look into it with you. However, I just want to raise a friendly note of caution before we start removing material. The specific phrase "anti-polish sentiment" doesn't need to be mentioned in the source in order for the source to be cited in the article. Similarly, sources that don't use the word 'racism' but refer to prejudice against black people may be used in WP:Racism. Again, similarly, sources that refer to myths of Jewish lack of hygiene do not need to mention the phrase 'anti-Semitism' to be included in WP:Anti-Semitism. However, if we establish consensus that there is a dubious reference, then fine lets cut it out in the same way that we'd remove a claim that the use of the word 'blackboard' is an example of racism. As they say, Wikipedia is more about editors' consensus than hard and fast rules about requirements for inclusion. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, each of the counterexamples you give are problematic as a violation of WP:No original research. THF (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

UK section - WP:OR

I'm focusing on this section because I can make better sense of it, because it's the longest "by country" section and because I came here after noting that a rather trivial point relating to a column written last year by Simon Jenkins has been dropped in here as well as on his own page. The page as a whole seems to have similar problems - I guess all pages like suffer from being essay-like POV magnets, and maybe we're better off without them. Anyway ..

The section is simply a random drop of lots of off-hand comments, mostly from newspaper op-eds, strung together in a list format. Quite apart from having a terrible structure, there's virtually no evidence, or third-party sourcing, to attest that any of them are manifestations of "anti-Polish sentiment" in the UK. To take the Jenkins quote again - regardless of the origins of the "lancers vs tanks" myth, it actually reads as if he was being rather affectionate when referring to it (in passing, as it happens). Even if his intention was to make a direct criticism, in what way would that have been "anti-Polish"? Would a quote from a Japanese newspaper columnist referring to the Charge of the Light Brigade as being an example of inept military tactics be evidence of "anti-British sentiment" in Japan? Come off it.

Anyway, even that is all somewhat irrelevant - it's not up to us to analyse and classify statements from primary sources in this way, one way or the other. A decent section about anti-Polish sentiment in the UK - which no doubt exists in some form - needs to rely on material from proper secondary sources, which explains the concept and provides occasional examples of relevant incidents. Not this dumping ground of random quotes. N-HH talk/edits 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. However, these kind of WP:OR and WP:SYN problems are not limited to the UK section but apply to most of the article. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with some of the views above. The WP:OR and WP:SYN problems are not limited to the UK in this article but the whole of Wikipedia. If you apply this standard to this article then a large part of Wikipedia needs rewriting.

Still the Simon Jenkins, David Miliband, Efraim Zuroff and Jonathan Freedland need checking but I suspect should be removed.

Most of the rest do seem to relay on primary sources. The rules state Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Personally I don’t see it as a problem as I aware of many secondary sources e.g. other newspapers covering the story. I am happy to add them to if necessary. Jniech (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagine an article on skyscrapers, with buildings included in the article that have no verifiable sources specifically describing them as skyscrapers, although an editor has included them as per WP:DUCK. Is that SYNTH? Yes. Is that how WP works? Yes. If other editors don`t like the inclusion of the Eiffel Tower in said skyscraper article because they don`t think its a skyscraper, we can talk about it. Consensus discussion is welcome, and required. I agree that this is what I have done here. Most of the section are my additions. I entirely accept the point by User: N-HH that I have compiled list of citations that do not use the phrase "anti-Polish sentiment". Rest assured that I am a consensus editor and will work with you to consensus. I am fully aware of (and respect) the SYNTH guidance and absolutely agree that synthesis of verifiable sources can be used maliciously to establish unencyclopedic content. At the same time, as Jniech says, much of WP is precisely such a compilation. I`m not an edit warrior and I will support consensus deletions. I`ll also explain my rationale for inclusion of Jenkins. Jenkins is a British historian who obviously made the mistake of thinking a Nazi lie was a fact. Those clever Nazis. Unlike the charge of the Light Brigade, the Polish cavalry charging Panzers never happened and was a work of fiction by the Nazi propaganda machine that WP has here [3]. The anti-Polish sentiment is by the Nazis, ahead of their genocide of 6 million Poles, and is not derived from Jenkins. But a respected member of the British establishment on the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of WW2 in 2009 describes the Poles as idiotic because of the cavalry charge, which is precisely what the Nazis wanted to achieve with this lie in 1939. Racial and ethnic prejudice and stereotyping breeds like this, and is notable. This is why I restored that reference, N-HH, and no offence is intended. As to the Miliband, Freedland and Zuroff entries, these are what appear to be referred to in the Pollard, Timothy Garton Ash and Michael Schudrich complaints, etc. Miliband is specifically told to apologize to the people of Poland by Daniel Hannan (in his blog, which we prefer not to use as per WP:SELFPUBLISH ). Still, I`m not going to fight about any of this with you. This is just to show you my aims and objectives in the section. Go ahead and hack it to death, but please note the constructive work I tried to put into it in the first place. Yes, guilty as charged, there is plenty of SYNTH here. I say it is an example of good faith SYNTH with a fair amount of DUCK, I think it is useful information that many editors would support in a consensus discussion. Anyway, I am off on Wikibreak so I`ll leave it to you all now. Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is one ref to the Jenkins affair, on a blog - But WP:SELFPUBLISH doesn`t like blogs. -Chumchum7
Large parts of Wikipedia do need rewriting. This is just one example. I think it's virtually impossible to write a decent encyclopedia article about such nebulous concepts as "anti-XX sentiment [across the ages]", and I'd prefer to just delete all these pages in their entirety tbh, with due apologies to those who have worked on them. Antisemitism is one obvious exception, because there is a rich academic record that documents and examines the concept and its history. In other cases, you just end up with fairly random content like this, compiled from various individual comments that individual editors claim is "anti-XX". Maybe some of them are, who knows - I think the Jenkins example is very weak, but even say the reference to David Miliband being critical of the Law and Justice party, is that actually anti-Polish as such? If a Polish left-winger says the Conservatve Party is full of homophobes and closet racists, is that an "anti-British" statement? It's actually fairly hard to apply the duck test to concepts that are quite vague to start with, and to matters of subjective judgment. And even then, consensus can't override basic policy here, such as WP:OR/SYNTH, and the fundamental principle that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
If we are going to have articles such as this, the way to build them - or more specifically, a UK section within them, for the sake of example - is to go to academic books or papers that look at the history of Poles in the UK, and/or the history of Polish-UK relations. Use that secondary material to document the issue, such as it is, and only cite specific examples that are explained as examples of "anti-Polish sentiment" in that source. Far better than chronologically documenting every random utterance from a politician or newspaper columnist in the last couple of years that might, possibly, be vaguely connected to the topic. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct in both your statement of the problem, and recommended solution. This article suffers terrible from WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE; a Wikipedia editor decides something he reads in the papers is "anti-Polish", and stuffs it into this article. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know the rules of Wikipedia very well but my understanding is you can’t apply rules/standardizes to one just article. This article is inline with other articles therefore I see nothing wrong. Claims of OR/SYN seem only to be made when someone dislikes an article otherwise people seem to ignore issues with an article.

If we required academic books or papers on a topic then again a large part of Wikipedia would have to be deleted. For most articles there are no such books/papers merely editors putting random material together.

I have started to add additional references with such words as

  • anti-Polish bias [4]
  • growing number of anti-Polish incidents in the UK [5]
  • The newspaper has strenuously denied that it is anti-Polish. [6]
  • about 50 Daily Mail headlines it said displayed anti-Polish sentiment. [7]
  • Polish Federation Accuses Daily Mail of Defamation [8]
  • right to be protected from racist or other derogatory terms in the media[9]
  • Giles Coren's anti-Polish article [10]
  • Coren's alleged Polonophobic comments [11]

Hopefully over the next week I will finish adding references and those without proper references hence appear original research can be deleted. Jniech (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. One could take a look at Anti-German sentiment, Anti-British sentiment and others in the series. Also, as per my comparison above, one could re-write Skyscraper and delete e.g. the Great Pyramid of Giza. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely - rules apply to all articles. The fact that other articles may be badly put together doesn't mean that this one has to be too. In fact it means those should be sorted out as well, if necessary by deletion of content, not that they should act as examples to follow. I've already said I'd have no problem with that happening to plenty of pages here, in part or in whole. But equally no one editor is going to take on everything at once. As I have here, they spot things that jump out at them from time to time as simply being poor content, whether they "dislike" it or not. The bottom line for all the web of rules is that this place purports to be an encyclopedia based on material from reliable third party sources, not a random collection of trivia plucked out of the air by its individual, anonymous editors - often only a couple of them after all on each page - or a series of collaborative essays made up of their random thoughts on the world. Yes the editing process itself involves collaboration between a small number of editors, but they have to work around basic rules and usually rely on independent, decent sources for what they want included. Academic sources are better, but no, not essential. As you say, they won't exist for everything, but in some cases that is actually going to mean that the topic may not be worth covering - not every passing media frenzy needs to be chucked in, in order to make a point favoured by the editor promoting its inclusion, even if they are a genuine example of the topic under discussion.
Anyway, as for this page, now, given that it's probably going to stick around in some form or other - I think the top half of the UK section is probably OK, even if a little tainted still by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The Fry and Coren spats just about pass in my view, because they generated actual political controversy - even though of course it is worth remembering that they are an actor/tweeter and restaurant reviewer/light columnist respectively, and the significance of their alleged "anti-Polish" comments needs to be seen in that light. The Kawczynski statement is a good example of third party comment about "anti-Polish sentiment", rather than a purported example of it. The remaining random quotes should probably go, being mostly trivia and without any verifiable connection to the subject matter. N-HH talk/edits 16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I sympathise with everything you say. I suppose this all comes down to what all our stances on WP are. Personally, I think WP is unique and I don't think it will ever be comparable to the Britannica nor should it be. Also, I tend to think more info is useful rather than less info. I like the pyramid being in the skyscraper article. Others don't. That's ok. Its all about consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW these are interesting [12] [13] and again, they are the kind of things that I would add because I think they're useful IMO. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on causes?

Is it worth adding a section on possible causes for Anti-Polish sentiment? At the moment we have a very one-sided article which appears to leave the reader to conclude that all anti-Polish feeling is caused by the people having such feelings being intrinsically nasty horrible people and that no Pole has ever done anything which in anyway could possibly have led to anybody having negative feelings about Poles. While is it true that some people have negative views about Poles simply because they are racists (for example members of the British Nationalist Party), there are clearly other people who have negative feelings towards Poles for other reasons.
A good example of this would be the BNP’s infamous campaign against Polish immigrant labour (which featured the use of a Polish-flown Spitfire). Clearly the BNP must have identified a source of anti-Polish sentiment which they attempted to exploit for their own purposes. Other examples would be: anti-Polish sentiment in Ukraine caused by the selling of the Ukrainian People’s Republic to the USSR in the peace of Riga and Operation Vistula; anti-Polish sentiment in Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania with regard to the interbellum policy of Polonization; anti-Polish sentiment in the Czech Republic and Slovakia stemming from Poland’s participation in the 1938 and 1968 invasions of Czechoslovakia; anti-Polish sentiment among Jews stemming matters such as, to give just two examples, Poland’s refusal in 1938 to allow Polish citizens who were Jews who had been expelled from Germany (an event which sparked Kristalnacht) to the fact that Poland still has no WWII restitution law and pre-war property owners have to take Poland to the European court to get their property back (see for example the case of the Hotel Europejski in Warsaw).
Obviously it’s going to take a very brave editor to try to introduce these matters to the article and I certainly wouldn’t want the task. However, I would like the discussion to be had. Varsovian (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion not related to section regarding possible causes (Click Show ->)
Poland sparked Kristalnacht? What the hell are you talking about?  Dr. Loosmark  23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you read the articles on Kristalnacht (particularly the bit which says "The Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew." and Herschel Grynszpan (particularly the bit which says "There, however, Poland refused to admit them. The Grynszpans and thousands of other Polish-Jewish deportees were left stranded at the border, fed only intermittently by the Polish Red Cross and Jewish welfare organizations. It was from Zbąszyn that Berta Grynszpan sent a postcard to Herschel in Paris, telling him what had happened and pleading with him to rescue them and arrange for them to emigrate to America - something totally beyond his powers.") I would also suggest you consider whether the phrase "What the hell are you talking about" meets the requirements of WP:CIVIL. Varsovian (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I will you ask again, how did Poland trigger the Kristalnacht?  Dr. Loosmark  00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Kindly read the articles and consider the phrase "an event which sparked Kristalnacht". Many thanks. Varsovian (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What has that to do with Poland? You claimed that Poland triggered the Kristalnacht. I suggest you immediately withdraw that claim.  Dr. Loosmark  00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I have not claimed that Poland triggered the Kristalnacht. Kindly remember what happens to editors who lie about the statements of other editors. Should we conclude from your repeated non-discussion of the topic of this section that you have no objection to the inclusion of this information? Varsovian (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You have claimed this: Poland’s refusal in 1938 to allow Polish citizens who were Jews who had been expelled from Germany (an event which sparked Kristalnacht). Lets make one thing completely clear, the Kristalnacht was triggered by the Nazis to due to their f*cked up brains. Nothing that Poland did or did not do had anything to do with the Nazis and their sickening campaigns directed at the Jewish people.  Dr. Loosmark  01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If Poland hadn't closed its borders to its own citizens, the Grynszpans wouldn't have been stuck at the border, Mrs Grynszpan wouldn't have written to her son begging for help he was utterly unable to provide, he wouldn't have reacted by shooting the Nazi ambassador in Paris and that wouldn't have triggered Kristallnacht. Although with that said, no doubt the Nazis would soon have found a different trigger for the events which happened on Kristallnacht. I note that once again you have not discussed the topic of this section: should we conclude that you no objection to the inclusion of this information? Varsovian (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If Poland hadn't closed its borders to its own citizens, the Grynszpans wouldn't have been stuck at the border, Mrs Grynszpan wouldn't have written to her son begging for help he was utterly unable to provide, he wouldn't have reacted by shooting the Nazi ambassador in Paris and that wouldn't have triggered Kristallnacht. do you have a source for these logical acrobacies or are you once again making WP:OR, something you were recently warned by an Admin not to do? On the plus side you got the second part of your comment right.  Dr. Loosmark  17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It might be an idea if you actually read WP:OR. "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence can be provided if needed. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research." I do not propose adding to the article that Kristallnacht was caused by Poland. However, I do propose adding that Poland prevented its own citizens from entering Poland in 1938 because they were Jews and nobody is likely to argue that that action caused anti-Polish sentiment in some Jews. Varsovian (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you do not propose that Kristallnacht was caused by Poland then why have you mentioned that?  Dr. Loosmark  18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As noted repeatedly above, I have not stated that Poland caused Kristallnacht. I will now cap this exchange. Varsovian (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Even if you have not stated that Poland caused the Kristallnacht why have you mentioned it? I never heard anybody blaming Poland for the Kristallnacht. What has the Kristallnacht to do with this article?  Dr. Loosmark  19:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As stated above, I would suggest that you read the articles on Kristalnacht (particularly the bit which says "The Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew." and Herschel Grynszpan (particularly the bit which says "There, however, Poland refused to admit them. The Grynszpans and thousands of other Polish-Jewish deportees were left stranded at the border, fed only intermittently by the Polish Red Cross and Jewish welfare organizations. It was from Zbąszyn that Berta Grynszpan sent a postcard to Herschel in Paris, telling him what had happened and pleading with him to rescue them and arrange for them to emigrate to America - something totally beyond his powers.") Varsovian (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I am sure the Nazis blamed the Jews, the Poles, the Polish-Jews and however else they could think of and then accused them of being responsible for the Kristalnacht. That was standard tactic by the Nazis. If you want to claim that the Jews had anti-Polish feelings because they refused to admit refugees then please find a reliable source for your claim. So far you have not presented a single source which would say so. And please stop collapsing my posts, it is disruptive. You have raised the questions and they have to be addressed, even if you are not interested in the topic anyway, you don't have the authority to close topics at will.  Dr. Loosmark  20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ud)There is no specific policy on collapsing. However there is on talk page conduct. I refer you to WP:TALK, specifically "tay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." and "Keep discussions focused". Your continued attempts to discuss something which I have repeatedly explained and your continued claims that I said something which I have made it very clear I did not say are in all probability in violation of WP:BATTLE, a policy which you have recently been warned about. I have also made it very clear that there is no need for an RS for the statement that Poland preventing its own Jewish citizens (not refugees) from entering Poland in 1938 because they were Jews caused anti-Polish sentiment in some Jews: nobody is likely is likely to argue that that action did not cause some Jews to have anti-Polish sentiment. Varsovian (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You of people are going to lecture about the purpose of the talk pages? Is this a joke? Have you already forgotten how very recently you inserted yourself into a discussion on the Chopin talk page trying to stir up arguments from the London parade article? You made like 3 or 4 posts without even mentioning Chopin or anything related to him. (You were going on about Stalin or something like that, don't make me go dig the diff). So I'd say that you lecturing on what are the talk pages about is a classical example of the pot calling the kettle black. Now regarding the topic being discussed here, yes you very much need a source for Jewish anti-Polish sentiment in 1938 - with all probability the Jews at that time had anti-German sentiments instead. After all they were beaten and killed by the Nazis.  Dr. Loosmark  21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You have now reverted my edits three times within 24 hours, despite WP:3RR. You also appear to be engaging in WP:BATTLE behaviour (for which you have recently been warned) in addition to violating WP:TALK in multiple ways. Please self-revert ASAP. Varsovian (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
huh? I don't remember reverting any of your edits. Please show me the diff which of your edits have I reverted and I will gladly undo it.  Dr. Loosmark  21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Busy until the weekend but I had a quick look at the article on Anti-Semitism. It doesn’t have a section on causes but seems to have the reason for a particular event or cause of anti-Semitism in a time period. The Anti-Russian and Anti-German sentiment seems to follow a similar line. I don’t see anything in Anti-British sentiment on causes. Therefore I suggest this article not have a section but does include in each section, where possible, an explanation similar to the other articles.

Further regarding the issue of balance, could the article have some examples of pro-Polish sentiment? Jniech (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that somebody did try to add such information in one section and that it was promptly removed. Sadly I'm not at all surprised. Varsovian (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Replacement picture?

Is en:file:P Oboz.png a good replacement for en:file:P Oboz.jpg? T c951 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit of offensive references

Nie jestesmy pewni jak i z kim powinnismy sie skontakotwac, ale bardzo prosimy jednego z poprzednich redaktorow tego artykulu aby pomogl w usunieciu bardzo uwlaczajacych Polakom obrazliwych cytatow (jesli istotnie cytatami sa?). Probowalismy to zrobic 7-go Pazdziernika 2010 (trzy skasowane proby), ale niestety nie jestesmy biegli w technologii Wikipedii i edit zostal odwrocony automatycznie jako blokowanie cytowanej tresci. Myslimy, ze komus z poprzednich redaktorow przywrocenie tych zmian nie sprawiloby trudnosci, jako ze mozna po prostu nacisac guzik ‘undo’ kolo wybranej wersji tekstu. Zeby krotko wytlumaczyc powod tej prosby: nawet jesli sa to prawdziwe cytaty, i nawet jesli my, jako narod, powinnismy o nich wiedziec, uwazamy, ze cytaty takie maja miejsce w pracach naukowych (historycznych i socjologicznych), ktore najczesciej sa czytane przez ludzi ktorym ani intelekt ani etyka zawodowa nie pozwalaja na wykorzystanie ich przeciw Polakom. Wikipedia niestety takim miejscem nie jest- i cytowanie tu ekstremalnie agresywnych opinii o nas w tlumaczeniu angielskim i w rezultacie rozpowszechnianie ich w medium dostepnym wszystlim uzytkownikom internetu (a co za tym idzie indiwiduom i grupom czesto bardzo prymitywnym i nieprzychylnym Polakom) tylko powieksza uprzedzenie do naszego narodu i kraju. Mamy nadzieje, ze ktos w tym pomoze, jako ze w artykule, ktory powinien pomoc zwalczyc rasizm i wytlumaczyc, ze antypatia do Polakow jest wynikiem umiejetnej i wrogiej propagandy politycznej- sami (mozliwe, ze z wlasnej naiwnosci i z za duzej wiary w sumienie, inteligencje i dobre checi innych) sobie az tak szkodzimy, ze dostarczamy amunicji. Propaganda niestety ma dalej wielkie znaczenie, nie ignorujmy tej prawdy i nie strzelajmy sobie w kolano.

Z wyrazami szacunku

Technicznie nieuzdolnieni redaktorzy

Czesc druga wiadomosci: Zauwazylimy, ze nasz apel trafil szybko do wlasciwej osoby. Badzo dziekujemy za poprawki i dobre uzupelnienia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caarntsw1 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Hostility" by The Guardian

I think this article has multiple issues (and I don't get why all the tags were removed in October), but let's keep it for clarity's sake to this statement:

The Guardian has been noted for a number of other outbursts. On October 14, 2009, Nazi-hunter Efraim Zuroff vilified the Polish nation in World War II by alleging that: "the second world war narrative [...] has been distorted since independence and the transition to democracy to make it more palatable to their electorate and to minimize the role of local collaborators in Holocaust crimes."

How on earth does asking questions about the Polish role in Holocaust crimes entail anti-Polish hostility in the UK? Is Jan T. Gross a Polonophobe for writing Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz? Are people who investigate Nazi war crimes Germanophobes? I think it more displays an unhealthy degree of national pride if one cannot ask questions about the moral behaviour of fellow countrymen in the war. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree the stuff on Efraim Zuroff appears weak. Still I don’t think it was added because he asked questions about the Polish role in Holocaust. Zuroff claims history has been “distorted” to make it more “palatable” therefore to “whitewash war crimes”. Asking questions of Poles behaviour is fine but then too is debating research saying negative things about Poland. Currently I don’t care if it stays or is removed. Jniech (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Still, claiming that histories are distorted to make it more palatable, and therefore to whitewash war crimes, does not equal anti-Polish sentiment. In fact this distortion of history is what happens in every country. Dutch war crimes in Indonesia (e.g. the Rawagede massacre) were also not mentioned in any history books, until a psychologist who went there as a conscripted soldier went public with these "excesses" in 1969 (leading to the so-called "excesses note" of 1969). As a Dutchman, I wouldn't condemn anyone who points at Dutch war crimes in Indonesia of anti-Dutch sentiment (on the contrary!).
The problem of this article is not so much that the statements are not sourced, but rather the conclusion of anti-Polish sentiment that the authors of this article draw from these statements. Even if the charges are debatable or even controversial (like designating PiS as "far right") it is a bridge too far to label that as anti-Polish sentiment. If anti-Polish sentiment is used in such a way, it just seems to me to be an easy nationalist trick to suppress unpleasant debates in society... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazi German death camps in occupied Poland by Western media

The article currently has a section on "Nazi German death camps in occupied Poland by Western media", as an example of anti-Polish sentiment. I understand that many Poles would find this usage offensive, but do reliable sources actually indicate that this is an example of "anti-Polish sentiment" (as opposed to, say, non-careful use of language)? Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I second this doubt. I would attribute this to extreme sloppiness, but hardly to malice. I would suggest the contributors to find a better place for this interesting piece of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Seconds later I have actually found a full-blown article on the subject, "Polish death camp" controversy. I suggest to replace the section with a "see also" entry. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This article should be completely rewritten or deleted.

This is the kind of article which gives Wikipedia a bad name. It seems to represent the Poles purely as victims. In fact, there is a complex history of inter-ethnic and religious hatreds and rivalries in central and eastern Europe. One has to ask about the origins of these antipathies. Undoubtedly some of the ones concerning Poles date back to the powerful and territorially extensive Polish-Lithuanian empire, when Poles were seen as oppressors and aggressors rather than victims. (Of course peasants and serfs of all nationalities suffered similarly if not equally.)

The corresponding Wikipedia article on 'Anti-Irish_sentiment' states "to fully grasp the relationship between Ireland and England, one must consider the long and complex history shared by both countries." Such objectivity seems completely absent from this article, and several others on similar themes Sasha (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has already had two VfD hence see no reason for a third. If someone wants to add a perspective section like the Irish version i.e. a few short paragraphs, then please do. Still this is an article on anti-Polish sentiment not Polish crimes. Jniech (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion the article is interesting but as Sasha wrote, the subject its difficult and complex and need to be carefull written. Personally, I think that the article need to be rewritten, not deleted. There is lot of very usefull information and references but the general picture that article give is not neutral. When reading the article, I have same feeling when reading anti-polish publications of Gross. It looks like a massive attack on russian and german people.
I do not critisize the sources or referenses and certainly most of what is written are based on facts. However, those facts are not explained in proper way since as philosophers say "there is a reason of the reason of the reason". One might then say that this article is not about the reason of the reason but anti-polonism. It is true but on the other hand it the article give picture of russian people being anti-polish, which I would not agree with.
I hope that this article will be better rated that B-class in the future but it need some rewriting and corrections. Here are my thoughts:

- In section Features, the line with refrence 9 should be completely removed. This because russian politics toward Poland have nothing to do with anti-polonism but more about diplomatic game. The publication give more feeling of sensation than neutral research.

- Section "The persecution of Poles (to 1918)" seems like a long list of accusations. It wish to tell about unjust treatment to show the anti-polonism but it fail to stick to the subject in overall picture. In my opinion, the accusations dominate over the anti-polonism subject. This section could be completely rewritten.

- Section "The persecution of Poles (1918–39)" continue in same way and looks more like a lesson in history to show how horrible russians and germans treated poor polish. That is the picture I get from it. Here, it is clearly so that Stalin personally did not like polish people but the action against polish was not about all polish or polish nation but agaisnt certain class and people of non communistic view that could disturb development of "communism" in Poland and in same way, tear apart all the Warsaw pact. From russian side, to implement the system in Poland during stalinism was - as Stalin once said - almost impossible, it would be the same as to saddle a cow and if it would work, there would be no way of making it go forward in certain direction. More - german intensions during WW II when they moved forward into Russia, was to kill 30 million of people with jewish and slavic origin. Both russian and german tactic was to eliminate the elite of the nation (Poland) to be able to control the rest of the population as a tactical move from their side. So from russian side it looks more like elimination of certain group in Poland rather than anti-polonism.

- Section "World War II" - it is good but again, its a one-sided history lesson. I would think that the article would win of making 1 section of those 3 i receintly commented. It would be more comprehensive and it would still make the point. Again, article need to be more neutral and words like "ruthless" should be removed. Is the fact that West do not accept Katyn as war crime same as anti-polonism? Could be so but I personally doubt it. Again, it looks more like politics.

- Section "Postwar era" is then much better. Specially section that start with "In 1961..." is excellent.

- Section "Nazi German death camps in occupied Poland by Western media" - I would remove all of it. This is not about anti-polonism but more about ignorance and stupidity. I would think that it is better to make short, separate article.

- Section "Hostility today" - is there anti-polish movement in France? I would think that there always be some single publications for some purpose but I dont see it as common anti-polonism but more single actions made by single people and not consensus. Russia...its incidents, I would not think it is about anti-polonism. It give wrong picture of the situation. As for UK...well, all this is good for people to know about so they know some of the truth but still - I would not rank it as anti-polonism i all. It look like accusations against certain british actions and in one way it is good for people to read the truth - how british behaved but still, I dont see it as anti-polonism. I would put different word here but dont think its should be spelled out in public. The US - single actions is not anti-polonism. I would remove all of it.

- Section "Polish jokes" have own article, no need to write so much, just few lines about the thought behind the jokes and ref to the main article. When poor swedish population moved to US, they made jokes of swedish. Some 10 years ago also a film about "stupid swedish", descadents of those that moved to US. No big deal.

- Section "Use of the term in a modern political context" - very controvercial! It's interesting but also the most complex section. As it is now, it justify publications of Gross and I would not be so sure that they are correct and neutral. This section is of clearly sensitive nature ;) In one way, it is extreemly well written since most of people the section refer to are of jewish origin. But it does not tell the truth, just part of it and therefore definately not neutral. Since this section might be "highly explosive", I will not leave more comment on this because it would turn into different subject. Still, if articles about the pogroms in Poland during WW II and after contains only one reference in all articles about the pogroms and if the article about the town of Kielce would contain basically only information about the pogroms - it would clearly be of not neutral nature and in this make the streaotyp picture of polish being antisemitic by "nature". And that could clearly be concidered as anti-polonism.Camdan 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)(talk)

  • I'm having difficulty understanding what it is that you're trying to communicate, Camdan (contribs). Please explain why, in your opinion, the "elimination of certain group [of people] in Poland", "the elite of the nation" (above), is not anti-polonism? What is anti-Polonism? Please bring in some fresh quotes to show it. — Plymouth87 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "program of elimination of certain social groups (read non-communistic intelligentsia, nobility and supporters of the right-wing politics)" in Poland during the stalinism, it was certain stratedy in order to control Poland that was part of overall sovjet strategy in the block - all nations in this block (maybe except Jugoslavia) suffered a lot. It was about securing and implementing the system and also, to protect Sovjet. Since this action could be seen all over the block - and other countries in the block faced much harder regime than Poland during the communistic time - it cannot be seen as anti-polonism according to my point of view. The system was intended to be global. I would rather call it dictatorship and implementing system against people's wish. It was action against Poland as a free nation. And of course terrible crime.
I would think that if the article would meet the standad of at least B-class or more preferable be a GA article, it would serve Poland and tell the story to those that dont know so much in subject. Neutrality of the article and less "blaming on others" would give more credit to the article. Although the intensions of the article are good, it might not serve the cause but actually make damage. Camdan 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I Agree on rewriting or deletion. There is just many parts that are too vague or just plain wrong. "Even today Katyn is not accepted in the West as a war crime." <-- Who doesn't accept, is there somekind of scientific consensus in "West" about this issue? Furthermore i think parts about jokes and stuff are just beyond belief. There are jokes about all people groups that can be somehow isolated. Countries are of course one of the big source. In Finland we tell jokes about russians, swedes and americans. In russia they probably tell jokes about polish and finnish people etc. I think that if you can apply same reasoning to about any other group of people, it isn't that good of an argument. Muhvi (talk) 22:52, 11 april 2012 (UTC+2)

B-class review

The article seems to pass B-class criteria, but I'd appreciate opinions of others before confirming this class for that article. Is it indeed relatively neutral and comprehensive? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

More detailed review comments:

  • there are still some unreferenced claims (cite requests added);
  • the article seems to contain OR or unsubstantiated claims in at least some place I checked. A good example is the following sentence: "Historic actions inspired by anti-Polonism ranged from felonious acts motivated by hatred, to physical extermination of the Polish nation, the goal of which was to eradicate the Polish state. During World War II, when most of Polish society became the object of Nazi genocidal policies, German anti-Polonism led to a campaign of mass murder". The ref does not, however, refer to anti-Polish sentiments in particular, it just discusses the nazi ubermensch ideology, which as far as I know did not single out Poles among other Slavs, all of whom were seen as subhuman.
  • the short section on "Polonophobic stereotypes" discusses only the Russian word mazurik, for its tiny size it should likely be merged somewhere else.
  • the "Hostility today" section seems to have an undue bias (length-wise) for UK, although this may not be a B-class concern, it most certainly is something to address in the future.

Based on the above, I am failing the article for insufficient citations, and poor structure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Polish death camps"

After reading the talk page carefully, I see that at least three presons say that this section neither formally nor logically belong here. Unless there are serious objectsions, I am going to replace it with "See also" entry. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am against it being removed from this article but not aware of anyone actually saying “Polish camp” is an example of anti-Polish sentiment. Still scores have imply it is anti-Polish sentiment
David A. Harris, American Jewish Committee Executive Director, when criticising the terms stated “whether intentional or accidental” implying some are deliberate. A writer for the Economist of “whether out of laziness or malice” again supporting some are planned. Ewa Błaszczyńska (Master's Degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies) talked of the terms being used out of “outright disdain for Poland”.
Michał Gałek (Author “Episodes from Auschwitz”—the first historical comic book about Auschwitz”) called them a “notorious lie” and Stefan Nowicki (Author) also said they were a lie. Other such as Labour Friends of Poland (British MPs) called it “defamatory”, Die Welt “slanders” , Bernard Korbman (President Australia Society of Polish Jews and Their Descendants) “falsehood and innuendo” and Stefan Wilkanowicz (vice-chairman of the International Auschwitz Council) called it “propaganda”.
Michael Preisler (Auschwitz Survivor and co-chair of the Holocaust Documentation Committee of the Polish American Congress) outright stated that some are “an intentional anti-Polish or anti-Catholic prejudice”
Some such as Rabbi Byron Sherwin (Author) believe that the “Poles all but replace the Germans as the perpetrators of the Holocaust”. Dr. Laurence Weinbaum (World Jewish Congress and a historian specializing in Polish-Jewish relations) noted how Germany’s post-war foreign policy that meant we have become accustomed to referring to “Nazis” in place of “Germans”. He went on to say “that in place of “Nazi German” we now find “Polish Nazi”. One can only wonder whether successive generations will associate the Holocaust with the Germans.”
Michael Preisler (Auschwitz Survivor and co-chair of the Holocaust Documentation Committee of the Polish American Congress) noted how “It’s as if the media want to exonerate the Germans from their guilt and blame the Polish people for the German atrocities”. Frank Milewski (Chair, Polish American Congress) support this view that the media “scrupulously avoid linking the word "German" with anything as evil as Auschwitz or the other German death camps. In German newspapers, "Polish" is clearly and consistently the preferred way to describe the camps the Germans operated in Poland. That this would be a misrepresentation and a bold deception seems to be of no concern to the Germans.”
There is plenty of material supporting the media are deliberately shifting the blame from the Germans and perhaps moving it onto the Poles with the “Polish camp” issue being part of it. You can check out the quotes with references in a 35 page document at
Jniech (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You are stating "but not aware of anyone actually saying “Polish camp” is an example of anti-Polish sentiment. Still scores have imply it is anti-Polish sentiment". The fist phrase means that you did not counter my argument. The second phrase actually means original research disallowed in wikipedia. In other words, I don't have to "check out the quotes", since you didn't demonstrate their relevance to the issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If someone uses the N word about a black person then I don’t need the article to say it is racist. Just as you don’t need the article using these quotes to say it is anti-Polish sentiment as any person reading them would understand that it is.

Further some of the individuals clearly state that there is a shifting of blame from the German to the Poles which can be nothing but anti-Polish sentiment.

It is not original research as these views are in published books such as German Camps, Polish Victims (which I am involved in the project hence not editing Wikipedia articles any more due to a conflict of interest) and Bieganski by Danusha Goska.

Still I can point you at the material necessary to improve this article. Jniech (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd favor keeping the Polish camp discussion, with one or more of the above quotes, and noting that the use may often be unintentional, but contributing to APSentiment through misunderstanding. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, please understand me correctly. There is a whole article about "Polish death camps". You don't have to copy 75% of it here. The issue is that you have to connect it to the topic of the current page, i.e., demonstrate, by means of references to relable sources that this issue constitutes antipolonism. I strongoly suggest you to refresh you knowledge of the WP:SYNTH issue. "shifting of blame from the German to the Poles which can be nothing but anti-Polish sentiment." - who says so? "may often be unintentional, but contributing to APSentiment through misunderstanding" - who says so?

Once you establish the connection of the two subjects, then the wikipedia guideline WP:Summary style kicks in: (a) you give a brief description of the "Polish death camp" controversy, with the link to this article; and (b) you show that it is viewed as antipolonism. (c) Case closed without much chat. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"If someone uses the N word about a black person then I don’t need the article to say it is racist" - this statement may be true about the way how your opinion is formed, but if one removes personal reference from it, then the remaining sentence "If someone uses the N word about a black person then <...snip> it is racist" - is false. Please learn to think and write here not in terms of what you think and know, but what is written in sources . Then discussions of wikipedia articles will be much easier. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From a preliminary study on anti-Polonism in Canada: The most common revisionism is the use of the terms “Polish concentration camps”, “Polish death camps”, and “Polish ghettos”. All of these were established by the Germans after Poland was defeated and occupied, with no input from the subjugated Polish population who was interned in these camps by the hundreds of thousands.
From the Polish newspaper AM-POL Eagle: Anti-Polish slurs and misrepresentations appearing in the international media frequently unite the Polish government, Polish embassies and Polonian groups world-wide in various protest actions. Particularly targeted are allegations of Poland’s complicity in the Holocaust, such terms as “Polish concentration camps” and other misportrayals of Polish history.
From an article about Frank Milewski of the Polish American Congress Holocaust Documentation Committees: But when they report on Poland, they prefer to say the German camps were "Polish," said Milewski. "When we contact them to correct it, they give us the lame excuse the camps are "Polish" because they were geographically located in Poland. That the Germans were killing people inside those camps seems less significant to them."
It then says: The Polish community has developed an information network to advise each other about anti-Polish bias when they come across it. This is the way Milewski says the Polish American Congress is kept abreast of anti-Polish incidents it has to deal with.
Michael Preisler, Holocaust Documentation Committee of the Polish American Congress and survivor of Auschwitz, when talking on the issue used the wording: media began to fictionalize and falsify history with an evident anti-Polish prejudice
Alexander Storozynski (Pulitzer Prize, author, President of The Kosciuszko Foundation, etc.): I do not agree that anti-Polish sentiment is on the rise, rather I think that Polonia is finally beginning to react to such sentiment. When I read the words “Polish concentration camps” in American newspapers, I cringe, and point out that this is profoundly wrong.
Jan Peczkis material on the web such as at the International Research Center website could be useful e.g. An endless stream of Polonophobic Holocaust materials and mendacious references in the press to "Polish death camps" have followed since.
They all refer the camps and use wording like “Anti-Polish slurs”, “anti-Polonism”, “anti-Polish bias”, “anti-Polish prejudice”, “Polonophobic” and “anti-Polish sentiment”
Further you need to read the books on this topic. I highly recommend “rethinking POLES and JEWS” especially the section on anti-Polish Stereotypes e.g. page 56 Shana Penn states on negative stereotypes of Poles, the most common error is “Polish concentration camps”.
Other works such as Bieganski by Danusha Goska and the Defamation of the Poles by Stefan Nowocki shed more light on this topic. Jniech (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that you finally understood what exactly is necessary for this section, why don't you use some representative and most respectable quotations with references, to replace some general-purpose quotations about outrage, which do not specifically speak of anti-Polonism, and we are done. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I won’t be editing the article myself. This is due to the previously stated conflict of interest.

Take the above suggested references; I basically know all of the people. Some examples of the connections to me: I am in communicate with people to get access to the those behind preliminary study on anti-Polonism in Canada, I write occasionally to Frank Milewski, I work with Alexander Storozynski on “Polish camp” issues on at least a monthly basis, Jan Peczkis proof read the booklet “German Camps, Polish victims” for me and I exchange communicate with Danusha Goska on a near daily basis via internet forums. I could have said that Jan Peczkis and Danusha Goska wrote pieces to read out at the launch of the hardback version of “German Camps, Polish victims”.

I am happy to correct minor grammar, undo vandalism and correct non-working links in the article but otherwise would rather others edit the article. If you need links or details of a book (the full wording from a book, ISBN, etc.) then I can supply them. Jniech (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Some suggested changes to “Polish camp” section

Paragraph 1: Keep.

Change first sentence to: The media occasionally make references to the German concentration and death camps in occupied Poland in a misleading way to imply that Poland was responsible.

Add a new second sentence: The likes of Alexander Storozynski (Pulitzer Prize) [14] and Michael Preisler (survivor of Auschwitz)[15] believe this is a form of anti-Polish sentiment but it is accepted almost all are accidental.

The existing second sentence (third if you accept above change) should stay. The PMI, (last time I declare conflict of interest - just assume there is) which I am the moderator responsible for maintaining the alert log used to form the statistics show it is true. Hence I would add a link about the report e.g. [16]

The links at the end don’t appear to be working. If someone confirms then I will put working ones.

Paragraph 2: Alter

I suggest you remove the second sentence and expand the first (I would then reference it up). The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Polish and Jewish organizations around the world, the Polish and Israeli governments since 1989, the Israeli government, historians and others have condemned the usage of such expressions, arguing that they suggest Polish responsibility for the camps.

Paragraph 3 & 4: Delete Jniech (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The last/4th paragraph should be moved to the main article on the topic. It needs a slight change to state that the views are from experts including 10 leading academic especially in the field of Holocaust research. Jniech (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


I was asked by User:Piotrus to review this article and offer some comments about it. Here are my thoughts:

1) Polonophobic stereotypes If it relates to Putin, this paragraph should be integrated into the "Hostility today/Russia" section. Otherwise, this section needs to be expanded (maybe "Polish jokes" should be a subsection of "Polonophobic stereotypes"?).

2) History The article seems to assume that every action against Poland, including the partitions, was driven by anti-Polish sentiment. I think the article would be stronger if it acknowledged that in some instances there were also other motivations (the desire by other governments to expand their territory, for instance). I didn't check the sources, but in every instance there should be sources that support the assertion that anti-Polish sentiment was a cause.

3) References to Nazi German death camps in occupied Poland by Western media Unless independent third-party sources can be found that show these references are due to anti-Polish sentiment, this section should be deleted and "Polish death camp" controversy made a "See also". This section interrupts the flow of the article, and if it is kept should be moved after "Hostility today".

4) Hostility today/United Kingdom This section is much too long, and it seems like "I don't like it" was the criterion for inclusion. When a Labour minister describes a conservative Polish party as "far right" (an assessment he was not alone in making), where is the anti-Polish sentiment?

5) Hostility today/Germany There is no such section, but there is an image that complains (rightly) of anti-Polish sentiment. I think the information needs to be in the article (and referenced to reliable sources) and then illustrated.

6) "Polish jokes" Shorten this section by removing the history of Polish jokes and focusing on how the jokes illustrate anti-Polish sentiment.

I'm sorry if these comments seem overly critical. There is much in the article that is good. I'm just trying to help improve it so it can become B class (or better). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

re 1): "Stereotypes" are mentioned, so it was only natural to have a section for them. I started with a single curiosity I happen to know. It is not related to Putin. And not "today". And today probably nearly nobody is aware that the term has something to do with Poland. I may expand the section right away with more, but it needs some time to find reputabled sources: as you may guess, the majority google hits for polonophobic stereotypes come from Polonophobic sources. One thing may be added in this section right away: Polish plumber (Poles invade West Europe to steal jobs from decent local folk). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
re 2) Other reasons? "expand territory"? Have you ever seen a war against someone you love and respect, but <sigh> "I need your territory buddy, no hard feelings". I can understand natural disaster or stupidity without malice, but any calculated human actions against me I see as malicious. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
re 3) It is aready being discussed right here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
re 5) I had my doubts about the image myself. I dont' see particular hostility to Poles, There may be a German regulation that forbids overnight parking, and Poles are rightly expected not to be aware of it. Alternatively, a German sign may be posted elsewhere. (I know there is such local regulation in some places in California, and there are such signs in English). Or someone removed the German sign. Or any other situation. What I am leading to, placement of this picture without referenced explanatory context is a piece of original research, so it must be removed or referenced to a source that gives it as an example of antipolonism. I know some places where it is written "Don't piss on the wall" in Ethyopian, which is not Ethyophobia (although they do think nothing bad of pissing on a wall) and I know a lot of American restaurants with menu in Chinese only, which is not Anglophobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
re 6) I agree; per wikipedia:Summary style. No need to extensively repeat the same stuff in several places. However in this case I suspect that the advice is a bit incorrect. I suspect that the factual content of this section differs from that of "Polish joke", and in fact some "back-merge" is due. (wikipedia:Summary style is actually aimed at preventing such kind of divergence). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Malik Shabazz's review. There's two point's I'd like to make @Staszek Lem: I think you misunderstand Malik Shabazz's with regard to point 2. He makes the point that Poland probably wasn't partitioned because of anti-Polish sentiment, but because of imperialistic reasons. This is a fair point I believe; Belgium wasn't invaded in World War I (and World War II) because of "anti-Belgian sentiment", but simply because Germany wanted to dominate Europe. You should really distinguish the two. Otherwise all wars ever waged worldwide could be reduced to anti-X sentiment. With regard to point 5: I think Malik Shabazz actually agrees with you that the sign constitutes anti-Polish sentiment, and I in fact agree as well. It makes no sense to publish that sign only in Polish, there should at least have been a German sign as well. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest we divide this into separate debates else it going to get confusing? For now I have no strong feelings on 1, 2 & 6. 3 as stated is already debated and I have pointed you at sources to use but can help further if necessary. Agree about point 5. Partially agree on 4. Still if you look at the references I feel they support them. Take the “far right” example selected; the references have terms such as “racist bigot have played on a stereotype that slanders all Poles as anti-Semites” [17] and “misleading campaign against our allies” [18]. Initial I had planned to say I agree that one should be removed but not sure now. Jniech (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent analysis, Malik. In a nutshell, what this article suffer from is WP:NOR. Rather than summarizing what reliable sources have described as "anti-Polish sentiment", editors have instead included any incidents or material that they personally feel is or indicates "anti-Polish sentiment". Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Important point, thanks, Jayjg. It is also good to remember that the actual title of this entry can change, because it already did a few times, regardless of content. The issue has been brought up before (per archives, going back in years). At present, the title constitutes a politically-correct euphemism more than anything else... even though a variety of other descriptive terms (i.e. Polonophobia) has also been used in literature. When searching for relevant info we need to pay attention mainly to what has been said about discrimination directed at Polish nationals for a reason other than their own action, or specifically for being Polish, because that is the real subject of this article. It concerns citizens of Poland targeted by outside elements for having the wrong birth certificate and speaking the wrong language. Take a look at Action Saybusch in Silesia for an example; the German-speaking farmers were OK to stay where they were after the invasion of Poland, but the Polish-speaking farmers had to go. Language was the determining factor, not the land... that's Polonophobia. If all Poles spoke German as their mother tongue, and abandoned Catholicism, there would be no war, just a bigger Anschluss. And if all Poles had blond hair and blue eyes, there would be no Shoah either... and instead, we all would gang up on Soviet Russia in 1941, because their first language wasn't German and their system of beliefs was different from ours. Poeticbent talk 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Note 2 not working

The link to Emily Krzyzewski Center is not working nor can I work out how to correctly link it. Suggest link is removed unless someone disagrees. Jniech (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no Polonophile article on wiki?

dont get me wrong i dont want to score a negative point on how nobody likes the Poles. i rather hardly can imagine that there is nobody out there who appriciates Polish language/culture/... there are so many other Cultural appreciation articles - i dont know much about polish culture but i guess polish culture deserves one as well, or not? (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)