Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Check this out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polish death camps (incorrect term)

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

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

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

A simple solution

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

Perhaps solved

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

Recent declaration by the UN (UNESCO?)

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Examples of issue

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

2008 section

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

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

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

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

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

Disagree. I have here in the UK asked my British friends (i.e. those without Polish connections) and they find it confusing. May I ask where you’re from e.g. is this a British/American language different? Jniech (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

"Polish death camps" and "Polish concentration camps" are historically the main two offensive terms. However the first paragraph makes it clear there are other terms used i.e. The non-Polish media also make similar references to the German-run extermination program in Poland such as Polish Holocaust Survivor, Poland’s Concentration Camp, Polish Ghetto and Polish Camp. Jniech (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Added one reference for now and I will see if I can find more next month when I should have more time. Jniech (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Will give this some thought and see if I can think of better wording Jniech (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest something along the lines of "Examples since corrected" and "Examples with original wording"? I, personally, don't think the original headers are confusing, just clunky and awkward. I think it might be wise to avoid words like "proof" since they implicate a defensive POV. I think "evidence" would be a more appropriate word. --gardsmyg (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Jniech, because you placed comments within the text of my post I did not notice them until now. To respond in kind, I am Canadian, born to British parents. That said, I do not think there is any noticable difference between Canadians, Britons and Americans when it comes to the usage and interpretation of the phrase "Polish Holocaust victim". While I recognize that this string of words may be interpreted in two different ways - a "Polish survivor of the Holocaust" or a "survivor of a Polish Holocaust" - I point out again that the sequence employed is not only standard, but its relative brevity is important in print journalism. One might object to the phrase and encourage an alternate, but I think it would be incorrect to presume - as in the case of the Morgentaler articles - that the wording is incorrect or that there is another motive in play. This brings me to the headings - "Alleged but article since corrected hence no proof" and "Article not corrected or proof available" - for which I have requested clarification.The first leads one to ask the following: What is being alleged? Who or what body is making the allegation? How is it that a correction eliminates "proof"? The second heading prompts the following: Who or what body is monitoring the article to determine whether or not it was "corrected"? What is the nature of the proof being sought? Is the heading intended to mean that the phrase may have been corrected, but no proof of a correction is available? I look forward to your response.Ffighter44 (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not incorrect as we are not presuming anything. I am willing to accept the article is written to mean “in Poland” but this wikipedia page is about "potentially confusing" statements which could create "false impression". As you we agree the statement can be read in two ways, then it counts as "potentially confusing" which could create "false impression" hence is part of the article. Jniech (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your statement “Is the heading intended to mean that the phrase may have been corrected, but no proof of a correction is available?” is what I meant.

To give an example from today, at approximately 7.55 I became aware of an article stating “Polish concentration camp Majdenek‏”. At 7.58 I raise an alert at the PMI. At 9.52 I send e-mail asking for a correction to The Skinny. At 10.18, Sophie Kylie the director of Skinny informed the wording had been correct (but the camp name is still misspelt). As a result I know it happen and how it was corrected but there is no public record of the mistake.

What you think about using the suggested wording "Examples since corrected" and "Examples with original wording”? Jniech (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jniech, I've restored my most recent post to its original state; your interjection now follows. I think you'll find that this format is more easily followed by third parties and is the norm. I add that it really isn't done to alter another's post - this includes inserting one's own comments.

In referring to my comments on the Morgentaler articles you have responded "We are not incorrect as we are not presuming anything". Although I do not know which group you represent, I do point to your presumption, found in a previous post, that Morgentaler was not referenced as an "ethnic Pole", when "Polish Holocaust survivor" can be read to mean - as you yourself have written - "a Pole who survived a Holocaust". Again, my point is that the term "Polish Holocaust survivor" is not an incorrect or intentionally misleading use of the language. That said, I recognize and applaud your efforts to encourage the use of "a Pole who survived a Holocaust" and similar alternatives.

Your suggested alternatives to "Alleged but article since corrected hence no proof" and "Article not corrected or proof available" ("Examples since corrected" and "Examples with original wording”) are, I think, a move in the right direction. However, I do have a few suggestions, the first being the merger of the two groups. As you have written above, the second group is composed of examples in which the phrase in question may have been corrected, but no proof of a correction is known.

As a retired journalist, I was interested to know whether the pieces to be included as "Examples since corrected" had been presented as corrections by the newspapers in question (or might they have been presented as "clarifications" - a very different matter). Unfortunately, the examples themselves proved to be of no help. Not a one indicated the title of the story, name of the journalist and page number - all of which should be provided. What's more, only two examples provided references - and these proved useless. The first, a link to Fayetteville Observer directs the reader to an article on outdoor water use in the United States, while the second links to a letter that appeared in a suburban Chicago newspaper in which a reader reacts to an article which was thought to "indict the Polish people" in the Holocaust. The basis for this conclusion is not provided, nor is there an indication that the newspaper issued an apology, correction or clarification.Ffighter44 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment about this format being easy to follow as I now have to explain what part of your comments I am replying to. Further in my limited experience of editing Wikipedia the latter format is used. Also this format means you can continue to avoid answering questions and simply ask more questions meaning we will never get to an end. The latter format would force you to deal with each point in turn and hence at some point a conclusion would have to be reached on that point.

Your personal views have no meaning here. Please stop stating them. The question is does the Polish Government, Poles and the Polonia complain about such terms and the answer is that they do hence it is part of this article.

I agree the groups could be merged. The problem is I do not know why there are two lists. When I put entries in one group they were removed and when I put them in another group they were allowed. I tried to work out a pattern for this and gave the lists names.

The Polish government calls them corrections hence my usage of the word. The media often change the article without comment but some call them corrections and others clarification. The former is generally a media which accept it mistake without debate and the latter those who initial refuse but then agree after pressure from the Polonia, Polish organizations and/or the Polish government (normally the local embassy or consulate). Jniech (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't belabour the matter of interruptions - WP:TPG provides an overview of the relevant guidelines.

Please identify any questions I have not answered. I will be happy to respond.

You tell me not to repeat my personal views on this page - and yet I have expressed none. Please clarify.

The article contains no information that the "Polish government calls them corrections". I recommend that this be added to the text with properly cited examples.Ffighter44 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I not sure we are going anywhere hence I plan to divide the debate into four section. If you feel I am avoiding answering any of the points here then either start extra sections or put a comment here. Ideally if you agree to stop the debate here then please put a comment here. Jniech (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jniech, I have no objection to dividing the current debate into four sections. I'll place further comments in the appropriate sections.Ffighter44 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Verification tags and title

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

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

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

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

Actually, this isn't the only article I've ever edited, rather it is the first under this name. By way of explanation, though I know none is needed, I've been away for a time and had forgotten my password. In any case, as it seems my concerns are being misunderstood, I'll ellabrate.

The first source is supposed to support the statement that "there is evidence of a deliberate campaign" and yet it contains not one piece of evidence.

The second source is meant to support the statement that Polish government concerns "about the use of the term 'Polish death camp'" prompted the "request that UNESCO change the official name of Auschwitz". The article cited says no such thing, nor does the Columbia Encyclopedia link you have provided.

I don't mean to suggest that these statements are incorrect, rather that they are not supported by the sources cited.Ffighter44 (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to point 1 – I feel the source is fine as it expert opinion. Much of what is in Wikipedia is simply expert opinion. Still as noted in my summary of edit, I do plan to add more when I have time (it was the only one I know off the top of my head).

Answer to point 2 - Disagree as it clearly states "The Polish government made the request last year after media references to Auschwitz as a Polish concentration camp. The German newspaper Der Spiegel last year called the camp "Polish", sparking anger in Warsaw."

Still have added extra references including the following quotes, clearly stating the name change was intended to stop Polish death camp, Polish concentration camp, Polish gas chambers and generally referring to the camps as Polish.

The name change is intended to stop the description of the camp by the international media, including The New York Times and the German magazine Der Spiegel, as a "Polish death camp," which greatly offends many Poles because the camp was run by Germany.

Foreign media sometime refer to Auschwitz - a death camp located in occupied Poland where Nazi Germany killed more than 1 million people - as a "Polish concentration camp." Such phrasing deeply wounds sensitivities in Poland, which was subjected to a brutal occupation by Adolf Hitler's forces.

Warsaw points to references to "Polish gas chambers" or the "Polish concentration camps" in world media as evidence Poles are wrongly portrayed as collaborators with the Nazis in killing Jews.

Poland's request for a name-change came after a string of incidents over the last decade in which international media have mistakenly referred to the camp as "Polish" due to its location in Poland.

As to the title, what is your suggestion? Jniech (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your response to my points (if that makes sense):

1. The article clearly states that "there is evidence of a deliberate campaign to defame the Polish people and move the responsibility for the Holocaust from the Germans to the Poles", and yet the source provides no evidence and, in fact, does not so much as claim that any exists. Relying on this source alone, a more accurate statement would be "It has been claimed that there is a deliberate campaign to defame the Polish people and move the responsibility for the Holocaust from the Germans to the Poles".
2. I'm pleased to see that a source has been found to support the sentence.

I realize that a great deal of time has been spent debating the title of this article, but wonder whether there might not be a better one. While I recognize the controversy, it does seem odd to be writing about a controversy under a title not found outside the pages of Wikipedia. Ffighter44 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note I have already replied to your comments in “2008 section”.

Wording has already been changed. Please confirm that you still disagree with the article as it stands i.e. “one Polish diplomat has suggested the usage is part of a deliberate campaign to defame the Polish people and move the responsibility for the Holocaust from the Germans to the Poles”

What is your suggested title? Jniech (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I recognize and appreciate Boodlesthecat's correction, which is similar to what I had suggested.

I suggest that the title of this article fall into line with the most common name for this particular controversy - whatever that might be.Ffighter44 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Polish holocaust survivor"

Isn't it just like a "Polish .... survivor"? Same "Polish Holocaust hero" and so on. Come on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at New Zealand Knights season 2006-07it states “English Premier league player” Stan Lazaridis. Using your logic this is a English player in a Premier league but Stan is Australian and was simply playing in England.

If you at Cristiano Ronaldo it states English PFA Player of the Year. Using your logic this is an PFA award for an English player of the year but he is Portuguese

You could always argue there nothing wrong with Polish concentration camp as you understand what they meant but it does not change the fact that Polish Governement, Polish groups and individuals complain about the usage hence it should be part of this article.

People do not talk about the Cuban guantanamo bay detention camp as it’s the American guantanamo bay detention camp in Cuba. Jniech (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see anything wrong with the phrases like "Poland concentration camps" - it's not "Polish", but "[in] Poland". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about "potentially confusing" statements which could create "false impression". The statement "were exterminated at three Poland concentration camps" you are referring to makes no sense. The usage of "Polish death/concentration" is now much rarer with "Polish gas" not being used in three years to my knowledge but strangely "Poland’s" which I can only find one case prior to 2008 has 8 this year. Jniech (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At least two death camps were situated in lands annexed to Reich, the other ones in General Gouvernment. Both were Germany occupied Poland. Poland suggests that Poland was a free state, a German ally, like Hungary or Romania were. Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, condemning anyone just for writing things like "Polish Holocaust hero" (simply this, I don't know hat else was written) is frankly quite retarded. So, "Polish war hero" means always a hero of a war with Poland (like in "Polish campaign")? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what your personally opinion has to do with this article? This article is about "potentially confusing" statements which could create "false impression" which the Polish government, Poles and Polonia object to.

In answer to your question, "Polish war hero" properly means a ethnic Pole who is a hero of a war but I guess it could be used as to mean a hero of a war with Poland but I never seen it used that way. You’re the one claiming the sentence can only be read one way. Jniech (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, "Polish Holocaust hero" obviously means a Polish hero. Of the Holocaust period. "Holocaust hero" is a common phrase (and the third most popular of over 23,000 hits is "Polish Holocaust hero dies at age 98" about "Irena Sendler - credited with saving some 2500 Jewish children from the Nazi Holocaust" - and so on). So stop being so tight ass about this. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A proper construction with no room for any confusion would be "a Polish survivor of the Holocauust". "Polish holocaust survivor" is confusing - was the survivor Polish, or was the Holocaust Polish? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More like "you guys are now imagining stuff because you're obsessed with this". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First can I ask you not to make personal comments like “retarded” and “tight ass”, as it does not help your case? Further you kept stating your personal opinion about what should or should not be in the article. I am using the definition (third time I have said this) that this article is about "potentially confusing" statements which could create "false impression" which the Polish government, Poles and Polonia object to. Hence “Polish Holocaust survivor” is part of this article. It would be like me saying it strange for people to worry about “Polish Gas Chambers” as I never seen an example. What I think is strange is irreverent, it’s what the Polish government, Poles and Polonia object to. Jniech (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "controversy"?

A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion. Where are the "parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion" about this issue? All there is are isolated examples of largely innocent mischaracterizations. There are exactly ZERO cases of an active dispute, such as Party A objects to the term, but Party B insists the term is valid. There is one citation of a Polish official putting forth a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately he neglects to name the conspirators, therefore making it impossible to identify which parties "actively disagree."

The Article not corrected or proof available section is entirely misleading and entirely original research. It is not sourced to any reliable sources, but is a compilation tossed together based on an editors Googling the terms. To call these articles "not corrected" is a misleading attempt to provide drama where there is none--where is the evidence that these publications were even asked to make corrections?

This whole article is misleadingly titled, and largely Original Research.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See comment below about your incorrect claims that Google is the source. Jniech (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OR and NPOV tags

After some reflection, I'm applying OR and NPOV tags to this article. I agree with Boodlesthecat's comment that the "Article not corrected or proof available" section constitutes original research. Furthermore, there is no evidence presented of a "controversy" - rather what is in evidence is an objection over specific terms, combined with a well-intentioned effort to correct and clarify.Ffighter44 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article title itself is silly and implies there's controversy regarding some Polish death camp :) Also, ""Poland's Treblinka PBS backgrounder death camp"? Someone was on drugs I guess. Dachau being Polish/in Poland is typically American, like Obama's uncle liberating "Auschwitz" in Germany. Some of the stuff is legitimate (like "Nazi Poland"), some (like "Polish Holocaust victims") is only resulting from some editors being uptight and obessed like Mary Alice Altorfer about racism and pools. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk)

Who are you claiming is goggling the material here? As far as I know I am the only person adding examples and they are all coming from the PMI archives not via Google. There are numerous lists available such as the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Polish Embassies and Consulates around the world and the Auschwitz Museum. If you are challenging the usage of the PMI archives then I simply use those lists instead but note they have almost ten years worth of data. If you hate the few examples I have put to date then I doubt you’re going to like me putting ten years worth of data from them here. Jniech (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you might want to do is find a reliable source that indicates there is a controversy. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. What's PMI? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than answer the questions here, I have broken the debate into four sections. In this way I hope we can agree, or at least agree to disagree, on each point. Then we can move the discussion on each point forward. Jniech (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that progress on this article has been made and that the "Examples" section has now been recognized as original research. While I don't think anyone objects to the removal of the OR tag, there appears to be disagreement over whether the NPOV tag placed 27 July should remain. It has now been removed by three times (once by DRosenbach [1] and three times by Piotrus[2][3][4]) and returned twice (twice by Boodlesthecat [5][6] and twice by myself[7][8]). This matter of controversy has been the subject of discussion on this page with no resolution; indeed it is currently a topic of discussion on the AfD nomination page. Where some see no example of controversy, Poitrus states there are "dozens". May I ask where?Ffighter44 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article

I did not add/support the usage of controversy in the title (nor am I necessary against it). I have at least twice asked for input on the title. The issue is that there is no such thing as a “Polish Death Camp” hence the article should not be called that but anything else seems to get challenged. I will support any reasonable title but will make a suggestion which you will probably reject.

I would go with “Appeals Against Polish Death Camps” after all it is what the actual discussion is about. Additionally this is in line with the Polish Government Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Against "Polish Camps" and inline with Polonia titles Appeal against "Polish death camps" for the debate. Jniech (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You understand that this is an encyclopedia, and not the press office for the Polish government, I hope. What we need are reliable sources, not the desires of a government. Otherwise Wikipedia would have articles about the pet peeve of every country in the world. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My previous response to your request for input was based on the assumption that "Polish death camp controversy" was known by another name outside the pages of Wikipedia. As no evidence of a "controversy" has surfaced, it would appear that the inclusion of the word is incorrect. I suggest "Polish death camp campaign", which reflects the campaign undertaken by the Information Department of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Ffighter44 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the suggestion as it a campaign against the usage of Polish death camps. The wording does not make that clear. Nor have I heard talk of a campaign, it more interventions by the local embassy/consulate/Polish groups/individuals rather than a clear campaign by the Information Department of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I will support it if it moves us forward but I would prefer a better title. Jniech (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In its report on "False terminology in the foreign media used in reference to Nazi German concentration camps in occupied Poland", the ministry employs the word "campaign" in describing its efforts. While no evidence has been presented that there is a controversy, the ministry itself indicates that there is a campaign. This fact raises another issue, that being the difference in terms to which the ministry objects and those which the PMI Group has chosen to challenge. The ministry has not challenged the use of the phrases "Polish Holocaust survivor", "Polish Holocaust victim", "Polish Holocaust heroes", which have all made their way into this article's "Examples" by way of the PMI Group. As the observation has not yet been addressed, I repeat the fact that the group is a self-described "forum" and as such should not be used as a reference. Further to this, I recommend that the article be rewritten to focus exclusvely on the campaign by the Polish government and the terms with which it takes exception; as it stands, this is no more than an unverifiable article about phrases that some people find objectionable while others do not.Ffighter44 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloodlesthecat has stated Wikipedia is not the “press office for the Polish government”. Would not this suggestion make it just that?

Also what are the campaign details? How do you know what is and is not included beyond looking at the examples on the Ministry home page in English? I assume it also covers the work of the Embassies and Consulates? When the Ambassador of Israel to Warsaw talked about the issue he said “terminology such as "Polish concentration camps"”. What happens if the ministry makes a comparable statement, who gets to decide what is included?

My suggestion would be any term that the ministry complains about including the actions of the consulates and embassies plus similar terms which it can be shown that the media has corrected/clarified or it can be shown it has been reported to a complaint body for that media. Jniech (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat is, of course, correct: this is an encyclopedia, not press office for the Polish government or any other organization. That said, there is nothing inappropriate in including an article on a governmental campaign targeting news organizations. The problem is verifiability. The document I have cited talks about a campaign, but as Jniech has pointed out, there are no details. I don't discount the possibility that such may be provided by the ministry in Polish; those familiar with the language may wish to investigate. I expect that details of the campaign would cover the roles of embassies and consulates. Assuming that the Israeli Ambassador is not involved in the campaign, I cannot see that his comments are relevant. Again, I suggest that the "Examples" should be limited to those cited by the ministry as part of its campaign.

My recommendation that the article focus exclusively on the ministry's campaign is an effort to provide focus and verifiability. As it stands, the article concerns a wide variety of terms and phrases with which disperate participants - ranging from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to irate newspaper readers and television watchers - find objectionable. Even here, there appears to be no consensus. As it stands, the article is titled after a controversy that does not exist, and consists, in the main, of information found in the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland and Auschwitz concentration camp articles. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder whether there is anything to salvage.Ffighter44 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish Holocaust Survivor

Could those who keep putting their “point of view” on this matter please stop. I do not care what your point of view is BUT what can be shown. When you say things like “my point is that the term” then my reply is I do not care. If you can show someone else such as a senior member of the Polish government or senior member of the Polonia that supports Polish Holocaust survivor is not of concern then fine else please keep your opinion to yourself. I won’t response to any future opinion expressed nor allow changes to the article which reflect personal opinion.

Likewise I accept I should only add material which I believe I can show the Polish Government, Polish Organisations, Poles and the Polonia complain about. Which moves us on to point 3 Jniech (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the "the Polish Government, Polish Organisations, Poles and the Polonia" also think that "Jewish Holocaust survivor" also means Jews did the Holocaust (in addition to WTC). A friendly message to "the Polish Government, Polish Organisations, Poles and the Polonia": please stop being so freakin' SILLY. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a big different in that no-one is blaming the Holocaust on the Jews but many (i.e. a sizeable number) in the media are blaming the Poles. Why not read the following the article Poles now going home used to amuse themselves at Easter by locking Jews in the synagogue and setting fire to it. and tell me that people are not trying to change history. Show me someone in the main press blaming the Jews for the Holocaust then I will agree otherwise do not tell us who are now being blamed for the crimes of others that we should not be so sensitive. Jniech (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot tailor an article in an encyclopedia around your own personal likes and dislikes about what you read in the press. This is an encyclopedia. Provide reliable sources indicating that there is a controversy tregarding the use of the term "Polish Holocaust Survivor" or any other term. I also don't really care about anyone's personal opinions. This isn't a blog or a debating forum. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jniech, I am one of those you have accused of expressing a personal viewpoint. In fact, it is I you quote when you write "When you say things like 'my point is that the term' then my reply is I do not care." You appear to have confused "point" with "point of view" - which are anything but synonymous. Even a casual reading of the post in question will reveal that what I expressed next was a fact, not an opinion; namely that the term "Polish Holocaust survivor" does not in itself constitute an incorrect or intentionally misleading use of the language. You write that you not care what the "point of view is BUT what can be shown", to which I respond: where is your proof that this term was used in an incorrect or intentionally misleading way?Ffighter44 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree with Bloodlesthecat. The only issue I have is that I am not trying to show there are reliable sources for a “controversy” but examples of the terms being used. I will continue these thoughts in the “Original Research and Suitable Sources” section. Jniech (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research and Suitable Sources

Link to information on the PMI is in the external links section.

I repeat a denial of any original research here. If anyone disagrees then please state and I will simply use multiple external sources to support the existing entries (some may need challenging at the end of such an exercise as I clearly do not know that all existing entries are in other sources beyond the PMI). As part of such an exercise I would add all new entries listed in these sources. Personally I do not see the need for more entries. The new entries were to show that issue still exists and that is changing overtime but if the only way to move this discussion on is to list hundreds of entries linked to multiple sources then say and let’s get it over with.

I am not sure if you can challenge using the PMI material in that I am only using it to link to other material which supports itself. Still if you want to challenge then again by attitude would be accept it and simply use other sources (basically the process above).

So please again either response supporting the use of the PMI as a source of examples or challenge resulting in me adding material from the other sources. Jniech (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a reliable source supporting the claim of a "controversy," using a list from the PMI is entirely original research. This is an encyclopedia; it is not an outlet for pushing the point of view of little known organizations. So, once again, do you have reliable sources (note--a highly partisan private organization is not a reliable source) indicating that a controversy (that is, a dispute between two opposing sides) exists? If not, this article remains original research and partisan. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For a while I thought PMI means "Polish Ministry of Interior", but it's just some guys. Never heard of 'em. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against any reliance on the PMI Group, which as "a private forum", runs counter to verifiability guidelines. I add that many of the current problems with the article an be traced back to the PMI Group website. The current "Examples" are drawn largely from that found on the website. The list follows a similarly vague format (no mention of journalists, titles and page numbers is featured) and includes the very same errors. Thus we have the repeated claim that a story on American water consumption contains the words "Treblinka, the Polish death camp", incorrect links and dead links.Ffighter44 (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the point by Bloodlesthecat, I am simply adding examples of the usage of the terms NOT to support any controversy nor any other claims (ignore the existing names of the list; I accept they are very badly worded but it was an honest mistake by me). The PMI does not claim any controversy hence would be useless for this anyway. The PMI is not involved in showing the term was used, as I link the example to the original article/supporting statement. I do not see this as a issue but await your reply before making further comments.

A minor point to Ffighter44, the information is not on the PMI website but Support Poland Limited website(I am a trustee of the organisation). I will moved the discussion of the format of the information into its own section to allow us to continue to discuss source of material here rather than dividing the discussion. Hope you understand I am trying to keep us moving forward by debating each point separately.

Finally, please Ffighter44 read the article and all will be become clear i.e. it not an article about water BUT a list of corrections/clarifications by the newspaper starting with that article about water. It includes several statements including “When we described Treblinka as a Polish death camp, we meant to indicate that it was located in Nazi-occupied Poland, not that it was run by Poles.” hence it is relevant to this article. As to dead links and the like, I accept these happen and had, prior to this debate, been checking them once per month to ensure they were working. I will do so again, once this discussion reaches it conclusions (e.g. if we agree the author name is to be shown then when I check if the link is working, I will also get the author name). Jniech (talk)

Jniech, you really need to understand that wikipedia is not an outlet for the views of your organization. If you have reliable sources for this article, please supply them. Otherwise, this article is purely original research pushing the point of view of a private organization, and will likely be deleted. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have alter the article by

a) Removing all references to Polish holocaust survivor

b) Removed the names of the lists returning the article to having two 2008 sections with no reason given.

Bloodlesthecat reply appears to be addressing me but making statements which are confusing. I been adding examples to the article so can I be pushing a “private organisation” views. At most Bloodlesthecat should be talking about deleting the examples not the article.

From the NOR page it appears this article is called a "source-based research" which is described as “fundamental to writing an encyclopedia”. In summary it must “stick to the sources.”

Please state which part of the article does not follow the rules especially useful would be to citiation required next to the sentence(s). If Bloodlesthecat you are claiming the existing references are unreliable then please say which ones. At present you are making some claim that something is wrong but not giving an example. If you do then hopefully I will understand your position better resulting in me agreeing or being able to correct the article.

Moving to the part of the article that I have contributed to, then most of the example already have a reference. There in fact over 50 references covering the example. Each of them links the example to the original article or supporting statement in the original publication hence I can not see how these can be seen as unreliable (beyond those with broken links). Jniech (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What should the lists be called?

Personally I agree there should be one list with a simple title (e.g. Examples) but if you want two lists then suggest what they should be called. Jniech (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Format of the Examples

When I started to add examples, I simply followed the format that already existed apart from I stated what the term was. It has been suggested that this is not enough information. Are their Wikipedia guidelines on this? Jniech (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The examples should be restored.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The existence of the examples was one of the two reasons behind the AfD. Their removal as original research after the AfD nomination has met with no objection until now. May I ask why you believe they should be restored?Ffighter44 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'd do

I'd delete this article for the reason "the article being stupid (and pretentional)". Editor Jniech: Instead of updating "examples", correct/update stuff on Wikipedia elsewhere if needed (you'd be surprised how many people completely trust Wikipedia - I don't, but hey). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice your interest in the Soviet Invasion of Poland (1939) which is very much related to my main interest, the Soviet deportations of Polish citizens. It will be in those articles related to deportations that you will find my future work. As to this article when I found it, the 10 (or so) entries from 2 or more years ago did not reflect the number of examples of the issue nor the changing nature of the terms. It seems to me to create a fault impress of an issue which was small years ago and non-existence today hence the adding of current examples to support that it still happens and give some impression of the scale. Jniech (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of "controversy"?

Piotrus has stated, in removing the NPOV tag, that there are "dozens" of examples of "controversy" over the use of the term Polish death camps, or related terms. There appears to be only one controversy that was documented involoving Candadian television, and since resolved. If this is the only one, the article title is inappropriate--one instance should not have its own article, or at a minimum , it should be titled the CTV-Poland death camp name dispute . If there are more documented examples of a dispute--any, dozens or whatever amount, please list them here. Otherwise, the NPOV tag shoudl be re-added, as the term controvsersy is indeed being disputed. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see mentions of UNESCO, Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, American Jewish Committee... this is not a one-trick pony, this is an issue discussed by many for years.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No actual examples of a controversy, per its definition as a dispute "when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion." Other than the CTV example, where are the documented cases where two parties "actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion"? I'm not seeing it, and absent those examples, the title is misleading (if it's merely referring to a resolved dispute with CTV). If you have any examples of two parties disputing, much less "dozens," as you claim--once again: please supply them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to rename the article. Polish death camp misnomer, Polish death camp allegation, Polish death camp error... any other suggestions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not a name indicating the death camp renaming effort--this is a real ongoing campaign that is getting support, and is less confrontational and doesn't create controversies where there are none. We can remove the unecessary OR background sections and just use the sources for the campaign, and we can remove sketchy, not really notable references to officials making claims about unnamed villians who are out to "distort history and conceal the truth" Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What name would you propose? I find the background sections helpful. What would you like to remove and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like "Campaign to rename Nazi death camps"--maybe there is a good title for the campaign to be gleaned from the Polish gov't materials. I would delete all the background other than a concise sourced statement from one of the reliable sources that succinctly states that the camps were conceived, built and run by Nazi Germany and that the term "Polish death camps" may give the false impression of Polish involvement. Anything else seems overkill--why spend a lot of time refuting a flat earth theory? It tends to weaken the case. Indisputable facts should always presented simply and matter of factly, without justification. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Polish death camp misnomer is best as it provides the best cover. "Polish death camp allegation" infers that there has been some sort of accusation is being made, while "Polish death camp error" means just that - words written in error. I think "misnomer" is far superior to my previous suggested title ("Polish death camp campaign"), which drew on the campaign undertaken by the Information Department of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.campaign That said, I think that this piece of writing provides the best source upon which to build the article (and introduce new examples).Ffighter44 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest again using “Appeals Against Polish Death Camps”? It what the article was about prior to recent edits (e.g. the discussion about the Blue Police which has little/nothing to do with the media references to the German camps in Poland). Further it is my understanding that Wikipedia editors should try to use commonly held titles beyond Wikipedia. I know it’s only one newspapers but is a major Polish newspaper Appeal against "Polish death camps" and the title is similar to the wording used by the Polish Government Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Against "Polish Camps"

Having said I would support “Campaign to rename Nazi German death camps” and or “Polish Death Camp misnomer” especially if there are examples outside Wikipedia to support the terms. Jniech (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Example of use

This misnomer is mentioned as such in The Economist obituary of Irena Sedler: [9]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Properly sourced, relevant material being removed

Can Poeticbent please explain why he is removing this properly sourced and relevant material?

The Polish police didn't take part in the forced-work press gangs.(Irving Howe, Eliezer Greenberg, Voices from the Yiddish: Essays, Memoirs, Diaries 1975, Page 252) Scholars are debating to what extent the Polish police (Blue Police) were involved in the rounding up of Jews.(Raul Hilberg. The Destruction of the European Jews: Third Edition Yale University Press, 2003. No preview available online without special access.) Warsaw Ghetto historian Emmanuel Ringelblum described Polish policemen carrying out extortion and beatings in the Ghetto, and noted that Polish underground papers published badge numbers of those policemen. (Itamar Levin, Rachel Neiman Walls Around: The Plunder of Warsaw Jewry During World War II and Its Aftermath. Greenwood Publishing.)

The actions of Polish officials in the death camps is obviously relevant to whether or not they should be called "Polish". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is making that claim? The Blue Police were under the control of the Germans. Their officers were German and the rest were of mixed ethnicity (including Poles). Further the article clearly shows the Israel Government on behalf of the Jewish people, the Polish Government, the United Nations, Media watchdogs and the media itself say it is wrong. Unless you can show someone (e.g. a notable historian) making a connection between the incorrect references to the German camps and the Blue police then the information clearly breaks the NOR rule. Jniech (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Having reread the 3RR I decided to undo my changes. When I read it the first time statements like “The rule applies per person” I felt meant I could do it but upon rereading statements like “The rule applies per page” meant I felt I could not. My apologies if I did break the rule. I plan in 24 hours to do the changes as I consider the current version contains OR and material is not supported by the statements in the references of this article. Jniech (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is about controversy in the media. The controversy is about proper use of language. So, if you will, please take your digressions about what life was like in war-torn Poland to a more appropriate place and stop defacing this article with anti-Polish propaganda while, at the same time, carefully removing all references to the role played by the Jewish police and the Jewish Gestapo in the rounding up of ghetto inhabitants. --Poeticbent talk 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell us, Poeticbent, "the role played by the Jewish police and the Jewish Gestapo in the rounding up of ghetto inhabitants" has exactly what to do with an article about a dispute in which German concentration camps are erroneously described in a way that implies Polish running of them? Are there instances where anybody is asserting that the camps were Jewish run? Are there concerns that the term "Jewish concentration camps" is being used somewhere? Are you saying, Poeticbent, that there is some sort of problem with an editor "carefully removing all references to the role played by the Jewish police and the Jewish Gestapo in the rounding up of ghetto inhabitants"? Do you think that material needs to be in here (you repeatedly have inserted it)? Why do you think it needs to be in this article? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To anyone but especially Boodlesthecat and Jayjg: Could someone please show me an example where the media has reference the German extermination programme in occupied Poland and used the fact some of the police were Poles as justification? In the hundreds of cases I am aware of, no-one has ever made this claim. Therefore the inclusion of the reference to the Blue Police is an original idea and therefore should not be allowed. Jniech (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue Police Material

I have removed the original idea being expressed that references to “Polish camps” has anything to do with the German controlled Blue Police. If you do not explain why you are adding the material I will simply remove the material as it is an original thought as far as I know.Jniech (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi concentration camp at Dachau, Poland

To Boodlesthecat and other editors: Confused as article clear states "the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau, Poland". Please confirm issue and I will try to correct. Jniech (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No source for this claim. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 11:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would the following be any better?

Over the years Nazi concentration and Extermination Camps in Germany have been confused for those in occupied Poland. A recent example was when Barack Obama claimed his uncle liberated Auschwitz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987958.html. The Dachau concentration camp has been mistakenly put in Poland on a number of occasions http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/sceptred_isle/1920.shtml http://www.idahostatesman.com/life/story/377817.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EED8153EF932A35752C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 resulting in complaints by the Polish Community http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/senate/8844/1.htm. Jniech (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Added on nationality issue of the criminals.

I added on the call and efforts to make it clear who were the criminals and their nationality(German) by Polish state officiels. A source was given naturally.--Molobo (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Gęsiówka

Gęsiówka was a concentration camp.

No real death camp was ever liberated, because Germans destroyed them. Auschwitz was liberated as a concentration camp, the death part already destroyed. Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO with respect to Nazi camps "death" vs "concentration" is pointless cherry-picking. Just take a look at Auschwitz photos; a reign of death. Anyway, if you have reliable sources which corroborate your claim, please provide them. With respect to death, only POW camps for Western enemy soldiers were not only non-death, but a "safe haven", kinda resort. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No working gas chamber was liberated.

There existed basic difference between Treblinka, which wasn't any camp and Majdanek, which was a camp. Auschwitz was different, because it combined any form of Nazi crimes, but the extermination part was destroyed by Germans the same like Treblinka was. There are stories about gas chambers at Warsaw, but as far as I know - unsupported.

Extermination camp defines several types of the Nazi camps, let's accept the division or move there to discuss the subject.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see what is the problem in the article. Yes, is says Gęsiówka was a concentration camp. Hundreds if not thousands of Jews were held there. Gęsiówka was liberated, i.e., Jews were saved from a highly probable death. That is the point of the particular section of the article: Poles did save Jews from camps. Please be specific how do you want the article changed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I had changed it (replaced death by concentration) and explained my edit.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on "Polish death camp" controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423004151/http://bundesrecht.juris.de/begdv_6/anlage_6.html to http://bundesrecht.juris.de/begdv_6/anlage_6.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328121&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.pl/Canadian%2CCTV%2CTelevision%2Ccensured%2C%2Cfor%2Cinaccurate%2Cand%2Cunfair%2Creporting%2Cin%2Creferring%2Cto%2C%E2%80%9EPolish%2Cghetto%E2%80%9D%2Cand%2C%2C%E2%80%9EPolish%2Ccamp%2Cof%2CTreblinka%E2%80%9D%2C2075.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716080801/http://www.wbj.pl/article-51918-petition-against-polish-concentration-camps.html?typ=ise to http://www.wbj.pl/article-51918-petition-against-polish-concentration-camps.html?typ=ise

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The article states that "The government of Israel has also deprecated the usage of this phrase." That is not true. Poland has just outlawed the term "Polish death camps" and the Prime Minister of Israel condemned the decision by stating "One cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied" and Israeli officials indicates that the outlawing is a kind of Holocaust denial.--APS^talk 11:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It is true in the sense that the Israel (and Jewish groups as a whole) believe it is correct to refer to these camps as Nazi or German death camps. However, Jewish groups are outraged due to the lack of recognition of the complicity of the Polish population to the operation of the camps (and handing over of Jews) as well as outright atrocities - massacres - by Poles against Jews both in 1941 before the Germans took over and in 1946 after the war.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

My English is not so good, but what you write is what I meant ^^ --APS^talk 13:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)