Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Not a misnomer

The word is not a misnormer as stated in the lead section. There is not even a source to it. The regular terms, used by mass media and politicians world wide, is just using it as a geographic term. Critics claim that it could me misinterpreted as if it were the Poles and not the Nazis who did it. That is what the debate is about.--APS^talk 13:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You are correct it should be sourced. Here - White House ‘regrets’ reference to ‘Polish death camp’ "The misnomer ‘Polish camps’ unjustly implies that the death camps in Poland were built in the name of the Polish people rather than by the Nazi regime," the ADL said. which is sourced to Anti-Defamation League (there are also multiple Polish MFA/embassy stmts calling this a misnomer - however using them would require attributing the them as they clearly have an agenda).Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

- Icewhiz you clearly have an agenda, stop your propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.136.20 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The ADL is a pressure group. While they do valuable work and research, their public statements are given to propagandizing. While "Polish death camps" is potentially misleading, it is *not* a misnomer when used to refer to death camps *located in* Poland. This is a distinction which the ADL fails to draw here, but we should hold ourselves to higher standard of precision as we are writing a reference work. In conclusion, this source is not sufficient to motivate the use of "misnomer" here. Zekelayla (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a misnomer, Just as if New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany would have been called German New Year's Eve sexual assaults just because they happened in Germany. Just because Soviet occupational forces were *located in* Poland, they did not become Polish, and so on. It is incorrect to apply purely geographical identification to such things, therefore it is a misnomer, "a misapplied or inappropriate name or designation". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, German New Year's Eve sexual assaults is not a misnomer either, nor would it be an appropriate name for an article, since it is potentially misleading. There are numerous instances of native English speakers using the phrase "Polish death camp" or analogous constructions without it being a speech error or being wrong about the historical facts. Without a more reliable source there is no basis to insist on the use of the term "misnomer".Zekelayla (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

without it <...> being wrong about the historical facts - oh, really? Besides, I gave you an argument (which you ignored). Whereas all yours is just a repetition, "no it is not". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your argument was an attempted reductio ad absurdum. I was telling you that the conclusion you claim is absurd, that "German New Year's Eve sexual assaults is not a misnomer" is not, in fact, absurd, and, on the contrary, correct. This is a form of advancing the discussion. Zekelayla (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because you do not like the source I am not going to jump thru the hoops until you supply us with an argument, not just hand waving. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Misnomer doesn't mean "lie" and it doesn't mean "incorrect" either; it primarily means something that is misleading. The first sentence of that article is: A misnomer is a word that suggests a meaning that is known to be wrong.--Pharos (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the wikipedia article misnomer has an insufficiently precise (and unsourced) definition. If you look at the examples of misnomers, these are cases like "pencil lead" (not actually lead), "koala bear" (not actually a bear), etc., where the phrase or terminology *unambiguously* and straighforwardly suggests, in its compositional interpretation, an incorrect notion. This is not the case here because "Polish death camps" is ambiguous between suggesting a location or a nationality of administration. That is, for example Auschwitz *is* technically a Polish death camp simply because it is in Poland. That implies nothing about the responsibility of Polish people. Note that I am not even the only person arguing this point here. In addition, the top comment here makes the same point and has 11 upvotes. Zekelayla (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Examples is dictionaries are intended to be understandable on the first sight without much thinking and without explaining much. Hence "koala bear" or "morning sickness". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way "pencil lead" is not a misnomer by your logic either, because it is perfectly applicable, in perfect English, to pencils made with lead, i.e., it is simply an ambiguous term. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Pencil suggests that lead has never been used in pencils. Zekelayla (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In the past people thought it was lead. Anyway, I agree my example is not very good. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This back-and-forth will lead to nothing. I am going to file an RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that "Polish death camps" is not a misnomer in the strictest sense, but has been described as a misnomer by some native English speakers. I do not think it is suitable to call it a misnomer in the preamble, since this has been felt by some (and not just me) to be imprecise and distracting. It would be reasonable to note somewhere in the body that it has been described as a misnomer (with appropriate citations) as long as it also notes that "Polish death camps" can be correctly used to refer to Nazi death camps located in Poland. Zekelayla (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No. The whole article is exactly arguing that this is not correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to point out a flaw in the idea that the use of "Polish death camps" is not misleading. Take this statement: "Auschwitz *is* technically a Polish death camp simply because it is in Poland". The problem about quoted statement is that it is incorrect both in the broad term (implies ownership) and "technically", because geographical link is weak at best - during WW2 (which includes founding AND full lifetime of the camp) there was no "Poland" there. Check out some maps. It is kind of like saying that the Eastern Roman Empire or Israel (I couldn't stop myself from using this exact comparison) and its cities, buildings, religious worship centres and/or souvenir shops is an Ottoman Empire's state, because geography. It might be difficult to imagine (especially for western countries' people) that your country disappears from the map because someone else takes over, but please try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A318:8462:4580:754E:B4DC:4AF6:C727 (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

1) It doesn't imply ownership, that's our entire point. You are inferring ownership, but the speaker isn't implying it. 2) No, it's like saying Troy was a Turkish city. There was no Turkey at the time, but it was on that plot of dirt that makes up Turkey today.--Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Therefore an acceptable synonym for "Trojan Wars" might be "Turkish Wars (c. 1000 BCE) ". Nihil novi (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --Khajidha (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Reductio ad absurdum completed. Nihil novi (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No more absurd than an article on Chinese history that starts 3000 years before that word was ever used in European languages. --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No more absurd than thinking that "Jewish death camps" implies that Jewish people ran them themselves or that "Africans were transported on slave ships and sold in slave markets" somehow implies that they crewed the ships themselves and operated the markets. Almost any adjective is capable of misinterpretation if one really tries, but that does not mean that the misinterpreted version has any actual currency among reasonably intelligent people. Pincrete (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To Indigowestern

Instead of throwing around accusation is vandalism and anti-Polonism, please discuss article content, per WP:NPA. Edit summaries such as

• 0:49, 2 February 2018‎ Indigowestern (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,785 bytes) (-467)‎ . . (Don't be a smartass)

or

• (cur | prev) 09:58, 2 February 2018‎ Indigowestern (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,066 bytes) (+2,251)‎ . . (Reverting vandalism. You don't get to alter users posts and neutral viewpoints.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

will lead you to a trouble. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring of Indigowestern is reported Staszek Lem (talk)

Seems as though that has been dealt with and the editor blocked as a notorious sock. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: looks like you made a valuable sourced edit here re New York Times, but unfortunately you made the addition in good faith on top of the edit-warred version including a block of controversial content by the now blocked sock Indigowestern above. I wonder if you could rewind back to the stable version and then re-add the New York Times edit again. Assuming this fits with procedure. There may be other sock edits earlier that need weeding out, I'm just looking at the penultimate one. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure which is stable version, because many people edited the article since the first massive revert by the sock. IMO easier just review the article as it is now (The edit by Pharos is in). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts

This article is actively edited by many, often in small pieces. Please to do not do reverts to remote earlier versions which look "better" to you. Some parts may be better, but others are worse. Please respect fellow wikipedians and discuss separate edits, not "versions" of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Should be semi-protected again

This is getting persistent unhelpful edits from multiple sides.--Pharos (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on "misnomer"

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

---

Should the phrase "Polish death camp" be described as a "misnomer" in the lede? See #Not a misnomer for the earlier discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes It is a misnomer. Most of the dictionaries I consulted stressed that a misnomer is a word or name that describes something inaccurately or inappropriately.[1][2][3][4] The Oxford English Dictionary, which is behind a paywall, defines it as the "use of a wrong name" or the "misapplication of a term". These seems to me accurate descriptions of the phrase "Polish death camp"—inaccurate, misapplied. A Google search for Polish+camp+misnomer produces a lot of noise, but there are many reliable sources from the U.S. and Israel—in addition to the ones you might expect from Poland—that specifically describe the phrase "Polish death camp", "Polish concentration camp", or "Polish camp" as a misnomer. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

is your position yes it is a misnomer or yes it should be called a misnomer in the lede? I am inclined to concede it is a misnomer under a quite permissive definition of misnomer, but I do not think it should be described as such in the lede since that may incorrectly suggest that "Polish death camps" is a straightforwardly incorrect description. By the way, to respond to your argument, when it is used correctly, the phrase "Polish death camps" is not a name or term at all but a description. The issue is not whether to name an article "Polish death camps" but whether it is ever correct (and not explicitly misleading) to use the phrase "Polish death camps". The 2012 use of this phrase by Barack Obama is the locus classicus, but I have linked above to attestations by a dozen stack exchange users of the technical correctness of this phrase.Zekelayla (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate opinions from discussion. This is a survey, in which I indicated my response ("Yes") to the question asked ("Should the phrase "Polish death camp" be described as a "misnomer" in the lede?"). The following section is for discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, the description misnomer is misleading since it gives the incorrect impression that "Polish death camp" is technically incorrect, contrary to the fact that it can refer merely to a death camp located in Poland. This fact about English is rather widely attested. Zekelayla (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. This is an inaccurate term and most Holocaust experts (and non-experts) recognize it is inaccurate. It is also referred to as a misnomer - White House ‘regrets’ reference to ‘Polish death camp’ "The misnomer ‘Polish camps’ unjustly implies that the death camps in Poland were built in the name of the Polish people rather than by the Nazi regime," the ADL said. which is sourced to Anti-Defamation League (which does not have a pro-Polish agenda, there are also multiple Polish MFA/embassy stmts calling this a misnomer - however using them would require attributing the them as they clearly have an agenda). Most users of the terms (with the notable exception of some recent protest uses as well as a minority of previous users that have insisted this is correct in the geographic sense) have corrected their language when asked. While in the strict geographical sense "Polish death camp" can be seen as correct (as these are death camps that are located in Poland) - the term is misleading when this isn't clear that the speaker/writer is referring to the strict geography (leading to an ambiguous meaning where most interpretations are highly incorrect). The vast majority of the users of this terms, prior to the current legislation spat, were uninformed - it is not a term anyone versed in the Holocaust would use.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Per the Wikipedia "misnomer" article, "A misnomer may... be... a word that someone uses incorrectly or misleadingly." This perfectly describes the situation with the incorrect and misleading expression, "Polish death camp". Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It may be used incorrectly, and clearly, sometimes is, hence it is problematic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak yes, although I would prefer a stronger term "misrepresentation", per Yad Vashem and others. Batternut (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It fits the dicdef for "misnomer" and we must clearly call it so in the lede, without any wiggling that somehow it is grammatically or formally admissible usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes because referring to the camps as "Polish death camps" would be a clearly WP:FRINGE position and no, we don't put fringe positions on an equal footing with non-fringe positions. That being said, we don't have to use the exact phraseology currently utilized. And footnoting just to the White House seems a bit off. I'd suggest not footnoting at all, as it is not necessary as long as it is thoroughly covered in the body of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any proposals? Zekelayla (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

One can say "a term rejected by historians, who refer to the camps as being 'Nazi' not 'Polish.'" That might be a clearer and actually stronger than misnomer. But what is wrong with "misnomer"? It is a misnomer. Remember that in leads we just summarize what is in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would actually be fine with "a term rejected by historians, who refer to the camps as being 'Nazi' not 'Polish.'". Calling it a misnomer ambiguously suggests it is never correct to say "Polish death camps" when in reality it has been used by a variety of native English speakers to refer to death camps located in Poland.Zekelayla (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This RfC was drafted a binary choice. Perhaps you or the drafter should present more options. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment/ weak yes: I think the first sentence should be changed to perhaps "Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" are phrases with disputed usage," or use the word "misrepresentation," per the above comments.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes It's a misnomer I think. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. In addition to being ambiguous, inaccurate, misleading, fallacious, deceptive and specious, the term is also a misnomer. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• No per everything Zekelayla said. The most that can be said about it is that it is ambiguous. It is not even necessarily misleading, as it has often been used by people with no intent to deceive. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yes it is a misnomer, and it fits the definition there.--Pharos (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• No per everything others have said. The most that can be said about it is that it is potentially mildly ambiguous to newcomers to the subject. It is one of the perfectly legitimate uses of 'Polish' (or any other national adjective), which means simply 'located in that country'. Given the sensitivity of this term, I see the need to record that the term is offensive to some, and the reasons that they find it offensive, but by labelling it a misnomer, we are endorsing that the use of the adjective necessarily means 'constructed and administered by Poles', which is clearly NOT the ordinary meaning of the term, which refers solely to location. How is it a misnomer to say that these camps were in Poland? It would of course be a major distortion of historical fact to say that any Poles were significantly responsible for the existence, or operation, of these camps - but that is not the common understanding, nor even a fringe understanding of the term AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC) ...BTW the 'correct' alternative to "Polish death camp" is not "Nazi death camp", since I have never known anyone use the term "Polish" to imply "created by Poles", the unambiguous alternative is "death camp in occupied Poland". Pincrete (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes A misnomer is a term that creates a misleading impression (www.oed.com/view/Entry/119816?rskey=7jyiWQ&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid). The word “Polish” in “Polish death camp” can be reasonably interpreted to mean ownership, particularly by people unfamiliar with Eastern European history. Neither the Poles nor the Polish government owned or operated the camps. To the contrary, large groups of Poles and the remnants of the Polish government were engaged armed resistance against the people actually operating the camps. The phrase “Polish death camp” is thus a misnomer. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• reposting from above: It is clear that "Polish death camps" is not a misnomer in the strictest sense, but has been described as a misnomer by some native English speakers. I do not think it is suitable to call it a misnomer in the preamble, since this has been felt by some (and not just me) to be imprecise and distracting. It would be reasonable to note somewhere in the body that it has been described as a misnomer (with appropriate citations) as long as it also notes that "Polish death camps" can be correctly used to refer to Nazi death camps located in Poland.Zekelayla (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Polish death camps" can be correctly used to refer to Nazi death camps located in Poland. -- Nope. The whole article argues that it is not correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The article argues that "Polish death camp" is impolitic because this description "can be misconstrued as meaning "death camps set up by Poles" or "run by Poles" or "run by Poland"", not that this description is incorrect, strictly speaking. Again, in the sense that these camps were in Poland, it is simply a correct description for many English-speakers. Zekelayla (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the possible meanings of "Polish death camp" are wrong (this is not to say Poles were not complicit in the Holocaust or even aided in the operations and transport to the death camps - however they did not initiate, command, or oversee the death camps) and quite offensive. In the very narrow geographic sense the term is possibly accurate (with the provisio that Poland as a state didn't exist following 1939, and Polish borders aren't a constant - though true in relation to the modern borders), however most interpretations of the term are inaccurate - if it is not clear to the reader/listener that the writer/speaker is using the term in the very narrow geographical sense - then the reader/listener will not make such an interpretation (the straightforward interpretation would be a camp run by ethnic Poles, the Polish nation/state, or even possibly a camp killing Poles).Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is correct in the narrow geographic sense. Hence it is misleading to call it a misnomer. I'd question your assertion that "The vast majority of the users of this terms, prior to the current legislation spat, were uninformed ". In fact the article does not currently document any cases where the phrase was used not in the geographic sense. Certainly Barack Obama's use of the term appeared to be a use in the geographic sense, and was explained as such. Zekelayla (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And both Obama([5][6][7]) and Comey ([8] [9]) considered it correct to apologize and clarify their use after being prodded to do so. The same is true of many media outlets. If many or most uses end up with an apology of inadvertent use and clarifying one meant "Nazi death camps in occupied Poland" - it is a misnomer.Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the WaPo editorial board - So to call the camps “Polish” is misleading, at best. President Barack Obama prudently apologized after using the term in 2012, and The Post’s stylebook says it should be avoided. - while attacking the bill - It’s one thing, however, for Polish officials and historians to argue against the use of “Polish death camps” and quite another for the country’s government to threaten anyone who uses it, anywhere on Earth, with three years’ imprisonment. ‘Polish death camps’, Washington Post, editorial board.08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Guantanamo Bay Naval Base a Cuban base, in any narrow meaning? Technically perhaps, due to being on the island of Cuba, in the same way as these camps were on Polish territory. If "Cuban Guantanamo Bay Naval Base" or suchlike was ever used it would be a misnomer at the very least; "deliberate misrepresentation" would be more accurate. Batternut (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact the phrase "Polish death camps" has been used in most attested instances without misrepresentatory intent, as a geographic designation. Zekelayla (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

without misrepresentatory intent -- sure thing; out of blissful ignorance. One idiot suggested to use the term "Jewish death camps", because the Jews were dying there, so the term must be correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• What is "in Poland"? Stutthof camp wasn't situated in pre-war Poland but in Danzig. [10] Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Free City of Danzig status issues aside, Stutthof wasn't a death camp. All the death camps were in what is and was considered Poland. Concentration camps and forced labor camps existed elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  http://www.enrs.eu/de/news/946-phrase-polish-concentration-camps-condemned-by-the-german-association-of-historians Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Jews were massively murdered in Stutthof.
• Maly Trostenets extermination camp wasn't in Poland.
• Were Croatian camps extermination ones or 'only' concentration ones?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The six major Extermination camp were all located on Polish soil. Maly Trostenets extermination camp was not, though its "death camp status" is borderline. Jews were killed by the Nazies prior to the setup of the death camps and concurrent to their operation via an assortment of other means (Einsatzgruppen, other direct violence to starvation in Ghettos). The extermination camps were different in that they were intended for industrial wholesale slaughter as the main activity - regardless - I think we are agreed calling them Polish is a misnomer?Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that some death camps may not have been in Poland is not relevant. What is relevant is that some were' located in Poland. It is these that can be described as Polish death camps.Zekelayla (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is very relevant, because if you admit one piece of ignorance, it spreads in weird ways. For example some idiot spoke about "polish concentration camp Buchenwald". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not our call. "Polish death camps" is referred to as not accurate by the preponderance of reliable sources. If you (User:Zekelayla) dispute that, please provide sourcing for that position. Everything I read indicates that it's not accurate, and hence is a misnomer. Coretheapple (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See numerous sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy#Early_use_of_the_expression, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy#Rationale_given_for_the_expression, as well as my link to stackexchange above. Zekelayla (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• It is not even necessarily misleading, as it has often been used by people with no intent to deceive. -- Usage without intent is out of ignorance, and being misleading does not depend on intent. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, usage without intent is due to it being a normal English formulation. And misleading is most definitely based on intent. If there is no intent to deceive you are not being misled, you are misinterpreting.--Khajidha (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To say that someone is using a misleading term (ie a misnomer), is not to say that they are actively misleading.--Pharos (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A term cannot be misleading, only the usage of it. It can be ambiguous, but not misleading. Second, as there are valid definitions of Polish and death camp that apply here, it is not a misnomer. Calling them Italian death camps would ne a misnomer. --Khajidha (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost every example on misnomer is there because it is in some sense true, but it suggests something that is false. For example, Arabic numerals really were imported from the Arab world, but it's considered a misnomer because they are originally from India.--Pharos (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Our misnomer page is at variance with the definitions I find anywhere else. All of those state that the name must be wrong or inaccurate. "Arabic numerals" is not inaccurate because they were imported from Arab sources. If the term Arabic numerals is a misnomer, then so is the term "Roman numerals" as those were derived from Etruscan usage. --Khajidha (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of RSes calling Arabic numerals a misnomer, this is standard usage. Misnomer does not mean "lie" and it does not even mean "incorrect". RSes have similarly called PDC an example of misspeaking, misrepresenting and misnomer, and the latter is the most relevant article to describe this phenomenon--Pharos (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And other reliable sources have said that it is a geographical reference. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002259/225973e.pdf --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Shall we, then, in this context, replace "misnomers" with "contextually incorrect expressions"?

Nihil novi (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just "terms". The article already does a fine job of explaining why the phrase is deprecated, we (in Wikipedia's voice) don't need take a side in the argument over misnomer vs geographic reference, whatever our personal feelings. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that Roman Spinner says it best when he writes in the "Survey", above: "In addition to being ambiguous, inaccurate, misleading, fallacious, deceptive and specious, the term ["Polish death camp"] is also a misnomer."

But, for the sake of argument, what if, in the lead as it now reads, we replaced "misnomers" with "ambiguous expressions"?

Nihil novi (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That would satisfy my concerns. We cite several sources in the article itself that characterize these terms as just geographic locators and several others that consider them misnomers. By stating that they are misnomers in the opening, we are taking sides. Everyone can agree that they are "terms" and everyone can agree that they are "ambiguous expressions", either of those is preferable. --Khajidha (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Misnomer is not at all inconsistent with it in many cases being intended as a geographical locator. That's kind of the point, that it's considered inappropriate by historians but in many cases is not intentional.--Pharos (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, our misnomer page does not match the definition given in dictionaries of "a wrong or inaccurate name or designation". This name is not wrong or inaccurate and, thus, cannot be called a misnomer. Wikipedia is not a valid source for itself. The misuse of the term misnomer in our article for that term is not justification for misusing it here. --Khajidha (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RSes consistently call it misspeaking, misrepresenting and misnomer, from all sides. This is the normal English usage, and fits in with numerous examples of misnomers in dictionaries and other RSes. WP:DEADHORSE, we've had an RFC already, should be cloesd, and I've posted a request for that.--Pharos (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Article lede section

Per WP:LEDE, the lead section of the article is the summary of the article content, not the billboard for propaganda of some opinions. Therefore the edits of R9tgokunks were reverted. Please follow the structure of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A strongly worded controversial opinion of a minister of construction has no place in article lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Also the text "statements that falsely ascribe" ciorresponds to the law. Please do not remove the word "falsely", which completely changes the intent of the law. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, all the content i added was valid and well sourced. Falsely doesn't belong in the sentence. It's not neutral. When talking about the law in that contect, it acts as a weasel word. And well sourced content is not "controversial." It's merely being reported on. One doesn't need to discuss adding well-sourced content to Wikipedia every time someone wants to add them to articles. That's not how it's done. see WP:BEBOLD.

You also removed a few good edits of mine. In sum I...

• Added information on the Polish propaganda effort, well sourced. [11]
• Added information on opinions of Israeli ministers, well sourced. [12]
• Tried to remove the weasel word.[13]
• Tried to clarify an unsourced sentence.[14]

Each attempt on my behalf to improve the article has been reverted.

• first reversion here byStaszek Lem (talk · contribs) stated " (a) do not falsely edit the statement of the law and (b) lede is article summary not billboard for politicians. " [15]
• second revert here was a blatant unexplained removal of all information here by Nihil novi (talk · contribs) : [16]
• third revert here by Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) claiming to "take it to talk page:"[17]
• fourth revert here by Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) [18]
• fifth revert here Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) [19]
• sixth here, in which Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) readded the weasel word:[20]
• and seventh here where the Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) claims the content on opinions of the Israeli politican I added was "irrelevant": [21]

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Falsely" does belong to the sentence, because the law says so. Removing this word drastically changes the meaning of the law. It is one thing to "accuse somebody" It is completely different to "falsely accuse somebody". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Article lede is article summary. Shouts of random politicians do not belong to the lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• One doesn't need to discuss adding well-sourced content -- not all well-sourced content belongs to wikipedia. And one does need to discuss edits, if other editors disagree. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if you understand English fully, no offense given, but the statement should not incldue that word. It's presuming historical truths, It's not talking about the law, which is inappropriate. Wikipedia needs to be neutral. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand English fully: the law specifically uses the word "falsely". Omitting it would misrepresent the law. Staszek Lem (talk)

Also, the statement "not all well-sourced content belongs to wikipedia." doesn't make any sense.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• content on opinions of the Israeli politican I added was "irrelevant". Of course it is irrelevant. If we start adding each and every politician rant, readers will not find any useful information in our articles whatsoever. We need statement coming from politologists who summarize the overall landscape of opinions, in an encyclopedic way. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• If you read the sources you would see that it wasnt only him making these statements.also,
• Also, When you reverted my removal of "falsely" you gave the explanation that "dont change the law." when the word falsely is inserted in that sentence it implies a truth, that is not objective. It is not neutral.

 "It criminalizes public statements that falsely ascribe, to the Polish nation, collective complicity in Holocaust-related or other war crimes or which "grossly reduce the responsibility of the actual [German] perpetrators"
 

That's not neutral and "falsely" should be removed. It should be changed to "that the law purports to be false" or remove the word completely.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral or non-neutral here. This is exact meaning of the law: false accusations are criminalized. Just the contrary: "that the law purports to be false" is the kind of wiggling and weaseling which does not belong to wikipedia. The law "purports" nothing. The law declares the rule. If there are legal experts commenting on the law, you are very welcome. But surely not minister of construction. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I understand what you mean about "implies a truth". The law is not about establishing "truth": it is about setting criteria. Whether something is truth of not is to be decided in the court of law. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, every article should say whether a law is right or wrong. That's not acceptable. Our servers are based in the United States, we aren't a court and cannot decide what Polish law means. It still does not make sense. I don't believe you're totally neutral on this. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You still have problems with my English. Let me rephrase it is the fourth way: The adjective "wrong" is not about the law, it is that the law criminalizes wrong accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• The lede (and body!) should properly reflect that, at least as far as I can tell, almost everyone outside of Poland sees the legislation as between "bonkers" to an "attempt to rewrite history". What the Polish law says is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant - is how it is treated by RS.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• The lede, perhaps, but the body certainly has a good discussion of the negative reaction. I don't see a serious neutrality issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both have been in a state of, umm, flux regarding POV for the past month - it has been swinging both ways.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• how it is treated by RS -- correct. What the Polish law says is mostly irrelevant -- wrong. This pair of statements, if put into action is an egregious example of WP:NPOV violation. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• The criticism over the law is not due to its actual language but over how it would applied. Most people opppose distorting the historical truth... And would oppose a law thar bars such distortion when the reference truth is different from their perception of the truth (or on freedom of expression grounds). There are many examples of other bills in other countries whose language appeared innocous but whose ramifications were severe. The law itself is PRIMARY, what is relevant is how SECONDARY sources treat it.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Correct. However this does not contradict my criticism of the (possibly sloppy) opinion above. Regardless law being primary or cententary, you cannot discuss criticism without faithfully presenting what is criticized. Otherwise the readers will be in danger of falling into some kind of informal fallacy (false attribution, red herring,... you pick). In our particualr case (bickering about the word "false"), try to remove the word "false" from the definition of "defamation", and you will get the law by which you will sue me if I say "You are an idiot". The same happens around this law. Israeli politicians, basing on newspaper hysteria think that they will be sued when they say "Poles killed Jews in Jedwabne." Will not happen. However if one says "Poles are Jew-murderers", the one will be sued. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Criticism here is well beyond Israeli politicians - and includes many hostorians. As for Jedwabne and Jew-murderers, it is far from clear you would not be sued for the former (it would depend on who decides what is "false" - some Polish lawmakers have said this is false in particular) and many would argue that if the former is true then the latter is true as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• And this exactly is the problem with the law. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't support the law, and Jedwabne denial is a an issue. At the same time, Polish TV saw an interview with a Jewish teen who claimed that he learned from Gross' book on Jedwabne that Poles killed more Jews than Germans. This is also an issue... we have to keep in mind POVs are not one sided, and both sides here have plenty of 'white and black' uninformed, nationalistic people. And it is our job to educate them in a neutral way about the gray history of the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what does "Poles are Jew-murderers" mean:

• Some ethnic Poles were Jew-murderers;
• Some former citizens of Poland were Jew-murderers;
• All Poles are Jew-murderers.
• Polish government collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Holocaust.

I don't support the law but I also don't accept unprecize language.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We were discussing what would be illegal under the law - not what is correct to say. As for "Poles are Jew-murderers" (which is an ambiguous statement in scope) - I think that RSes support a some (ethnic and/or citizen) qualifications (your first 2 options), and most certainly do not support all. Sources also support some Poles saving Jews as well.Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the law doesn't allow to accuse the nation as a whole, not some Poles and if I'm wrong I'll support any victims of the government. Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The subthread starting from Xx236 above is the precise example of the problem with the law: If you say "Poles are murderers" you are at the whim of the court to decide whether you accused "all Poles" or "Some Poles", and your lawyer will possibly have to work real hard, if you are disliked. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Presumably there would have been less controversy if the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance had limited itself to outlawing defamatory use of the expressions "Polish concentration camp" and "Polish death camp".

Nihil novi (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Such law wouldn't work, examples of legal statements "Poles organized camp guard in Auschwitz and murdered 1 000 000 Jews.", "Auschwitz was designed and run by Poles". "Polish deniers claim they didn't kill 3 million Polish Jews".Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've read the lead and is seems broadly fine, through I think that we need due weight in explaining Polish and anti-Polish views. Currently, the part critical of Poland is twice as long the Polish gov't position, with explanation and links on stuff that Poles find controversial and offending, i.e. "an attempt to restrict discussion of the culpability of some Poles in the Holocaust. Some Israelis have gone so far as to accuse the Polish government of Holocaust denial" I am not sure if this is necessary, and if you think it is, I think it should be balanced by expanding the next paragraph, one with Polish gov't view, about how the Polish gov't publicity campaign is pointing out to the stuff such as Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. I think it is non-neutral to discuss the accusations of Poles participation in the Holocaust without balancing it with the other side - particularly when that argument (i.e stressing of the Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust) is used by the Polish gov't campaign. PS. Polish media is also suggesting that Israeli politicians are using thismissue to distract domestic public from the 2017 Corruption cases involving prominent Israeli political figures. That link may alsobe relevant somewhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur.

By the way, could someone provide links to the Polish publicity campaign, to facilitate assessment of its nature and content?

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried locating authoritative Polish government publicity on the "Polish death camp" controversy on YouTube. In the process, I came across this 2003 one-hour lecture at the U.S. National Archives by the Jewish-American historian Bryan Mark Rigg, author of the 2002 book, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, about at least 150,000 World War II German soldiers of partial Jewish descent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fh7hQScY4M I wonder whether it might be useful in providing a more balanced and nuanced view of what was happening in Europe during this period. Nihil novi (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This book is controversial in the field. Not only that, but his work has often been co-opted by Holocaust deniers and anti-Zionists. It defintely isn't neutral enough, IMO. R9tgokunks ✡ 11:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond the fact this is controversial, partial Jews that managed to pass the Mischling Test were typically not in a position to dodge out of the German draft.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Amount of usage

One thing absent from this article, unless I've missed it, is that I am not seeing any citations indicating the degree to which the term "Polish death camps" is actually used. (There is a discussion of usage but not as to how common it is used.) That would help. If the term has come into common usage, or its use is more isolated, we should make that point if there is sourcing for it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I see - it has not been used widely and most uses were inadvertent. However, just about each time it has been used in the past decade or a half - the Polish MFA and/or other Polish political elements have requested a correction/retraction and in notable cases have protested against it. See one journalist's description of how she was approached (as well as giving wider examples) - Opinion I Used to Care About Polish Sensitivity to Charges of Holocaust Complicity. Not Anymore, Haaretz. It isn't a question of wide use - but rather of vehement opposition to use (particularly by news outlets and public figures (e.g. Obama who apologized)).Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That article makes a passing reference to "Polish death camps" as being common journalistic usage. However, without more sourcing on this I'm not sure what to make of it. What matters in articles like this, anyway, is not journalistic usage but what the highest quality reliable sources say, and on that point I'm reasonably confident that it is a misnomer. It would be nice to find sourcing as to how much "Polish death camps" is actually utilized. I had never encountered it until reading about this controversy. Maybe I just never noticed. Certainly the backlash should be in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

1400 during 10 years official protests. [22] I don't know if they protested against 10% or 50% of cases.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a raw number of official protests, and it's useful to know, but it doesn't give you a good idea on the relative occurrence of the misnomer versus an accurate name.--Pharos (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

See "Defective Codes of Memory", pp. 33--. "Media context of defective codes of memory: A case study on German press recourse to false predicates to describe Nazi annihilation camps", by Ewa Stasiak-Jazukiewicz . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

there was a German military occupation rather than a puppet government

'military'? The German administration in GG was dual - civilian and SS/police. Annected lands were parts of Germany. Reichskommissariat Ostland was civilian.

Is rather than precize? There was no puppet government.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "rather than" is correct. It means "as opposed to" or "instead of". Poland had a military occupation, unlike some other places that had puppet governments.--Khajidha (talk) 12

29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Poland was invided by German army but later the occupation wasn't military. Hans Frank nor SS commander weren't military.Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with Vichy France

The article says: "After the German invasion of Poland, unlike in, say, Vichy France, there was a direct German occupation rather than an indigenous puppet government".

I fail to see the point here. Yes, part was puppet, but part was "direct occupation" and eventually even the Vichy part was occupied in 1942. So I do not see the "unlike" part. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a useful distinction, that in Poland there was no collaborationist government, unlike in most of Europe. And so that it was only individuals who were capable of collaboration, and these were acting against the underground Polish state. Do you think an example other than Vichy would be better?--Pharos (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think about the example. I am talking about sloppy phrasing. If the text means what you wrote it must say so directly: "in Poland there was no collaborationist government". Having puppet govt is independent of "direct occupation": Vichy govt operated bout outside "direct occupation" and during full occupation. Staszek Lem (talk)

BTW the current text is "After the German invasion, Poland, in contrast to cases such as Vichy France, experienced direct German administration rather than an indigenous puppet government." Zekelayla (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This version does make sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Messaging or publicity?

How should we characterize the Polish government's current campaign? Let's discuss it here.--Pharos (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This originally read "propaganda". It was changed to "publicity" by an editor who felt that "propaganda" was POV. I soon after changed "publicity" to "messaging", because the Polish government is not strictly speaking publicizing any product, event, or even the Holocaust law. Wiktionary defines publicity as "Advertising or other activity designed to rouse public interest in something". The Polish govt is seeking to convince people, not merely "rouse public interest" in its beliefs. Zekelayla (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda seems totally appropriate to me.--Khajidha (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda is apt. To a lesser extent - publicity.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda is also my preferred term for this.Zekelayla (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda is the term I added, and one of the sources explicitly calls it that, anyway. I felt it was the most appropriate. R9tgokunks ✡ 19:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't really tell the difference between "messaging" and "publicity", "propaganda" is definitely over the top. It should be noted there has been a public campaign since 2004, directed at media outlets to stop using the term(s).--Pharos (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How is it "over the top"? Seems to exactly fit the definition to me. --Khajidha (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's "propaganda" article, "Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda."

Do we have specific evidence that the alleged Polish government communications about the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance meet this description? Could someone please provide us relevant quotations and links?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"The Polish government has financed an online propaganda effort targeting Israeli web users in an attempt to sway public opinion".Zekelayla (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

References

The wiktionary definition of propaganda is a bit better: "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." I don't see how anyone could look at that definition and say what Poland govt. is doing doesn't qualify.Zekelayla (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda is POV-pushing, and the fact that you don't recognize that speaks volumes. The word "propaganda" doesn't appear on WP:WTW, but it probably should be in the section about contentious labels. One doesn't have to be selling a product to engage in a hasbara publicity campaign. I don't know what a messaging campaign is, perhaps somebody can explain it. The use of reliable sources, as opposed to Wikipedia and Wiktionary, is preferred. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why use an adjective at all? Just call it a "campaign". BTW, the actual definition of propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view". Requesting that media outlets not use the phrase "Polish death camps" is neither biased nor misleading. That's why avoiding the value-laden term such as "propaganda campaign" is preferable and more neutral. A campaign can encompass elements of education, outreach, spin, obfuscation, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think K.e.coffman may have the right solution. Why label the campaign at all? Simply say the government "initiated a campaign in support of the law, using social media and broadcasting". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Skirts around the label issue.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree for now, as even though RT is considered propaganda, there is sourcing to back that up, whereas this only has one source that uses the term. R9tgokunks ✡ 10:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with this (although it seems to be a case of finding the least common denominator). Zekelayla (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just "campaign" is fine by me too, might also do "public campaign", but doesn't make a big difference.--Pharos (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MShabazz perhaps you could refrain from gratuitous attacks on me. Note that a majority of people in this discussion have expressed that propaganda is an apt term. That said, I acknowledge the word propaganda has negative connotations, and we could reasonably avoid it here. That is why I was offering the term "messaging" as a compromise (which you reverted twice despite not understanding its meaning). Here are a couple of usages of this term: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/343400-dems-to-unveil-better-deal-messaging-campaign-monday, https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-plans-messaging-campaign-to-refocus-attention-on-trumps-agenda-1500202804 Zekelayla (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Another possible compromise term would be "public relations". I stand by my objection to the use of "publicity" as expressed above.Zekelayla (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Polish government is unable to organize any 'campaign'. There exists a foundation obliged to do it, which has done nothing yet. PM has presented his opinion in his poor English and now many people have fun. Two hashtags and one video, what a 'campaign'. Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how you can watch that video and not think that it is "using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response". And it "present(s) facts selectively" by not covering the entire range of Polish behavior towards the Jews during WWII. Yes, many were helpful, but many others were not. --Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While I am not supporting the current PL gov, propaganda is non-neutral and should be used with caution. Even if referenced, keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Publicity campaign is the correct, neutral, term to use here. (Also, Polish propaganda would be a fun article to write...and so would be Israeli propaganda - through the amount of flame arising around the latter term would be significant, methinks...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Laws against Holocaust denial

It is worth noting that many countries, including Israel, have laws against Holocaust denial. I've seen arguments that the Polish law is not significantly different, through it is broader (focusing on Polish suffering too, not just Jewish - it is also worth noting that Polish death toll in WWII is comparable to the Jewish, see World War II casualties). Poland already had a Holocaust Denial law (see Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Poland). The current one can be seen as extending it to slander and denial of Polish deaths. I am, again, not defending the law in its current form, because I agree it is problematic (nor am I supportive of the Polish gov't diplomatic and PR blunders). But a link and comparison of this to the HD laws may be useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe this argument has been advanced by the Polish government (and supporters thereof) - and it can be framed as such an argument. The obvious rebuttal (which I've also seen) is that holocaust denial is considered by very wide academic (and non-academic) consensus to be a conspiracy theory which is often coupled with modern-day hate speech. The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust, on the other hand, is not strongly associated with any particular modern hate group (e.g. neo-Nazis) and the academic (and non-academic) consensus on the matter is far from clear cut - you have opinions ranging from IPN to Grabowski[23] and Gross (whom the Polish government has attempted to discredit and even prosecute [24][25], yet outside of Poland are typically view more favorably).Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Academic consesnsus ... to be a conspiracy theory. Do academicians believe in this conspiracy theory? Is such academician academic? Xx236 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's possible you've misunderstood what "academic consensus... to be a conspiracy theory" means. It does not mean that academics believe in it, it means quite the opposite: that they dismiss it as entirely unfounded.140.180.252.237 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the current law is actually an amendment to the pre-existing law banning Holocaust denial in Poland. The law had already banned denial of crimes by Communist authorities since the advent of democracy. The unusual expansion of the scope of this law in 2018 is indeed the issue.--Pharos (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No. The Amendment is actually the amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. Please read the article you wikilinked. Yes, implicitly it criminalizes Holocaust denial, as part of the broader denial of Nazi crimes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Is not the original Act on the Institute of National Remembrance also the piece of legislation banning Holocaust denial? See Laws against Holocaust denial#Poland.--Pharos (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no separate clause that criminalizes Holocaust denial as a separate crime. See my second sentence in the previous answer. Because of this broad definition "Nazi crimes" some israeli politicians hold that this law actually opens doors to Holocaust denial: denial of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, i.e., the Jews were killed just like other massively killed peoples: Poles, Russians, Gypsies. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is indeed the same clause that criminalizes denial of both Nazi crimes and crimes by Communist authorities. You agree that Holocaust denial is illegal (as well as denial of other Nazi crimes, and of Communist crimes), and that the 1998 act governs this, right? I do not see what you are disagreeing with, except perhaps that the word "Holocaust" is not in the excerpt of text. I am pretty sure that every Holocaust historian in Poland, Israel and elsewhere considers the 1998 act a criminalization of Holocaust denial.--Pharos (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Compare it with the Austrian law, which says it explicitly: "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity" . Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible for Wikipedia to obtain an authoritative statement from competent Polish authorities as to whether Polish law criminalizes Holocaust denial—and which law that would be?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

pl:Kłamstwo oświęcimskie Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Gypsies were exterminated but they are poorly educated so they don't have their narration. PorajmosXx236 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have entered the information into the article's "Polish legislation" section.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This does not belong in the lead, particularly not so as an un-sourced OR rebuttal to non-Polish concerns over the new law.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Jan Karski

https://www.timesofisrael.com/do-the-words-polish-death-camps-defame-poland-and-if-so-whos-to-blame/

If the term was first used by a Pole to talk about these camps in a purely geographic sense, then why are we saying that the geographic sense is wrong (in a factual sense, not a moral one)? --Khajidha (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Jan Karski was writing at a time (1944, in the midst of World War II) when informed people were aware that these camps, geographically located in Poland, were in fact German camps that killed Poles as well as Jews and persons of other nationalities that the Germans disapproved of. Had Germany not lost the war, the Nazis had planned to exterminate a goodly part of the Polish population and permit the rest no more education than the minimum required of efficient slaves.

Karski personally told President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the White House, about the German extermination camps. Asked by Karski what Karski should tell Poles, Roosevelt responded that Karski should tell them that Germany would be defeated—and he and other Allies of Poland did nothing useful, such as bombing German rail lines to the camps, to help the German camps' victims.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

All well and good, but does not answer the question. Karski obviously didn't consider it a misnomer, neither should we. Yes, it is ambiguous, but it is not wrong.--Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It is wrong because it is ambiguous.

Perhaps we should start calling those camps "Jewish camps", because the Jewish-ghetto Jewish Judenrat officials and Jewish Ghetto Police helped select and direct their fellow Jews to the camps; Jewish kapos helped "maintain order" in them; Jewish Sonderkommandos helped operate the crematoria; and Jews (besides other nationalities, but of course they weren't God's Chosen People) were murdered there? All well and good?

Nihil novi (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing factually wrong with saying that a camp full of Jewish people is a Jewish camp. Ambiguity is not incorrectness.--Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And sophistry is not σοφία (sophíā, "wisdom").

Nihil novi (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, a "[blank] death camp" could also be interpreted as "a camp set aside for killing [blanks]". That would be a valid interpretation of the wording. --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll stick with "German death camps in German-occupied Poland" rather than rename them to "Jewish death camps"—particularly as I wouldn't want to give short shrift to the Germans' many other death-camp victims.

Nihil novi (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And you are still missing the point. A misnomer is a wrong name, where the literal meaning of the term or terms is not the same as the intended meaning. As "something located in Poland" is a valid meaning of "Polish", "Polish death camp" is not a misnomer. It is an ambiguous name. --Khajidha (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Shall we, then, in this context, replace "misnomers" with "contextually incorrect expressions"?

Nihil novi (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer "potentially misleading descriptions" (or some other suggestion).Zekelayla (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not just "potentially misleading". It is misleading, full-stop.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's only misleading in some instances and to some people. Karski wouldn't have used it if he thought it was misleading in than context. Thus it is potentially misleading.Zekelayla (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We have an RfC on this subject already - whose consensus appears clear, although it hasn't closed yet. Ne need to re-litigate.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." The reality is, as I and others have extensively argued, "misnomer" is POV at best. This is self-evident from the continued disagreement we are having. This is part of the controversy the article is about, which the article should not presume to adjudicate. Zekelayla (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No expression has meaning in a vacuum, without context. Use of ambiguous expressions such as "Polish death camp" plays into the hands of those who seek to defame by bandying such expressions before a public that is often too indifferent or too wearied by their own life demands to independently research the question.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is ambiguous, yes it should be avoided, but no, it is not a misnomer!Zekelayla (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't even mind us quoting someone saying that it is a misnomer, but when there are equally valid sources saying that it is a normal geographic reference we should not be saying (in Wikipedia's voice) that it is a misnomer. --Khajidha (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

normal - nothing is normal regarding WWII in Eastern Europe and the Holocaust. Normal is that states exist and preserve their borders. An average US reader doesn't have any idea about borders of Poland. Polish means sometimes (like in Polish jokes) something dumb, immoral, cruel. There is a book about anti-Polish steretypes in the USA Danusha Goska, "Bieganski: The Brute Polak Stereotype in Polish-Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture".Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dubious attribution

I am pretty much dubious about the source ext-linked at the top of this section, because it speaks about clear nonsense about alleged conspiracy of Agency 114 to popularize the term "Polish death camp".

In particular, I am in doubt whether Karski used the term "Polish death camp". I would like to see the original quote where Karski ises it, to see what he speaks about and in what context. My doubts are because in his memoir book "Story of a Secret State: My Report to the World" Karski actually uses the term Jewish death camp" : FEW DAYS AFTER my second visit to the Warsaw ghetto, the Bund leader was to arrange an opportunity for me to see a Jewish death camp.p. 320 Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The article by Karski is real, and was historically important in informing Americans about the atrocities. Two caveats, however: The article is in English, and perhaps it was translated from Karski's original in Polish (I don't know). Also, "Polish Death Camp" is actually the title of the article, and it's quite possible this was chosen by the editors of the magazine rather than by him.--Pharos (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article body actually uses the term "Jewish death camp", just like the memoir I cited. On the other hand, it is well-known that article titles are invented by editors. Therefore I highly doubt the attribution of the title to Karski. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Colliers sidebar says it is an excerpt from the memoir. Hence that the title was invented by editors is a fact. Fixed. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it seems likely the magazine chose the title. Ironically, I would not be surprised if WASP editors at the time thought "Jewish" in the title would be too ethnic.--Pharos (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Any known prosecutions in Poland for Holocaust denial?

Polish law provides for prosecution of Jewish-holocaust deniers.

Is there information about actual such prosecutions having been pursued in Poland?

Nihil novi (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't you mean German Holocaust deniers?! What a misnomer!! :D Zekelayla (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Jewish-holocaust denial" (which, if you haven't noticed, has been the principal question in this article) as opposed to "Roma-holocaust denial", "Polish-holocaust denial", etc.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The point is that "Jewish-holocaust" is just as easily understood as "a holocaust carried out by Jews" as it is "a holocaust carried out upon Jews". This is the same sort of ambiguity as "Polish death camp". If you are so opposed to one as to label it a misnomer and castigate anyone who uses it, why are you so freely using the other? --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Dariusz Ratajczak was convicted in 1999. This was under the 1998 law I mentioned above--Pharos (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added that information to the "Polish legislation" section.

Nihil novi (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting the original Poland law, which we discuss under Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Poland, is "Act 55". The controversial Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance is its novelization, adding points 55a and 55. PS. I looked but couldn't find any other information that anyone was accused under that low in Poland, seems it might have been used only once over the past 20 years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dariusz Ratajczak

Who, if not a court, banned Dariusz Ratajczak, referenced in this article's "Polish legislation" section, from teaching at other Polish universities for 3 years? Surely Opole University, which fired him for ethics violations, did not have authority to ban him from other universities? Nihil novi (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Presumably some body related to the Ministry of National Education (Poland), and perhaps it only applied to public universities; the decision was made in April 2000, so it doesn't appear to be a direct result of the verdict.--Pharos (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: I looked into some press materials, but it wasn't clear. He was fired from his uni seemingly because the uni wanted to distance himself from him due to bad press. Regarding the decision to not allow someone to work as a teacher, it seems it regulated in Poland with the pl:Karta Nauczyciela legislation (source: [26], [https://www.experto24.pl/oswiata/stosunek-pracy/zakaz-pracy-w-szkole-dla-nauczycieli-skazanych-za-przestepstwo-umyslne.html#.WpVJ2KhuZhE). Note: " Komisja dyscyplinarna, przed którą za te uchybienia odpowiada, po stwierdzeniu winy może ukarać nauczyciela: naganą z ostrzeżeniem, zwolnieniem z pracy, zwolnieniem z pracy z zakazem przyjmowania ukaranego do pracy w zwodzie nauczycielskim w okresie trzech lat od ukarania, a w ostateczności nawet wydaleniem z zawodu nauczycielskiego." I.e. this decision can be made by a disciplinary committee according to the Polish labour law. I hope this helps. I didn't look into who sits on the disc. comm. though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Regadless University actions, sources say he was tried against the "Polish Holocaust law" [27]. More detail is here. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

University staff doesn't have Karta nauczyciela rights. Xx236 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think they do. Here's the text of the law: [28]. It talks about, among others, 'Nauczyciele akademiccy' - which in Poland means university lecturers. The document also describes the disciplinary commissions (they are teachers, accepted by some government stuff with minister of education somewhere in the loop). So about Ratajczak, it seems he lost his teaching position because the disciplinary commission didn't agree with him, but from what I read he also took his case (appeal) to the courts (where he lost too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nauczyciele akademiccy working at schools, not at universities.Xx236 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Cite your source. Anyway, maybe the English book we cite on en wiki is wrong. Pl wiki sourced to a paywalled article states he was banned from working as a teacher, in general. Maybe he wasn't specifically banned from being a university teacher - just from teaching at lower levels. And separately, he was fired and no other university wanted someone stigmatized as him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean that Karta nauczyciela describes rights of school teachers, including academic staff members working in eg. high schools, but not rights at universities. Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Polish camps" and other variations

I believe this article should cover "Polish camps" and similar variations. The Polish MFA calls these "defective codes of memory", and considers it a distinct category.--Pharos (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that straightforward. The term "Polish camp" is valid in many contexts. It only becomes invalid when it refers to Nazi death camps. The extlinks you cite are sloppy in this respect. The correct phrasing, e.g., in the lede, should be something like It is a grave misinterpretation to use the adjective "Polish" in reference to Nazi death camps established within the occupied Poland". By the way, "Defective Codes of Memory" is a book title. For our issue, see pp. 33--. "Media context of defective codes of memory: A case study on German press recourse to false predicates to describe Nazi annihilation camps", by Ewa Stasiak-Jazukiewicz . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Principle of least harm

The principle of least harm holds that, when faced with dilemmas that have the potential for causing harm, one should attempt to avoid or prevent such harm; and when harm is unavoidable, one should make the choice that will cause the least harm.

In the realm of nomenclature, one could call the United States' Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, located in Cuba, a "Cuban base". It would be simpler (shorter), but it would also be needlessly ambiguous.

One could also call the Nazi-German extermination camps, which murdered (among others) Jews, "Jewish camps"—as some authors have. It would be simpler (shorter), but it would also be needlessly ambiguous.

Since the second expression in each of these cases could mislead the uninformed and uncurious, and thus cause potential harm, why not unambiguously call these facilities by more accurate terms: a "US base in Cuba"; and a "German-run extermination camp"?

And if many of the German extermination camps were sited by the Germans in Poland, then why not more unambiguously call them what they were: "German-run death camps in Poland"?

Nihil novi (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying that we shouldn't use less ambiguous terms, only that the term "Polish death camp" is a technically correct formulation that has been used with no intent to imply culpability to the Polish nation. --Khajidha (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"techically correct formulation" is a nonsense expression in itself. "Lead pencil" is a technically correct formulation as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Pencil lead was named in the mistaken belief that it was a lead ore. These Polish camps were named in the correct belief that they were on Polish soil. The first is a misnomer, the second isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope back. Regardless beliefs, both are "technically correct formulations", meaning exactly what I meant: "technically correct formulations" is a technically meaningless formulation in this context. There are may shades of gray for the black cat an a dark room, and all this squabble about the adjective is nothing but an attempt to somehow diminish the offensiveness of term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you like technicality so much, just the same, "These Polish camps were named in the mistaken belief that they were on Polish soil": technically this soil was violently seized from the Poles at these times. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Which seizure was not recognized as legitimate, meaning they were still in Poland. The definition of "misnomer" is "wrong name". "Pencil lead" is objectively wrong as there is no lead involved. The use of "Polish" here is objectively right. Or is Naples not a Italian city because it was built by Greeks? --Khajidha (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "misnomer" is "wrong name". "Polish death camps" is wrong name. Your Naples example is irrelevant. WP:DEADHORSE. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Something in Poland being called Polish is not wrong. --Khajidha (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not wrong. It is however inappropriate and misleading. per merriam-webster - 2a : a use of a wrong or inappropriate name Nowadays it is a misnomer to call a farmer a peasant. This is definitely inappropriate - and I'd argue beyond switching farmer with peasant - as while it is technically correct to say they were Polish as they were located in occupied Polish territory, in most other senses they were Nazi or German, and choosing the geographic sense (without clearly stating one is referring to geography and geography only) is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

And every instance I've ever come across it has been smack dab in the middle of something that made the Nazi origin of these camps crystal clear. And "inappropriate" is POV.--Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Polish death camps" with Nazi origin. Not "German". Was Dachhau German? Mauthausen-Gusen? Who were the Nazis? Aliens ? Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: Quoting you: "Was Dachhau German?" Ehm, yes it sure was at the time and still is today.--TMCk (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

[29] no Poland according to the Yad Vashem.Xx236 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Zuroff

Zuroff is Israeli, so his opinons should be moved to the Israeli subsection.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Zuroff is first and foremost a noted Holocaust historian. He is also American - born and lived in America, position in Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA for many years. He currently resides in Israel. So no - I do not think this should be moved.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Efraim Zuroff is an American-born Israeli historian. Should the two pages be contradictory?Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Long sections quoting a single opinion writer

"Polish death camp" controversy#Polish-American reactions and, to an even more extreme extent, "Polish death camp" controversy#Polish-Jewish reactions, are both long sections supposed to represent a whole community, but with just extended quotes from a single opinion writer. The second example is a particularly poor example of over-quoting. Neither of these communities is monolithic, or fairly represented by long quotes from a single writer.--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The Polish-Jewish section is extremely UNDUE. I'll note that the Polish Jewish community is small - and under duress and fear for their safety Poland's Jewish groups say Jews feel unsafe since new Holocaust law, CNN - which seems more DUE that the extremely long section devoted to this one individual.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In terms of other Polish-Jewish opinions to cite, there are Anna Chipczynska, Konstanty Gebert, and Michael Schudrich.--Pharos (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I axed the long quotation (still might be too long) and added a response by the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've linked to Union of Jewish Religious Communities in Poland and their main statement about the amendment and a rise in anti-semitic rhetoric. Other statements on their website condemn Ruderman, and caution about the Polish Prime Minister's language. Before it was passed, they issued a statement against use of "Polish Jewish camps", while oalso pposing the amendment, as almost all diaspora Jewish groups have made.--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And two new long blockquotes from opinion pieces have now been added to the article, the second using only the section that was a caveat to the main point of the piece. We should be summarizing relevant arguments in a useful narrative, not quoting those arguments we prefer at great length.--Pharos (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Does rebe Schudrich exist?

Michael Schudrich has commented the law [30]. Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

He does exist, and should be included. He is opposed to both "Polish death camps" and to the amendment, as almost all diaspora Jewish institutions are [31].--Pharos (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Long-term controversy vs 2018 controversy

This article was previously covering a long-term conroversy about "Polish death camps", dating to at least 2004 when the Polish MFA took up the cause of actively oppposing the misnomer. Recently, the article is entirely dominated by the 2018 amendment and associated controversies. Should we separate out a special section for 2018, and what should go on this article versus, as opposed to what should go on Act on the Institute of National Remembrance?--Pharos (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I have made a section change to address this. I'd suggest merging the pre-2018 part of "Polish death camp" controversy#Polish reactions to "Polish death camp" controversy#Polish legislation (perhaps under a broader name like 'Polish government campaign and legislation'), to complete the reorganizing,--Pharos (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I have implemented this change. Let me know how it should be improved, or just edit it yourself.--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1977 example

attenuated terrors of Polish ghetto life, not Germsn or Nazi [32] Jurek Becker lived in Łódź ghetto, ie. in Warthegau.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Polish ghetto" is not one of the terms singled out by the Pollish MFA and activists, so I don't think it fits.--Pharos (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The law is as it is because there exist thousands of controversial phrases and omissions.If the law says literally no Polish death camps so Polish ghetto life were legal. Was the ghetto life Polish?Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The list [33].Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

2016–2018 investigations involving Benjamin Netanyahu is related

Lapid attacked Netanyahu on Saturday [34] and Netanyahu used ambassador in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

While some sources argue that Israeli government used the international relations with Poland as a way to divert the public from some domestic issues, I am not sure if this is relevant here. Also, as usual, your sentence doesn't make much sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Does telling "your sentence doesn't make much sense" makes sense? Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Netanyahu used his ambassor in Poland to outbid Lapid. This "dialog" inspired Israeli journalists to attack Poland and Polish government in probbaly more than 100 texts. The government was dumb, but certainly not antisemitic. The fight Lapid-Netanyahu continues [35] Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Netanyahu (and the Israeli right) have actually been relatively quiet - they are somewhat aligned with the current Polish government (in general ideological terms - not on this issue), and generally Israel and Poland are friendly - Poland is possibly (with the current spat excluded) Israel's closest friend in the EU. Most of the heated Israeli rhetoric (Lapid included) - has come from the left, which is currently the opposition. If at all, Netanyahu reacted to this overall racket from the opposition (including calls to terminate relations with Poland or return the ambassador) - he's actually been pretty quiet compared to other speakers. The newspaper leading the charge in Israel has been Ha'aretz - who does not like Netanyahu (to put it mildly....) or the Polish government (for the same reasons more or less). Also - while this has been receiving coverage (particularly in Israel's English speaking newspapers - as this interests the Jewish diaspora, coverage in Hebrew is also high but not as much) - it is not the headliner (with the exception of maybe 1-2 days when this broke) - it's in the news, but often inner-page or small item on front page. In the Hebrew press Netanyahu's investigation (an on-going multiyear saga) has been receiving much more attention than Israeli/Poland relations.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Netanyahu is really central to this event, and I don't think his latest scandal should be a 'see also'. However, it is apropriate to link to it in-line where someone is blaming Netanyahu as trying to distract from his internal issues.--Pharos (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MShabazz, do news corporations ban words?

Unfortunately, yes they do: http://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-way-no-adjectives-or-adverbs-2014-3

Perhaps there was a gf misunderstanding in the edit summary. I hope that helps to explain to you my rationale for the use of the word "ban". Many thanks

Chumchum7 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand the reason you used "ban", but it's incorrect. (Please note that the article you cite doesn't say the style manual bans anything, rather that the editor-in-chief does. It would be more appropriate, but perhaps untrue, to write that editors at the New York Times and the Washington Post ban use of the phrases.)

As this article says in the "Mass media" section:

The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage recommends against using the expression,[80][81] as does the AP Stylebook,[82] and that of The Washington Post.[83]

A style guide, like our Manual of Style, is simply a collection of suggestions. It has no power to ban or prohibit anything. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We disagree on one word, which means we have a difference of opinion, both of which we have a right to. Perhaps it would be more courteous for us to agree to disagree, than for us to tell each other we are incorrect. I happen to have decades of professional experience of news media. Saying my linked article shows the chief of Bloomberg banned a word but not that the style guide he wrote banned it seems like you a reaching a bit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style is indeed simply a collection of suggestions - and FYI it is no authority whatsoever on the world of news organisations, which always use their power to ban or prohibit words and phrases of their choice in their own content. And I am not going to participate in an edit war about it. If it would address your concern if we cut the reference to style manuals, then let's do that. We're here to work together. Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Excessive and messy lede cleaned up. Please read WP:LEDE

The lede got out of control so I reverted to a prior version and condensed it to reflect the actual content of the article. There is absolutely no reason to cover tangentially related topics in the lede. I would direct all editors to read WP:LEDE. the lede serves to sum up the contents of the article, not act as it's own article. It also should not include content that is not mentioned in the subsections. Also, I should mention that this article is about the controversy itself in regards to the use of the words "Polish death camp," and it is not about the law itself, and we have a separate article for it where all in-depth information should go. R9tgokunks ✡ 08:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I support this edit - the previous lead was one big mess. However, it might be worth looking at the redacted material that was pushed into the lede and see if it should be in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against that. If others want to take the time to do that feel free; I just don't have the time to do that at the moment. R9tgokunks ✡ 05:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits in violation of consensus/RfC

There have been some recent attempts to remove the term "misnomer" from the lede - the inclusion of this term has been decided by consensus in this RfC which was closed with the statement " The consensus here, broadly, is that yes, the phrase "Polish death camp" should be described as an inaccurate term - a "misnomer" - in the lede, with further details in the body of the article. "

User:A Quest For Knowledge and User:Hippo43 have edit warred to remove the term from the lede in contravention of the above linked RfC because... because, you know, something or other, they know better, yadda yadda yadda. Sorry, this is not how this works. The RfC was closed properly, consensus was implemented. You can open a new discussion but in the meantime please respect the process and policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil. "because, you know, something or other, they know better, yadda yadda yadda" is not a constructive or collegial comment.

Also, please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Besides the RfC, which involved a small number of editors, Verifiability, NPOV and undue weight all apply here. The RfC does not somehow mandate that the word misnomer must be included in the opening sentence.

I have included the phrase "are considered incorrect and offensive by many Polish people" in the opening paragraph, which I think reflects NPOV, and more accurately summarises the controversy which the article relates to.

Volunteer Marek, I'm happy to discuss the substance of this here, without insults and without threats left on users' talk pages. --hippo43 (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly civil. "LOCALCONSENSUS" is irrelevant and a lame excuse for edit warring that pretty much never works. How did you think of that particular argument anyway? If you want to you can start a new RfC. In the meantime, please respect the outcome of the RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and now changing the text to read "and are considered misnomers by many Polish people" THAT is a misrepresentation of a source, since it doesn't anywhere say "by many Polish people". Rather it's by ADL and other organizations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

LOCALCONSENSUS is quite clear. Consensus at one article does not override NPOV, Verifiability etc.

If you think my characterisation of misnomer is not ideal, please suggest a better way to use it. If there are other sources which use it, beyond the ADL, please supply them. Currently the ADL's view is the only thing that has been attributed to a secondary source, not that the phrases themselves are misnomers. Please read WP:RS if you don't understand this. --hippo43 (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, claiming "LOCALCONSENSUS" is nonsense because what is NPOV and what is verifiability is subject of dispute. There is a whole bunch of editors, who's views you're rejecting outright and ignoring, who obviously don't think that having the word "misnomer" violates NPOV. Or V. This makes your behavior disruptive because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and deciding that you are the final arbiter of what is NPOV and V, and as a result you have a carte-blanche to ignore the outcome of an RfC by yelling about "LOCALCONSENSUS" and do whatever you want, goes against that spirit. Not to mention it's just rude to others.

Look. Any joker can claim that their favorite version is NPOV and that what others think is POV and then they have a right to do whatever they want, and ignore the input of others because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I can do that too. Anyone can do that. That's why we have RfCs. And that's why invoking LOCALCONSENSUS never works as an excuse for edit warring.

You're at four reverts. Please self-revert to the last pre-edit warring version (this one will do).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We've hashed this issue out in detail during the RfC - there were multiple sources presented. I urge Hippo to examine the previous discussion at this RfC. While many sources do not use "misnomer", they do use phrases and terms that are synonymous with misnomer - describing the phrase as inaccurate and inappropriate. I'll note that this description is in non-Polish sources (as well as in Polish sources), and holocaust historians (again - non-Polish as well as Polish) have agreed this is a highly inaccurate term (I have yet to see any academic saying otherwise). I am stressing the non-Polish aspect here, as this - at least per my reading of the sources - is not in dispute (the "holocaust law" is very much in dispute (particularly in non-Polish source - which are overwhelmingly negative - not because of the "death camps", but due to other Polish complicity aspect which are also affected by the law), the "Polish death camps" (which the law was a reaction to) is not in dispute) - NPOV is stating this is inaccurate and inappropriate. There has been some "pointy" use of the term following the "holocaust law" legislation - in a reactionary manner (e.g. Lapid, and the video campaign by the Ruderman family foundation) - but it still appears this use is viewed as "pointy" and rhetorical.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz thanks, but I think you are arguing with a position that I didn't take. I completely agree that the phrases are inaccurate, or misleading, or incorrect. FWIW, I don't support using the specific word 'misnomer' because it isn't a good use of English - it is ambiguous and poorly understood (see the RfC discussion above, for example!). But this article is about the controversy. It is completely correct, and encyclopedic, to say that these terms have caused controversy, and that they are widely considered inaccurate, or misleading, or incorrect, by historians or academics or whatever. These are statements that are not contentious and can easily be sourced. To insist beyond that, that they must be called a specific word in the opening sentence, as some editors have done, is pushing a particular POV.

There was also no discussion of policy at all in this RfC. Pointing to an RfC, or a comment by a closer, to insist on a preferred wording is a fallacious argument - an argument to authority - and a weak argument that avoids addressing the issue directly. In this case the RfC is a snapshot of a discussion at a particular point in time. Yes, there was support (and some opposition) for the inclusion of 'misnomer', but there were several editors who have taken issue with the term previously and since (myself and AQFK, for example) who did not comment at the time. An RfC is not some kind of definitive immovable decision, and doesn't set an article in stone. --hippo43 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"An argument to authority", where that "authority" is an outcome of an RfC, is how consensus works. This isn't a logic class. It's a collaborative encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Had you replaced "misnomer" with "inaccurate and inappropriate terms" (or something similar) - a phrase with the same meaning - it would have been a discussion about English. However you replaced ""Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" are misnomers" with ""Polish death camp" and "Polish concentration camp" are terms that have been the subject of controversy and legislation" - which is quite a different POV stance.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right. My version is more accurate, encyclopedic and NPOV. The word 'misnomer' still appears in the lead. --hippo43 (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Fails Verification

The lede sentence that said that "Polish death camp" is a misnomer" failed verification. Nowhere in the cited article does it state that this is a misnomer. Instead, the word only appears in a quote attributed to the ADL.[36] Therefore, I moved this to the body of the article with proper in-text attribution.[37] Unfortunately, it looks like I accidentally left in a grammatical mistake which was fixed with an edit summary of "Putting back an accidentally deleted lead fragment."[38] My bad for the grammatical mistake, but the change was intentional. If anyone has any questions about my change, please let me know. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim "Nowhere in the cited article does it state that this is a misnomer" is readily contradicted by the claim "the word only appears in a quote attributed to the ADL". So... apparently it DOES STATE that it's a misnomer? The ADL is a primary source here. The JTA is a secondary source. I don't quite get this creative interpretation of what it means to "appear in the source".

Now, there was an RfC, people discussed this, it was properly closed, please respect the outcome of the RfC. And DON'T try to invoke "LOCALCONSENSUS" cuz I can just as easily claim it for the opposing view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The RfC considered additional sources (please look at it AQFK!) which used wording synonymous or close to misnomer.Icewhiz (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: There's a world of difference between a quote and something being stated in a reliable source's voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Can you please provide a link? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been several days now. Nobody has provided any reliable sources to back this up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"Reactions to 2018 Polish law" section needs to be trimmed down & combined with rest of article or removed entirely

As per title. We have a separate article on the law, yet most of the recent additions to this article are about it, including the named section. This article is about the controversy over the "Polish death camp" misnomer, not the law. The section should be completely reworked to only include content related to the law as it pertains to the phrase "Polish death camp(s)." I will start to work on this if no one else does. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We actually do not have a separate article for the 2018 law (it is folded back in the main act) - which I think is wrong. I think however that the 2018 law, which was a reaction to the "death camp issue" (outlawing the phrase) - and the backlash to it (which included use of "death camp" by Jews/Israelis) - is relevant - as this is part of this ongoing controversy over "Polish death camp".Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally it is pretty relevant to this article. Mention of Wolski's "Jewish death camp" suggestion seems too fringe and somewhat off-topic though. I wouldn't rule out another home for the (sub)topic though. Batternut (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)