Wikipedia

Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment/Archive 2

< Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Piotrus in topic Jan Karski
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Discussions in Polish

Talk:Anti-Polonism Archive of discussion in Polish

I moved here the segments of discussion conducted in Polish, to make the page easier to read for users who don't know the language. This might introduce some discontinuities.

Jan Karski

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/zwoje24/text10p.htm Tygodnik Powszechny 26/1991, Kraków, 30 czerwca 1991 "Co do Szamira: on nie po raz pierwszy mówi rzeczy niesłuszne o Polakach. On kiedyś powiedział także, że każdy Polak wysysa z mlekiem matki antysemityzm." Jan Karski.

A quote from Karski is much more impressive than one from Shahak, but perhaps you could find a more specific source? The quote was cited offhand and didn't mention the time or circumstances in which it was made. Perhaps the statement itself was fabricated (not by Karski, of course) and circulated without anyone knowing the source of the information (a typical characteristic of rumors). HKT talk 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It pays to have access to Lexis Nexis.

January 8, 1990, Monday, Toronto Star

HEADLINE: Shamir stands by his remark about Poles, anti-Semitism

BYLINE: Reuter

JERUSALEM (Reuter) - Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir says he did not mean to condemn all Poles by saying they suck in anti-Semitism with their mother's milk.

But the 74-year-old Polish-born leader, who lost most of his family in the Nazi Holocaust, refused last night to withdraw his statement.

Shamir made the remark to The Jerusalem Post in September during a controversy over a Roman Catholic convent at the former Nazi death camp in Auschwitz, Poland.

A reporter for a Polish Solidarity newspaper attending a Jerusalem conference asked Shamir about the remarks. The exchange was broadcast by Israel Radio today.

Reporter: Mr. Prime Minister I have come from Poland to ask you just one question. Do you still maintain your opinion that Poles suck anti-Semitism with the milk of their mothers?

Shamir: I have said once privately yes, and it was not my intention to publicize it, but I would like to have the best relations between Israel and Poland.

Reporter: What about that statement, do you withdraw it?

Shamir: I do not withdraw my statement. I am sure there are many Poles, anti-Semites, many many . . . .

Reporter: But this statement condemns all the Poles.

Shamir: But I wouldn't say that all of them, and I am not interested to condemn all of them.


And here is the quote itself:

September 8, 1989, Friday Jerusalem Post

HEADLINE: 'WE CAN'T FIGHT THE WHOLE WORLD'

BYLINE: David Landau

[...]

Doesn't it amaze you that in Poland, where hardly a Jew is left, there should still be a powerful anti-Semitic presence ?

They suck it in with their mother's milk! This is something that is deeply imbued in their tradition, their mentality. Like their loathing of Russia. The two things are not connected, of course. But that, too, is something very deep, like their hatred of Am Yisrael. Today, though, there are elements (in Poland) that are cleansed of this anti-Semitism.

Excellent work! Good sourcing. By the way, perhaps the entire quote should be presented in the article, rather than a somewhat misleading one-liner. HKT talk 17:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
How about adding this quote to Yitzhak Shamir? --Ttyre 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. How relevant is it to that article? How relevant is the following response of Józef Piłsudski (regarding the Lwow Pogrom) to his article:
"I don't think the affair was serious, and have not yet received a full report about it. I must inquire. I must say that the Poles are not philo-Semites. That must be admitted. The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of." (Sanders, Shores of Refuge, p. 323) HKT talk 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This quote is famous in Poland [1]--Witkacy 20:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm convinced. HKT talk 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Most quotes should be moved to Wikiquote. For FA quality status, usually that means all quotes are removed. Also, if you go to trouble to source something, please add this to reference and link relevant quote/para with Wikipedia:Footnotes. Proper references are vital for such article, see Bombing of Dresden in World War II for example how a controversial subject was well-researched and sourced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Basic problem with article title

There is a fundamental problem with this article: anti-Polonism (or antipolonism) is not an English word, it does not exist in the English language at present. Yes, there is a Polish term antypolonizm and some Poles have tried to translate it to English, but the attempts have been few so far. It is not the job of Wikipedia to coin new English words, even if we think they might be useful. The title of the article must be changed (to, for example, Prejudice against Poles), or else this issue must be somehow addressed in the article. I added a "controversial" tag until this is resolved. Balcer 18:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow users, Polish-speaking Wikipedians. Can I humbly request that posts here be in English if possible, for the benefit of fully allowing us Anglophones in on the discussion.--Pharos 18:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would, but my English is very bad, thats why i am writting in Polish - if im working on articles i use always a dictionary, but its a lot of work. Sorry for that :)--Emax 19:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, and don't worry about your English, it's much better than my Polish :):)--Pharos 19:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:)--Emax 21:04, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
OK, will do from now. Just translating above quickly. Emax points out that Naczelnik and Koniuszy, both Polish words, are in Wikipedia. To which I replied that in that case we should move this article to Antypolonizm and explain that it is a Polish term.
Then Emax shows a link to an article by Lucas which shows the term is in the use. I do not dispute that the term is used from time to time, but its use is extremely rare. Thus a search on LexisNexis of major newspapers and magazines in English shows that the word "antipolonism" has been used 0 times in the last 10 years, while the word "anti-Polonism" 2 times (in both cases in letters to the Editor written by Poles). I hope this demonstrates how rare this word is. Needless to say, the word is not listed in any online English dictionaries I could find. Balcer 19:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the translation, Balcer, your arguement for Prejudice against Poles makes quite good sense to me. There is no need in Wikipedia to invent new English words.--Pharos 19:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, the article itself is not controversial, only the title is. Halibutt 19:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
On the second thought: while I agree with your arguments, I believe we'd have to come up with some other name, especially since it is to describe not only the purely psychological or sociological phenomenon of anxiety or prejudice against Poles, but also the effects of such phenomenon - both direct (Polish jokes) and indirect (extermination of Poles during WWII). Halibutt 19:39, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we need 2 separate articles: Genocide against Poles during WWII and Prejudice against Poles. To me it is somewhat ridiculous to lump together genocidal policies by Nazi Germany and USSR during WWII one the one hand, and today's "Polish jokes" and unfortunate newspaper references to Polish camps on the other. These are phenomena on a completely different scale. Balcer 22:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


All right, I took out the "controversial" template, and added a paragraph of explanation incorporating some of the material in this discussion. Much more work remains to be done on this article. I still like the idea of splitting up into:

  • Genocide against Poles - discussing historical large-scale persecution of Poles
  • Prejudice against Poles - discussing present, distinctly less harmful stereotypes and prejudices, and explaining why they are incorrect.

Balcer 00:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Zwroc uwage ze ktos kto stworzyl artykul Anti-Slavism stworzyl go glownie z przyczyny II WS.

No wiec..

Punk nr 2. Czym byla glowna przyczyna cierpienia Polakow podczas 2 wojny swiatowej - nienawisc Niemcow wobec Polakow, chcieli "lebensraumu" zamieszkalego przez Polakow. Wpierw wytepic inteligecje (by robaczki nie mialy krolowej, ktora nimi kieruje), zrobic z Polakow tania sile robocza (pracuja za friko, malo jedza), a pozniej wybic reszte jak karaluchy, ktore nieprzyjemnie szwedaja sie po domowej kuchni.

Dlaczego nie chcieli wybic Francuzow czy Dunczykow? Bo Polak w ich oczach byl tylko untermensch, kultura polska nic nie warta, zycie Polaka tyle warte co krowy (z tym ze zabita krowe mozna zjesc, a zabitego Polaka mozna jedynie (w razie czego) przerobic na mydlo).

Czym jest nienawisc do Polakow i polskiej kultury? Antypolonizmem :)

Mozna oczywiscie argumentowac, ze plany wyniszczenia Polakow byly celem politycznym nie rasistowskim - ale wtedy to samo mozna by bylo powiedziec o planach calkowitego wyniszczenia Zydow. (wiec ani w artykule o antypolonizmie nie mozna by bylo wstawic historii morderstw ani w artykule dotyczacego antysemityzmu)

Nienawisc do kogos prowadzi do przemocy. Ci sami ludzie ktorzy opowiadaja sobie kawaly o Polakach, skopali np. jakiegos malolata ze Zgorzelca, ktory poszedl na zakupy do Gorlitz. Ci sami ludzie ktorzy opowiadaja kawaly i nienawidza obcokrajowcow palili domy azylantow w Rostock. Ci sami ludzie ktorzy nazywaja Turkow smierdziuchami, spalili w Solingen turecka rodzine w domku jednorodzinnym - podpalajac dom koktailem molotowa (najmlodszy uczestniacy Niemiec, mial jak dobrze pamietam, 17 lat).

Holocaust Zydow w Niemczech zaczal sie od propagowania nienawisci do Zydow, pozniej bojkotowanie sklepow, Kristallnacht i na koniec komory.

Antypolonizm nie zaczal sie na 2 WS, zaczal sie juz w czasie zaborow. Kulturkampf itd. Byl czas w ktorym urzednik polski - w rosyjskim zaborze - mowiac "oficjalnie" po polsku, mogl dostac do 10 lat wiezienia. Czytalem kiedys opowiesci Skladowskiej, ktora opowiadala o kontrolach rosyjskich urzednikow w szkolach. Nauczyciele Polacy chowali wszystko co by mialo wspolnego z Polska przed taka kotrola, dzieciakom mowiono by bron boze nie odezwaly sie po Polsku.

Co do zdjec mordowanych Polakow i kawalow - masz racje. Dlatego poroponowalem by ten artykul troche jeszcze rozszerzyc, a stworzyc dwa odzielne. Jeden o kawalach itd, a drugi ktory opowie o zaborach, morderstwach itd.

Mysle ze popelniasz pewien blad w myslowy. Antypolonizm nie stoji w zadnej konkurencji z antysemityzmem. Tylko radykaly z jednej i drugiej strony probuja przyciagnac nieszczescia 2 WS dla siebie, by wykorzystac je jako argument polityczny w swoich machlojkach.

Historia antypolonizmu nie jest spopularyzowana, dlatego nawet tu na wikipedii niektorzy beszczelnie wyzywaja Polakow od nacjonalistow. Ostatnio jeden z niemieckich (Chris_73) administratorow najechal na Polakow - nie sadze by w ten sam sposob odwazyl sie najechac na Zydow. Dlaczego? Bo jest swiadomy tego co wyczynili jego ziomkowie dla Zydow, a nie jest swiadomy czego dla Polakow.

No i co do ostatniego Twojego argumentu, ze okreslenie jest uzywane przez nacjonalistow. Czy Ministerstwo spraw zagranicznych jest kierowane przez nacjonalistow? Czy Lucas David jest nacjonalista? Czy Gazeta Wyborcza lub Rzeczpospolita to gazety propagujace nacjinalizm?

Szukasz dziury w calym :)--Emax 12:32, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms

It is indeed a good principle that a new word should not be invented when an old one will do. But what alternatives are there to "anti-Polonism" or "Polonophobia"? And why should Poles be left out of a parade that already includes "Anglophobia," "Anglophilia," "Francophobia," "Francophilia," "Germanophobia," "Germanophilia," "Russophobia," "Russophilia," "Sinophobia," "Sinophilia," etc.? And if there can be an "anti-Semitism" (actually a misnomer: Arabs are Semites too!), then why not an "anti-Polonism"? Why should Poles be more modest--or less demanding of their legitimate martyrological rights? Ultimately the answer is not to ban words, but to work diligently so that in the future none of these words will any longer be necessary. Logologist 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


PLEASE KEEP THE DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC TALK PAGES IN ENGLISH. I seem to lean more towards Emax POV here, but I do agree that this article would benefit from a clear sectioning into:
  • Anti-Polonism pre 1918: things like germanization, russification, Polish foreign relations (impact of Dymitriads on Polish-Russian attitude, etc.)
  • AP 1919-1939: Polish-Ukrainian War, Treaty of Riga and P-Ukrainian relations, first part of the Western Betrayal, P-Lithuanian conflict over Wilno, P-Czech conflict over Silesia, Nazi propaganda against Slavs
  • IIWW: Nazi and Soviet attrocities, begining of Western Allies denial,
  • AP after IIWW - attitude towards Polish emmigrants to US and Western Europe, merging of Anti-Semitism and Nazis with Poland image, current 'Polish concentration camps' phrase, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A Polish-American view of the question

I recommend an online 1996 article, "Promoting Goodwill between Jewish and Polish People: the Obstacle of the Kielce Pogrom of July 4, 1946," by the respected Polish-American scholar Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, author of the book, Jews in Poland: the Rise of Jews as a Nation from Congressus Judaicus in Poland to the Knesset in Israel. The whole article is worth reading. A very germane remark is that:

"On the flip side of the coin bearing the image of anti-Semitism is the image of anti-Polonism. The coin of anti-Semitism cannot be melted down and destroyed without also melting down and destroying anti-Polonism."

Pogonowski observes that tendentious "students of the Holocaust [have] certainly [been taught] how anti-Semitism produced six million Jewish deaths in the Holocaust [but] apparently they [have] not also learn[ed] how anti-Polonism produced three million Polish gentile deaths during the occupation--the Polish aspect of the Holocaust."

Few things could better illustrate than this article the intimate and insidious connection between hostile propaganda and outright genocide--whether these be directed against Jews, Poles, Armenians, Gypsies, American Indians or any other people. (And yet it is only one chosen people that is deemed worthy of its own exclusive Holocaust Museum.) Logologist 08:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reasons

The problem with this article is its concentration on enumeration of wrongdoings. While there should be place for it I think that the reader should be also informed about reasons behind it. Of course we know of Mein Kampf that coined Lebensraum term but are there any signifaicant theories how it sprung into Hitler's mind? OK, Drang nach Osten, germanization, Bismarck's derision... but why? Similarly, I have not been able to find a consistent explanation of Polish jokes besides hints that it was a recent minority related tensions and after peak in 70s it nearly faded now. Is it if we have open laughter at You forgot Poland?

IIRC, Davies mentioned something about European peoples, that it is common to look down on eastern neighbours. Perhaps it could be a lead to broader issues. Forseti 13:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. This definetly needs to be adressed. We need why? alongside what? and who?. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Reasons for move to Hostility towards Poles

Clearly this article is a work in progress and much remains to be done. As anyone can see from this discussion, there is a controversy about the article title 'anti-polonism.

I have decided to move the article to Hostility towards Poles, after discussion with User:Piotrus, an esteemed Wikipedian who agrees the term anti-polonism is inappropriate.

Here is my justification.

1. Laying aside all the controversial issues about the implications of the term anti-polonism, there remains the basic fact: The term's use in English has been extremely rare. LexisNexis shows that the word has been used only twice (!) in all prominent dailies and magazines in English in the past 10 years. Pointing to a few scattered examples of its use here and there found through Google searches does not change this basic reality.

2. As is clear from this discussion, some users would like the term anti-polonism to be more prominent. However, I think it is clear that it is not the job of Wikipedia to promote the use of new words. Instead, article titles should follow common usage and be clearly understandable, as far as possible.

3. Let's face it, the term anti-polonism has not found acceptance in the English-speaking world. One might dislike this, but it is a fact. The job of Wikipedia is to describe the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

4. I did leave a one paragraph discussion in the article addressing the anti-polonism issue, so if someone is searching for that word, they will find it.

Wszystkie Twoje argumenty padly podczas dyskusji zemna a jednak przeniosles artykul. Tak sie nie robi.--Emax 18:59, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Przeniosłem po dyskusji z User:Piotrus. Proszę pisz tutaj po angielsku, aby inni mogli brać udział w dyskusji.Balcer 19:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to moving the article, the term "anti-polonism" is used by foreign writers like Lucas David, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland, by Polish newspapers like Gazeta Wyborcza or Rzeczpospolita etc.--Emax 19:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly what matters is usage in English. Usage in Polish newspapers is not relevant to this discussion. You keep mentioning the one reference to the use of the word by David Lucas. This is not enough qualify the word as being in common English usage. Let me illustrate this via a search on Google Scholar
  • antipolonism, or anti-Polonism - zero hits
Now just for the sake of comparison:
  • antisemitism - 1,450 hits
  • anglophobia - 75 hits Balcer 19:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article explain the meaning of the term "Anti-Polonism". There is no need to explain the meaning of "Hostility towards Poles", because everyone know what that mean. Anti-polonism is used in English history books. One reference of Richard C. Lucas is enough, i dont want waste my time and search another, only because You dont like the term "Anti-Polonism".--Emax 20:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
And BTW if an English reader see the term "Anti-Pololonism" in Richard C. Lucas or other english writer books, and dont know what the term mean - he can find the info about it on wikipedia. Thats for are encyclopedias.--Emax 21:11, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Why do you not move Bushism to Bush says stupid thigs ? :) This term was invented just for fun - not to compare with anti-polonism which cost milions of humans lifes, and not only in the 2 WW but also during the partions of Poland, when hundred of tausends Poles were deported to Siberia and whole generations could not learning Polish in the school, because it was forbidded by the occupation powers. You could go to the prision for 10 years if you would spoke Polish as civil servant in your own (but occupied) coutry. Dont also forget the kulturkampf.--Emax 22:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I hate wasting time on trivial matters - and this matter is trivial. Both of you are great contributirs, and I think you should use your time on doing constructive things, not arguing about this. Anti-polonism is very rare - but it was not invented on Wiki. Descriptive name is much more common, but there are many possible variants, so we would need lots of redirects. It is quite a 50/50 case. I suggest we drop the name matter entirely now - let's say, we (well, you two :D) agree to disagree, and we leave the article here based on the fact that it was created here in the first place. Now, let's work on expanding the stub sections or doing some other cosntructive stuff instead of arguing the point I doubt any of you is going to change your mind. OK? If you both agree, let's move this to archive as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are right, i already said that the discussion is 10 times longer than the article :)--Emax 23:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I am willing to go with Piotrus' suggestion for the time being. Still I would not be so hasty to dismiss this dispute as trivial because, in some cases, even single words do matter (otherwise, why would we have written so much :)). Anyway, the discussion is available for reference, so I guess anyone interested in the subject will consult it and judge the matter for themselves. Balcer 23:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll vote to delete the term "anti-Polonism" (and "Polonophobia") from Wikipedia--provided we also delete "anti-Semitism." If you need more than "one" Anglophone author who has used "anti-Polonism," please see "A Polish-American view of the question," above, on this page. Anti-Polonism has been and remains a burden on the Polish psyche; whether as much as anti-Semitism on the Jewish, is a question at most of degree. One difference may be that, till recently, Poles have been less willing to advertise their own sufferings--and probably have been less aware of how unjustly they are portrayed in some quarters. Perhaps you will recall the attempts in recent years to prevent Poles bringing attention to their own losses at Auschwitz, lest it break the Semites' "monopoly" in the eyes of the world. Had World War II gone differently--which it might well have, but for the Poles' gift to the Allies of Enigma decryption--we may rest assured that the Slavs would have been next on the Nazis' agenda of total genocide. Logologist 07:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I note that the (relative) number of Google search engine "hits" is cited above as "evidence" of whether things such as "anti-Polonism" exist. This is not a valid measure, i.e. the number of "hits" do not necessarily have a bearing on whether something exists or is true. For example, there are many "hits" for terms such as "Polish concentration camps" and "Polish death camps", however their existence is disputed within this very Wikipedia entry! As another example, I have just looked for the exact phrase "Elvis is alive" and obtained over 30,000 "hits"... whereas, in contrast, the exact phrase "Elvis is dead" gives only just over 20,000 "hits"!

Further, as terms such as "anti-Polonism" are being discussed, one can argue that such phrases exist de facto.

Shouldn't Wikipedia be at the leading edge of dictionary definitions for words?

Perhaps a way forward may be for this "anti-Polonism" entry to remain simply giving a "dictionary" definition of the term, i.e. the first two paragraphs of the existing entry, say, with a clear comment that the phrases are disputed and/or not widely used and/or accepted. At the same time, provide a link to an entry entitled in a discripive manner, such as "Hostility towards Poles" where the main body of this existing article may be contained?

This article should be deleted

I believe that the article is mainly intended to advance a biased point of view, to victimize one nation at the expense of others and so to disrupt normal wikifunctioning. In the past, it has been a major source of revert wars. No documents have been presented to back up the allegations of deportation of thousands of Poles to Siberia by the tsarist authorities. When a couple of Poles appear in the fake trial staged by the Communist government of Poland, it is not the mark of "Soviet atrocities to the Poles". The like trials were staged by Stalin on Russians, Ukrainains, Jews, Georgians, etc, etc. No mention is made of the fact that the Soviet soldiers saved the Poles from the total extermination by the Nazis. No other nation suffered so much losses from the WWII as Russia did, and yet there is no reason to flood "Russophobia" page with horrific pages of mass murders. The background of so-called anti-Polonism (e.g., repeated attempts of the Poles to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism) hasn't been mentioned at all. There is nothing good when one nation accuses every other nation of trying to annihilate it. This would lead to appearance of "Russophobia", "Turkophobia", "Anti-Balticism", "Hostile attitude towards Armenians", and the like articles that would eventually turn Wiki into a mess. Therefore I will list this disruptive article in the "votes for deletion" page. --Pierre Aronax 09:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mass deportation of Poles to Siberia did happen in the past, both in 19th century and in 20th century. While I agree that such articles should be as balanced as possible, I don't think that a "possible threat to wikipedia" is enough to list this article for deletion. Also, take note that you only added the rfd tag, but did not list the page itself for deletion. I'm thinking of removing the tag. Halibutt 09:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Of course some of what User:Pierre Aronax is writing above is historically inaccurate nonsense. Please look at Katyn Massacre before writing that "Soviet atrocities to the Poles"" consisted only of a fake show trial.
Still, I am beginning to lean towards the view that this article should be deleted. It is simply too provocative (I tried unsuccessfully to make at least the title more neutral), and indeed it will be a source of constant revert wars and POW pushing. Furthermore I worry that the article will attract rabid nationalists and antisemites who want to prove the supposed equivalency of antisemitism and antipolonism (for examples, see some comments in this discussion). I see no reason why most of the issues this article is trying to address cannot be discussed somewhere else (appropriate sections in History of Poland etc.) Balcer 09:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Balcer that the wording of the article is too strong and peremptory. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to discuss particular manifestations of Polonophobia and Russophobia in separate articles on Dymitriads, Katyn Massacre, Warsaw Uprising and so on. Ghirlandajo 09:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please, wait with all this deletion talking. This is a very young article and still unformed. Also, there is multinational forum of editors so I think that eventually more toned wording can be worked out. On the other hand I agree that present shape of article is unacceptable. Polish-speaking people, please look at [2], topmost definition. Yes, I know that polonica.net is page of anti-semites and national radicals but said definition (supposedly from Gutenberg Printhouse encyclopedia, 1997) is much more coherent and exhaustive than our effort here and it would be a shame to us if we'd be unable to produce similarly exhaustive article, hopefully more NPOV. Unless we present some historical context and reasons behind the situation we'd have only kind of whining and we really shouldn't be surprised that the article would be attacked both on grounds of its little value and as part of various edit wars such as that of Steinbach Wars series. Forseti 12:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article should be deleted/this article should be renamed - its looks for me, that several people are not interested telling the story about crimes againts Poles, but try to do everything to hide it. This people should be ashamed.--Emax 13:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
This is a controversial topic, but this is no reason for a deletion, especially when suggested by a user (Pierre Aronax) who is apparently fairly ignorant in that matter. Of course, causes for antipolonism should be listed. Some were caused by Poles themsevles (Dimitriads, Polish-Ukrainian War, etc.), many others were not (Nazism, stalinism). The article is incomplete. Again, not a reason for deteltion but for an expantion. And note: unless sb can provide arguments for the first-page NPOV tag, it should be removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For me at least it is difficult to contribute to an article under such a controversial title, as any such contribution could be taken as an implicit endorsement of it. Personally I want nothing to do with the project that some people have of developing the notion of anti-Polonism as a phenomenon of the same magnitude and importance as anti-Semitism. Could we at least add some kind of a tag which would indicate that the article title is disputed? We have pages and pages of discussion on this topic by now. Balcer 20:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"anti-Polonism as a phenomenon of the same magnitude and importance as anti-Semitism." - This article is about anti-polonism and has nothing to do with anti-semitism (only that, that both is racism). Is there something like a race? Which nation lost more humens lifes become the first price...? Why do you start again the discussion about the title? As Piotrus said , is that so importent? And one more time... This article explain the meaning of the term "anti-polonism". So the title cant be disputed.--Emax 21:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
No Emax, the article as it stands is about the persecution and genocide of Poles in various periods of history, and that can be adequately described by titles other than anti-polonism. If you want to have a definition of anti-Polonism, the place for it would be an entry in the Wiktionary. Balcer 21:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"the article as it stands is about the persecution and genocide of Poles in various periods of history" - yes, they were murdered because of their nationality - and thats anti-polonism. And You already become the evidence, that the term is used in english history books (not in dictionaries). And BTW your statement that "antipolonism have not the same magnitude and importance as anti-Semitism" - sounding a little bit like "Polish lives were not of the same importance like Jewish"..--Emax 21:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly I am saying nothing of the sort, and I find the implication highly offensive. Balcer 21:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are many forms of racism, but no one of them is more or less important. Racism is not a contest--Emax 22:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Idea

Since there are some people here who would like this article to be deleted because of the name, I have a proposal, I hope a decent one. How about leaving this article here, as a short explanation of what the term refers to and, perhaps, a notice that the term is more popular among historians than among linguists. At the same time we could move the rest of topics, including the examples, to some more obscure titles, similar to Organised persecution of ethnic Germans, Expulsion of Germans after World War II and so on. We'd have Expulsion of Poles in 19th century (not to divide it onto 3 or 4 different articles), Expulsion of Poles after World War II, Organised persecution of ethnic Poles and so on. We could also prepare a small tag that would link all the articles in the project together. What do you say, gentlemen? Halibutt 08:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It will definitely make our job much more manageable and avoid completely unnecessary controversy over loaded terms. Most importantly, it will make the article titles transparent to non-Polish readers of Wikipedia. Balcer 08:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Poroponowalem takie rozwiazanie juz prawie na samym poczatku dyskusji [3] :), popieram--Emax 12:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
I support this useful and productive approach.--Pharos 14:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since, there seems to be a concensus developing, let's formalise it. Here is my list of articles we could create. Most material from current anti-Polonism article could go there. Please comment, add/subtract titles etc.

We could change Poles to ethnic Poles in some of these of course, but I do not think that's necessary. Balcer 19:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chcialbym tu przedstawic wypowiedz Balcera, za kogo on uwaza uzytkownikow ktorzy brali udzial w budowaniu tego artykulu (mnie w najmniejszym stopniu bo dodalem tylko zdjecia) :) [4] "just for the record" - by wiedziec komu mozna ufac, a kto zaufania godny nie jest :)--Emax 17:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I actually wrote to User:172:
If you have a minute, please take a look at the article Anti-Polonism. Based on your recent involvement on the Polish-Soviet War article, I thought you might find it interesting, as it involves some of the same people and similar problems with unreasonable POV. Balcer 10:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, there is no insult towards anybody here, as Emax seems to maliciously imply, unless he finds the word unreasonable insulting.
I am still puzzled by Emax's hostility towards user User:172. I really just don't understand it. His involvement with Polish-Soviet War did, after all, contribute usefully to that article and helped in achieving a reasonable compromise and lead to its general improvement. I thought his point of view would have been useful here.
For your information, Emax, that is the whole idea of Wikipedia: combining different points of view to achieve NPOV. Instead, your aim seems to be to turn some articles on Wikipedia into restricted areas, where only people who can be "trusted" (your words) should be allowed to contribute (and others mercilessly reverted and insulted).
Anyway, after what you wrote here [5] we have nothing more to talk about. Paradoxically, after some reflection, I realised that coming from you, the accusation that I am not a Pole is not an insult, rather a badge of pride. Balcer 18:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Historia w skrocie

  • 1)Balcer staje na glowie by storpetowac artykul, wymysla co chwile nowe argumenty.
  • 2)Balcer stara sie "przekabacic" Piotrusia na priv, by przeniesc artykul.
  • 3)Balcer poczul pewne wsparcie ze strony Piotrusia, i poprostu sobie przeniosl artykul
  • 4)Balcer lapie sie ostatniej deski ratunku i haniebnie porownuje artykul z proba zrownania cierpien Polakow z Zydami
  • 5)Balcer calkowicie rozpaczony leci do rosyjskiego admina, ktory lubi mieszac w polskich artykulach, wspomina tam o uzytkownikach z ktorymi owy admin mial wojenke na Polish-Soviet war, w nadziei ze wzbudzi jego zainteresowanie w torpedowaniu tego artykulu.
  • Targowica, wstyd i hanba :)

"I am not a Pole is not an insult, rather a badge of pride" wiec prosze nie uzywaj polskiego jezyka, - w kontekscie ze brudzisz wlasne gniazdo, jest mi wstyd, bo ktos moze Cie wziasc za Polaka...--Emax 19:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

This articl e

This article and related articles

In fact I dont see the necessecity of this article. You can create an article about a "...phobia" or "anti-...-ism" for every nationality you want. There are jokes about a lot of nations and also a lot of crimes that have been done against these or other nations. So, if you create an article about a phobia against one of these nations - and especially if this phobia is not widely seen or discussed - it's mainly a political and by that POV article - if you create such "phobia" articles. In my opinion this article is not necessary at all, since crimes against Poles should be mentioned in the article about Poland.

(No wikipedia-Account, sorry)

for benefit of others, I note comment made by user:129.13.186.1 --Pharos 21:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To see such opinion from an user who add just after that this: "Anti-German is a hostile attitude against Germany and/or the Germans. There is also a political movement which calls itseld "Anti-German" and is described below." to the Anti-German article is very interesting :)--Emax 22:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, you may think that's 'interesting', but "anti-german" means at first to be against Germany or Germans. So, if there is a article with that name, that should be mentioned. I don't know what you think is 'interesting' about that. What do you think "anti-German" means, huh? In fact, an article about anti-Germanism in the way this article about "anti-Polonism" is would be possible, too. You could mention crimes like the expulsion and mass murder of millions of ethnic Germans after WWII the theft of German territory after WWI and WWII and the prejudices which occur today and so on. BUT: I would oppose an article about "Anti-Germanism" because of the same reasons I oppose the existence of this article. Still: user:129.13.186.1

So, now I created a wikipedia account, those two comments of 129.13.186.1 are made by me Deutschger (my user name may seem interesting to some :))

Evidently malicious changes

The changes made to lines 4 and 43 on February 23, 2005, are evidently malicious: in line 4, not only deleting an idea but completely reversing the meaning of the sentence; and in line 43, deleting information on a phenomenon admittedly from three decades ago, but certainly a "more recent" one than the prewar and wartime ones described earlier — and an important and pernicious historic episode. I suggest these (vandalistic?) changes be reversed. Logologist 04:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD

This article is an admitted neologism, as well as an apparent attempt to incorporate Nazi attrocities against Poles, the Prussian (later, German), Austro-Hungarian and Russian (later, Soviet) occupation of Poland, ethnocentric denigration of Poles, and perhaps a few other gripes, together into a single article. What's here can mostly be incorporated into Polish September Campaign, Holocaust, History of Poland, and Ethnic slurs. Even after the cleanup by Jayjg, it remains absurdly POV. The rest of it needs to go, as it's little more than uncited WP:NOR and a magnet for POV-pushers. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 21:31 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism, where most of the discussion will likely take place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

More objections to "Anti-Polonism" at Category vfd

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Anti-Polonism for vote and the following opening reasoning IZAK 6 July 2005 05:28 (UTC) :

"See related present vote to delete the Anti-Polonism article at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism for full reasoning why this redundant category should not have been created in the first place. IZAK 5 July 2005 09:08 (UTC) Additional information why this should be deleted: This category seems to assume, for example, that Poland was different to other countries invaded by Nazi Germany. The fact is, Germany invaded and occupied most countries in Europe (and North Africa) yet it was not because of "Anti-Frenchism", or "Anti-Danishism" or "Anti-Greekism" etc etc etc, rather, these were all acts of war, and Poland was no different as far as the Poles were concerned. In the case of the Jews it's a different story since Hitler wanted to carry out his "final solution" against them as Jews and not as Poles, or Frenchmen, Danes, or Greeks etc etc etc, thus to have Category:Holocaust as a sub-category of a pseudo-category such as this is both a fallacy of logic and revisionism and distortion of history. Furthermore a close look at the articles in this category reveals that basically 50% of them are Nazi-related articles and 50% are Communist-era related making it very clear that whoever placed them into this category wants to make the Poles appear as poor "victims" and to whitewash Polish co-operation with both its German and Russian occupiers, no different to countries such as Hungary, Romania, Italy, Vichy France, Norway, and others that basically accepted the German occupation and have historically never classed themselves as "victims" of "Anti-Polinism", or "Anti-Hungarianism", or "Anti-Frenchism" etc etc etc. Similarly, when Poland once ruled Lithuania and large chunks of Russia and Ukraine it was also not guilty of "Anti-Russianism" or "Anti-Lithuanism" because all this was considered part of the normal ebb and tide of history with its usual wars and subsequent times of peace. This category should be deleted because it is an insult to human intelligence. IZAK 6 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)"

This is untrue.Poles were classified as subhumans and were to be exterminated, furthermore the absurd accusation of Polish "cooperation" with Germany is totally false.Operations such Operation Tannenberg, Deporatations in Zamojszczyzna, or murder of Lwow profesors were part of anti-polish policy of German Reich. "All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles." Heinrich Himmler In this link you have several points of program against Poles, Germanisation of children, deporations, murder, denial of education, destruction of elites etc: http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm And example: 

The category of sub-human (Untermensch)  included Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, Serbs, etc.)  Gypsies and Jews.   TOP

"To avoid mistakes which might subsequently occur in the selection of subjects suitable for 'Germanization,' the RuSHA [The Race and Settlement Head Office] in 1942 distributed a pamphlet, The Sub-Human, to those responsible for that selection. 3,860,995 copies were printed in German alone and it was translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Czech and seven other languages. It stated: The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it." 1

Empty sections

Removed empty section titles: Anti-Polonism in America, Germany, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Anti-Polonism and Jews. Doesn't make sense to have them without content.--Ttyre 8 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

I had already removed them once, but POV-pusher extraordinaire, Witkacy, put them back in. I decided to leave it alone at that point, because it makes the article look even more idiotic. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 16:34 (UTC)
While I don't think that the article is 'idiotic', I do think we have no need for empty sections. Perhaps, instead of adding empty sections, we can start discussion here about what (if anything) can go into them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 8 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)

I will start working on A-P in the US. --Ttyre 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

I recommend that you start with something like "Tomer is an anti-Polonist for nominating this article for deletion. This is a sure sign that anti-Polonism is alive and well in the US." That would fit in nicely with the style of the rest of the article. Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
Perhaps the new section will differ from the others, and actually quote encyclopedic sources discussing the issue, rather than simply containing the personal opinions of editors of this page. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Persistent prejudices against Poles (1945 to present)

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

This section, one of the main justifications for the existance of the article, is pathetic in dire need of more content.

  • Poles often cite continued references to World War II-era "Polish death camps" and "Polish concentration camps" as examples of anti-Polonism. [...] They argue that the phrase is intended to place responsibility for these camps on Poles, rather than simply being a neutral description of their location. First off, weasel words. From what I can tell, this is not supposed to be an article about anti-polish sentiments as perceived by the Polish. Most importantly though, I have never, not once in my life, seen anyone refer to Polish concentration camps with the intention of implying that they were somehow condoned by the Polish population at the time. And while I'm sure you can conjure up one example of some idiot doing just that, I don't think this is a notable sentiment at all. (Obviously people do say it meaning that they were Nazi KZs built on Polish soil.)
    • The text used to be even worse, before I NPOVd it somewhat. It used to say There are continued libelous references to World War II-era "Polish death camps" and "Polish concentration camps". (Actually these were German concentration camps set up and run by Nazi Germans, on occupied Polish territory, whose victims included millions of Poles). There are also other phrases relating to Poland during the time of World War II, such as "Nazi Poland". Only slightly less obnoxious are the persistent German canards etc. "Libelous references", "only slightly less obnoxious" etc. I guess were viewed as "neutral", as was the failure to include the more logical explanation for its continued use. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the statement of World Jewish Congress on "Polish camps": We would also like to remind those who are either unaware of the facts or careless in their choice of words, as has been the case with some media outlets, that Auschwitz-Birkenau and the other death camps, including Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka, were conceived, built and operated by Nazi Germany and its allies. The camps were located in German-occupied Poland, the European country with by far the largest Jewish population, but they were most emphatically not "Polish camps". This is not a mere semantic matter. Historical integrity and accuracy hang in the balance. --Lysy (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, what's your point? I agree it's important to make the distinction, but in the end I still have never seen this understood wrong and certainly not on a large scale. And I don't see how this is relevant to a discussion of anti-Polish prejudice. If there really is a misunderstandment in this regard, it should be noted and cleared up on pages dealing with the topic of WW2, concentration camps, etc. --Moritz 20:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how that deals with my points; the section in question was highly POV and violated Wikipedia policy. Including a section quoting the statement of the World Jewish Congress on the topic, and attributing it to them, is a good, neutral thing to do here. On the other hand describing various usages as "Libelous references", "only slightly less obnoxious", and only quoting one POV, is decidedly not NPOV. The issue with the article is not the topic itself, but rather (aside from the neologist title) the entirely unsourced, un-encyclopedic, and POV way it has been written. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
In my experience from reading the Western press, just about all references to "Polish concentration camps" are not malicious but simply stem from ignorance and poor understanding of history. Most of the time, when the offensive nature of the term is pointed out to a newspaper which uses it, the newspaper apologizes. See for example this recent article in the Guardian. In short, such cases are NOT examples of anti-polonism, as some editors here allege. If someone wants to convince me otherwise, please show me an example of a Western newspaper which regularly insists on using the term "Polish concentration camps".
However, this issue does demonstrate the deeper fact that ignorance about the complex history of the Second World War is widespread in the West, and thus many authors writing about Nazi crimes in Poland misrepresent the part that Poles played in the Holocaust (for a recent example, see this article, to avoid registration access it through Google News). For example, many authors who visit the concentration camps in Poland are amazed that some are located "in plain sight", and then express disbelief and outrage that the Poles did not simply "do something" about them. Clearly these authors have no real understanding what a Nazi German military occupation meant. In addition, they often try to demonstrate that the Poles "must have known about the camps", as if Poles ever pretended that they didn't. Apparently in this case ignorant authors are mixing up Polish reaction with the common German reaction to the camps. But anyway, all this should be addressed in an article like Misconceptions about Poles,for example, not here, as these authors are not for the most part prejudiced against Poles, they are simply ignorant. Balcer 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Milder" forms of hostility toward Poles have included disparaging "Polish jokes". Oh, boohoo. What a terrific example of anti-Polish sentiment. The same can be said for virtually any, and I do mean any, random group of people. Not just nationalities or ethnic groups. Anti-bicycle-driver sentiments from 1945 to present. Anti-Starcraft-gamer-sentiments. No way.
  • Polish minority rights are increasingly abused in the totalitarian regime of Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, where approximately 0,5 million Poles live. That's the only vaguely encyclopedic part of this section. It's not exactly a good example for a prejudice against a nationality or ethnic group, considering that a) the guy abuses the rights of lots of people and b) judging by the article it's very much politically caused. I'm also not sure how major it is, and how much if any of the people in Belarus share the sentiments.

Judging by the article there is no significant anti-Polish sentiment post-1945. Gee, what a shocker.Moritz

Judging by my personal experiences, Polish people were not seen as normal Americans until after Berlin reunited. This is the same case as the status of Italians(Sicilians) in the USA. TheUnforgiven 22:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
As to the Polish jokes - the matter is indeed tricky. On the other hand, in the symbolic language of the jokes some groups (be it social, ethnic or national) are traditionally regarded as lazy, others as slow or fast. However, as far as I can tell, the only ethnic group so often regarded as dumb is the Polacks. Halibutt 23:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Having grown up in a town with a lot of Poles, and having heard lots of "Polack jokes" my whole life, I have never, in my 33 years, run into anyone in the USA who thinks badly of Poles or Sicilians, nor holds any prejudices against them. The "Polack" in "Polack jokes" is easily replaced with "Norwegian". Even then, it's not because of any prejudice or hostility against Norwegians, nor any concern about the sensitivites of Poles. Judging by my personal experiences, not a single American associated the reunification of Berlin to have anything whatsoever to do with Poland or Poles (or Tannu Tuva or Ulan Bataar for that matter). Tomer TALK 23:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps life in the cities made Poles and Sicilians seem like Angels, but for general Americans they were seen as foreign. TheUnforgiven 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
With any due respect, that's patent nonsense. Tomer TALK 23:33, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Your bitter hatred spews into every discussion on the Wikipedia. Be mindful that this is a venue for real people who have feelings. You really have no respect or tolerance to those of other persuasions than your own. Sicilians in the Mid-Atlantic and Poles in the Midwest had their roots in the cities and were not well recieved upon moving to the country. They were the Whites of the cities and looked up to by other minorities, but lesser in status than Germans or Scandinavians who often were disgusted with the Mafia and "Dumb-Polacks". TheUnforgiven 23:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
If you'd spend more time reading and thinking instead of trollishly traipsing around WP behind me, you'd realize, I live in the Midwest, in the state with the highest percentage of Poles in the US, I have 3 American families of Polish extraction on my block, and so, I think at least, I'm in a much better position to speak to the subject than you. Thank you. buhbbye. Tomer TALK 03:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone has updated the section with a new paragraph (the previous paragraphs remain in a sad state). The new paragraph is full of NPOV terms (bigotry, self-opiniated, aggravated people, stinging ignorance) and includes numerous weasel words that require references or need to be removed. "Plantations of Jews" isn't acceptable English as far as my understanding of the language goes. --Moritz 10:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I've removed the latest nonsense authored by TheUnforgiven; I suppose I could have left it in, but that would not have been fair to the article, since it undoubtedly would have influenced more people to vote "Delete" on the VfD. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The television show All in the Family with the fictional character Archie Bunker, featured satire on post-WWII anti-Polack prejudice in America. However much this may seem trivial in thought today, anti-Polonism was present in open discourse until the fall of the Berlin Wall reunited Europeans in Europe and America. Whilst the bigotry about Eastern Europe is fading, it has mostly shifted from Poland to places like the Ukraine and Belarus or Russia. Nevertheless, some outspoken and self-opinionated Jewish people prefer to pretend that they were the only ones who suffered under the Nazi regime. This has provoked an outrage and some anti-Semitic reaction from the Poles who went through a national upheaval by Nazi attempts to replace their people with Germans. That model of destroying Poland and settling Germans on the land, was borrowed from the Prussian Teutonic Knights that effectively abolished the Prussian people. Some of the aggravated people who have felt stinging ignorance by Jews about the woes of Poland, wonder what difference is there between their own fate as prescribed by the Nazis and what the British Mandate of Palestine has done to the Palestinians by the plantation of Jews on that land.

  • And once more someone has updated this section: Antipolish sentiments continue to exist to this very day in Germany and express themself in various sentiments-ranging from accusations that Poland was cause of WWII... Source? Does anybody except a very small group of Neo-nazis claim this? The implication that this is something like a normal sentiment in Germany is offensive. ...to several cases where courts forbade parents to teach and speak with their children in Polish language as well as upbringing them in Polish culture, claiming it will be harmful for their development. What? Source. When did this happen? I doubt this is the whole story.
  • It goes on: Poles are also blamed for unemployment in France after EU expansion(despite the fact that it brought more jobs to french people). Not at all an example of anti-Polish sentiment - if anything, just general xenophobia. Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country due to Poland's close relationship with United States.The fact that Poland remains both an US ally as well as deeply religious nation, has led to enforcing of negative and antipolish views in several layers of European politics.Josep Borrell the President of European Parliament has been reported to express antipolish remarks several times, accusing Poland of "taking orders from USA". Listen. The fact that somebody disagrees with your politics (or religion) doesn't make them "anti-Polish". There was a considerable difference in opinion with regards to the Iraq war and there are bound to be consequences. Another example of antipolonism sentiments are comments from Martin Schulz a member of European Parliament who demanded to silence polish representatives calling them "hooligans"(during the WWII the term "polnische banditen" was commonly used by German propaganda). Just what exactly is that supposed to imply?! Sources, anyway. You can't just quote something like this without giving a context.--Moritz 11:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Just what exactly is that supposed to imply?! " Nothing more then pointing out that antipolish sentiment exists to this very day.

  • Notice how deftly the issue is ignored. There was a good reason Martin Schulz called the Polish representatives "hooligans", and it has nothing to do with anti-Polish sentiment today or 60 years ago, it has to do with the fact that the representatives in question, were, in fact, hooligans. To bring a similar example, many people regard Ariel Sharon as a war criminal, and have repeatedly called for him to appear at trial at the Court of Kangaroos in Brussels. Since he was elected PM by a majority of Israelis, Israelis must support war criminals. Therefore, a majority of Israelis, at least by association, are war criminals. Anyone who supports Israel is therefore a supporter of war criminals. Since the majority of Americans are war criminals, the September 11, 2001 attacks are justified. Now. Nevermind that this whole twisted convoluted illogic started with an accusation that Ariel Sharon masterminded the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, an allegation for which no material evidence has ever been presented. Anyone who honestly followed that entire twisted illogic and thinks it makes sense isn't worth discussing anything with, and that includes a lot of people in this world. The Polish representatives were acting like hooligans, and it's not a crime to say so. Just because it wounds the sensibilities of fierce Polish nationalists does not mean it's discrimination. In the same way, people who call Ariel Sharon a war criminal should not (for that reason) be called either anti-Semitic nor even anti-Israel. Of course, many people who characterize him thus do so because they're either or, and that's where this becomes relevant. If you say that calling hooligans hooligans is anti-Polonist just because the hooligans happen to be Poles, you have no defense when I call you an an anti-Semite for calling Ariel Sharon a war criminal. You may not be an anti-Semite, you may not be anti-Israel, but by the same illogic, you MUST be one or the other if not both. (For the record, I don't think Ariel Sharon is a war criminal because of Sabra and Shatila, but because of his rôle in the Altalena affair and in the destruction of Yamit. He is an unconscionable thuggish mobster and should be in jail for his manifold crimes. And I'm neither anti-Israel nor anti-Semitic. Figure that out.) Tomer TALK 16:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism. -- BD2412 talk 05:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wiktacy's reversions

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can Wiktacy explain why he reverted the properly cited paragraph:

Others argue that the usage is clearly intended as either a reference to the location of the camps, or to the victims of the camps.[6] ("Jewish death camp" has also been frequently recorded in a World War II context, meaning that the victims rather than the oppressors were Jewish).

Can he also explain why he reverted grammar corrections, or properly placed requests for citation? Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wiktacy, I've reinserted the material you deleted. It's best not to delete requests for sources, or sourced material if it's relevant, and some of the grammar had been tidied up too. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, SlimVirgin. The article is badly in need of quality improvement and the last thing we need here are revert wars. Jayjg, thanks for pointing out the missing citations. Some of these statements are in fact new to myself (like forbidding to teach children Polish in Germany, seems almost unbelievable to me). --Lysy (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"forbidding to teach children Polish in Germany"
Znasz jakies szkoly w Prusiach ktore uczyly polskie dzieci w polskim jezyku?--Witkacy 21:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
W tym samym kontekscie, radze poszukac wypowiedzi Marii Sklodowskiej, ktora opowiadala swoje dziecinstwo w Polsce, jak siedzac w strachu w klasie, obserwowala gdy polscy nauczyciele (rowniez w ciezkim strachu) chowali w szkole wszystko co by "przypominalo Polske" przed rosyjskim urzednikiem, ktory regularnie wpadal na kontrole do "polskiej" szkoly (w "Polsce") - jak i rowniez nauczycielski nakaz bron Boze nie mowic w czasie kontroli ani slowa po polsku.--Witkacy 22:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
As you know I consider it impolite to use non English language outside user space on English WP. Your examples refer to the situation before WWI, while the paragraph is clearly about contemporary Germany (or after WWII at least). Maybe rephrase it ? --Lysy (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Chodzi Ci o to "Germany and express themself in various ways-ranging from accusations that Poland was cause of WWII to several cases where courts forbade parents to teach and speak with their children in Polish language"?
Czy to już rasizm? - zastanawia się "Newsweek", opisując sprawę dzieci z rozbitych polsko-niemieckich małżeństw, którym nie wolno mówić po polsku. Zakazu nie wydali skłóceni rodzice, ale niemieckie urzędy i sądy w majestacie niemieckiego prawa. Twierdzą, że mówienie po polsku ma szkodzić dzieciom w prawidłowym rozwoju. Polskim rodzicom, pod groźbą uniemożliwienia jakiegokolwiek kontaktu z dziećmi, zabrania się powiedzenia po polsku nawet prostego "cześć, córeczko" albo "dzień dobry, synku". Okazuje się, że nie są to wcale odosobnione przypadki. Dziennikarze "Newsweeka" dotarli do kilkunastu takich historii: lekarzy, pracowników naukowych, urzędników, ludzi wykształconych, z pozycją zawodową, znających znakomicie niemiecki. Na podstawie rozmów przeprowadzonych z prawnikami i przedstawicielami organizacji pozarządowych "Newsweek" szacuje, że podobnych przypadków może być kilka tysięcy rocznie. Osoby opisane w tygodniku mają podwójne obywatelstwo i zwracały się o pomoc do polskich władz. Polskie Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości uważa jednak, że to jednostkowe przypadki i odsyła do roztrzygania konfliktów rodzinnych w sądach niemieckich. Na te jednak bardzo niewielu odseperawonaych od dzieci matek lub ojców stać - pisze "Newsweek http://newsweek.redakcja.pl/wydania/artykul.asp?Artykul=12799--Witkacy 22:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanation (of which I was not aware) but I refuse to discuss in Polish here. In my opinion this shows your lack of respect to those who do not know the language and is bad for collaboration. EOT --Lysy (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Antipolonisms in France in 21st century ?

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think the section on French politics in 21st century does not really belong here. French politicians are worldwide known for following one faux pas with another, but this can hardly be considered antipolonism IHMO. It's rather the way that the French see politics in general. Any thoughts ? --Lysy (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of like when Chirac recently said English food is terrible, almost as bad as Finnish. Was that anti-Anglism? Anti-Finnism? To be a proper addition to the article, the information needs to have been brought by a reputable source as an example of anti-Polonism. Unfortunately, the authors of this article keep bringing things they think are anti-Polonism, without any citations indicating they actually are anti-Polonism. That, of course, is original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts, exactly. In fact I find this para rather pathetic and would prefer not to see it there. But I'd wait a bit for a possible defence here. (not that I admire Chirac) --Lysy (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to support it here, I'm going to remove this paragraph until it's supported by any firm evidence of French hostility against Poles or such. Otherwise I consider it just an arrogance of several politicians, nothing more. --Lysy (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag by User:Thorsten1

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Thorsten1, I see that you've added the NPOV tag to the article and explained that the reason is disputed on the talk page, but I cannot see any discussion of yours here. Can you please specifically explain what do you consider to be POV in the article ? Until then I'm removing the tag. I believe that we are working to improve the article now. If you seriously want to help, state your concerns but be specific and constructive. --Lysy (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Lysy, but with all due respect, the assertion that the article's neutrality is not under dispute is ridiculous - look at the heated debate both here and on the recent VfD against the article. "I cannot see any discussion of yours here" - I was not aware of any rule according to which you have to take part in the discussion before you can add a NPOV tag. "Can you please specifically explain what do you consider to be POV in the article" - I'm afraid I can't do that, simply because the POV content is overwhelming. I could rather explain what I consider NPOV. In case you overlooked my posts to the VfD discussion (in which I voted keep, by the way), feel free to read them to get an idea of my concerns. To recapitulate them, this article grossly misleads the reader on how the concept of anti-Polonism is primarily used, i.e. as a reaction to claims of Polish anti-Semitism. The usage presented in this article, which stretches the concept to cover just about anything from The Deluge to You forgot Poland, can at best be called "original research"; although most would consider it political soapboxing rather than historical research. What really takes the cake is the idiotic statement that Germany bans parents from talking Polish to their children. If anyone really feels that political agitation of this kind conforms to what Wikipedia is all about, then I'm afraid I cannot see any basis for constructive cooperation with them, neither here nor in other Poland-related articles. --Thorsten1 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
"What really takes the cake is the idiotic statement that Germany bans parents from talking Polish to their children"
This is true Thorsten, it has been reported several times in Polish media,Germany as a state doesn't do this,but they are several cases where courts have ordered such verdicts.There is a link in the entry to the article describing this case of antipolonism. Molobo
Firstly, let me quote the explanation about the label after w:NPOV_dispute: Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. This said, I agree that it needs a lot of work and I feel that the current contents of the article is beyond me as well. How about "accuracy" label rather than NPOV ? I would still rather see these statements addressing specific sentences as more constructive, as it would show the way to improve it step by step instead of engaging in fruitless general disputes. As for German courts banning teaching Polish language, you can see from the section above that I also objected, but it seems that some research done by Newsweek and some NGOs confirm the scale of the problem. Have you heard anything about it yourself, BTW ? --Lysy (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Polnisch verboten!--Witkacy 20:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Lysy, you quoted the sentence: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article." Fair enough. However, judging from this talk page and the VfD on grounds of bias - which even a majority of the keep votes recognised - no one can seriously contend there was "no prior discussion of the bias".
Regarding German courts banning the Polish language - yes, I am aware of the case you are referring to. Its key figure is one Wojciech Pomorski, who came to Germany in 1989 and married a German woman in 1992. In 2003, his wife divorced him, claiming he had beaten both herself and their two daughters. As is common practive in such cases, Pomorski was allowed to meet his children only in the presence of a supervising officer of the youth and family authority. As allegedly no Polish-speaking staff was available (although there was, as was revealed later), Pomorski was required to speak German at these meetings. No translator was made available - as not only was Pomorski fluent in German, but in fact a teacher of German. For about two years, Pomorski himself refused to see his daughters unless he be officially allowed to talk Polish. The Wprost article conveniently conceals this fact, making it appear as if the authorities denied a loving father contact with his children, when Pomorski simply chose to value his civil rights as a Pole more than seeing his daughters. Further, Wprost conceals that the whole issue occured only because Mrs Pomorski charged her husband of domestic violence against her daughters and herself - otherwise no contact supervision would have been imposed in the first place, and no bureaucrat would have cared whether Pomorski spoke Polish or Swahili.
By the time the authority finally agreed to send a Polish-speaking officer to attend meetings in 2005, his ex-wife had moved to Austria. (cf. "Im Sturmlauf aus der Stille", Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1 July 2005, p. 3, "Deutsch nach Vorschrift", Die Zeit, 43/2004 [7]).
Since then, several more cases have been reported where authorities required non-German parents from divorced binational families to speak German with their children at official meetings. To keep things in perspective - there are millions of immigrant and binational families in Germany, while we are discussing a handful of cases in which binational parents are fighting over custody and visiting rights; and these cases are not limited to Polish parents - the majority concerns Turkish parents, as Turks form the largest ethnic community in Germany. Further, the issue needs to be seen against the backdrop of an intensive current discussion about increasing language problems of immigrant children at German schools, which coincides with a new obsession about the quality of education after German students scored poorly in the 2000 Programme for International Student Assessment study. The view that a bilingual upbringing is not an educational liability, but an asset, is steadily gaining ground among educators worldwide, but has yet to reach many bureaucrats, teachers and parents.
Pomorski's and similar stories about are sad ones, no doubt. However, the only question we should be discussing here remains if it is correct to say that German courts "have forbidden parents to teach and speak with their children in Polish, as well as raising them with Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development"? Further, is it correct to label this as "anti-Polonism"? To decorate it with pictures of WW II mass executions? Those who would answer "yes" may believe that they can instrumentalise Wikipedia to bestow encyclopedic benediction upon their own "patriotic" view of the world. However, they are wrong as they grossly underestimate our readers' ability to detect and ignore biased material. If they come out on top, users might first begin to ignore Poland-related articles as a "patriotic" POV backwater. Ultimately, Wikipedia might evolve into some virtual Speaker's Corner and gamble away all the respect as a reliable source of knowledge that it is just beginning to accumulate. For the time being, adding a NPOV tag is about the least we can do to prevent that from happening. --Thorsten1 08:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Thorsten1, I'm sorry, I did not intend to ignore your explanations which I appreciate. I wrote a rather extensive response but then I lost it due to probably "pressing the wrong button". I realized it only now and I feel unfit to retype it, I'm afraid. Poor excuse, I know. --Lysy (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Forbidding Polish language is stampmark of German antipolonism, and deeply enforced in tradition of Prussian and German oppression of Polish minority, furthermore the courts decisisons do not only speak of forbidding the Polish language, but also state that learning Polish culture will be harmfull to child's development.And of course this also extends to Polish doctors working in Germany, where hospital administration ordered them to speak in German at all times even in private talks during their free time, again saying that usage of Polish is harmfull. "The Wprost article conveniently conceals this fact, making it appear as if the authorities denied a loving father contact with his children, when Pomorski simply chose to value his civil rights as a Pole more than seeing his daughters" This is your point of view Thorsten and rather radical one.The same could be said about the parents of Edgadro Mortara.What they only had to do was to convert to christanity to see their child.While Pomorski only needs to abandon his Polishness to se e his children. --Molobo 12:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, the article claims that "German courts" forbade Polish parents in Germany to speak Polish to their children. I think I described in sufficient detail why the example is not only out of place, but grossly misleading to the point of wilful misrepresentation. As you can read above, the situation was somewhat different: A Polish father in Germany, whom his ex-wife charged with domestic violence and who was therefore only allowed to meet his children in the presence of an officer, was required to speak German at those meetings - period. That is what happened - but that is not quite what the article suggests, is it? Regarding your other examples, it is very probable that there have been similar cases where civil servants or family courts erroneously ruled that bilingual upbringing was harmful for children's lingual development. Finding other examples where petty-minded bureaucrats interfere in people's lives, including their languages, is certainly not difficult, either. (By the way, I really encourage you to visit German hospitals and judge whether Polish is allowed and used in them.) However, such cases do not only affect Poles, who are in fact a relatively small ethnic group in Germany, outdistanced by Turks, Yugoslavs, Italians, and Greeks. It seems pretty Polono-centric to label as anti-Polonism what is much better described as general xenophobia or even only educational ignorance. Or are we to assume that a German family judge, who issues similar rulings regarding the children of divorced German-Turkish, German-Croat, German-Italians, German-Greek, and German-Polish couples, is consecutively afflicted with anti-Turkish, anti-Croat, anti-Italian, anti-Green and anti-Polish sentiments?
""The Wprost article conveniently conceals this fact, making it appear as if the authorities denied a loving father contact with his children, when Pomorski simply chose to value his civil rights as a Pole more than seeing his daughters" This is your point of view Thorsten and rather radical one.The same could be said about the parents of Edgadro Mortara." First off, according to the article, Edgardo Mortara was "seized from his Jewish parents by the Papal authorities and taken to be raised as a Catholic". The Pomorski girls continued to live with their mother when she and Mr Pomorski separated after a series of undisputed incidents of domestic violence. Can you spot the difference? It was not until afterwards that family authority came in, and whatever its fault in the case, it can hardly be held responsible for the failure of the Pomorskis' marriage in the first place.
There can be no discussion that the authority's decision was wrong, and that Pomorski had every right to protest and have it repealed. That said, nobody required him to "abandon his Polishness to see his children", as you say: All that was required of him was to speak German during meetings, which usually last about two hours. As unnecessary as this may have been from an objective point of view, I can't see how it should constitute "abandoning one's Polishness" for a person who has lived in Germany for 15 years, married a German, and holds a degree in German philology. If seeing his daughters had really been that important for Pomorski, he could have simply swallowed that pill and spoken German while trying to convince the family authority, in or out of court, to lift the language requirement. Rather than that, Pomorski opted for an all-or-nothing approach. He likes to pose for sentimental photographs with his children's left-behind toys and prams; but he refused to see his children, deliberately risking further alienation, in order to prove a point. To put it another way: He chose to be a patriot first and a father second. I daresay that most people the world over would not consider such a stance as compatible with parental love. I for one do not - even if you might consider this "rather radical". --Thorsten1 21:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes and Mortara's parants only needed to start praying to Christ, if they loved their child I am sure they "could have simply swallowed that pill". Instead they opted for an "all-or-nothing aproach".Since you said it yourself why don't put in the article about Mortara ? To put it another way they chose to be patrio and a parents second.Now Thorsten do you want me to put that in Mortara article or will you do it since you view such affairs this way ? --Molobo 17:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Do as you see fit. I reserve the right to comment and, if necessary, undo any contributions that I consider as detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole, and to the presentation of Polish topics in particular. --Thorsten1 18:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Seeckt

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/red-army/1937/wollenberg-red-army/ch09.htm It is perfectly true that Seeckt approached Trotsky in July 1920, through the intermediacy of Kopp, who was then Soviet ambassador in Berlin. It is equally true that Krestinsky continued these negotiations in 1921 and that an agreement was reached in 1922, by which the German Reichswehr transmitted the leaders of the Red Army via Krestinsky yearly payments amounting to the aforesaid 250,000 gold marks. It is furthermore true that Trotsky, alias the Peoples’ Commissariat for War, facilitated visits to Russia for “agents of the German Reichswehr” or—to put it more accurately—active officers of the German Reichswehr and retired officers of the old German army (”Black Reichswehr”). These German officers carried on conspiratorial activities on Soviet territory continually from 1923 to 1930. These are the facts, but their significance is precisely the opposite of that alleged in the “trial.”

What, then, is the whole truth?

When the Red Army advanced on Warsaw in July 1920 under Tuchachevsky’s leadership and “the imperialist system built upon the Treaty of Versailles began to creak in every joint,” as Lenin remarked on October 15, 1920, Seeckt approached the Soviet Government through Kopp and made suggestions for co-operation between the German Reichswehr and the Red Army “against Versailles.” According to Lenin, “that was the time when everyone in Germany, including the blackest reactionaries and monarchists, declared that the Bolshevists would be their salvation.” Lenin also gives the following description of the mood prevailing in Germany during the Russian advance on Warsaw:

“A curious type of reactionary-revolutionary has come into existence in Germany. We find an example of him in the raw lad from East Prussia who said that Wilhelm must be brought back because there was no law and order in Germany, but that the Germans must march with the Bolshevists.” (Lenin’s speech on 22 September, 1920)--Molobo 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

None of this is under dispute. However, it does not mean that Seeckt was "responsible for shaping" German foreign policy in any important way. All it means is that he pursued a kind of private foreign policy with his Soviet counterparts. Overall, the interwar political climate in the Weimar Republic was fiercely anti-communist, in spite of a coincidental convergence of interests regarding Poland. In reality, Germany was forced to cooperate with Soviet Russia to some extent in order to escape her postwar isolation, but Seeckt's role in that was minimal - because his Russophile tendencies were too out of touch with the general anti-communist consensus, and not least because he himself adhered to the ideal of an unpolitical army. That you claim otherwise, based on lengthy quotes that do not at all relate to the point of contention, just goes to prove that you lack any profound knowledge on European history in general and German history in particular.
All you do seem to "know" is that Poland is the centre of the universe, and everyone around it is more or less "anti-Polish". Equipped with this cosmology you browse the internet looking for random pieces of information that seem to confirm your view - then you go and place it in Wikipedia, which you seem to confuse with a soapbox. I suppose you, and possibly others, are going to see this assessment as a personal attack. However, I am utterly fed up with your unconstructive edits - and outside this page, which is hopelessly beyond recovery anyway, I am going to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards any edits of yours that are detrimental to the quality of this encyclopedia. --Thorsten1 22:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This not your first case of personal attack loaded with emotions.Please stop.--Molobo 23:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Page archived

Discussions continue here: Talk:Anti-Polonism Tomer TALK 19:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Polish_sentiment/Archive_2&oldid=1124420184"