Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy/Archive 2

ESL (English as Second Language)
Term "Polish concentration camps" doesn't necessarily describe concentration camps built and run by Poles. In English language it may mean and probably does - concentration camps in which most persons who were held inside were Poles or of Polish heritage like Polish Jews. Please, correct me if I am wrong. greg park avenue 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in Polish it means something else. The direct translation of "polish concentration camp" = "polski obóz koncentracyjny" means that it was built by the state of Poland / by Poles. And as many people, well OK, not many, but I think 15% or so, think that the camps WERE built by Poles, the Polish government tries to do everything to make people know the truth. Poland is a country with a lot of negative press, so they can overreact. You would to. Another example is: in international media Poland is often said to be a dangerous country and Warsaw a dangerous city. But in reality Poland is safer then all Western European countries (apart from Luxembourg) and Warsaw is one of the safest capitals in Europe. Almost all crimes are 2-5 times less like to happen in Poland then in England. But the world thinks something else. I also thought that when my employer made me move from Paris to Warsaw and know after four years here and many night time strolls I would never be bald enough to do in Paris, I understand while Poland gets so angry about it's stereotypical image. So you really should understand the Poles... or maybe, some Poles, because my Polish friends (young people from Warsaw) really don't care, but some especially older people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.188 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the Poles are over-reacting at all. If even 15 percent of people think that Poland built the death camps, that's 15 percent too much. Poland had nothing to do with them. Some of them, including Auschwitz, were actually located on territory annexed by the Third Reich. Knowing how much Poland suffered as a result of WW2, I can understand how having the German death camps being attributed in any way to Poland is adding insult to injury. They're German death camps, period. If you need to denote where they're at now, then they're German death camps located on territory that is now in Poland. Jsc1973 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP here. The same goes for the German term. "Polnisches Konzentrationslager" in that context means concentration camps in Poland and not necessarily run or built by the Polish government or some other Polish entity. The accusations of "Holocaust denial" that were raised by some media in this context are therefore factually wrong. One might of course argue that these terms are misleading and should therefore be avoided in the future. However this discussion itself is subjective and therefore beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If the anonymous guy above me who only left his IP is correct about the Polish term then this misunderstanding created by a language barrier is probably one of the main reasons for this whole controversy and should definitely be mentioned in the article.

On a side note I have to add that there are some Holocaust deniers, but they represent a small minority and most of them believe that the casualty figures are exaggerated or base their denial on some antisemitic conspiracy theories. I've never heard of anyone who thinks that Poland ran death or concentration camps though. But I don't claim to be all-knowing and so I'm asking where the 15% comes from? Scindix (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

no Polish police were involved in the rounding up of Jews
It depends how we define the Polish police. Maybe some additional explanation is needed?Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Policemen were involved. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Blue Police were not part of any Polish state but part of the General Government.


 * Even if we call them Polish, the Blue Police were not involved “in the rounding up of Jews” as the article states. They were involved in actions which means they are seen as collaborators e.g. catching Jews outside the Ghettos.


 * Further the officers were German and as the war went on the Blue police became more and more reliance on non-Poles (especially Ukrainians). Thinks that in Christopher Robert Browning The Origins of the Final Solution but at work hence can not confirm at present. Jniech (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a bit of a problem with "Polish police" and generally "Polish forces" in WWII Poland. For instance Poles like to boast that Poland was the only country without a national SS division. But when you look at history, you see that quite a few Poles did join the SS, but different divisions - as volksdeutsch, not poles. Even some of the names of very high rank officials are Polish. But still, there where no Poles in the SS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.188 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Volksdeutsches denied their Polish etnicity and considered themselves Germans. SS and Wehrmaht officers with Polish origin described themselves as Germans, as well. Well-known example is Bach-Zelewski who commanded German forces against Warsaw Uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.160.69.120 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Descriptive" vs "Deceptive" in opening paragraph
"Deceptive terms" should be used in the opening paragraph instead of "descriptive terms" as it gives a clearer picture in regards to the term "Polish Death Camps" being incorrect. You're going to tell me that the terms "Polish Death Camp" and "Polish Concentration Camp" are not deceivable??? Deceptive - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead, to give a false impression. This is exactly what these terms do! Poles and Jews both agree! "Descriptive" is exactly exactly what CTV had in mind when the used the term "Polish camp in Treblinka" which was of course incorrect and offensive to both Poles and Jews as both parties have rejected these terms. Beckenbauer1974 (talk)


 * There's no need for a modifier at all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Examples vs Old Examples vs No Examples
Every since I expanded the list of examples there has been problems with editors adding/removing them. I have removed them but have put a shorter replacement. It is based on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs list of interventions. Hopefully this shorter list will meet the requirements of those wanting examples but meet Wikipedia rules. Assuming we get agreement then I will expand the list using 2007 examples and data held on the various embassy sites. Jniech (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a list of examples is original research and trivia. If you want to include it, you need to find a secondary source that describes them as examples. Letters to the editor by the Polish embassy are primary sources, not secondary sources. — Malik Shabazz 03:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the rules: Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.


 * To all editors especially Malik Shabazz: To be clear I am not trying to argue. We seem to be stuck in a loop and I am merely trying to get us out of it.

From rules: Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia


 * Many of the examples have letters/comments published by the newspaper hence the above appears to allow them or am I missing something?

From rules: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source


 * The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not being used to show that an intervention happened. The primary source is the newspaper (or like) saying something.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (and embassies) are analysing that the newspaper (or like) saying they were wrong to write what they did.  Perhaps you could compare it to those people using material by Jan Gross in the Jedwabne Pogrom article.  If understand you then surely they can not use his material as he is the primary source.

From rules: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors


 * The examples from newspapers are not being analysis by Wikipedia editors, the embassy has done that saying they think the newspaper was wrong.

From rules: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.


 * So why can you not cite passages from the newspapers (and like) without any interpretation which is what the old examples did? Jniech (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of all the answers, so I posted the questions at No original research/noticeboard. Please add your own comments there, especially if you think my description of the situation is incomplete. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will give it some thought and if I can make useful comments then I will. Jniech (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz's concerns, we quote news and other media sources all the time on WP. Maintaining that to do so is WP:OR is incorrect. What would be WP:OR is attribution of motives for the use of the term "Polish death camp" on the part of the news/media source quoted. PetersV     TALK 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines are meant to be used with common sense. This article looks rather ridiculous without having any examples at all: it reduces the credibility of the claim. Since the claim is about the use of certain words by (typically) well-known news organisations, citing a few examples would be reasonable, omitting all examples would IMHO be unreasonable. With google on "Polish concentration camp", with the quotes, it's hard to find any examples. (I found this ambiguous example: http://jta.org/news/article/2010/03/14/1011082/polish-concentration-camp-memorial-vandalized, archive: http://www.webcitation.org/5uOItKFsVMy It's ambiguous because it can be read either as Polish (concentration camp memorial) or (Polish concentration camp) memorial) My own selection of examples would probably count as OR. i'm only mentioning this as an example of the reaction of a typical reader, not for inclusion in the article. However, the fact that it is difficult to find examples using the most popular search engine makes it hard for the reader to make an elementary "sanity check" of the issue. I agree that attributing motives for a particular example could be OR. In any case, since it seems (i haven't checked) that some of the main groups complaining (Ministry?) have given a list of quotes, it would be reasonable to select whatever that source seems to suggest as a few of the more important ones. E.g. the first 2 or 3. Or the first quote chosen by each of 2 or 3 of the groups involved could be given. Boud (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy redux
I've updated the description of the controversy to clarify it. Putting complaints that at the time only one source was cited, "Polish death camps" is a term I hear all the time whenever attending a seminar on the Holocaust in Eastern Europe and Poland in particular. I've attempted to state the issue and controversy as clearly as possible. PetersV     TALK 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, der Spiegel is infamous for (bottom line) deflecting German responsibility for the Holocaust in Eastern Europe on to the Eastern Europeans and for propagating the myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust at every opportunity. PetersV     TALK 17:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Der Spiegel is not infamous for propagating any myths. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps saying that Der Spiegel is purposely deflecting German responsibility for the Holocaust is not %100 right but the latest trend in Germany of "painting" out "German less" WW2 atrocities (Nazis this, Nazis that.. etc) and pointing out to the German suffering during and after the war is quite noticeable. Sorry that I am saying that and I think that German civilian suffering must be acknowledged but these are just my observations. Every lost life, Jewish, Polish or German is equal but the facts are as they are. Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler started WW2 and mass murder of people on a scale unheard of before and this must be remembered.--Jacurek (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps saying that Der Spiegel is purposely deflecting German responsibility for the Holocaust is not %100 right" - it's 100% wrong unless reputable sources can be shown. "the latest trend in Germany of "painting" out "German less" WW2 atrocities (Nazis this, Nazis that.. etc)" - no such trend exists in Germany. "pointing out to the German suffering during and after the war is quite noticeable". This is not under dispute, but what's wrong about it? You may even go as far as saying that in terms of "re-education", German suffering during and after the war must be properly presented in order to teach them the lesson that by inflicting suffering on others they only inflicted suffering on themselves. "Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler started WW2 and mass murder of people on a scale unheard of before and this must be remembered" - obviously, but it's not under dispute by anyone, is it? --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "by inflicting suffering on others they only inflicted suffering on themselves." - This might be true for some, but many/most who suffered did not inflict suffering on anyone before, given you are not applying a collective guilt. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. In fact, I am not appyling collective guilt to anyone; however, people who blame German media for mentioning German civilian suffering (such as far-out leftists in Germany or parts of mainstream Polish media) usually do apply it. My point is that even if and especially if you're holding "the Germans" collectively responsible for anything, you should welcome the fact that German post-war civilian suffering is receiving more attention than it did in the past. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the propagation of the myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust" is a myth itself. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would not be according to staged pictures taken by the Nazis of "independently acting" locals which accidentally include the Nazi officers giving them direction, or the "news" reports "smuggled" to Sweden (to Nazi sympathizers who published them as news) regarding the locals killing Jews in eager anticipation of the Nazi's arrival. Nor with official Nazi plans for making the Holocaust in Eastern Europe appear to be a local event. Nor official reports of gleeful local Jew-murdering participation in the official record contradicted by German eyewitness accounts writing it would look very bad if anyone found out it was actually the Germans doing the killing. All in all Nazi propaganda later used by the Soviets to attack nationalists they didn't care for. With all due respect. PetersV     TALK 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I should make it clear there were collaborators and in no way am I diminishing the horrors of what happened, my own father-in-law, a teenager then, ran across corpse-strewn fields to warn a family friend when word spread. Too late, he found her beheaded. But the notion that there was widespread Baltic and Eastern European support for killing Jews (especially the "eyewitness" accounts by "horrified" Nazis of their having to "save" Jews from the barbaric locals) can be traced back to planned and executed Nazi propaganda and "reports" of local support--too often taken at face value. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 07:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but none of what you are saying confirms that there is a "myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust " (observing the occasional involvement of local, non-German collaborators or profiteers does not imply a "Germanless Holocaust"), let alone that Der Spiegel, of all things, was infamous for propagating this alleged "myth". --Thorsten1 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I think we have an argument here for no reason. You titled this section "Controversy redux" but filled it with lots of stuff which is (a) at best only very remotely in compliance with the article's scope, and (b) controversial and/or vague. Let's just dump this discussion, it will not improve the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Spiegel: In the article, Der Spiegel was mentioned as an example for media using the term "Polish death camp". Der Spiegel is thereby not cited directly, but a Polish paper is used to source that Der Spiegel did so. Nothing is mentioned about the context Der Spiegel used the term in. Why do you imply that Der Spiegel used this term ambigously or even that Der Spiegel was "infamous for propagating a Germanless Holocaust? What has this thesis of yours to do with the article?
 * Collaboration: This article is not about whether some Pole actuallly collaborated with the Nazis or some other did not. This article is about the fear of most prominently the Polish government that someone might conclude from the term "Polish death camp" that these camps were run by Poles. You don't need to prove here that the camps were indeed not run by Poles, there is no controversy about that here. You neither need to prove that in the article, as this article as well as the respective linked articles clearly state who actually ran the camps. There is no controversy about that in any of these articles, and if there was, this would not be the place to address it.
 * I couldn't agree more. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for getting side-tracked above. Personally I'd still like a bit more explanation in the note prior to the intro, but definitely worded better now than the prior "... You may be looking for..." which was just not sitting right. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Title change
I would like to propose a change of the title from Polish death camp controversy either to "Polish death camp" controversy or to "Polish death camp" mistake

Polish death camps do not exist and have never existed. The title suggests otherwise.--Chumchum7 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. I think the first one - "Polish death camp" controversy - is better.radek (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Radek. — Malik Shabazz 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree.--Jacurek (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Something strange is going on - agreement on a Polish-Jewish subject in Wikipedia ;-) --Chumchum7 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Polish" death camp controversy is another option. I'll wait for some more votes to come in.--Chumchum7 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone please go ahead and make the change.--Chumchum7 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't use scare quotes in article titles. Manual of Style (text formatting) applies. It looks like Wikipedia is making a judgement. Better to find a neutral name. ➜❝Redvers❞ 09:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's appropriate in this case. There is no such thing as a Polish death camp, and there never was. They were German death camps built and operated by Germans (Nazi Germans, but still Germans) on unlawfully occupied Polish territory. The quotes simply denote that the subject is something that is actually nonexistent. Jsc1973 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agenda or not? Controversy?
I think the article could benefit from stating whether any of the cited occurences of "polish death camp" were meant to imply the polish people in the construction or operation of said camps? This (German) article says none of them.

Also, I wonder about the term "controversy". Who argues against whom, and over what? Yaan (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of writing articles explaining what was meant with "Polish death camp" the Germans should just stop using the insulting wording and apply the correct one: "German death camp". Dr. Loosmark  14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is not about what the Germans should do, is it? Yaan (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Polish American Congress has expressed the view that German newspapers avoid using German and calling them Polish is the favoured approach 1. Prof. Adam Daniel Rotfeld talked about the usage being "thoughtless or intentional" 2. Editors when correcting/apologizing/clarifying regularly say it was meant to express location but this material has been removed from the article. Jniech (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the German article confirms that newspapers usually clarify and apologize, I guess this could be mentioned summarily in the article, too. Yaan (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. re. your first link, I wonder if that Polish American Congress would be willing to provide any data. I personally don't think their argument, that German media call those concentration camps "polish" because they want to make their readers believe these camps have nothing to do with Germany, has any credibility. Re. the New York Times, though this is not directly relevant to the article, they seem to have been using the word "Polish" in connection with things located in Poland since at least 1944. Yaan (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Related, here is something recent from Timothy Garton Ash: "Watching a German television news report on the trial of John Demjanjuk a few weeks ago, I was amazed to hear the announcer describe him as a guard in "the Polish extermination camp Sobibor". What times are these, when one of the main German TV channels thinks it can describe Nazi camps as "Polish"? In my experience, the automatic equation of Poland with Catholicism, nationalism and antisemitism – and thence a slide to guilt by association with the Holocaust – is still widespread. This collective stereotyping does no justice to the historical record."  -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Timothy Garton Ash. Dr. Loosmark  23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Loosmark. Just a friendly suggestion - I think you'll reach agreement with Yaan if you focus on WP:OR. Of course we editors can see the injustice of the misuse of phrase 'Polish concentration camps' but we're bound by WP rules not to insert our own opinions into the articles about what is right and wrong, or what should or should not be done. We must be ruthlessly objective and empirical, and only resort to citing the opinions of credible sources. Still, we can address injustice by using citations in an encyclopaedic manner. I am hoping the use of this Garton Ash quote will be a solution that both Yaan and yourself can agree on and then we can put the debate to rest. Rgds, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following phrase from the article due to serious WP:RS concerns. Please take a look at the rough translation from German by Google translate. Especially, the description of the most respected Polish daily Rzeczpospolita, as "the nationalists mouthpiece against the Germans", which is ludicrous: "Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita has criticized international media outlets, including Haaretz from Israel, as "holocaust deniers" over usage of the term. However, all foreign media articles so criticized by Rzeczpospolita (as of November 2008) make clear that the perpetrators were German, none claims Poles built the camps. -- <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article, and also the google translation, describes Rzeczpospolita only as "mouthpiece", with the strong hint that it is a mouthpiece of the national conservatives ("Nationalkonservativ" in German, no idea why google leaves the "conservative" out). Neither the German article nor the google translation say that Rzeczpospolita itself is "against the Germans".
 * My translation of the paragraph in question would be "In fact the Polish media does have experienced experts on Germany, who know that the reactions of their countrymen are perceived as exaggerated in the Federal Republic, because the actual accusation, that the Germans are rewriting history, is indefensible. However, none of them musters the courage to, in the "Battle for History" which the national conservatives with the mouthpiece Rzeczpospolita want to fight against the Germans, write against the mainstream.". Maybe someone on the German WikiProject can give you a less awkward translation.
 * Contrary to what you might think, Süddeutsche Zeitung is not some nationalist rag, but one of Germany's most respected newspapers. I think the relevant sentence from WP:RS is "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." (emph. mine) Yaan (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Having read the comments by Timothy Garton Ash, I think that quote from Stephen Fry might be just as relevant to this article, just to show that the topic is really more than one of ambigous wording. Yaan (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We have the Fry issue discussed in another article, at length. I'm going to add the Garton Ash quote about Germany. There will be more about Germany to come. Rzeczpospolita is a conservative paper, but don't believe the hype that it is 'just' a mouthpiece for Jaroslaw Kaczynski et al. In fact, Rzepa broke the deeply embarrassing news that Jaroslaw was investigated for homosexuality by the secret police, and that story was picked up by The Sunday Times. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion on Fry should at least be linked to. One of the main points of the SZ article seems to be that "Everyone knows that those camps were not built or operated by Polish people". Whatever Stephen Fry meant to say, it reads as if this is not so. Yaan (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look again, Fry is linked in See Also. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhere within the article might be better. But that's just my personal opinion. Yaan (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the main points of the SZ article seems to be that "Everyone knows that those camps were not built or operated by Polish people". And it's a very stupid point, even if everybody knows it wasn't built or operated by the Polish people (which in itself is debatable, i doubt that 'everybody' knows) it doesn't mean the false name Polish death camp isn't just plain wrong. Going by the SZ article bizarre logic one could call Guantanamo a "Cuban detention camp" since everybody knows that it isn't operated by the Cuban people. Dr. Loosmark  16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for illustrating the SZ's point. On a rather unrelated example, would you say the BBC is plain wrong in calling Duncan Hewitt a Chinese correspondent? Yaan (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's all re-read this Dispute resolution and this WP:OR. I agree that German descriptions of death camps as 'Polish' are offensive, equally offensive as is to Native Americans the cliche that 'Columbus discovered America'. We WP editors must not assume that the German descriptions are (i) honest mistakes, (ii) negligent, (iii) ignorant or (iv) deliberate misrepresentations. All we can do is use verifiable sources even if they conflict with each other. It is not for us to say one or two paragraphs from Garton Ash are unfair without the rest of the article. It is not for us to question the logic of the SZ article. Let's all stick to WP rules. We quote, we cite, we verify and that is all we are sanctioned to do. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the majority of media outlets mentioned in this article is not German. Anyway, the reason I think Stephen Fry should be mentioned in this article i snot that he is not German, but because in his case the issue seems to be more than just ambigous wording. I.e. so far he seems to be the only example of someone actually (ignorantly, in his case) misrepresenting something. Yaan (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fry misrepresented through ignorance and apologized. He is not the only example of someone actually misrepresenting something. In my opinion (an opinion that doesn't belong in the article) Fry's ignorance came from a constant worldwide mistake that death camps were Polish rather than German. Sure, we can copy and paste the Fry section and add it here, no problem. We can put the Garton Ash quote on Germany in as well. More will follow. It will all help to build a more complete picture. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, then Fry is the only example I am aware of so far. I don't think turning this article into some collected quotes would be a good idea. But a few examples of misrepresentations which go beyond some wording issue would indeed do a better job of conveying the significance of the topic than the current article does. Yaan (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd only add that the wording issue is precisely what Garton Ash is talking about, and I'm not prepared to rule out adding examples of the wording issue. Garton Ash doesn't think this wording is an acceptable mistake on German television. He goes as far as questioning the state of our society, the times we live in, times in which a German can even make such a mistake. Neither he nor I are saying there is evidence of a deliberate German dishonesty. The mistake is bad enough by itself. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But I think the Polish Foreign minister said there is deliberate dishonesty (though not necessarily in Germany), did he not? I don't know if Timothy Garton Ash is really a very relevant person for the discussion at hand and would guess that, as he seems to be more of an expert for post-WWII europe, his words are not as important as those of Yad Vashem. But if you think he should be quoted, please quote him. I just wanted to make clear that writing about "Polish" camps is not automatically meant to imply that those camps were built or run by Polish people.
 * If we go back to the problems raised by the Polish foreign minister here, I can see that usage of the term can be "insulting and shameful". But I'd like to see some better examples for the claim that it "not only conceals the truth about the perpetrators of that crime, but slanders [the Polish] nation", or for the implicit claim some sentences earlier, that EU, American and Canadian media are ignorant of who started WWII or built the death camps. Yaan (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to make clear that writing about "Polish" camps is not automatically meant to imply that those camps were built or run by Polish people. Whether or not the implication is automatic, semi-automatic, likely or just possible is irrelevant. If the main victims of the Nazi folly find such writing disturbing and insulting then that's that, just use the proper term instead. Dr. Loosmark  15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But certainly it is in everybody's interest that the problem is spelt out clearly, rather than hidden in a litany of unfounded accusations? Yaan (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you are to decide what accusations are unfounded. Dr. Loosmark  17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Replace it by "accusations not backed up by anything (so far)". Yaan (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "not backed up by anything". Backed up as in what? Dr. Loosmark  18:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, it is "not backed up" as in "unsubstantiated", and refers to "it will be very difficult in countries like Canada, the United States, Italy and Norway to drive home the truth about the events of 60 years ago" and "On the other hand, however, we often encounter bad will. Under the pretext that “it’s only a geographic reference”, attempts are made to distort history and conceal the truth" here. The first point is kind of also made here (After "I believe the time is ripe, 60 years after the end of the war,"). Yaan (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And what exactly is "unsubstantiated" there? Calling the camps "Polish" is nothing but a manipulation because it is very well known that not everybody and in fact not even the majority of people thinks about "Polish" in geographical terms. Dr. Loosmark  12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsubstantiated is, again, Rotfeld's claim that the journalists in Canada, the US, Italy or Norway don't know who built and operated the death camps, and that there are even journalists who want to make believe that Poland built and/or operated those camps. I don't think his point, especially the second part, is related to how the majority of the people think or don't think. Yaan (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Staying cool when the editing gets hot -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIDE -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Etiquette -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikilove -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6742058,00.html
 * In "Polish death camp" controversy on 2011-05-20 21:15:10, 404 Not Found
 * In "Polish death camp" controversy on 2011-05-30 04:03:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://domain1264854.sites.fasthosts.com/?Published:Linguistic_imprecision%3F
 * In "Polish death camp" controversy on 2011-05-20 21:14:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In "Polish death camp" controversy on 2011-05-30 04:03:12, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21984315-912,00.html
 * In "Polish death camp" controversy on 2011-05-20 21:15:10, 404 Not Found
 * In "Polish death camp" controversy on 2011-05-30 04:04:42, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

B-class review
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Buchenwald
One thing is to call Auschwitz "Polish" concentration camp, but what about camps which are not and were not located in Poland?
 * Buchenwald

Canada's first tragic link with Buchenwald probably came when Frank Pickersgill and John Macalister, two Hamilton-born agents with the Special Operations Executive (SOE), were captured. ... While they languished in a Polish concentration camp ....- szopen


 * Found it on Highbeam here: www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185031969.html
 * And yes, typical of scholarship simple repeating a meme. I supplied some feedback on the (original) magazine's "contact us" page. We'll see what comes back. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Death camps ≠ concentration camps
In the last paragraph of the Historical context section there is a logical inconsistency. It begins with an explanation for the use of the term polish death camps and then claims a contradiction to the geographic distribution of the concentration camps. But these are different things. Death camps (or extermination camps) means some special concentration camps with installations to kill thousands of people in short time, more than by hunger, disease and cruelty as in the normal concentration camps. These death camps were indeed mostly situated in Poland, as shows. This supports the assumption that Polish originally meant the geographical distribution of the most infamous of these camps. The two outside what is nowadays Poland (Jasenovac and Maly Trostenets) are hardly known.

I distinguished these two groups in the text to solve at least the logical contradiction. -- Eselohr (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the distinction, the additional detail on camps and locations is an improvement. And in fairness to the controversy, I have seen Polish sources on the topic translated into English as "Polish concentration camps", so there are separate issues of semantics and perception. (But, again, I've heard the specific question asked, would death camps of Jews be just as successful in Poland today? meaning, Polish supported if not Polish-run.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Osvjencim
I don't know if anyone here is aware of this, but in Russian sources the Auschwitz camp is called exclusively with a Polish name (Освенцим, Osvjencim), although the camp in question, if I'm not mistaken, NEVER had any Polish name and was always referred to by its German name. I suppose the village nearby has a double name (which is normal for the region), but this is no reason to transfer the Polish name of the village to the camp as well, which had never been Polish. Any Russian editors with thoughts on the matter? 88.203.176.7 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe you mean "Oświęcim", not "Osvjencim" (looks pretty funny, but I understand you wanted to write it in the phonetical version). Poles use sometimes the name "Camp in Oświęcim", but actually you're right, nobody calles the camp itself "Oświęcim" but always by the German name, "Auschwitz". Greets DameMitHermelin (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Compare the Chełmno extermination camp English name. Non-Poles generally don't say nor write "Chełmno". The name of the camp was "Kulmhof". Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting point re: Освенцим / Oświęcim - I grew up in the Soviet Union with the knowledge of Освенцим, but there was never any question that it was indeed a German camp. It was understood that the camp was located in Poland, but nobody referred to it as a "Polish camp." I first became aware of the controversy when Obama's comment caused such a stir. To me as a Russian/English bilingual speaker "Polish death camp" sounded confusing at first, and then awful, as I began to absorb the implications. It would never had occurred to me to use this phrase - either in English or Russian. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

John Connelly
John Connelly is quoted to prove that Poles didn't collaborate. I don't know the article but the title says "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris" so the article seems to be half-quoted. Recently Connelly has accused the Poles that Poland was a death camp for Jews, which should be probably quoted in the article. Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2005 report
False terminology in the foreign media used in reference to Nazi German concentration camps in occupied Poland Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC) I also think that you should change the title immediately into "Polish death camps - mistake in terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.196.217 (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote deletion discussion notice

 * "Polish death camp" controversy

Please see q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/"Polish death camp" controversy, for an ongoing discussion about whether to delete this page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

German Intelligence and the use of the dubious term
In 1956, Alfred Benzinger, an Agency 114 employee, proposed a coordinated action to propagate a deceitful term "Polish Concentration Camps". It would suggest, contrarily to the facts, that Poles, not Germans, were responsible for the mass genocide during World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.79.78.35 (talk • contribs)  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 13:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles using the term

 * '55,000 Jews Already Deported from Slovakia to Polish Camps' by an anonymous author, Jewish Telegraphic Agency(1942)
 * 'Student trips to Polish camps increase' by Gaby Fisher, Times of Israel - mentions "Polish concentration camps"
 * 'Poland trips boost Israeli students’ opinions of the IDF, study finds' by Gaby Fisher, Times of Israel - mentions "Polish concentration camps"
 * "Holocaust survivor to speak at OU" by Norman http://www.ardmoreite.com - mentions "death camps of Poland"
 * 'School trips to Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp to survive with Holocaust Educational Trust pledge' by Michael Gove The Daily Mirror

Knesset to adopt anti 'Polish death camp' resolution
The Israeli parliament is expected to adopt a special resolution condemning the use of the term "Polish death camps" when describing German Nazi camps in WWII occupied Poland.

Sixty members of the Knesset, led by chairman of the parliament Yuli Edelstein, will call on world media to stop using the term "Polish death camp".


 * Knesset to adopt anti 'Polish death camp' resolution by thenews.pl 13.12.2013 12:23

Occurances of the use of the term

 * Obama’s ‘Polish death camp’ gaffe

Requested move 14 September 2014
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Polish death camp" controversy → Polish death camp controversy – in line with similar titles – Liongrande (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This article should not be moved under a false premise, the request is highly controversial. Read the article talk page please. The subject has been discussed already many times. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Looks like the " " title was accepted by consensus a few years back on the grounds that the " " are essential to understanding the concept. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per two above comments; "" are essential to avoid confusion. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is precise: the controversy is not about Polish death camps, but about the term "Polish death camp", properly taken into the quotes as such.  Staszek Lem (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for comments
Request for comments on the paragraph "Notably, the tenets of those operations attempting to make Poles, not Germans, responsible for the genocide, still live in the hearts of some politicians including John Mann, the recipient of the Jan Karski Award, who in his interview for the Jewish Chronicle.com proclaimed, without mentioning the 3 million Polish Jews murdered by the Germans in Poland, that Poles were the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and that claiming victimhood by Poland is a "revisionist angle" similar to that of Lithuania and Latvia.", or similar ones, being added by user:Poeticbent with a citation link to an article by John Mann in the Jewish Chronicle called "Europe must focus on Baltic hate". The "operations" referred to are those by ex-Nazi secret service police after WWII mentioned in the section "Operations to whitewash German responsibility for WWII". To me this paragraph seems like original research, POV and are not in the cited source. Rapido (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Germans are not mentioned even once in that opinion piece, not even the German SS running death camps. Simple as that. User:Rapido pretends to WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The article claims: "Jonathan Freedland [who] noted that there has been a 20-year resurgence of ultra-nationalism in former Soviet states [allegedly] resulting in a new narrative of Stalinism as the greater evil of the Second World War" does not inform that Poland is not a "former Soviet state" (!) and the Stalinism in Poland is not a "new narrative" but an old historical fact. Therefore, the author is blatantly mistaken (to say the least) in equating Poles with the official Nazi collaborators (they never existed in occupied Poland) while: "ignoring the 200,000 Jews killed by Lithuanians. [period] This revisionist angle, where Lithuanians, Latvians and Poles [?] were solely victims rather than also being perpetrators, hinders efforts to move forward as a civilization" claims the opinion piece. This line-of-thinking is very much relevant to the premise of the "Polish death camp" controversy article because it is based on a blatant denial of fact. – And, please stop blanket reverting immediately.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Rapido  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what " WP:NOTGETTINGIT " has to do with my edit - the above paragraph from Poeticbent clearly shows original research and probably results in the non-neutral POV edit that they keep trying to add to the article. I have also responded to the sockpuppet accusation, which I suspect is some sort of "revenge" for my edit. Rapido (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO the "notably the tenets of those operations.. still live in the hearts" is phrased extremely vaguely; poetic, I cannot help but quip. It is not supported by the source cited, only by the opinion of the Wikipedian about the source. Moreover, the interpretation of the source as " that Poles were the perpetrators of the Holocaust" is outcontexted. The original phrase in question  " This revisionist angle, where Lithuanians, Latvians and Poles were solely victims rather than also being perpetrators" ; its focal point is "solely... rather". While this smacks "And you are lynching Negroes" logic, it is hardly equivalent with "Polish death camp" issue. After all, Some Poles did kill some Jews, just as some Poles did save some Jews and some Jews killed some Poles. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The German SS and Orpo responsible for the Holocaust are not mentioned once, and yet the opinion piece is about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was about the mass extermination of Jews in German death camps, not about "some" killings ... because killings happen everywhere and at any time today. Please take as an example a parallel situation: you read some abstract scribe make a disparaging remark in the press about a visible minority. You do not need to have the same individual inform that the remark was intentionally racist in order to be deemed racist. In Wikipedia we apply a duck test to this sort of situation. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Just because the attempt to whitewash German responsibility for the Holocaust (quote) "is not supported by the source cited" there's no original research in stating the obvious, i.e. that the author "quacks like a duck".  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 05:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And I repeat this is your opinion about the source and about the author of the source and wikipedian's opinions are not to be entered into wikipedia articles. even is the author "quacks like a duck". Are you in full seriousness claiming that a Jew attempts "to whitewash German responsibility"? If yes, please do provide a source. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that he is Jewish? How come this is not in his bio?  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be careless and mistaken. Whatever. It is still your opinion that omitting SS in a short article it is a "whitewashing". The article has a narrow scope: fight with alleged anti-Semitism in some countries. And it is still your personal judgement stated in an extremely strong way in the text of wikipedia article. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, his phrasing "which commemorates 74,500 Lithuanians persecuted under Moscow rule while ignoring the 200,000 Jews killed by Lithuanians" is ""And you are lynching Negroes", but your text is exactly the same only vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, it only now it occurred to me that you are accusing John Mann of anti-Polonism ("the tenets of those operations attempting to make Poles, not Germans, responsible for the genocide, still live in the hearts of some politicians including John Mann"). Therefore I am removing the questioned text from the article until consensus, per WP:BLP. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did some basic research along the lines of what you just implied. Apparently Mann himself likes to talk about Polish immigrants (surprise). – On his party blog in 2013 Mann spoke about the Polish immigrants allegedly taking benefits away from the disabled and other locals in Great Britain. (the 'Blue' manifesto) 02:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ... "white, secular, and primarily working class [with] not a single Jewish person among his constituents — or perhaps because of that fact — Mann believes it absolutely proper that he serves as chair of the British Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism" – Aleisa Fishman, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 18:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support removal of the sentence. Primarily because this gives undue weight to the position of one politician, regardless of whether the cited sources support the text or not. I further agree with Staszek that generalizing from one individual's position to "some politicians" goes far beyond the source and is improper editorializing and perhaps prohibited original research. Even if there were a list of individuals supporting those tenets, we here at WP don't generalize in that manner unless we can find a source that says that. I'm not saying that the point that there are still those who want to whitewash the Nazi participation in the Holocaust cannot be a relevant point for this article, but I am saying that it's got to be better supported and in a more general way than just this. Finally, I would also point out that there is a substantial logical difference between whitewashing German participation, which is the point of the section in which this appears and, indeed, the article as a whole, and failing to adequately disclose or whitewash the extent of Polish or some other nation's participation in the Holocaust. No one is contending that the camps ought to be called "Polish death camps" because there was or may have been some Polish anti-Jewish acts or participation in the Holocaust. The sentence comes very very close to being irrelevant to this article based, at least, on the current source, even before you consider the UNDUE point I first made. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's move the information to John Mann (British politician). Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to include every stupid rant of every stupid politician into their bio. Don't forget Hanlon's razor. On the other hand, if he receives a solid criticism described in reliable source, then he is a fair game Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on "Polish death camp" controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://wprostp.pl/artykul/polskie-obozy-koncentracyjne%E2%80%9D-wymyslily-niemieckie-tajne-sluzby

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Double entendre
I've changed "double entrende" to "term" in the section "Use and reactions" because it violates WP:SYNTH. The term double entendre (a figure of speech or a particular way of wording that is devised to be understood in either of two ways) is inappropriate here because it would mean that Jan Karski and the four Jewish sources intended to implicate Poland. None of these sources indicate anything like this at all; the term used in these sources is not a Jewish conspiracy. Doremo (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The phrase belongs in the preceding section, and that's where it should have been placed. There's nothing "synth" about calling a spade a spade.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 04:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Double entendre" is not what wikipedia writes about it. Double entendre may be unintentional, without any conspiracy, just stupidity. But when someone tries to insist on it rather than simply apologizing, then it is either militant stupidity or conspiracy indeed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled at the phrase "double entendre" here. What is the double entendre? In English, I can see that "Polish" can mean either relating to Poland or else the action of making something shiny, but in German?  The phrase in question, ""Polnische Vernichtungslager", has no double meaning that I am aware of. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIAM. Polnische Vernichtungslager means exactly "Polish death camp" in English. And that is what this article is all about, the "Polish death camp" controversy, 47 edits since 2015-12-18.  Poeticbent  <span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 23:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * “Polish camp” can be interpreted as either a “camp located in Poland” or a “camp administered by Poland” — more likely the latter. Saying that these camps were “Polish” is similar to describing Guantanamo as a “Cuban prison." K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're trying to say.
 * No, that's not a double entendre, that's just ambiguous phrasing. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition: a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent. Synonyms: ambiguity, double meaning, innuendo, play on words. So I think it applies, no? Or what would you suggest changing it to? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "double entendre" is the wrong word choice-- something else would be better. "The phrasing was deliberately ambiguous" would be how I'd say it. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is right word choice when one of the ambiguous meanings is unacceptable (unless you have a better synonym). As I noticed earlier, this is not necessarily "deliberate". The key word here is "objectionable". Most people don't give a shit second thought, but Poles object. If you think that for English speakers the term "double e" is mostly associated with lewd jokes, then I would suggest a self-explaining term "objectionable ambiguity".  Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added "deliberately ambiguous" as suggested by Skepticalgiraffe above. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Justified usage
The term is used to refer to:
 * Jabłonna prison for 17 000 Jews
 * prisons in the Bereza Kartuska prison (1934–1939), where political enemies (communists, nationalists, peasant movement activists, and Ukrainian nationalists) were imprisoned;
 * Isle of Bute prisons where Władysław Sikorski and his associates kept political enemies, gays, some Jews, drunkyards and anyone Sikorski considered . On 18 July 1940, General Sikorski told the Polish National Council in London: “There is no Polish judiciary. Those who conspire will be sent to a concentration camp.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.65.111 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed as irrelevant original research. The article is about Nazi camps. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. The article is about Polish concentration camp controversy. sometimes, it is justified to use the term. It is absolutely relevant, and nothing that can be classified as OR--143.159.145.172 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is about "Polish death camp" controversy -- the material that was added appears to refer to prisons and internment camps. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. Sikorski himself called it concentration camp.


 * It seems to me the proposed addition is off-topic to this article, which is about the controversy regarding the expression "Polish death camp". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is essential. Rightists in Poland tend to dismiss the issue and Polish Wikipedia doesn't even mention anything about justified use. Perhaps we could develop the ativle and rename it to Polish camp controversy, where we divide between unjustified use and justified use.--143.159.32.26 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are pretty fringe, minor and offtopic uses. They are not highly relevant, but there is Bereza_Kartuska_prison to consider. pl:Obóz dla internowanych w Jabłonnie is interesting, but so fringe nobody has yet translated it here (I'll ping User:Poeticbent, maybe he will be interested?). The third one also quite interesting, has no article on pl wiki, but seems notable (Polish source:, , , English one: ). However, I don't see sources for any notable use of the phrase concentration/death camp for any place other then BKartuska, and those are relatively minor. I'd suggest adding a note to the lead at the end of the first sentence or after "misleading terms", stating that "some sources describe an interwar Polish prison for political prisoners at Beraza Kartuska as a [Polish] concentration camp; that usage is also disputed. See more here."   --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NKVD prisons in Poland
The last section is false. The reference is to a text in Polish about "Polskie obozy koncentracyjne" (Polish concentration camps), not "death camps". Conditions in the NKVD prisons for German PoWs were harsh, but by no means they were "death camps" - this is a specific phrase for industrial extermination operations. Plus, NKVD camps were hardly "Polish" and they were Polish inmates there (Home Army, NSZ), too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paszczakowna (talk • contribs) 09:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on "Polish death camp" controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wprostp.pl/artykul/polskie-obozy-koncentracyjne”-wymyslily-niemieckie-tajne-sluzby
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://projectinposterum.org/docs/poland_WWII_casualties.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204100515/http://www.msz.gov.pl/Wystapienie,Ministra,w,jezyku,angielskim,1162.html to http://www.msz.gov.pl/Wystapienie,Ministra,w,jezyku,angielskim,1162.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=10560
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200119/http://www.mfa.gov.pl/Canadian,CTV,Television,censured,,for,inaccurate,and,unfair,reporting,in,referring,to,%E2%80%9EPolish,ghetto%E2%80%9D,and,,%E2%80%9EPolish,camp,of,Treblinka%E2%80%9D,2075.html to http://www.mfa.gov.pl/Canadian,CTV,Television,censured,,for,inaccurate,and,unfair,reporting,in,referring,to,%E2%80%9EPolish,ghetto%E2%80%9D,and,,%E2%80%9EPolish,camp,of,Treblinka%E2%80%9D,2075.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/23/poland-catholicism-nazis-difficult-past
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msz.gov.pl/Wystapienie,Ministra,w,jezyku,angielskim,1162.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)