Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment/Archive 7

Harald Schmidt Show
''I try to separate the arguments about Harald Schmidt and Erika Steinbach. Please keep them separate. All the small print from this section is reproduced in the next section. Austrian 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)''

Sorry, but a "Comedy-Show" shouldn´t be a basis for a topic in a Encyclopedia. Or I am not right?

Yesterday I saw a Comedy-Show on polish Polsat. And they make fun of/in german (Also they said "Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles". Yes, this is the kind of polish humor.). Does German speak then of Anti-Germanism? Your guys are very funny when you are using a comedy as an example for "german media". Should I must remember some polish guys of this picture: [] (And this is not a Comedy-magazine!). Polish Media make too much panic and trouble, and some Polish make also too much panic. Like the topic Erika Steinbach, nobody knows her in Germany. But every Polish does!?

Please remove this parts or change them. First of all it have nothing in common with the topic "Anti-polonism", or I'am wrong?. --Jonny84 11.55, 3rd September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right there. But the Harald Schmidt claim is already sufficiently exposed as nonsense (see some topics above). This page needs a lot of help so if you would like to stay and help with the mediation, I'd really appreciate it. Reasonable contributors are especially needed on this page so you're welcome, Jonny.NightBeAsT 13:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on all points- Erica Stainbach is a member of a very large organisation visitied by top German politicians, secondy the jokes Harald Schimdt reflect stereotypes persistant in German society that led to mass murder and persecution of Poles. User:Molobo 16:38, 6 September 2005


 * You cherrypicked and challenged two of Jonny's points jumping to another conclusion that he was wrong on all points. Who is Erica Stainbach? Let's check the German wikipedia. According to the German wikipedia, Nach anhaltender, äußerst kritischer Berichterstattung ist sie heute in Polen weit bekannter als in Deutschland. Eine Fotomontage des polnischen Nachrichtenmagazins Wprost präsentierte sie in SS-Uniform auf Kanzler Schröder reitend. (= After continuous, exceedingly critical reporting she is today more well-known in Poland than in Germany. A photomontage of the Polish news magazine Wprost presented her in SS-uniform riding on Chacellor Schröder.) Of course she has meet with top German politicians as one of almost 600 members of the German parliament. And as for your Harald Schmidt exaggeration: aren't there comedians in Poland who also sometimes make fun of other nations? Was Jonny wrong there? OMG the Guardian Unlimited has published an article against football fans, even headlined "Football fans are idiots", oh no, there'll be mass murders and persecution of hooligans... (btw also another example of how headlines should not be mistaken for facts). There's no harm in jokes. Laughing is healthy, so don't be in a huff when also Poland is sometimes joked about or do you feel that your honour is insulted then? Don't take it personally.NightBeAsT 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Steinbach didn't meet with Stroiber or Schroeder or Merkel in Parliament.All of those people come regularly to meetings of her organisations and make speeches to them.As to your "there is no harm in jokes" there is if it reinforces negative stereotypes that led to mass murder and genocide of Polish people by Germans.--Molobo 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you know that the Harald Schmidt Show is defunct since 2 years? Do you know? And what is the common of an entertainer and the World War 2? You´re absurd. And you can be sure that this show is not representing and demonstrating "Anti-polonism". You´re making panic. Do you ever been in Germany? Who gave polish media the right to defame other countries, should they maybe forgot their own history? And if you like it or not, to say something (bad) about poland or criticising Poland or making jokes about Poland isn´t alike/even anti-polonism. And come on, the WW2 end 60 years ago, Todays-Germany isn´t Nazi-Germany. Jonny84 22:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And I feel very ashamed, when I read opinions like yours. Poland and Poles are known in Germany as very friendly and hospitably. Many young people are very interested in Poland. And I´m very glad that the people don´t know the way polish media is mauling Germany. Jonny84 23:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My dear Molobo! It isn't Jonny who is wrong, it is YOU! You have showed us on more than one occasion that you do absolutely not know what you are talking about. First of all, Erika Steinbach is NOT a very importand person leading a huge political organization '''she is just the chairman of a organization of a minority in Germany. And That's why she's visited by politicians. Our political leaders do also visit the chairmen of e.g. the organization of the slavian minority, the danish minority (which -by the way- is a member of the Parliament in Schleswig-Holstein) or the muslim minority. Does that have to mean that these Minorities ant their Chairmen play an importand political role in Germany? Well, except of the danish minority, NO!''' Micha.

She is so unimportant that Merkel had given her support in her speeches.--Molobo 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo! If you are referring to Angela Merkel's speeches, show us which speech you mean. She publishes every speech on the internet. I'm pretty sure you can't find any! Micha.

Erika Steinbach
''I changed some comments about Steinbach to small print in the "Schmidt" section above, and reproduce them here. I hope I did not make a mistake with the attributions.-- Austrian 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)''

Like the topic Erika Steinbach, nobody knows her in Germany. But every Polish does!? --Jonny84 11.55, 3rd September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on all points- Erica Stainbach is a member of a very large organisation visitied by top German politicians, [...] -- User:Molobo 16:38, 6 September 2005

You cherrypicked and challenged two of Jonny's points jumping to another conclusion that he was wrong on all points. Who is Erica Stainbach? Let's check the German wikipedia. According to the German wikipedia, ''Nach anhaltender, äußerst kritischer Berichterstattung ist sie heute in Polen weit bekannter als in Deutschland. Eine Fotomontage des polnischen Nachrichtenmagazins Wprost präsentierte sie in SS-Uniform auf Kanzler Schröder reitend.'' (= After continuous, exceedingly critical reporting she is today more well-known in Poland than in Germany. A photomontage of the Polish news magazine Wprost presented her in SS-uniform riding on Chacellor Schröder.) Of course she has meet with top German politicians as one of almost 600 members of the German parliament. [...] -- NightBeAsT 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Steinbach didn't meet with Stroiber or Schroeder or Merkel in Parliament.All of those people come regularly to meetings of her organisations and make speeches to them.As to your "there is no harm in jokes" there is if it reinforces negative stereotypes that led to mass murder and genocide of Polish people by Germans.--Molobo 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My dear Molobo! It isn't Jonny who is wrong, it is YOU! You have showed us on more than one occasion that you do absolutely not know what you are talking about. First of all, Erika Steinbach is NOT a very importand person leading a huge political organization '''she is just the chairman of a organization of a minority in Germany. And That's why she's visited by politicians. Our political leaders do also visit the chairmen of e.g. the organization of the slavian minority, the danish minority (which -by the way- is a member of the Parliament in Schleswig-Holstein) or the muslim minority. Does that have to mean that these Minorities ant their Chairmen play an importand political role in Germany? Well, except of the danish minority, NO!''' Micha.


 * She is so unimportant that Merkel had given her support in her speeches.--Molobo 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo! If you are referring to Angela Merkel's speeches, show us which speech you mean. She publishes every speech on the internet. I'm pretty sure you can't find any! Micha.

Suggested addition
Since the article is protected, I can't add this myself. What I want to do is have a mention of Lufthansa's signing of a codeshare agreement with LOT Polish, which led the way to LOT being accepted into Star Alliance. This shows German support of Poland economicly, something that isn't mentioned in the "in Germany" section. Bayerischermann 00:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not get me wrong but was it Lufthansa that accepted codeshare with LOT or LOT that accepted codeshare with Lufthansa ? According to IATA, Poland had the second most dynamic airline market worldwide in 2004 (with 40% growth rate if I remember correctly). A new promising market is not something to be neglected these days. I'm not suggesting that it's not nice to be in the same alliance, but the facts need to be interpreted carefully. Anyway, I appreciate the motion towards showing signs of friendship instead of hatred or dislike. --Lysy (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, but before that is possible, the article needs to change hands. Molobo's aim is not to give a fair picture of Germany... there ought to be a resolving of the dispute because once Molobo can edit the article again, there's just gonna be a new flood of slander, overstatements, misinterpretations, speculations etc. It just cannot go on like this, so we may well need your help too, Bayerischermann.NightBeAsT 12:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up the codeshare agreement thing:


 * "In April, LOT and Lufthansa signed a preliminary strategic partnership agreement and a code-share agreement on joint operation of air services between Poland and Germany. Both agreements opened for the Polish carrier a way to the membership in the Star Alliance." . (There's both Polish and English versions of that page on LOT Polish's website.)"


 * As for the editing problems, I'll try to help out then. I'm both Polish and German, so you don't have to worry about me "choosing a side". Bayerischermann 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your not Polish and German, your Polish and nothing more.

The economical relation between LOT and german firms is irrelevant to the article.If you want to create an seperate article about efforts to eradicate German antipolonism be my guest.We can certainly link it here. --Molobo 16:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It could easily be implemented into the "Germans Polish Friendship" by saying:


 * "Germany also frequently conduct business in Poland and with Polish companies. One example is the strategic partnership agreement and code-share agreement between LOT Polish and Lufthansa, which led the way to LOT Polish to join Star Alliance." Bayerischermann 18:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how normal relations on economic plateau have to do with alledged German-Polish friendship.Furthermore I question if such thing exists at all.Public opinion surveys would be welcomed here as to perception of both nations towards each other, as well as public surveys of German knowledge about Poland.This however is beyond the scope of the article here.German-Polish relations or perhaps Attempts at eradicating traditional German antipolonism is a good title in my view for a seperate article which could be linked here. --Molobo 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't see how economic relations have to do with Polish-German friendship? While I would agree that perhaps German-Polish relations deserve a seperate article, I still fail to see why you don't believe economic relations have to do with general relations... Bayerischermann 03:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename(s)
I know this has been gone over on VfD and not to doubt the good faith and hard work of people editing this page but this is so absolutely and utterly a neologism something should be done. Add an L and you could interpret Anti-Pollonism as the anger of allergy sufferers toward ragweed. I'd suggest splitting into smaller country specific articles with appropriate descriptors. All google gives is wiki-mirrors. Marskell 14:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A similar idea was proposed above under . Note that google gives these entries for Anti-polonism:
 * http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=967
 * http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zisocultpol/zionp6.html
 * http://www.piasa.org/62annualmeeting.pdf
 * and many more
 * (Surprisingly, none of these is about German anti-Polonism). As for the splitting, were other anti-Xism articles (e.g. mentioned in the section I pointed to) split in the similar way? Maybe there are other arguments to back this idea? Alx-pl   D  19:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * !! Polish-German relations doesn't exist. That would be an obvious place to move much of this stuff. There are already five history of Poland articles from the 10th century to 1939. Surely much of this could be placed under headers there. I can understand a desire to highlight it with "Oppression of..." but I think relative scope needs to be borne in mind. If an existing article logically covers things, utilize it first.
 * As far as the Google test I don't think "many more" is quite accurate. There are less than 800 hits for the term. In Google terms that's nothing, and while Poles who speak English or academics may occasionally use the term it really isn't in currency. I think we're being overly prescriptive in placing it here; As the VfD noted, it admits it's a neologism in the second paragraph.
 * As for other precedents, there is an Anti-French sentiment in the United States article, (Anti-Polish sentiment in Germany?) which actually existed long before the main Francophobia article which was just added yesterday. Brief articles for Anglophobia and Russophobia exist (50 000 and 25 000 hits respectively) as of course does Anti-Americanism (1.5 million hits). Anti-Australian sentiment exists as well but I question its inclusion here in the same way I question this article.
 * My opinion is leave anti-X or -phobia articles for current or former hegemons: U.K., France, Germany, Russia, U.S., China and Japan. These countries have excited negative feelings across the globe and across time. Smaller countries with "negative opinions of" that are essentially regional shouldn't be included in the same way; it really does open the door for soapboxes and dubious neologisms. Marskell 09:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Statement retracted. ;) Bayerischermann 04:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But of course the edit history is still there. Anti-Polish sentiment exists in Poland's immediate neighbours. It's not a global phenomenon and no its not equivalent to Anti-Semitisim. If the problem is effectively bi-lateral a relations article is better. Marskell 08:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Grrrh! You shouldn't be looking at the edit history if I retract my statement! Bayerischermann 04:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry. Your retraction initially stated that it was "due to (your) being scared of a hostile reply" which seemed an obvious attempt to fish for responses. Marskell 10:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll
An [RfC] has been created for this page. I decided to do a poll informally as I think people will show up here rather than Polls. Note, no survey is binding on Polls or an a particular Talk. Please note support.


 * Option 1:
 * Start German-Polish relations (which would include Prussia) and Russo-Polish relations. About half the article can be moved to the former and the latter may absorb some as well.
 * Place remainder of content in the already quite comprehensive Polish history pages.
 * When done delete the page or leave as a stub ("Academic word etc...see A, B, C...")


 * Support. Marskell 09:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. (Anti-Polonism is current and in more countries than Germany and Russia) Bayerischermann 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Option 2:
 * Simply rename the page to a comprehensible descriptor such as Historical persecution of Poles and leave as is.


 * Option 3:
 * The status quo.


 * Strongly Support. Bayerischermann 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Option 4
 * Rename the article to Anti-Polish sentiment (which will leave a redirect from Anti-Polonism).
 * Change the preamble accordingly with explicit statement that the article covers also Anti-Polonism.
 * Extend the content.
 * Mention in each section title whether it is about anti-Polonism or about anti-Polish sentiment.


 * Support assuming POV is fixed as well. Groeck 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Option 5
 * Move to another article (for instance Contemporary anti-Polonism) the content after 1945


 * Option 6
 * Remove the content after 1945 as it is difficult to find reliable sources which present the subject

If consensus emerges I or some other "disinterested party" can request an unblock and immediately make the changes. Marskell 09:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Mention in each section title whether it is about anti-Polonism or about anti-Polish sentiment." In what meaningful way will the two terms differ? I'd broadly support a move to this title incidentally though I still think German-Polish relations could more or less absorb this. Marskell 13:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is still Jewish anti-Polonism, and in fact there are more documentation on the contemporary anti-Polonism among Jews than on German anti-Polonism. This is not included in the article though, since the editors are biased and I had very little chances to introduce suitable material to the article. Similarly, latest political events gave rise to occasional questions about Russian anti-Polonism. This is not included in the article. Alx-pl   D  13:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Anti-Polish sentiment is definitely more comprehensible to an English language user. Unfortunately it gets even fewer google hits than Anti-Polonism (less than 400). Anyone else got a comment? Marskell 17:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This argument has already been exercised. Anti-polonism is not a neologism. Take a look at the page Google test. It states that a few hundreds of google occurrences should be enough. This search gives 785 hits (we should substract ca 100 for Wikipedia mirrors) and this for alternative spelling antipolish gives 277 hits. The section Google test suggests that we can also take into account searches in other languages, so this search for the Polish equivalent gives 20,100 hits, this search for the German equivalent gives 158 hits. You can also find a quite respectful sources which use the term, e.g.: Cooperative, Journal of Historical Review.
 * I agree that the term Anti-Polish sentiment is even less represented, but this can partly be attributed to the fact that wikipedia mirrors boost the term Anti-Polonism in Google now. The aim of my proposal is to give a better justifiaction for the current wide scope of the article. Alx-pl   D  19:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, after initially agreeing with suggestions for changes you seem to be backing away, so I don't know. Technicality not a neologism perhaps, but at least hard to comprehend. I stand by the fact that this article asserts a regional (and largely time-bound) phenomenon and that A-B relations articles and the already comprehensive Polish history pages can cover it. The suggestion of Anti-German bias has some merit. How many WWII pics you need? Doesn't this unintentionally verify the fact that this is parochial? I found nothing on Google images that would indicate a broader, modern range for the topic—no book covers, no signs, no editorial cartoons. Anti-French produces 265 images and some relevant ones off the top; Anti-Polish produces 8 none of which could be used here. Perhaps you'd find more searching in Polish or German but that would only confirm to me the regional character of the topic. Marskell 13:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. I agree that the phenomenon is regional and it concerns to much descent Polish neighbouring countries. It also concerns USA and Israel though, as many Jews emigrated to the countries from Poland. However, I think that you mentioned somewhere that anti-Polonism is a neologism, so I wanted to clarify it. I support the idea of the poll, but I think the current form is premature. Although, I think the questions you proposed should be included in the final poll. Moreover, I think the idea of the poll should be supported by all the editors around. If it isn't then ist results will be either meaningless or boycotted by some of the editors here and this will give rise to just another edit war. Alx-pl   D  19:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the problem with this poll is that its result might not matter. From the context and experience, it appears that some editors will not agree with any change to the article to make it NPOV, and may simply revert all such changes. Groeck 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected
This article has been protected for ages. I've unprotected and suggest that you all just try editing and see what happens. Works nine times out of ten. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

nominated for deletion
Hey Guys! Even thougt Tony Sidaway does not want me to do that I nominated this Bullshit for deletion. I hope for your support! Best Greetings, Micha.

And here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism

How to end a fight against all the laws of reason
Molobo has just reverted all the disputed claims concerning German and French "Anti-Polonism" despite an enormous amount of discussion and complete lack of support for his proposals. If anyone disagrees with Molobo's unannouncend but certainly not surprising move which cannot achieve anything other than plunging the article into another edit and revert wars, tell me so on this page. I'd like some feedback on (and possibly help with) more serious and defining steps in dispute resolution. Thank you.NightBeAsT 19:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the page is on Requests for comment/History and geography for 3 days. Let's hope more people will join and react. I suggest also to concentrate on a single issue. Alx-pl   D  19:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism in Russia
The claims: aren't still appropriately supported by sources while they should as these are accusations. The source that supports the claim: contains no evidence that Putin said this in the context of hatered towards Polish nation.
 * Soviet propaganda that showed Polish Home Army accused of collaboration with Nazi Germany is present in Russian media.
 * Polish contribution towards Allied effort in WW2 is disputed.
 * Russian policy makers have justified Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

The final source from Gazeta Wyborcza is an interesting evidence, but the content is slightly different. The main anti-Polish content is: It is also worth mentioning that the site on which the information was presented is not representative for Russian media. On the other hand it is commonly regarded in Russia as the place where the official explanation of Putin's politics is presented. Alx-pl  D  19:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * the repetition of the lie about Polish concentration camps organised during the 1920 campaign
 * insignificance of the Polish resistance movement during WW2

Here is the article in strana.ru ''Gazeta Wyborcza refers to. Alx-pl  D  02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Beyond Belief
This page, and the attendant 'Article' and quite beyond belief for a encyclopaedia. If Poland's neighbours are in any way anti-Polish it is surely because for 1000 years the Poles have invaded each and every one of them at some point, and continued to antagonise them all well into the 20th century. Frankly these pages are a disgrace and just pander to Polish paranoia and propaganda. They should be taken down and barred if Wikipedia is to retain any credibility whatever.

Thank you. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

AGREED! I tried to bring some sense into this discussion, but ther are so many paranoid Pepole here, that I had to realize that this is impossible. The best thing is to bash this bullshit. Micha.

Disputed
This discussion Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4 is still active. Alx-pl  D  19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume these three edits were a single user trying to create consensus for himself. Now, this is a no-go but the more I look at this page the more I sympathize with the general idea (however crudely pushed forward). I just removed Polish Black Legend from the lead. There is no Polish Black Legend. It wasn't properly cited internally or externally. And if, as the most recent edit after mine is true, Anti-Polonism does not appear in Polish dictionaries (anti-Canadianism does not appear in the dictionary of Canadian English as a point of comparison) then I do have to wonder about the validity of this page. Assuming the info on this page does deserve mention somewhere does the article title make sense? It would be nice if RfC generated an abundance of comment (it never does) so this question is directed to anyone still watching otherwise: take a step back and ask yourself "would this make sense under a different descriptor?" Marskell 23:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I took seriously the suggestion from the anonymous edit and I found out that the main dictionary of Polish published by PWN ("Słownik języka polskiego"), at least in its on-line version, does not contain antypolonizm, similarly the encyclopedia of the publisher , and the dictionary of the words with foreign origin . The same holds for an on-line encyclopedia Wiem . Alx-pl   D  18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

However Alx a simple search of internet reveals that the word is used in dictionary of subjects in Polish National Library.I am sure it is pure coincidence you missed it.Hope it helps you. Słownik Języka Haseł Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej www.bn.org.pl/doc/jhp/nh/01_04.doc

--Molobo 10:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The phrase concerning the dictionaries states to be precise that its Polish counterpart antypolonizm does not appear in Polish major dictionaries and encyclopedias either. The dictionary you found is a really minor dictionary the intended audience of which are librarians so inclusion of the information does not falsify the statement. Moreover, if the editors decided to add information about the dictionary status of the word in English and the dictionary status of the word in Polish is so peculiar, the information must be included to the article. Alx-pl   D  14:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not understand on which basis the information about Polish major dictionaries has been removed. The dictionary Molobo mentions - "Słownik Języka Haseł Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej" - is not a major Polish dictionary. It is not a major Polish encyclopedia either. I don't deny that the library is a major institution, but this dictionary is simply directed for librarians and thus has no wider audience. Once more, the term does not occur in the dictionaries and encyclopedias I mentioned above. It also does not appear in paper sources like "Słownik Języka Polskiego" by PWN (I've checked the 1994 edition), "Słownik Wyrazów Obcych. Nowy" by PWN (I've checked the 1995 edition) and in the recently published (2005) "Encyklopedia Gazety Wyborczej" (the material in which is just a big encyclopedia corpus from PWN). As these are the dictionaries that really have wide audience and good respect, I don't see reason why this information should be removed from the article. Alx-pl   D  19:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes

 * To go over it:


 * I re-removed "Polish Black Legend." There is no source—there is nothing. Prove it or lose it.
 * I re-inserted the fact that the word does not appear in Polish dictionaries. Alx-pl seems to have done the good faith homework and proved as such.
 * I removed completely Anti-Polonism in France. It was POV top-to-bottom with no sources, no proof, no attributions. For instance: "despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people." How do you know this? Honestly, it is unproveable. Marskell 22:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"I re-removed "Polish Black Legend." There is no source—there is nothing. Prove it or lose it." Please read the article before tempering with it. Dr. Dariusz Łukasiewicz: Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815) Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of history and social sciences series.ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries. "* I re-inserted the fact that the word does not appear in Polish dictionaries. Alx-pl seems to have done the good faith homework and proved as such." It appears in the subjects lists of Polish National Library. "* I removed completely Anti-Polonism in France. It was POV top-to-bottom with no sources, no proof, no attributions. For instance: "despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people." How do you know this? Honestly, it is unproveable." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409539/posts --Molobo 09:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Polish Black Legend. You're inclusion of this strikes me as OR which reading the summary seems to confirm. Find contemporary secondary or tertiary sources which use the term matter-of-factly and I'll buy it. Further, it reinforces what I've said a few times: this is primarily about historic German-Polish relations and the article title ought to reflect that.
 * Re-inserting dictionary point. I did not remove your point about the Polish National Library I only re-inserted the earlier point.
 * Anti-polonism in France. I was not suggesting that it doesn't exist only that the addition as it stood was POV. It's a series of straw men (He said x—of course he's wrong). Marskell 10:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

" Find contemporary secondary or tertiary sources which use the term matter-of-factly and I'll buy it"The book was written recently.As to blaming Poland see Pawelka speech. "I only re-inserted the earlier point." Which isn't true as the dictionary of Polish National Library has it. " was not suggesting that it doesn't exist only that the addition as it stood was POV" In which way.--Molobo 10:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The use Black Legend in the intro takes a time-bound and context-specific idea and presents it as a matter-of-fact, taken for granted point. This is not appropriate to a lead a paragraph and the description of the book I found notes it as documentation much more than interpretation, i.e. essentially primary not secondary. Thus asserting a general Polish Black Legend in the lead qualifies as an inappropriate "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claim" (WP:NOR). Other sources on the book (surprise, surprise) were Wikipedia itself or mirrors. Searching "Polish Black Legend" (in quotes) gives a 110 results and you get one guess where most of them come from.
 * I will edit the para to the effect that it does not generally appear in dictionaries but the National Library is an exception.
 * France:
 * "Despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people" is absolutely POV and beyond proof. "I don't think the French economy is at risk..." is not proof, but a rather tepid opinion.
 * "...a deeply religious nation..." Who in France is criticizing Poland's religious character (and plz don't do what's been done for Germany by pulling out an extreme commentator and presenting it as a nationwide opinion)?
 * Presenting points only to undercut them is the slipperiest kind of POV: "'...a good opportunity to remain silent,' ignoring the fact that Poland had traditionally been a loyal ally of France." Marskell 11:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The deletion for POV of the paragraph denouncing France is in harmony with Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4 and Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4.


 * "Poles are also blamed for unemployment in France after EU expansion" this is imprecise and is anti-polonistic only in your opinion
 * "despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people" is a clear point of view that not everybody in France seems to have and which serves as propaganda
 * "Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country" this is only your point of view and sounds dishonest or arrogant (because you should know that you have no idea about anti-Polonism in France)
 * "due to Poland's close relationship with United States". Sounds extremely conceited and made up. Source?
 * "The fact that Poland remains both an US ally as well as a deeply religious nation, has led to enforcing of negative and antipolish views in several layers of European politics." Source?
 * "Josep Borrell the President of European Parliament has been reported to express antipolish remarks several times, accusing Poland of "taking orders from USA"." Oh no! He seemed to criticise Poland's participation in the Iraq war! How anti-Polonistic to criticise a government!! Where are these reports saying it were anti-polish remarks by the way?
 * "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) during European Parliament session on 27.10.2004" *Cough-cough* Martin Schulz is German, not French, and he called a Britain, not a Pole, a hooligan. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4
 * "Shortly after the Polish EU accession, when the Polish government expressed its solidarity with the American war on terror, French president Jacques Chirac remarked they had missed "a good opportunity to remain silent" The "war on terror" or the Iraq war? Surely it's not a POV to mingle these events, is it? And calling Chirac's criticism as far as the Iraq war is concerned "anti-Polonistic" is not only completely biased; it is insane in my opinion.
 * "ignoring the fact that Poland had traditionally been a loyal ally to France", stated ignoring the fact that Wikipedia relies heavily on an NPOV.


 * So ... this was the entire French anti-Polonism paragraph. Now, your "Polish Black legend" and the doorstep-belief: first of all it may be from a book. Honestly, you cannot ask us to believe you blindly there or buy a book. 'God exists! You don't believe me? Buy my book!' Anyway, to say that Anti-Polonistic is often associated with it is at best your opinion. I associate it with "Anti-Monopoly", an attempt to equate Anti-Polonism to Anti-Semitism and cheap copycatting of the (existing) word "Anti-Americanism". Who can be able to state how something is associated by people except for God? Has someone looked into everybody's minds again? This is just biased nonsense in the lead paragraph.NightBeAsT 12:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please direct your complaints to various authors using the term antipolonism.As to the book if you are interested in changing the article you should read it, before making judgments about it. --Molobo 13:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Please direct your complaints to various authors using the term antipolonism?" What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with whether your addition about France was POV. Again, a single work (dealing, apparently, with Prussia 1772 - 1815, which is what I meant by "time-bound and "context specific") does not allow us to assert a "Polish Black Legend" that has no obvious basis. Marskell 14:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the term is used in scholary work I see no reason to deny its existance. --Molobo 18:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

nominated for deletion again!
Hope for the support of everybody, who is deeply ashamed about this Bullshit! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism Best greetings, Michal.
 * I know there is precedents for stopping short VfD that have already occurred recently, but you should ask a disinterested admin to do so. No one involved should take it upon themselves to cut short a VfD. Marskell 15:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This one was not "recently". The issue is not precedents, but policy. Please read it carefully. On the other hand, groundless renominations may be treated as disruption and shut down. I suggest to let this one be, to reaffirm the position, but the third one will not go. mikka (t) 18:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Molobo is sooo afraid...
...that he has to remove the Vote-for-deletion-tag! Are you ashamed of your lies or what all the intelligent people might think of you? Or did you forget to steal a brain?


 * Please no personal attacks. Your opinions on the page are clear. Marskell 17:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you had to steal a brain, doesn't mean anybody else had to! Voting for deletion already happened and there is no need for another one. We're not going to repeat the voting until the polonophobes strike it lucky! Space Cadet 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia specifically allows for re-noms. Check "closure" here: Guide to deletion. A two month old keep vote is not a blanket excuse to stop criticisms of the page. "...Polonophobes strike it lucky!" is senseless and bad faith. I consider removing the tag vandalism and will revert accordingly. Marskell 18:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Serious reasons for the vote must be given.Using argument "this is bullshit" isn't an argument.Neither is complaining that history of the region isn't nice.Are we to delete every article that deals in persecution of one group of another ?--Molobo 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The nom is cursory but does state "this is POV." This is fair criticism and a fair reason to nominate. It won't be deleted anyhow—inconclusive at most—and generating needed talk is not a bad thing. Marskell 18:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Needed talk ? You mean "steal a brain", "this is bullshit" or your complaints that it might hurt German feelings ? I think the article could avoid this juvenile silliness you consider "needed talk" And the nom says clearly "This is bullshit".My what a grand reason. --Molobo 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The nom states this: "STRONG DELETE! This article contains only POV's. It is absolutely wrong. No need to keep it in an encyclopedia." Again, cursory but acceptable. By needed talk I obviously meant uninvolved editors joining discussion about a page that has had complaints regularly registered against it for months (do you deny that?).


 * As for "hurting German feelings:" Pic 1: "Germans execute...", Pic 2: "...slave labour in Germany", Pic 3: "German soldiers executing..." Why not start with a pic of Hitler and add: "notorious German Anti-Polonialist"? Marskell 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This people weren't Germans ? --Molobo 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Marskell! First of all it was Molobo who started the personal attacs. Secondly this article IS bullshit. I am a Pole living in Germany, whose parents were not forbidden to teach me polish, which brings me to the third reason, why these Lies shall be removed. The Article is full of POV's. Fourth of all: When you look at the editing history, you'll realize that brainsick-Molobo deleted the vote-for-deletion mark. To me this means that HE's afraid about that everybody may notice that HE is the one who's lying all the time on purpose. Micha.


 * To be clear, I don't feel the VfD is necessary but I absolutely object to an involved editor removing the tag. I never suspected it would last longer than a day—I'm saying you shouldn't take it upon yourself to over-turn procedure. Of course it will be kept—I can't imagine an uninformed editor not voting keep. I'll keep it myself if you like and it won't be bad faith because I'll be opposing my own vote. But of course it needs massive re-vamping, which 9 out of 10 people voting keep will not be aware of. "Needing talk" is, as I said, a hope for even one or two editors to become dis-interestedly involved.


 * Were they not Germans? OF COURSE they were Germans. And Genghis Khan was a Central Asian like Lee Harvey Oswald was a white man. If we had "a white man shoots a white man" on Lee Harvey Oswald, it would of course be perfectly true and utterly stupid as a description. Similarly, if you want a collage of Germans shooting Poles make a user page for it (or at least a main page: Germans shooting Poles) and on this page attempt to prove what remains unproven: that this is nothing more than a regional, bi-lateral issue. Let's rephrase: Is this a WW II page? It looks like one. Why don't you have pics proving a contemporary fact rather than a historical phenomenon? Because you can't find them? Because this page, at the very least, should be re-named? Hmm. Marskell 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary facts like accusing Poles of being thieves ? Denying the right to speak in Polish, xenophobic attacks against Poles in France that led to discrimination of Polish firms ? Blaming Poland for WW2 ? Claiming Poles worked with German Reich ? Publishing books in Russia with lines like "everybody who reads this would shoot Poles out of contempt" ? As to :"Were they not Germans? OF COURSE they were Germans. And Genghis Khan was a Central Asian like Lee Harvey Oswald was a white man. If we had "a white man shoots a white man" on Lee Harvey Oswald, it would of course be perfectly true and utterly stupid as a description." This silly politicall correctness.What I should call then German soldies murdering Poles in executions "A group of people murdering a group of another people" Instead of "German invasion of Poland" I should name it "one state invades another state" ?.This would be absurd.As to your claim about Genghis Khan they are many articles that speak abour mass murder made by Mongol armies so I see no problem In saying the same about German armies if such things happened. --Molobo 10:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Four pics are redundant and yes it looks like a WW II scrapbook. Also you're inverting my point in your reply: I'm not advocating less specific descriptions but more specific descriptions. "Nazi soldiers" creates better specificity than "Germans" presented generically and really do we need two barely legible pics off the top showing exactly the same thing? How do I know they were members of NSDAP ? IIRC officers were forbidden from NSDAP membership. --Molobo 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Germany section in general is a laundry list of dubious points and editorial asides without a single English source to allow the majority of the readers on this page to verify the info.
 * "In addition they [SIC] have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work." No source, and I don't see how it can be proven anyhow.
 * "German constitution grants German citizenship to Polish-born persons if their ancestors were Germans citizens living on German territory as of 1937." Anyone desiring German citizenship faces ancestry requirements. I can't become a German.
 * "In addition radical German organisations expressing anti-Polish views(blaming Poles for WWII), are visited on regular basis by leading CDU and CSU politicians." Which organizations? Which politicians?
 * Further, it is never asserted that such policies (if in fact they are policies) differ substantially from the treatment given Turks, Arabs etc. Are the Poles singled out or this a general tendency toward homogenization (which, ultimately, the larger German society is free to pursue)? Marskell 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Marskell! I tried several times to tell Molobo, that e.g. Angela Merkel visited Erika Steinbach, the leader of the minority organization "Preußische Treuhand" (the organization of the people, who came from east Prussia or Silesia) just because she is a leader of a minority organization. Merkel ALSO visits the leaders of the turkisk, danish, sinthi- and roma or jewish minority, but that does not mean, that these minorities including the Preußische Treuhand play an importand role in Germany. Unfortunately I was -like all the other guys who did the same- not very successful. Believe me, there is no chance to fill fundamentalists like Molobo with intelligence. Micha.