Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Polonism (0th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. The vote to keep an article on the concept of the expression of anti-polish sentiments is clear. For the record, I count:
 * 16 straight "keep" votes (discounting an anon vote and several voters with few Wikipedia edits)
 * 4 "keep or rename"
 * 5 "keep and rename"
 * 4 "rename"
 * 1 "Keep and split" (which a number of voters agreed was a good option)
 * 2 "delete" (including the nominator)
 * 1 "merge"

What really appears to be at issue in this VfD is the appropriate name for this article. That is a matter to be settled on the article's talk page. -- BD2412 talk 05:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism
This article is an admitted neologism, as well as an apparent attempt to incorporate Nazi attrocities against Poles, the Prussian (later, German), Austro-Hungarian and Russian (later, Soviet) occupation of Poland, ethnocentric denigration of Poles, and perhaps a few other gripes, together into a single article. What's here can mostly be incorporated into Polish September Campaign, Holocaust, History of Poland, and Ethnic slurs. Even after the cleanup by Jayjg, it remains absurdly POV. The rest of it needs to go, as it's little more than uncited WP:NOR and a magnet for POV-pushers. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 21:50 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Anglophobia, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Semitist, Anti-French sentiment in the United States etc., could be also incorporated into Holocaust, History of XXX, and Ethnic slurs, etc.--Witkacy 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename. The factual information in the article is sourced (see references, external links - how can you call 12 written and 8 online references NOR??), so the phenomenon exists and is of encyclopedic value. True, the title is a neologism, but it was not invented on Wiki - while it is rarely used (517 hits on Google), half of them (first page) are non-Wiki. Name change might be useful, but as you can see on Talk:Anti-Polonism, the name change was often discussed, but no consensus was reached. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
 * Regarding the references, it appears many of them are not about the concept as described in the article, but rather are historical works describing various events which this article is classifying as "anti-Polonism". That's quite another thing; on Wikipedia it's called original research. Jayjg (talk)  4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * Some, perhaps. All, surely not. Although if you can prove that none of those do indeed refer to what is defined as Anti-Polonism in the article, I will change my vote to delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
 * Rename. I see no good reason to have a rarely used neologism as the title of this article.  In Talk:Anti-Polonism various other naming possibilities were discussed.  What would be wrong with a more intelligible title like Prejudice against Poles or something to that effect?  I personally do not like the term Anti-Polonism, since in Poland it has often been pushed by at least some right wing Polish nationalists, for their own reasons too complex to discuss here (in a nutshell, to set up an equivalency with the phenomenon of Antisemitism).  Balcer 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
 * So we should also rename Anti-Americanism, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-French, Anti-German etc, articles.--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
 * Anti-Polonism is an obvious neologism; even the article itself admits it. I don't think you can make the same claim for the other examples you have given.  Anti-Semitism gets millions of Google hits, anti-Americanism hundreds of thousands, anti-Catholicism tens of thousands, even anti-Arabism gets over three thousands hits.  As for anti-French and anti-German, they're not neologisms at all, but descriptors. Jayjg (talk)  4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * Its used in English history books---Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
 * Which books? HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)


 * And where should we draw the line in Google test? 100 hits? 500 hits? 1000 hits? 3000? 100,000? I am not a great fan of Anti-Polonism, but as Witkacy points out, it 'fits the series'. As for the title being neologism, I agree it is true, but that is no reason to delete it, as 1) it is used in at least few hundred non-Wiki sites, 2) would encourage the deletion of most articles in the Category:Neologisms. Anyway, this discussion is already moving towards Requested moves, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
 * Tomers "problem" was not with the name, but with the article at all.--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)
 * No no no. Category:Neologisms doesn't consist of neologisms made up within WP, it lists a number of popular words of contemporary origin (e.g. weblog). There is no clear line to draw with a Google test, since it's just a very rough guideline. But when there's orders of magnitude in between, the result is fairly clear... --Moritz 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
 * Keep Space Cadet 4 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
 * Keep V1t 4 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
 * Rename per Balcer, who makes a good point about the use of the term by some right-wing groups, and refactor so it does not put Nazi genocide together with "Polish jokes"--Pharos 4 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
 * So i guess Lukas, Richard C is a Polish nationalist, since he use this term in his books... :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
 * And the Canadian Foundation of Polish-Jewish Heritage a right-wing organisation  :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
 * The term is used in an article written by a Warsaw University professor. HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)


 * ...and the Center for Dialogue and Prayer in Auschwitz etc....--Witkacy 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
 * Again a Polish source. HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work that way. Even if you can find non-right-wing sources that use the term, it might still be associated with the right-wing. (I have no idea whether it is, in this case.) Furthermore, such associations change over time, it might be a perfectly neutral word one year only to become very partisan the next. --Moritz 4 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
 * I never implied that the term anti-polonism was only used by right-wing nationalists. Nevertheless, in Poland some right-wing nationalists (and sometimes antisemites) do use it frequently in their writings. To pick a random example, see this link.
 * And Anti-Semitism is used by Jewish right-wing nationalists, and? And the term Nazi is used by German Neo-Nazis, and? BTW the term anti-polonism is used by (among others) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland - Nobody cares about Anti-Arabism, Anti-Americanism or Anti-Slavism articles etc - is this voting the next demonstration of Anti-Polish sentiment amongst Wiki-Users? ... :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can see where Tomer is coming from, and I'm tempted to vote delete if it solved anything. But chances are, the issue would just pop up again until people stop being emotional about it. Renaming still might be a good idea. --Moritz 4 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to: Delete: Certain arguments (e.g. by HKT, Thorsten1) and a lack of good arguments by the other side have changed my mind in so far as this was even necessary. --Moritz 09:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Tomer. Firstly, the word is a neologism.  Secondly, most of the examples given in the article are wars!  Rightly or wrongly, that is not the normal definition of "anti-whatever" prejudice.  As an American, I would never suggest that the War of 1812 or World War I were examples of "anti-American" prejudice, even though both wars featured opponents who intended to kill Americans.  That's just not how you normally define it.  This article would have a much stronger case IMO if it concentrated on prejudice against Polish emigrants who travelled elsewhere.  But it doesn't seem to have that, dealing almost entirely with wartime attacks against Poland.  The Nazi activities of course went well beyond the normal boundaries of warfare, and so I do suggest merging them for that reason.  Dcarrano July 5, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t call the wars anti-American prejudice either, since they were wars, not planned extermination of people (civil men, women and children) of particular ethnic groups. The Nazi kind of occupation was not normal (as you noticed) nor it was similar to the same in other countries. Also, it’s not about the Nazis only. The article refers mostly to war times, because there were mostly wars in Poland. Still, there is a difference between occupation and persecution, though both may happen simultaneously. If you can develop the issue of prejudice against Polish emigrants, please, do. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

A.J. 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
 * Keep Small number of google hits doesn’t indicate that the problem does not exist only that few people are interested in it or notice it at all. I wouldn’t worry about the right-wing usages of the word. We should not reject a word only because a right-wing party chose to use it. I’ve just read some old talks and I think it’s high time to focus on the article’s body, which definitely needs extension, instead of it’s title. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is already a treasure-trove of not-widely-used phrases, and it is not paper.  --Jpbrenna 5 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
 * Keep, and rename to avoid neologism. HollyAm 5 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's similar to Anti-Americanism, Anti-Arabism etc. --Akumiszcza 5 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
 * Keep. BTW, I wonder if Anti-Semitism or Anglophobia are also listed for deletion so frequently... Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:41 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to something that's not a neologism. I would propose Anti-Polish, which would be in line with Anti-German etc. Karol July 5, 2005 06:35 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper --Azalero 5 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename Radomil talk 5 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename . See no valid reason to delete (just because someone does not like it). And then Wiki is not paper. --wojsyl (talk) 5 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
 * Rename and/or Redirect as per Tomer. IZAK 5 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may be neologogism (in English) but it does try to describe phenomenon which I fuond many times in the web, usenet and whenever: absurd conclusion, that if I am Pole, than I surely am... (insert some accusation here). Szopen
 * Comment: The implicit assumption shown by many that putting this up for VfD and showing anything but a total devotion to a Keep vote is itself an example of so-called "Anti-Polonism" is, frankly, extremely offensive. --Moritz 5 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many mentions of "pl:antypolonizm" in newspapers, there are even books. The reason for little usage of this word in English is that only few of them are translated and antipolonism itself is not widely discussed in media: but Wikipedia already contains articles about more exotic words and subjects and nobody complains. Jayjg convinced me that we should Reduce its contnent excluding wars agains Poland and Expand it to contain polish jokes and other examples of prejudice.
 * (a.k.a. A.J.) has 20 edits on enwiki (1268 on plwiki). To quote User:Ttyre: "Votes of the users from other Wikipedias were not counted during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote." HKT 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any official policy that prohibits to edit more than one wiki ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I'm merely citing a precedent (about the validity of votes) for which there seems to be consensus. HKT 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Rename &mdash; Historically Poland was in the same boat as Belgium &mdash; being caught in the middle between more powerful nations. So this was as much to do with the strategic situation as anything having to do with some type of prejudice. &mdash; RJH 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand. Anti-Polish policies (Russification/Germanisation) of the Imperial Russia and Germany before 1918, as well as anti-Catholic/anti-Polish sentiments in the United States in XX century should be added. Negative stereotyping in portraying Polish characters in the movies and TV in the US after 1945 is another area for article's expansion. --Ttyre 5 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand (as Ttyre). If it is really neologism - add redirect from Anti-Polonism to better English term (Anti-Polish? I do not know) --Julo 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename KrzyP 5 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
 * has 6 edits, all to his user page and this VfD. HKT 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep & rename. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 03:14 (UTC)
 * Keep & keep name, I don't think Prejudice against Poles fits the article. Prejudices don't kill, generally. --Mononoke 6 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
 * Keep and split I believe that this should be splitted to separate articles: Prejudices about Poles (i.e. Polish jokes and the like); Myths about Poles and Poland; Organised persecution of Poles (Nazi atrocities, Germanizations, school strikes); and even article about Oversensitivness of Poles (As some believe that Poles are oversensitive about their country). Anti-polonism article should mention the word, and list of topics as described above Przepla 6 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good idea. --Moritz 6 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, provided that the article on Anti-Polonism remains as the central article of the series. Also, a navbox could be a good idea. Halibutt July 6, 2005 12:55 (UTC)
 * Yes. We need a central article - although whether it is AP or some better name, that I am not sure about. But I like the section versions Przepla suggested. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, though we have to be very careful about the central article and any navboxes. I shudder at seeing Polish jokes and Nazi atrocities discussed side by side and placed in the same category, even by implication.  This would vastly overrate the importance of the first and at the same time trivialize the second. Similarly, to me assigning You forgot Poland and Katyn Massacre to same Category:Anti-Polonism is ridiculous and sad.Balcer 6 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
 * Comment. I find many of the comments defending this article disturbing in that they fail to address the concerns of the nominator, or justify keeping the article for reasons which have nothing to do with policy. A primary complaint is that the term is an admitted rarely-used neologism; responses along the lines of "Jews get to have anti-Semitism, so we should get to have anti-Polonism" do not address this issue, and, in fact, reek of "victimhood" competition, which has nothing to do with whether or not this article should remain, or should have this name.  Second, the comments fail to address the issue that the article appears to consist entirely of original research; rather than quoting expert sources discussing the issue of "anti-Polonism", the authors instead have merely listed the things they believe are "anti-Polonism".  Third, the article authors seem to have decided that any war against Poland is an example of "anti-Polonism", which is a fairly absurd idea, as is easy to see if one were to extend this concept to all wars between countries.  Finally, as User:Balcer points out, the article conflates the relatively trivial (anti-Polish jokes) with the horrific (mass-murder), thus (by implication) trivializing the latter. Jayjg (talk)  6 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
 * All what you say amounts to the necessity to rename and cleanup the aticle. The topic itself is valid. While "anti-polonism" may be a neologism, the word "Anti-Polish" is not. So the article may perfectly well be moved into the History of anti-Polish attitude or something. And there is nothing inherently wrong in conflating jokes with mass murder: both are poured from the same good old barrel of xenophobia. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
 * Keep & rename. I am suggesting to use the term "attitude", because it covers all: sentiments, prejudice, and actions. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
 * Keep-the antipolonism term is used in scientific work.Including non-Polish authors.There are several links to works which use the term.
 * Unsigned edit by User:82.139.13.231 - Noted by It'sMe 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)


 * Keep and make redirection -PioM EN DE PL 8 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
 * has 3 edits to enwiki (4659 to plwiki). To quote User:Ttyre: "Votes of the users from other Wikipedias were not counted during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote." HKT 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me state my nationality up front, I don't have one. This discussion could due with a bit more of "I'm Polish, and I think XXX" and "Well, I'm a Nazi and I think YY" so we know where everyone is coming from.
 * There are basicly two points being debated here:
 * Is this a new word for an existing thing? (I.e. should this article be renamed?)
 * Does this thing actually exist? (I.e. Should this article be deleted?)
 * The answer to the first question is contained in the article itself. Thus, at the very least this article should be renamed.
 * The answer to the second question is more complex, and could perhaps be restated as:
 * Does this thing actually exist as stated in this article? (I.e. Would someone without other knowledge of the topic get NPOV information here?)
 * In this discussion there are nationalist tendancies being shown that are clouding the issue. This is not about minimising any injuries that Poland has suffered, nor is it about revisionist history.  This article, however, appears to me to be synthetic. As such not encyclopedic. Thus Delete - MeAgain 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Of course it exists and even outside the Nazi/Communist references.If you would bothered to read the links and articles you would see that they speak about antipolonism in Tsars Russia or in Prussian state where Poles were considered culturally inferior.
 * Thanks for that witty rejoinder.
 * A - Sign your edits User:82.139.13.231.
 * B - I (surprisingly) do read the links, think a bit, and even look at other users contributions before entering my own opinion.
 * If you didn't understand what I was alluding to, let me be specific:
 * I was born in the United States and currently reside in Australia. I have no particular allegience to this or any other nation, and to be specific I have no personal interst in Poland. I do however belong in spirit to the Deletionist Association.
 * See, there I'm making it clear that I am responding to this article. Now if you would perhaps reciprocate and say (for example)
 * I'm from Guinea-Bissau and I like to make lots of small changes to articles about Germany,
 * It would be clear to others what you are responding to. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)


 * Keep & rename, content is helpful but the neologism is unsupported by usage. Wyss 8 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
 * Keep69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
 * Keep 20:27, 8 July 2005 Ed Zietarski User:Ed Zietarski
 * has 23 edits, 16 of which are related to his user page and this VfD. HKT 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean now ?!! Are you weighting votes by voter's experience ? or are the novices not allowed to vote ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither, of course. I'm pointing out evidence that is typically considered a red-flag for sockpuppetry. HKT 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comments: I think it would be a much better article if it was less focused on war atrocities (which, ofcourse, should be on wikipedia but I think are better covered in other places) and if it was more focused on attitudes to Poland/the Polish. �The page seems to be more modelled on Anti-Semitism when I think it would be better if it was similar to Anti-American sentiment. The page name as it stands isn't acceptable because "Anti-Polonism" just isn't a term used in English. As an example of Anti-Polish sentiment I offer you the "Polish plumber" perception in France, (see if you have no idea what i'm talking about ;) -- Joolz 8 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
 * The term is used in English.. in Polish (antypolonizm) and German (antipolonismus/anti-polonismus) --Witkacy 8 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regional phenomena of pejorative attitudes towards neighboring nationalities are a dime-a-dozen. It would be edifying to see significant evidence that, internationally, this phonomenon amounts to more than just telling jokes about Poles. People around the world also tell jokes about Chinese, Italians, Russians, French, British, Americans - all are stereotyped. To demonstrate the merit of this article, it is necessary to show that there is a unique, significant, international phenomenon of serious anti-Polish sentiments. I look forward to seeing such evidence, or lack thereof. (All similar extant articles that don't meet these criteria should be deleted; there's no reason to pick on Poland, but the VfDs must start somewhere. This is an excellent opportunity to try to prove this articles merits, and this VfD should be used as a precedent for similar VfDs). HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
 * P.S. (Let's see how quickly User:Witkacy can create tiny stubs for each of the following. WP:POINT?):
 * Anti-Polonism - 514 google hits. Anti-Polish - 5,960 hits.
 * Anti-Italianism - 638 hits. Anti-Italian - 9,270.
 * Anti-Canadian - 10,900. Anti-Canadianism - 7,980.
 * Anti-Hungarian - 5,370.
 * Anti-Australian - 6,910.
 * Anti-Latino - 5,840.
 * As far as Anti-French (86,200), that article is merely a redirect to Anti-French sentiment in the United States, which doesn't even claim that it's an international phenomenon.
 * I can see it now.... Hundreds of new, non-notable stubs all saying "Anti-Timbuktuism is hostility towards those from Timbuktu" (and the like). I strongly urge someone to attempt to present evidence of "a unique, significant, international phenomenon of serious anti-Polish sentiments," as I mentioned above. HKT 06:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep for the title, but the body of the article requires a rewrite virtually from scratch. It's true that anti-Polonism is not really in use in the English-speaking world (514 Google hits), but the Polish word antypolonizm has 7,860 results. This is a considerable number, especially when you take into account that the Polish-language part of the internet is relatively small. The word was coined and is mainly used by right-wing media and politicians, most often in the context of "Jewish anti-Polonism" (antypolonizm Żydów), where it is supposed to function as a counter-concept to "Polish anti-Semitism". However, these right-wing circles exert a profound influence on the Polish mainstream, and the anti-Polonism meme has demonstrated a remarkable tendency to shift to any area of conflict between Poles and other nations, such as Polish-German and Polish-Russian conflict - of which this article is a prime example. In my opinion, the article should carefully explain this phenomenon and point out the rationale behind it - it should not do what it does now, i.e. present a muddled mishmash of any repressions that Poles were subjected to at various times in history. And it should certainly not try to "prove" anything about "anti-Polonism"; that would be original research at best and yet another case of repugnant patriotic soapboxing at worst. --Thorsten1 9 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)


 * I suggest we use this intro:

" Anti-Polonism (alternatively spelled antipolonism; also, Polonophobia) is a translation of the Polish language word antypolonizm, which is an anti-semitic term used by Polish ethnic nationalists, mostly in the sense of "Jewish anti-Polonism", as a counter-concept to "Polish anti-Semitism". It denotes Polish hostility toward Jews."
 * --Witkacy 23:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep or Rename--Josiah 02:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My vote, as the nominator of record for this VfD, is an assumed Delete. What I no longer find surprising, but incredibly distressing, is the number of "Keep" votes and their related rationales, which (1) do not address a single point I raised in my nomination, and (2) have nothing whatsoever to do with any legitimate criteria for keeping articles.  What is even more distressing is that a number of editors have been running around in what they apparently assume is the backwoods, on talk pages here, disparaging me.  If the Polish Wikipedians /Black Book still existed, I have no doubt but that I would feature prominently in that nasty treasure trove of happily deleted trollishness.  User:Witkacy has been especially nasty, deciding to take out his frustrations with me by stalking my contribs and blindly reverting me.  Meanwhile, the article remains as I described it, a jumbled mess of every gripe Poles have with the history of the world, compiled by POV-pushers whose concept of WP:AGF, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility and WP:NPA are apparently sorely lacking.  To date, the most sensible "Keep" has been by Thorsten1 who, it seems, has himself been an erstwhile persona non grata among apparently Polish wikipedians.  What is presently in the article needs to go, not because of the made up word "anti-polonism" (for the record, I think one of the coolest things about languages is their ability to express new ideas by various rules of word-formation), but because the word, and the article attached to it, are little more than an unencyclopedic catalog of complaints.  The information in the article may be encyclopedic, and should be put into other articles, as I said from the outset, but it categorically does not belong all in one place as it is, with the apparent specific intent of demonstrating the veracity of a concept that is non-notable if it even exists.  Tomer TALK  15:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment to Tomer: I explicitly agree with everything you say. However, I think the only solution to the problem is replacing the present contents with something that makes more sense, rather than deleting the article itself, which is likely to come back anyway. --Thorsten1 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ... you are showing your frustrations ... with your aggressive comments...--Witkacy 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ... Witkacy, watch out for WP:Civility and WP:NPA... --HKT 16:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ... No doubt it's my Anti-Polonism oozing out the cracks of my withered and knotty exterior. Tomer TALK  16:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * How about responding to his allegations instead of resorting to unfounded ad-hominems, User:Witkacy? Just an idea. --Moritz 16:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only has the response from the keep side to the VfD been generally disappointing (with a small number of exceptions), but Witkacy's repeated deletion of the VfD notice in the first place, followed by his harrassment and blind reverting of Tomer, followed by his creation of a biased article for the purpose of harrassing user HKT (after a rather unpleasant discussion of the amusing nature of doing so on the Polish Wikipedians board), is most distressing. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg: not disappointing but overwhelming on the keep side, I think. It's Votes for deletion page, remember, not a talk page. I've rechecked and do not find any "unpleasant discussion" there, mere two brief comments. What's your problem here ? --Wojsyl (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not disappointed that people voted "keep" (I haven't voted myself, as you might note), but rather that the comments made by the keep side (with a couple of exceptions) were quite disappointing; I've commented on exactly why above, did you notice that? Basically it boils down to not addressing the issues raised.  And the discussion was unpleasant because it essentially outlined a strategy for harrassing a Wikipedia editor based on his username. Jayjg (talk)  20:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is customary to explain the rationale for voting either way. Many voters didn't do so, which is why they might be considered disappointing. I quote from Guide to Votes for deletion: "Votes without rationales may be discounted." --Moritz 19:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I see you guys started a personal crusade against me :)--Witkacy 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And again, you avoid making any comment to the allegations. --Moritz 18:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Moritz, account created on 15:11, 4 July 2005 (the same day when Shilo12 listed anti-Polonism for delete) see also [User contributions - (looks like a sockpuppet account)--[[User:Witkacy|Witkacy]] 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Jerk. I'm not a sockpuppet. Write me a mail if you want. I'm a newbie, yes, I didn't know that was a crime. Bah.--Moritz 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Witkacy: If an editor has amassed 140 edits in 6 days, it is extremely unlikely that he/she is a sockpuppet. Again, watch out for WP:NPA, as well as WP:bite. Moritz: Calling someone a jerk is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility (even as a retort). I understand that you're new, but you should read up on these and other Wikipedia policies soon. HKT 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have read all of those pages, most of them more than once. Sorry for getting out of line. I was (and still am) quite insulted. --Moritz 20:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, and your first edit was - a typical newbie... :)--Witkacy 21:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I leave for a coupla hours and look what happens. Moritz, don't let Witkacy get to you.  He can't come up with any rational arguments in favor of his positions, so he falls back on insults.  If you follow him around WP a little bit, you'll quickly see that I'm not the first person he's made the subject of his attacks, nor until he's censured, are you likely to be the last.  As for his allegations of sockpuppetry, even if I were using sockpuppets, Witkacy's behavior makes him uniquely unqualified to point it out.  His accusations are further evidence that he simply does not understand the concepts of WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  Tomer TALK  21:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great teamwork guys! We Poles should learn from you :)--Witkacy 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously still contend that I'm a sockpuppet? No that was not my first edit, since obviously I didn't do my first edits using a registered account, like pretty much everone else I did it anonymously. If you had bothered to look you would have noticed that I only registered an account because someone else in the very discussion you link to encouraged me to. Regardless of that, many of my edits (even as an anon) were in the VfD category because I think it's an important part of WP and, believe it or not, it was fairly easy to get into compared to updating the already excellent articles I typically wanted to contribute to. All that said, I don't understand why I'm defending myself against your unfounded allegations—you just continue doing what seems to be the only thing you can do, avoiding the real issue by attacking and discrediting other people. BTW HKT I want a freaking medal for not going against WP:NPA and WP:Civility at this point! --Moritz 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Witkacy and Tomer, please, take your discussion to your talk pages. I’ll try to answer some of questions asked here. No, a war between two countries means a disagreement or opposing interests, not anti-xxxism. However, if civil citizens of an occupied country are treated with unnecessary cruelty, or suffer planned ethnic cleansing it is a sign of great hostile and irrational prejudice. This article didn’t mean to double all the historic events, which are already described elsewhere only to single out those ones, which meant expulsion of Polish people. Please, note, that in the article Anti-Semitism in a section referring to Poland, there is a very wide description of Chmielnicki Uprising, which wasn’t even aimed in Jews, though in effect of it great number of Jews died. Soldiers, who died in equal fight will not be mentioned here. On the suggestions that we might have as well articles about anti-xxxisms referring to any other country. Yes, I think we might and we should. There is a lot of irrational prejudices and hostile attitudes of one people to another based only on biased convictions. If Poles think about Germans that they like order too much or Germans about Poles that they love mess, it’s not really harmful. However, if my friends are brutally treated by Austrian police just for driving too fast a car on Polish registration plates, and then heartily apologised upon showing their American passports, something is wrong. If my brother is refused to enter a bar in New Zealand only because he looks American, and apologised upon saying that he’s a Canadian with Polish origins, something is wrong either. If I see an American documentary film, where a young German boy is asked, how does it feel to have DNA of murderers, I would call it a huge prejudice. The same prejudices caused many disasters in the past and that no one plans a new war in the moment, doesn’t mean that it should be neglected. Small number of Google hits means nothing but that the problem is rarely mentioned in English language publications. I agree that there should be more information about the present situation, and the article will be developed in the future. I hope it answers your doubts. You are of course welcome to contribute in this article. --SylwiaS 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, Jews were one of the main targets in the Chmielnicki Uprising. Now, as far as the main point being discussed here: You seem to agree that anti-Polonism is primarily a regional phonomenon, but you think that it deserves an article. You wrote that "if civil citizens of an occupied country are treated with unnecessary cruelty, or suffer planned ethnic cleansing it is a sign of great hostile and irrational prejudice." This is mostly true (though this doesn't prove anything about "irrational"), but such situations are also, sadly, extremely common. In any event, it seems that you'd at least agree that this article needs to be renamed as Anti-Polonism in Central and Eastern Europe, or something to that effect. Am I making a valid assumption? HKT 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol, how about Europe, greater part of Asia and North America, though I'm not sure about Australia. --SylwiaS 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the main, yes. But the *main* were Poles. In CUprising and the Deluge Poland lost approximately 3 million of citizens, out of which Jewish losses IIRC are under half a million. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, no argument there. HKT 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa! That's a horse of a different color, as they say! If you could convince me of this, you'll have won my vote. HKT 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This was the Nazi pretext for war on Poland.  Hitler and his thugs had used historical examples of Polish failures and aggression by foreign powers, to justify Polish inferiority and start the Blitzkrieg.  Poles were equally victims of the Holocaust as the Jews.  Germany was in the process of wiping out the entire Polish nation, to replace it with Germans.  Western Slavs suffered twice, from Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin.  This is widely known in public education and taught to all teenage students in Europe and North America.  TheUnforgiven 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "This was the Nazi pretext for war on Poland." With all due respect, TheUnforgiven, that is sheer nonsense. No serious historian will dispute that the reason behind WW II was a vague desire to expand the German lebensraum eastward, coupled with a strong anti-Semitic urge and the sense of an anti-communist mission, plus a vague sense of Germanic superiority over Slavic nations - there was nothing particularly anti-Polish about Nazism. Let us not forget that Hitler, presumably representing Austrian Catholicism and not Prussian Protestantism, was initially seen as a welcome change in Poland; that Hitler was said to have admired Piłsudski's May Coup; that a phony peace lasted and even some degree of comradeship was staged between Sanacja Poland and Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1938. Even in the last days before the outbreak of WW II, Hitler was trying to force Poland into the position of a junior partner in his crusade against Bolshevism. There can be no doubt that the Nazis had little respect for the Poles and treated them with extreme inhumanity. But reducing the cause for WW II to some kind of "anti-Polonism" is at least as ridiculous as reducing the motivation of modern Palestinian suicide bombers to "anti-Semitism". --Thorsten1 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * During WWII, the Nazis killed around the same amount of Poles as Jews. However, the Jews were much more severely targeted and almost all Polish Jews were slaughtered, while a much, much lower percentage of Poles were. Anyway, the Germans and Russians clearly hated the Poles deeply, but that is still a regional phenomenon. Why isn't there an article on anti-Tutsiism (though Witkacy may now quickly add a stub)? Tutsis in Rawanda were slaughtered mercilessly. HKT 22:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * HKT. Nobody is disputing that Jews suffered the most during the IIWW, but this is not the issue here. It is evident that Nazis were pursuing anti-Polonism (or more widely, Anti-Slav) policies - just check aticles on Lebensraum, Generalplan Ost, Armenian quote and related ones if you need more proof. Whether the phenomena is global or local (and I think it is global) should not matter much, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Piotr, I agree with everything you just wrote, except the last sentence; you don't need to convince me of the existence of regional anti-Polonism. (I only mentioned the bit about WWII in response to the previous post, but I agree that it's irrelevant to this VfD in general). The reason that I think that it's important to determine whether anti-Polonism is global or regional is that such regional phenomena are a-dime-a-dozen and not notable enough to be mentioned as distinct phonomena. I agree that regional anti-Polonism has been extremely severe and tragic. However, I think that it is only noteworthy in the context of regional conflicts and relations, and should be discussed only in the relevant historical articles. It isn't an isolated and independent phenomenon as is, for example, hostility towards people of African descent. HKT 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So, what is your problem with this article (except that it is in need of major rewrite)? The phenomena existed and still exists in a milder form, thus is encyclopedic and should be mentioned in Wiki - this is a bottom line. Rename should be discussed at Requests for move and I look forward to this - current name is not perfect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh. So you are saying that anti-Polonism is a unique international phenomenon, and that international anti-Polonism isn't simply xenophobia? I've already written that if you can convince me of this, I'll vote support. This is why I haven't voted yet. If you're willing to bring the evidence, I'm willing to look at it. HKT 17:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I see your point. But then I will ask for you to describe to me where can we draw the line between general xenophobia and more specific anti- feeling. Besides, didn't we estabilished without a doubt at least that anti-Polonism formed a part of Nazi ideology? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As to your second question: Yes, I believe so. Semantics aside, the Nazis severely and particularly hated the Poles. As to your first question... it's a very good question, and I believe it can be answered as follows: Usually, when people around the world tell a Canadian joke, for example, I would assume that they have no specific desire to deride Canadians. They're just playing on existant stereotypes, and they would just as soon tell a Latino joke or a Chinese joke. In other words, most mild instances of anti-X are only manifestations of a general desire to joke about stereotypes. When one finds that a specific group is widely targeted for any negative treatment or derision, in a manner that noticablely surpasses the negative treatment or derision of other groups, that indicates a unique phenomenon. Can you show me examples of this for Poles or Poland? HKT 23:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * First, if the answer to my second question above is yes, isn't this enough reason for article to exist - even if the only undisputable section would deal with IIWW period? Second. For the wider scope of anti-Polonizm. 1) I think that the 19th century germanization and russification of Polish population, under partitions, are examples of actions target specifically against Polish culture. 2) There is some evidence of anti-Polish feelings during the interwar period, and the following two quotes I will give here did convince me sometime ago that there is something more here then just xenophobia - perhaps they will do the same for you. David Lloyd George: An historic failure, which has won her freedom not by her own exertions, but by the blood of others source, at Versails he (wouldn't give the Poles Silesia like he wouldn't) "entrust a watch to a monkey., in 1939 Poland "met with the fate it deserved" source. John Maynard Keynes: Poland is an economic impossibility with no industry but Jew-baiting source. Also, both are quoted on the first two pages of Davies God's Playground Chapter XIX together with some other interesting quotes. The bottom line is that those important people, with world-wide influence, seemed to have some grudge with Poland. At least in case of DLG it did transform into significant influence - like blocking aid to Poland during the Polish-Soviet War (see this article for details). I could give you some more examples, but if you are not convinced by this nor by any articles from Category:Anti-Polonism, then I am not sure what else I can write to prove that this regretable phenomena does infact exist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * HKT - please dont make fun of the massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda.--Witkacy 22:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, let me assure you that the massacre of Tutsis is no laughing matter, though it has received a pitifully meager amount of international attention. I'm afraid that discriminating towards the regional phenomenon of anti-Polonism can serve only to eclipse other, very important phenomena. While none should have an "anti-____" article, making such an article will only diminish the apparent gravity of all those other terrible cases of severe regional hostility. Far be it from any of us to ridicule massacres. HKT 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Insights from Google:
 * search: anti-polonism - 520 articles
 * search: anti-polonism & anti-semitism - 489 articles


 * So, in 95% percent of cases, when anti-polonism is mentioned on the web, anti-semitism has to be mentioned also. This goes a long way to convince me that the word anti-polonism does not have an independent existence, but it is some kind of a construction in reaction to the concept of anti-semitism.  The article should clearly reflect that fact, if it is to be kept. Editors who try to deny this connection are simply hiding their heads in the sand. Balcer 22:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, feel free to add it :) --SylwiaS 23:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The two are linked, because so many Jews were Polish. The article attempts to describe how Gentile Poles were victimised as if they were the Jewish targets.  There is a distinction between them and Jews don't need all the press in the world.  This honours the painful memories of being attacked by mistaken identity.  TheUnforgiven 23:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Openness, transparency, consistancy - these are all good things for Wikki. Debate conducted as it has been to this point are not. As mentioned earlier, TheUnforgiven, in this highly charged VfD, it would be helpful to state your overall position in conjunction with your vote. Just as it is good form for users with very few edits to note that in their vote. For instance, looking over some of your contributions:
 * [...] You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English. [...] I warned you about playing the stupid Nazi [.]
 * Look at this racist Jew [...]
 * [user] is the most biased administrator I have ever met, although I am sure of there being other Jewish admins [...].
 * allows me to assign your arguments their proper weight. In the event that I have misinterpreted your overall position, please correct me. In summation, could we have input from people for whom this is not a personal issue. This is taking my time away from creating PokéMon stubs. Aaron Brenneman 00:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Aaron_Brenneman How could you be offended, with language such as shown so prominently on your User Page?  When others heckle me with their vehement partisanship, I take no sides and spare no assailants.  This is all prompted from their invasion of my peace and tranquility, with their POV edit warring.  Put it into proper context, please...  TheUnforgiven 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The manifest non-offensiveness of "shite" (in self-deprecating reference to one's own user page, even), hardly needs to be explained. On the other hand, there is no proper context for "You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English." and "Look at this racist Jew."--Pharos 01:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I get my stinging frustration with trolls from User:RickK. TheUnforgiven 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

An example : http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html "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), by Dariusz üukasiewicz. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of the history and social sciences series. 183 pages. Illustrations, tables and indices of persons, localities, and topics. ISSN 0079-4651. ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries.
 * Comment: Translation of Polish language anti-semitic term antypolonizm (not used in English) which is only intended as counter-concept to Polish anti-semitism, I propose redirect to Anti-Semitism in Poland and description there.User:83.109.131.30
 * Comment:Antipolonism has its roots long before rise of Nazism.Georg Forster for example considered Poles nothing more then barbaric primitives in his writings, so did many Prussian officials,not to mention Frederick the Great.Poland was viewed as barbaric, savage land without culture.Some writers went to say that Poles weren't members of white race because they were so primitive.Antipolonism is a real attitude and has much longer history then just XX policies of Germany or Soviet Union.

The stated aim of this scholarly study is to trace back the negative stereotypes of Poles entrenched in German historiography and popular culture ever since Prussia and Russia engineered the partitions of Poland in the eighteenth century. The treatise begins with a survey of authors and readers of the Prussian statistical publications in the period under review. We learn that the credibility of Beamtentumsliteratur (studies written by petty officials in Prussia) was often marred by corruption and dishonesty of said officials, as well as by their lack of proficiency in Polish. The data they collected were also marred by incompetence, ignorance and a classically hostile attitude toward the Other--in this case, toward the Poles. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften). A certain Lichtenberg (said to be Forster's friend) wrote that Poland was inhabited by "landowning despots, dirty Jews and plica" [Weichselzopf, or koltun]. The expression "German cockroaches" must have entered the English language owing to the similarly brutal descriptions of German immigrants to America by those who came earlier from the British Isles.

Among the specific complaints of these official record keepers were the prevalence of Catholicism among Poles (it was considered scandalous), low level of education, consumerism and vanity of the Polish landowners, poverty and servitude of the Polish peasantry, and the greed of Polish Jews who were seen as Poland's "third estate" and whose numerosity in Poland (by comparison to Prussia) irritated the German officials. üukasiewicz's conclusions are that the Prussian officials created a taxonomy within which persons of Polish nationality were perceived as inferior and in need of Prussian tutelage."

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1724846635492 More dangerous than an entertaining, if somewhat condescending, fascination with quaint folkloric customs was the tendency to link customs with biological characteristics, a topic explored in Chapter Eight, "Peopling Eastern Europe, Part II: The Evidence of Manners and the Measurements of Race." While Herder was reflecting on the Slavs, Fichte was teaching in Poland and writing negative, racist comments about the Poles. Polish women were slovenly and with a stronger sex drive than Germans (p. 335); Poland was full of wild animals, wild people, and Jews. A racist diatribe published in 1793 (Joachim Christoph Friedrich Schulz's Journey of a Livonian from Riga to Warsaw) was republished in 1941 after the Nazis had conquered Poland, reflecting a trend among German scholars from the eighteenth into the twentieth century to perceive, in the difference between Germany and Poland, a boundary between civilization and barbarism, high German Kultur and "primitive Slavdom" (p. 336).

Although concerned primarily with the emergence of racial classifications of Eastern Europeans, Wolff's chapter includes an interesting discussion of the writings of Georg Forster, a German born in Poland who traveled in Russia and with Captain Cook's second voyage to the South Pacific, for whom racial differences were significant only between white Europeans and Negroes (Poles, although oppressed, were still Europeans). In other writings, the black/white distinction was grafted onto the barbaric/civilized distinction in Europe itself, appearing in such extreme statements as Ledyard's claim that there were "no white Savages." Eastern Europeans, as barbarian, were therefore not white. (In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Ledyard interpreted the Tartars--a broad category that included, on occasion, Jews, Poles, and Russians--to be American Indians [p. 348].) www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s18/s18-blackbourn.pdf These European parallels with the Americas expressed contempt towards "uncultivated" peopleswithin Europe itself. In the German case, this meant Poles, and the motif runs through the 18th-century history of Prussian reclamation. The line of the Prussian "improvements" ran eastwards. Itbegan immediately to the east of Berlin in the Electoral March, then crossed the Oder to the Wartheand Netze marshes before turning south-east towards Silesia and north-east, to newly acquired partsof Pomerania and above all to West Prusia, the booty from the first Polish partition. On the easternmargins of protean Prussia, reclamation and settlement "secured" the border -for how could youprotect or even define a frontier that was under water half the year?Officials carried contempt for the indigenous Poles with them. The draining of the Oderbruch wasintended to plant good German colonists where "superstitious" Wendish fishermen had lived, amental connection that was even stronger when it came to the new eastern territories. Frederick'sown views on "the slovenly Polish trash" of West Prussia were expressed in unflattering NewWorld parallels. They were like "Iroquois". Or: "I have seen this Prussia; I believe Canada is bettercultivated". This was "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity" (note the metaphoricalundertones of the French verb "croupir" -sunk in, wallowing in, stagnating) I hope this books as well as roots of antipolonism that they show will be put in the text, which I do hope will stay on wikipedia.User:194.30.182.7


 * A lot of chauvinist and nationalist literature has been published in Poland, both during the stalinist People's Republic, and after the fall of communism. This is not news at all. But does reliable English scholars describe this "anti-Polonism"? I believe if we are going to have "anti-Polonism", we should also write an article about anti-Germanism, illustrating with half a dozen of pictures of Poles and Soviet-Russians killing German children. How about that?User:83.109.177.183

Out of three sources given only one was Polish.


 * Comment. What User:194.30.182.7 is describing is not so much about any specific German contempt of Poland, but rather the general idea of a cultural gradient from East to West. Speaking of which, the Polish image of Ukraine as "wilderness" was in fact strikingly similar to the German image of Poland - read Sienkiewicz's Ogniem i Mieczem some time. Should we collect such material, throw in horror stories about crimes committed by Ukrainian partisans against Polish civilians, plus stuff about SS Galicia and maybe some of Putin's remarks concerning the Ukrainian revolution, and then neatly label all this Anti-Ukrainianism? --Thorsten1 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's nice to read comments from someone who unemotionally discusses the horrific problems with this article as it currently stands.  Tomer TALK  05:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Forsters and Fredericks remarks are about Poland and Poles thought.And of course those beliefs led to persecution of Poles in Fredericks Prussia.


 * Weell, what;s anti-polonism for me (I am Pole): The phenomenon DOES exist, though it is not as widespread as anti-semitism and does not have so grave consequences. Not sure whether it deserves article on its own, but since other articles describing similar phenomenons do exists, why not this. Also, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER. When I started to contriubte to Wikipedia, it was said that if someone wants, he may make article about his favourite poker game variation, because there s enough place in wikipedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper <- strange, last time it seems that people start to violate that rule by demanding that articles should cover "important" topics, should have size limits etc)


 * 1) Attitude showed by many Westerners ridiculing any research done in Poland, which cause any opinion based on sources different from Western as "nationalist" and "chauvinistic" (see for example above, when quotes wre immedietely dismissed on basis that since Polish, they were probably biased and chauvinistic)
 * 2) Attitude showed by Germans in the past (as e.g by Prussian king Frideric, Bismarck etc) that Poles are incivilised, can't govern themselves and should be turned into nice, decent Germans. (As well as all references to polnische wirtschat, polish troyan arse and all others).
 * 3) Attitude showed by Russians that Poles are traitors of common Slavic family
 * 4) Attitude showed by many Westerners, that Poles are tiny insignificant nation, so they should not be taken seriously and whenever Poles have different opinion it's because they are barbarian, arrogant, nationalistic and immature
 * 5) Attitude showed by very few Jews that Poles are the most anti-semitic nation in the world and committed all crimes could be imagined and actively helped Nazis during holocaust (search for Bob Kolker in usenet and phrase "90% of Poles are swines)
 * 6) Attitude showed by some racists and Nazis that Poles are untermenschen, not white, rather mongols and should be exterminated or expelled
 * 7) Attitude which cause that most of Poles which appears in 7/10 of Western modern movies either criminals or dumb or at least black hat.
 * 8) Phrases like "polish concentration camps" used in context when it is clear that the camps weren't even on territory on Poland (and which caused that in oen high school children polled answered that Nazis were of Polish nationality)
 * 9) Attitude which causes Poles to be safe object of widespread ethnic slurs and which was described by (but to tell the truth, few).
 * 10) Recent anti-Polish mania in France (e.g. famous Figaro article about most-antisemitic country etc)
 * Most anti-semites do not describe their actions as anti-semitic. Similarly, many of actions which I would describe as caused by anti-polish sentiment, would not be described as such by people who commited them. People rarely realise that they are driven by stereotypes. Ah, well, you may I am a bit bitter here, but if you are not Pole trying to discuss with Western guys, you have no idea how it feels.

Szopen 11:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If we are making such an extensive list, let's also add. Balcer 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A tool of propaganda used by some Polish right wing nationalist (and often antisemitic) politicians and writiers, who believe that all of Poland's past, present and future misfortunes are to be blamed on omnipresent and raging anti-Polonism, present especially among Jews. For an example of this, see: ,,.
 * 2) A word used by some Poles to deflect any charges of Polish Antisemitism, by bringing attention to the supposedly equivalent and entirely similar phenomenon of Jewish anti-Polonism.

Szopen, although some Poles are eagerly collecting evidence (such as Witkacy in his sandbox), I have never run across the phrase "Polish death camps" in the wild. However, I have heard and seen it umpteen times in Poland or Polish media, who are trying hard to convince their audience that the rest of the world is constantly talking about "Polish death camps". That way - and in many other ways - they are spreading and consolidating the stereotype that the world outside (and not only outside) Poland is anti-Polish to the core. As self-centeredness goes, the Poles are right up there with the Americans, Jews, Germans, and French (in no particular order, and not a complete list). Unfortunately, as you say, people rarely realise that they are driven by stereotypes, Poles being no exception, but are usually just brilliant at identifying the stereotypes other people are driven by... But, to pick up on what you said, if you are not a Western guy trying to discuss with Poles, you have no idea how it feels. ;) --Thorsten1 22:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Balcer-can you point any examples.So far you pointed to books that detail antipolish statements made by various people.While perhaps oversensetive, this do not fulfill the criteria you wrote. Molobo


 * Look, for me the whole book is one giant example, and just about any random paragraph would prove my point. If you really read this book and see nothing more than a harmless list of anti-Polish behaviours, then I don't think I am going to convince you of anything.  I am reluctant to paste and translate quotes from the book here, since this would needlessly propagate its rather pathological views. Balcer 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is one book. I really fail to see, when and why the voting on Anti-Polonism changed into discussion on Anti-Semitism? In which place the article, which is the subject of this voting, is offending to any non-Poles? --SylwiaS 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Szopen made a long list of meanings, so I made some additions for completeness. Plus, as you know very well, the problem is not just with this one book, but with a widespread set of beliefs held by at least 10% of the population of Poland (as reflected by their voting preferences). Balcer 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10% of population? Hmm... Let's see: election to the Polish parliament in 2001 - frequency 46%, election to the European parliament - 21%. In the same time it is widely supposed in Poland that our president is of Jewish origin and yet he was voted a president of Poland, twice. Frequency in 1995 - 68% and in 2000 - 61% and he won in the first round. --SylwiaS 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's not quibble over numbers, which of course cannot be precise. I had in mind the fact that a party like the League of Polish Families regularly receives between 10% and 15% support in public opinion polls.  Now, of course, let me say here that I am not accusing all the supporters of that party of being anti-semites or xenophobes or whatever.  Having said that, it does appear to me that some politicians from that party do employ the idea of anti-Polonism in their rhethoric, so it must find at least some resonance among party supporters. Balcer 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sylvia, I am not sure if your comment really proves your point - or the opposite. The question is why do so many people care at all, and sometimes obsessively, whether or not "Kwaśniewski vel Stolzman" (try Google for this one!) is "of Jewish origin"? Perhaps because they want to prove that, at best, he can be president although he is Jewish - thus proving the Polish electorate's generous tolerance. And at worst because they want to prove he is one of "them" (oni) not "us", that he is an agent of some foreign powers-that-be and working against the Polish national interest. Thus, your example demonstrates the very reciprocity of the two concepts, anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism. --Thorsten1 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand Balcer says that people with an anti-Semitic bias are a serious problem in Poland. I guess that they were those people, who let everyone know that Kwaśniewski is Stolzman according to them. What I meant was that voting people didn’t care for what the other prejudiced people were saying only voted for the man they wanted to be a president. So the prejudiced people make only a big fuss but without any serious support. Then, I think they are not as big problem as Balcer claims. That was my point. I didn’t vote for Kwaśniewski and I don’t think it makes me an anti-Semite. I would rather say that one people longed to some advantages of communism while other didn’t and voted according to that, so the prejudiced people had nothing to do with decisions of voters. I still think that the article at hand is not about that at all and is very important for many other reasons mentioned in the discussion above. --SylwiaS 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sylwia, I saw where you are coming from in the first place. My point was that the same facts you mention can just as well be seen from a different angle. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion that the prejudiced anti-Semitic people are not as big a problem as Balcer claims. And we are entitled to our opinion that the anti-Polish people are not as big a problem as the article claims. Are we even, then? --Thorsten1 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The particular anti-Semitic people are not as big problem, because they are hardly taken seriously in their own country. I don’t say their prejudices are not problematic. The article describes many people killed, because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call it a small problem. --SylwiaS 23:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "The particular anti-Semitic people are not as big problem, because they are hardly taken seriously in their own country." Fair enough (although one might indeed beg to differ), but then how do you know that anti-Polish people are being taken more seriously in their own countries than anti-Semites are in Poland? Knowing the situation both in and outside Poland, let me assure you that anti-Polish hostility is much less tangible in the west than anti-Semitic hostility is in Poland.
 * "The article describes many people killed, because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call it a small problem" (read "as small as anti-Semitism"). Please see my response to TheUnforgiven above: The insinuation that the outbreak of WWII and the ensuing cruelty against Poles (Jews, Russians, ...) has its cause in "anti-Polish prejudice" is not supported by international (or Polish, for that matter) scholarship. It is original research at best and Polono-centric soapboxing at worst. Also, what are you actually comparing here - the present verbal anti-Semitism in a country virtually without Jews with the anti-Polish atrocities of WWII? Let us compare the past with the past and the present with the present, shall we? No matter how you look at it, the death toll of German and Russian anti-Polish atrocities will always be much higher than the death toll of Polish anti-Jewish atrocities. But to belittle the relevance of anti-Semitism in modern democratic Poland by comparing it to atrocities in occupied Poland is anything but fair discussion. --Thorsten1 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thorsten, I’m afraid that again you know where I come from, but try to show my words from a different angle. I wrote just three sentences, but you avoided the one, which would contradict your interpretation of the remaining two. I said: I don’t say their prejudices are not problematic (read: every anti-Semitic sentiment is a problem). How am I trying to belittle the importance of anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist? Did I say that there shouldn’t be an article about anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism in Poland shouldn’t be described in Wikipedia? Please, let me conclude my opinions to avoid any future misunderstandings:
 * 1. Every prejudice against a nation, religion etc. is a problem and deserves its own article.
 * 2. The fact of existence of extreme opinions of some people from one nation about another people, do not diminish the importance of prejudice against the nation itself.
 * 3. Every prejudice should be condemned. (read: if you wish to add examples of prejudiced opinions of any Polish politicians or mass media, you are free to do so; you have to your disposition articles like: History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism with two Polish sections, Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne and many others, lately you also voted to keep Anti-Semitism in Poland so you can add it there as well).
 * 4. I never tried to make a death toll competition to show that one prejudice is more important than another. I think the numbers are of secondary notion, as people should be always put in the first place. No matter how many people died, they suffered the same, and suffered unjustly. Not for what they did, but for what their origins were. I don’t think we have the right to draw a line showing where it is a serious problem and where it is not.
 * I really think I already said all I had to say about this issue. I hope then, we can stop this discussion now, as there is really nothing new I can add to it. I understand that we both agree that anti-Semitism exists and is a serious problem. I also understand that we disagree in our opinions on existence of anti-Polonism and its importance. We don’t have to agree, really. --SylwiaS 15:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "I wrote just three sentences, but you avoided the one, which would contradict your interpretation of the remaining two." First off, when it comes to being selective about which points to respond to I do not think I can best you... However, the sentence you are referring to does not at all contradict what I said, considering the circumstantial evidence. I have, of course, no way of knowing what you really meant to say. To me, however, the statement in question comes across as a rather phony concession. "How am I trying to belittle the importance of anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist?" Hell no, you even said it was "problematic", even though it was not "not as big [a] problem". This raises the question - "not as big as what"? Well, not as big a problem as the "many people killed because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call [this] a small problem". You are evidently comparing modern Polish anti-Semitism, which does not kill, to historic anti-Polish sentiments, which did kill. This is logically incorrect.
 * As for your other statements: "Every prejudice against a nation, religion etc. is a problem " - yes - "and deserves its own article" - no. This one does, though. "The fact of existence of extreme opinions of some people from one nation about another people, do not diminish the importance of prejudice against the nation itself." True enough. But then I never implied otherwise and it's not really the issue here, either. What I said was the concept of anti-Polonism was designed in response to accusations of Polish anti-Semitism and does not really have an independent existence outside Polish-Jewish relations. Even the fiercest proponents of the concept rarely use it in any other way than to counter the accusation of one-way prejudice and hostility in Polish-Jewish relations. "Every prejudice should be condemned." Yes, but please not here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to "condemn" anything, as condemnable as it may be. We are working on an encyclopedia, not a collection of indictments. "If you wish to add examples of prejudiced opinions of any Polish politicians or mass media, you are free to do so; you have to your disposition articles like: History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism with two Polish sections, Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne and many others, lately you also voted to keep Anti-Semitism in Poland so you can add it there as well." What is that supposed to mean? Something like "this is our playground, the Polonophobes have their own playgrounds"? Also, may I remind you that I voted keep on this article? What I criticise is the body of the article, not the title. May I further remind you that I initially voted delete on Anti-Semitism in Poland because of the article's clear anti-Polish POV message, and did not change my vote until Prokonsul Piotr - whom you will hardly suspect of being anti-Polish - rewrote the article from scratch? So please stop trying to frame me as a Polonophobe. "I never tried to make a death toll competition to show that one prejudice is more important than another." No, but you nonsensically juxtaposed the supposedly harmless anti-Semitism in modern Poland and the harmful anti-Polonism in WWII and earlier conflicts, which obviously had a higher death toll than the former. "I think the numbers are of secondary notion, as people should be always put in the first place. No matter how many people died, they suffered the same, and suffered unjustly. Not for what they did, but for what their origins were." These are all noble declamations that no one would contradict. "I don’t think we have the right to draw a line showing where it is a serious problem and where it is not." No, but we do have the right and the duty to draw a line between a decent article based on established knowledge and attempts to establish "new" knowledge and usages in Wikipedia. "We don’t have to agree, really." That is the one thing in your post I wholeheartedly agree with. Let's bury the hatchet until next time, then. --Thorsten1 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not as big as Balcer claimed. That was my meaning and I already wrote it before. I don't see any sense in responding to all the other things. If you wish to read my words as not sincere, I really cannot help it. Let me assure you that my hatchet is safely buried. --SylwiaS 20:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me just clarify that I am not out to promote the image of Poland as a country with a big antisemitism problem, as Sylwia's remarks seem to be implying. I only pointed out that in Poland there are nationalist groups and parties promoting ideas unacceptable by the liberal mainstream, xenophobia and anti-semitism in this case, and that these parties can count on the support of about 10% of the electorate.  This is a phenomemon quite similar in kind to what occurs in France (Jean-Marie Le Pen), Germany (National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)), Italy (Northern League (Italy), and many other Western democracies in good standing.  At the same time, the presence of such phenomena needs to be acknowledged and, in my opinion only of course, opposed. In particular, we should not advance the ideas of such parties by creating articles such as this one, in its current form. Balcer 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Balcer, I know you didn't and also please, accept my apology for referring to your name so many times in the discussion above. I should have said: Not as a big problem as I first thought you claimed, before you clarified you didn't, which was in fact before the huge discussion emerged. I really shouldn't have used the big stretch, which could insinuate that you promoted a bad image of Poland. --SylwiaS 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thorstan that is absurd, since I fail to see any connection between Antipolish sentiment and statements made by Frederick the Great, Forster or prussian officials.Likewise antipolonism of Russians has nothing connecting it with antisemitism as it based on Russian state aspirations and accusing Poles of betraying panslavic ideals etc. Hence the accusation that antisemitism and antipolonism are connected doesn't survive a simple test.Of course that doesn't mean that antipolish statements by Jewish representatives don't fall into category of antipolonism and vice versa.But still antipolonism is neither the creation of antisemitism/as Russian and Prussian examples show/ nor is the tool of mythical ultranationalists of Poland.Molobo


 * Molobo, I apologise, I was wrong. My idea that anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism were somehow connected was crazy, as it did not survive your test. And, of course, the existence of ultranationalists in Poland is just a myth.... ;) Seriously, when I said that the concept of anti-Polonism is a reaction to allegations of Polish anti-Semitism, I did obviously not want to imply that nobody had ever said anything bad about Poles before. If you can produce any plausible evidence that the concept of anti-Polonism (not the fact that people made statements hostile toward Poles) was in fact widely used in the 19th century, and not in connection with Jews, I might have to change my mind. But be careful to observe WP:NOR. Good luck, and good night. --Thorsten1 23:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "If you can produce any plausible evidence that the concept of anti-Polonism (not the fact that people made statements hostile toward Poles) was in fact widely used in the 19th century, and not in connection with Jews". It has been already shown that Poles were treated as inferior and barbaric people since XVIII century and legislation followed-for example polish nobility had to put higher taxes in Prussia, polish monasteries were persecuted("lairs of idleness" according to Frederick, polish language forbidden.)And of course antipolish policies and ideology of Russian officials(shown btw in the first source in the article) weren't connected to antisemitsm at all as they were based on Russian imperial ambitions and panslavism.Molobo


 * Yes, Molobo, it has been duly shown that Poles were considered and treated as inferior by non-Poles at various times in history. But since nobody seriously doubted this, you didn't actually have to "show" this, either. What I did ask you to "show" was that the concept of anti-Polonism has really been used to collectively describe and interpret the various injustices done to Poles, and to assert a genetic connection between, say, the tax policy in 19th century Prussia, accusations of Polish anti-Semitism in the Jedwabne debate, and "Polish jokes" in 21st century America. You are constantly talking about historical events, whereas I am talking about concepts. You being a student of "International Relations and Journalism and Social Communication", as you say on your user page, should be aware of the difference - otherwise you might run into some serious trouble during your studies. (Unless maybe you are studying at Rydzyk University, whose motto puts fides and patria on an equal footing with ratio.)
 * Hammering my point home (hopefully), the issue is not whether or not non-Poles have acted hostilely towards Poles. The issue is whether or not the concept "anti-Polish" has seriously and verifiably been employed as heuristic tool for understanding any behaviour hostile towards Poles, and not primarily as a counter-weight to allegations of Polish anti-Semitism. To the best of my knowledge, it has not; you have so far failed to put forward any evidence that I am wrong. Unless you can come up with anything convincing, I will stick to my vote - keep the title, but rewrite the body of the article to highlight the origin of the concept in Polish-Jewish relations, and to keep much more critical distance to the concept.
 * On a formal note, please remember to always sign your edits with four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and a time stamp. This will make the discussion easier to follow. --Thorsten1 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "The issue is whether or not the concept "anti-Polish" has seriously and verifiably been employed as heuristic tool for understanding any behaviour hostile towards Poles"
 * At least two sources linked to the article use this.Molobo
 * Two is too little. And kindly sign your posts. --Thorsten1 12:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Will three be enough ? Four ? Twenty three ? Or just twenty two ? Or maybe just five ? Frankly just one example is enough if something is proven to either exist or not exist.--Molobo
 * "Frankly just one example is enough if something is proven to either exist or not exist." I did not say that your usage of anti-Polonism does not exist. I can see that it exists in your post, even if I hadn't known about its existence before. But that doesn't make it encyclopedically valid. Look, my dog exists, too. Does that mean I can write an article about it? Why, Wikipedia is not paper, right? Seriously, when 95% of all authors who use the concept of anti-Polonism use it in a very specific way, with the other 5% using it in a more universal way, and someone goes and builds an entire article on the "universal" usage, then it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if one quotes two or twenty-two examples for the "universal" usage. Nie potrafisz zrozumieć czy po prostu nie chcesz zrozumieć? --Thorsten1 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly urge keeping the title, Antipolonism, which is a noun and refers to a real phenomenon, and revising the contents as appropriate. Logologist, 13 July 2005.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.