Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish death camp controversy


 * 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 was   nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) --  RyRy  ( talk ) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish death camp controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article on the controversial use of a variety of terms (including ""Polish death camps", "Polish concentration camps", ""Polish Holocaust victim", "Polish Holocaust survivor", "Polish ghetto" and an unspecified number of others) emplyed in some news stories. No evidence of a controversy has yet been presented. Original research drawn largely from incomplete examples supplied by the "alerts" page of a forum. The issue has been discussed at length, without resolution or consensus, on the article talk page. Ffighter44 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete people have obviously put a lot of time into this and I don't doubt that most or all of it is true. It even constructs a good argument that there's some media bias or ignorance afoot here. Nevertheless, notice I said "constructs a good argument", that's the problem. We are supposed to be writing encyclopedia articles, not persuasive essays. I think this is the latter... the article has an argument, it appears to advance that in an encyclopedic way (references, calm third person language) but ultimately it does seem to exist just to make a given argument. The encyclopedic way to go about this is to make Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, an article on a notable event, as accurate as possible. This current article might as well be Evidence and argument that Poles were not responsible for the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, which again I don't dispute, but nevertheless that more accurate title for what this article is reveals it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. --Rividian (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   --Poeticbent  talk  01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Case submitted by a single purpose account created just for this article a month ago and constantly looking for holes to exploit, undoubtedly a sock-puppet of a user already known in the community for his confrontational attitude. Article has become a political battleground in recent time, with blame for the genocide being thrown around. A sorry state of affairs, but not enough for this latest attempt at denial of the existence of expressions of anti-Polish sentiment in Western media to be justified. --Poeticbent talk  01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I bit into some wikipolitical back-and-forth... hopefully it's obvious that I am not a part of any lame editing conspiracy here. I have what I like to think is a consistent approach to AFDs of these articles about arguments not events, that I've applied across many AFDs when I've seen them. --Rividian (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Poeticbent, you began casting aspersions the very day of my return to Wikipedia. Now, instead of entering into a discussion concerning the nomination - which, after all, is the purpose of this page - I find myself obliged to defend my character. First, this account was not "created just for this article", nor am I a sock-puppet (of "a user already known in the community for his confrontational attitude", no less!). As an seasoned editor, you must know the gravity of this second charge - and must also know this is not the place to make such accusations. Being someone with a tough skin, I can ignore these words - but what I can't ignore is the charge of "blame for the genocide being thrown around". By whom? You then dismiss this well-intentioned AfD, describing it is an "attempt at denial of the existence of expressions of anti-Polish sentiment in Western media". I can assure you that it is not. I recognize the existence of prejudice in the Western media, and will cite chapter and verse to those who claim it does not exist. However, I cannot accept unverifiable claims that the use of terms like "Polish Holocaust survivor" is an attempt to create the impression that there was a Polish Holocaust. As I have written on the Talk page, I commend the efforts of those who are working to end the use of these terms. In fact, I have recommended rewriting (and retitling) the article with the focus on the campaign lauched by the Polish government to meet this goal. I hope that this AfD discussion can now progress as intended. Ffighter44 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The present page is so POV-ridden that I am not sure it is fixable. eg. "The phrases such as the "Polish death camp" leave a false impression that it might have been the Poles who were responsible for the Nazi German genocide." this is not NPOV writing, and permeates the entire text. The so called list of references is a list of places that have used the term this way and been forced to apologize, but that would need to be much more carfefully set in contest than here. DGG (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion. Where are the "parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion" about this issue? All there is are isolated examples of largely innocent mischaracterizations. There are exactly ZERO cases of an active dispute, such as Party A objects to the term, but Party B insists the term is valid. There is one citation of a Polish official putting forth some sort of conspiracy theory, but unfortunately he neglects to name the conspirators, therefore making it impossible to identify the shadowy figures whom he claims are out to "distort history and conceal the truth." The examples section is entirely original research. It is not sourced to any reliable sources indicating "controversy", but is a compilation tossed together based on an editors Googling the terms. This whole article is misleadingly titled, and largely Original Research. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The best example of an active controversy is provided by Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum with regard to claims made by Robert Hurst of CTV television. "The Polish embassy in Ottawa has asked the Canadian government to counteract the slandering of Poland by the Canadian media." At first, Hurst refused to issue the correction thus throwing fuel at an ongoing controversy. However. "Correction was broadcast on May 18 and 21 during prime time" following a decission against CTV issued on May 16, 2005, by the CBSC National Specialty Services Panel – "upholding the complaint submitted by the Polish Embassy."  --Poeticbent  talk  03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm pleased to see this example of controversy, evidence of which had been requested numerous times on the Talk page. To be fair, I point out that the only citation to the CTV report was not provided in English (and even that was never put forth as an example of that called for). Given this citation, I'm suggesting, again, that the article be rewritten and retitled so as to focus on the campaign undertaken by the Polish government. Ffighter44 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are some signs that editors are going to add sources that speak to the controversy itself, rather than making a laundry list of every time someone has referred to a Nazi camp as having been "Polish". I've removed the list of 69 different examples, and the 69 footnotes that went with it.  These can be restored by anybody, but I'm hoping that the BBC article and the Adelaide News article referred to below can become the basis for a page that can be put back on track.  I can understand the reason for the article's existence, but it's so poorly written that it needs to be a redirect to something else.  Just as typing in "Holocaust myth" redirects a user to "Holocaust denial", one can type in "Polish death camp" and get a redirect to an article that points out that it wasn't Poland that was operating the camps.  I get that.  However, I think the nominator is right; this is an article created from searches for the "Examples" section.  I can imagine that if you accidentally refer to Auschwitz as a Polish concentration camp, the article creator probably interrupts to "set you straight".  The one statement that might have justified keeping the article: "In most cases the publisher apologized for the misleading usage." has no citation whatsoever.   Polish death camp should be a redirect to Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, and, more to the point, a less emotionally written section of that article.  Mandsford (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept and controversy are notable. POV problems are not an argument for deletion. PS. I agree with Poeticbent that the nomination is suspicious - the nominator looks like a single-purpose account.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a major issue with Poles who are extremely offended when non-Poles refer to the WWII 'Polish death camps' or 'death camps in Poland' because it was the German Nazis who instituted and ran this system. It was the Nazis who ran Aushwitz, not the Poles. Its not just someone's fringe ranting or WP:OR. I could have written this article myself...if I had any interest in the matter. Moreover, are we going to treat this excellent Adelaide Now article on the issue as someone's 'original theory'? The article affirms the topic's notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment By the Way, is this 2006 BBC article here also someone's original theory? It is a reliable source--as is the Adelaide Now. Artene50 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major issue in Poland and quite a notable problem. Article is well-referenced and written. I don't see a real problem with it. - Darwinek (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The German Nazi's ran the camps not the Polish people. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland  addresses the parliament  re "Polish Death Camps" controversy as per the references it's meets the notability threshold for me.  I agree with Poeticbent, single purpose account whose first edit was to this article and the rest of the contribs revolve around the article and this AFD.— Ѕandahl  15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ѕandahl, your claim that my "first edit was to this article and the rest of the contribs revolve around the article and this AFD" is not at all true, but I'm willing to accept that I may meet the definition some hold of a single purpose account. Interestingly, this is pointed out repeatedly, ignoring the fact that this loose definition might be applied to the very same user who supplied the information I and others have suggested is original research. Is this not a double standard?Ffighter44 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - as pitiable as the subject of this article is, the nomination is even less successfully justified, and it shows the nom has no basic idea what this controversy is about. Still the subject is notable. It all comes to poor understanding of English language by Polish embassy personel around the world, and it goes back to commie times, when such personel was limited to the priviledged ones, nominated rather for their political views, not for their diplomatic skills. Whenever a journalist say from New York Times or Corierre dela Serra wrote a line Polish concentration camps meaning Polish inmates, not run by Polish nationals, they screemed bloody murder, sent official protests to newspaper editors or even to government officials, which usually were followed by apologies and explanations, but sometimes were ignored. Political accusations followed. A conflict in a nutshell, but the story is true as long as I remember and repeats itself now and then, that's why is notable. This should be explained in the lead though, but there is no reason to delete the article. There are similar expressions in English literature as Dutch concentration cams, British concentration camps, Jewish concentration camps - all refer to inmates and run by Nazis. greg park avenue (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see not so much as an insinuation here that there isn't concern within the Polish community as to the use of certain terms. The nomination had to do with two issues: the notion that there was "controversy" (when not one example was provided), and the opinion that much of the article amounted to original research. We now have one example (a CTV news story) in which the use of two terms "Polish ghetto" and "Polish camp" brought controversy. While I don't feel that this is enough to justify the title (I appear to be alone in suggesting an alternate), I don't think it a reason for deletion. The issue of original research appears to have been laid to rest by Mansford in removing the "Examples" section. While this deletion has yet to be challenged, I think it important to point out that previous attempts to make more minor adjustments to this section prior to this AfD were quickly reversed. It seems that what was once defended is now recognized as original research. My recommendation that the article be kept should not suggest that I don't see problems. I agree with DGG's comments on the sentence "The phrases such as the "Polish death camp" leave a false impression that it might have been the Poles who were responsible for the Nazi German genocide". Furthermore, I question the sentence which follows "While in some cases the intention of the writers is the mere geographical use of the term 'Polish' and no attribution of responsibility is actually intended, at least one Polish diplomat has suggested that there are instances of "bad will. Under the pretext that 'it’s only a geographic reference', attempts are made to distort history and conceal the truth." In "some cases" more than implies that there exists an unspecified percentage of cases in which ill-intent comes into play; and yet, we are presented with no evidence of such - even in the CTV case. These concerns alone are not enough to call for deletion.Ffighter44 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I missed this source but the American Jewish committe explicitly apologised for the misleading term 'polish camps' here. Surely, this topic is not WP:OR and passes WP:N and WP:V now. Artene50 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The American Jewish Committee press release you cite contains no "apology", explicit or otherwise. It advises "those who are either unaware of the facts or careless in their choice of words, as has been the case with some media outlets" to exercise more care. Calling it an apology is again creating controversy where none exists. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Any perceived NPOV problems can easily be rectified via editing. The argument for deletion is extremely weak. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep notable, well referenced. Ostap 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - there exists controversy between many journalists and many Polish institutions and individuals.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thus far we have one example of controversy - presented on this page, but not found within the current version of the article. If there indeed exists "controversy between many journalists and many Polish institutions and individuals", references to such should be added to the article. While I recommend the article be kept, the current title does not reflect content.Ffighter44 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: An example: http://www.msz.gov.pl/Protest,by,the,Polish,Embassy,against,the,use,of,the,phrase,%E2%80%9CPolish,concentration,camp,of,Auschwitz%E2%80%9D,by,the,Australian,press,5th,February,2008,,Canberra,17125.html .Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The example concerns a letter of correction and clarification written by the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of a Polish embassy. It asks for no action from the newspaper in question - nor does it indicate that the paper challenged the words of the Chargé d’Affaires. In short, no controversy. "Polish death camp protest" might be a more suitable title.Ffighter44 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but perhaps this would be best characterized not as a controversy, but as...hmmm, can't think of what to call it. As it stands, it appears that there is a controversy over the facts and details, when really, the argument is over the semantics and potential misunderstanding that calling these camps "Polish" can create -- is that a controversy?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply No, it's not a controversy. the controversy seems to be on this page, but not in the real world. There is no apparent extant group, faction, media outlet, government, organization etc saying "No, Poland, you are wrong--they really were Polish death camps and they should be characterised that way." That would be a controversy. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There however WAS a controversy, and we describe past events/ideas/controversies, not only the current ones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, there WAS a controversy: a 2004 Canadian television network news story referred to a "Polish camp", the Polish embassy protested, the network explained that "Polish" was intended to indicate geographic location. Although the network revised its policy, it would not issue what the Polish gvernment refers to as a "correction" and the matter wound up with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. The council found the network at fault. Not one word of this or any controversy is found within the article.Ffighter44 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, it was a controversy. Why did you think the Polish government pressed to have the designation 'Polish camps' or 'Polish death camps' removed from references to Nazi concentration and extermination camps in Poland? (as the BBC reports) This makes it notable--as Wikipedia's rules are written. Artene50 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Was there objection to the the Polish government's efforts to have "the designation 'Polish camps' or 'Polish death camps' removed from references to Nazi concentration and extermination camps in Poland"? No one has yet produced evidence of such. Again, we have one - and only one example of what could be described as a controversy... and this isn't even included in an article titled "Polish death camp controversy". I don't see that anyone has suggested that the use of these  terms isn't notable.Ffighter44 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the kind of 'mistakes' which angers the Poles and created the controversy--journalists mistakenly using the phrase Polish death camp. Warsaw and the Polish nation was almost destroyed under the Nazis and then they get indirectly blamed for the Nazis crimes in Poland. Of course, its controversial. The BBC, Adelaide Now and American Jewish committee's on-line webpages all allude directly or indirectly to the issue. Artene50 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: What you've presented is evidence of mistakes - not controversy. The link provided is a list of corrections and clarifications that appeared in a variety of newspapers. Not one of these news sources has stood by its original wording; not one objected to issuing a correction or clarification; not one blames, however indirectly, the Polish nation for the Nazi crimes that took place on its soil. I should point out for those interested, a discussion concerning this article's title is in progress on the article's talk page.Ffighter44 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The list of correction doesn't support your claims, because it's the list of corrections, it doesn't include non-corrected articles.Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exactly, the source provided doesn't provide evidence of controversy, rather it is a list of examples where newspapers have either acknowledged errors, or wned up to the fact that they might have been more clear in their choice of words. As for non-corrected articles - those in which a news organization as stood by their words - we have only the CTV example.Ffighter44 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The title should be changed to avoid using controversy. I have previous suggested using “Appeals Against Polish Death Camps” after all it is what the actual discussion was about when I found the article.  Further it used by a major Polish newspaper Appeal against "Polish death camps". Additionally it is similar to the wording used by the Polish Government Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Against "Polish Camps" Jniech (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * Withdrawn: It is my understanding that I have the right to withdraw the nomination. My reasons for doing so are covered in my recommendation that the article be kept. In short, the nomination had to do with the issue of "controversy" and the original research. The latter has since been dealt with. The former still presents a problem as the single example of controversy has not yet been included in the article. That said, I don't think this issue alone is reason for deletion. I believe that a simple title change would eliminate this problem. There has been considerable discussion on this matter both here and on the article talk page. I think the article has improved significantly over in the past days, and compliment those involved.Ffighter44 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.