Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 5 May 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has gone through VfD. Please see the first voting and the second voting.

Archived discussion

• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 1: segments of discussion conducted in Polish, to make the page easier to read for users who don't know the language (this might introduce some discontinuities)
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 2: discussions concluded by July 31, 2005 (contains page history until August 18, 2005)
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 3: discussions until August 14 2005
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 4: long discussion between users Nightbeast and Molobo on the Germany section
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 5: until September 1, 2005
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 6: long discussion on Rudi Palwelka
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 7: until September 21, 2005
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 8: September 21, 2005 – January 14, 2006
• Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment/Archive 9: January 2006 – July 2009

Giles Coren

In the United Kingdom section is this really relevent enough to take up so much space? It seems like a one man band sort of thing, Giles Coren personal views of Poles rather than British peoples views of Poles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with timing

The article currently says "In Britain after 1945, the British people initially accepted the Polish servicemen resident in Britain or during the war had served under British command who chose not to return to a Poland ruled by the Communists but as the Soviet started to make gains on the Eastern Front both public opinion and the Government of the UK turned against them." This is completely impossible: the Soviets made no gains on the Eastern Front after 1945!Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Badly written sentence. Suggest: "The British people initially accepted Polish servicemen resident in Britain during the War. As the Soviets started to make gains on the Eastern Front from 1943 both public opinion and the Government of the UK turned against the Poles."Chumchum7 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That would work. Although "both public opinion and the Government of the UK began to turn against the Poles" would be better, there wasn't an overnight switch! Perhaps the article also needs a mention about the Labour government being overly fond of Uncle Joe, far more so than the Tories under Churchill had been? Also perhaps a mention of why trade unionists didn't like Poles? Also, the section does seem to be slightly unbalanced at present, there's no mention of the Polish Resettlement Act or of any help which Poles received from Britain (and very much deserved too!).Varsovian (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry

When he said "and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on" was he actually trying to say that Auschwitz was not in Poland? As many of us know Auschwitz was never in Poland, it was in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. Might he actually have been trying to say "Remember that Auschwitz was not in Poland"? If so, should the article mention this? I think it most cetainly should. If we assume that Fry meant exactly what he said and does "know a little history" (as he put it), the meaning is very different from that which has been taken by many. Varsovian (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Fry was saying Auschwitz was in Poland. There's been a whole discussion about this by some rather annoyed Jewish historians, for example David Cesarani http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/12/stephen-fry-auschwitz-poland Chumchum7 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't he just say ", and remember Auschwitz is in Poland," or ", and remember Auschwitz was in Poland,"? Or just ", and remember where Auschwitz was,"?

Why "which side of the border"? Why mention the border? Auschwitz is nowhere near the border. Or at least nowhere near the present-day border. However it was very close to the 1939-1945 border and at that time it was in Germany.

I must say that when I first read his comments I did think that we were getting more of the Polish Death Camp rubbish but on rereading the comments and looking at each word he said, I think that it is at the very least possible that he meant exactly what he said and that we should 'remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on'. Auschwitz was not in Poland so why should we assume that the only possble explanation is that he meant the exact opposite of what he actually said?Varsovian (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The border was close by during WW2. And Fry was trying to be smart, but failed. If you go to the Channel 4 website you can watch his clip. Nobody thinks he was trying to say Auschwitz was in Germany. And he has never explained that to be the case in the subsequent row.Chumchum7 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is rather the point: Auschwitz is now in Poland and not near the border. It was near the border, and was at the time when it was near the border it was also in Germany. Fry said "was", not 'is'. Don't you think it is worth mentioning as balance that Auschwitz was not in Poland as it was on the German side of the border? I must admit that I haven't seen any reaction from him at all to this row, do you have any links?Varsovian (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is too crazy to discuss it any further. You're going to have to find your own links, on Google or wherever. And find the clip. It was a tirade of bigoted nonsense. Fry has said he knows he has annoyed people about this, and he did not go on to explain that he was trying to say Auschwitz was in Germany. Chumchum7 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Polish sentiment often entails... and false allegations of anti-Semitism

The article lede had the unsourced claim in that "Anti-Polish sentiment often entails modern-day derogatory stereotyping and false allegations of anti-Semitism". Are there any reliable sources which directly and unambiguously support this claim, specifically the latter part about "false allegations of anti-Semitism"? Jayjg 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article lead is a brief summary of its content. If you care to read the rest of it top to bottom you'll find more than enough references there. I'm not sure why you're asking this, while a number of editors don't even like referencing the lead especially if the links are multiple, in different subsecs. A tunnel vision maybe? --Poeticbent talk 00:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out the content of the article that supports this statement? Also, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg 00:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This claim was added again, as follows:

false and inaccurate allegations of anti-Semitism; theories of hereditary or genetic Polish anti-Semitism

Can anyone bring reliable sources that indicate that this is a form of "anti-Polish sentiment", much less common type? Jayjg 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Russia

The section nicely omits important facts. The Polish diplomats were beaten in Russia a week after children of Russian diplomats were beaten by Polish skinheads in Warsaw. Tulungagung (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are you implying that the beating of the Polish diplomats in Moscow was an act of vengeance? That would be original research unless it's confirmed by a reliable source. -- Poeticbent talk 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should mention that like it does here. Someone told me the other day about random attacks on Polish diplomats, and I knew they got their information from Misplaced Pages. Tulungagung (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see in the source "Polish skinheads" ? Where do you see any links with both beatings? Both beatings were random and there's no sources that Polish "skinheads" touched any children if something like this occurred at all... "Speculations are that..." - We don't speculate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.76.197 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd wording

The page states:

" had the Soviet communist party disseminate their fabrications over time."

The second source gives no support whatsoever for this clause. The first source (a wargaming webpage...) states that Soviet media perpetutated the myth that Polish cavalry charged against tanks. It may very well have done so; after all, Western media committed and sometimes still commits the same mistake (as does some Polish literature!). Still, the clause as it stands makes little sense: German propaganda could not force the Soviet communist party do anything. ("Hello, Pravda? This is Goebbels speaking from the grave. Please get this into tomorrow's edition.") Feketekave (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest you keep in mind, that Soviets and Nazi Germans were allies, when invading Poland in 1939. It is not surprising, that their two propaganda machines lied in unison about the subject of their joint attack (yes: Hello, Pravda). Additional sources would be easy to find. -- Poeticbent talk 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course we are all aware of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. This is not a reason to fall into caricatures. Munich did not mean Chamberlain got his instructions from Goebbels by wireless.

One of the sources given (the wargaming page...) has been expunged by another user; the other source does not support the statement as it stands. I suggest that it be removed or that the wording be changed. It is possible, yes, that part of the Polish stereotypes in the East and in the West derived in an indirect way from Nazi propaganda, but this would have to be properly documented. In this particular case, it is worth pointing out that the pseudo-event of Polish cavalry charging against tanks was alive and well in the West during the Cold War (and even now!), and that, furthermore, it existed in Poland itself: see Wajda's Lotna. Feketekave (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Question to Splette

A failure to mention Jewish suffering is considered anti-Semite e.g. when Poland claimed 6 million Poles died during WWII, it was criticised as hiding Jewish suffering. Why then is a failure to mention Polish suffering not anti-Polish? Jniech (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to use what in some cases may be an overstatement to justify another overstatement. 6 million Poles did die during WWII. If this were taught to schoolchildren without ever mentioning that half of these victims were especially selected as targets of the racial laws as a particularly inferior race, and that the destruction of people in this category was nearly total, we would indeed have a very serious problem. At the same time, not making a distinction in some contexts can also be a good thing: we have the right - arguably the duty - not to adopt the absolute distinctions inherent in the Nazi worldview. The context matters. Le Canard enchaine got it right a short while ago - John Paul II did well in speaking of 6 million Poles, and the new pope Ratzinger did wrong in doing the same. Feketekave (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'm with Jniech on this content about Germans being selective about history, but I don't think we even need to draw parallels with the subject of anti-Semitism. It is verifiable that Nazi policy was to have sought the extermination of all Poles, and they did start that objective during the War. Add the Federation of Expellees, who champion the victim status of Germans expelled from e.g. Silesia to the modern German lands without (as far as I am aware) any reference to the suffering of Poles expelled from Kresy to Silesia at the same time. Add that in recent weeks German TV referred to Majdanek as a 'Polish concentration camp'. This would be impossible if Germans were being thoroughly educated with the whole truth and the fair and accurate truth about WW2. Add to this the recent German report about 'Polish' (rather than 'unsafe') fireworks on New Years Eve, and you've got a theme that should be highlighted. And there is plenty more material about modern-day German prejudice against Poles as well as German omission of uncomfortable facts. As an act of good will I would invite Splette to put back what he or she has removed. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I am completely with User:Chumchum7 on this. Feketekave (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, since I didn't get what you were trying to say in your post above SPLETTE :] 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because I forgot a crucial "not" (we have a duty *not* to adopt...) Feketekave (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Another option gaining academic currency these days is to use the 9 million figure: '3 million Polish Gentiles, 3 million Polish Jews, and 3 million Jews from outside Poland'-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As round figures, these will do, but, again, there are several groups left out of this. Apparently, one quarter of the population of Belorussia was killed (I do not know in what percentages of "Jews" and "Gentiles"). The term "Gentiles" (which an Israeli friend of mine consciously avoids) makes clear again what was stating: these distinctions have to be used with care, because they would have perceived as invidious precisely by some of its targets (and their friends, as opposed to their enemies). Of course, the term "Jew" works in the same way - it is just that this can sometimes cease to be evident because it is the name of an actual religion (and, in Polish, if I am not mistaken, also the name of a language that was already starting to lose much ground). Feketekave (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Well, aparently it is not just German textbooks but 'most countries' that give 'marginal treatment in both history and geography' to Poland in their textbooks, according to your source. If failure to mention Polish suffering equals anti-Polish sentiment, as you suggest, this would mean the entire world hates Poland? Come on. And why did you single out Germany and put it in the article, which is mentioned in just a short paragraph while the source mentions various other countries where textbooks give not as much attention to Polish history as the Polish Foreign Ministry would like. And I don't think the comparison to systematic state-sponsored genocide of 6 million Jews is a good one. My main concern about this article is that its credibility will suffer if it doesn't stick to clear and well-sourced examples of Anti-Polish sentiment but becomes a dumping place for all kind of small, far fetched examples that in the wider sense may or may not be interpreted as such sentiment against Poles. SPLETTE :] 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What, you mean to say that the entire world doesn't hate Poland?! Judging from the perpetual 'poor innocent victims us' attitude so many Poles display, it must be that the entire world hates Poland. Your comment that the entire world doesn't hate Poland is clearly an accusation that a lot of Poles are simply paranoid and thus yet more anti-Polish sentiment. Varsovian (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very fair point from Splette, and I would suggest the onus is now on Jniech to come up with better sourcing on the subject of German omissions about crimes against Poles per se. Related, here is something recent from Timothy Garton Ash: Watching a German television news report on the trial of John Demjanjuk a few weeks ago, I was amazed to hear the announcer describe him as a guard in "the Polish extermination camp Sobibor". What times are these, when one of the main German TV channels thinks it can describe Nazi camps as "Polish"? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to all those who have commented as your input is appreciated and hopefully we can reach some form of consensus.

I will formally reply tomorrow (UK time). A few comments designed to get more useful input from you.

The hostility today section has a large section on British views but nothing about German hostility. Splette talk about “why did you single out Germany” ignoring my edits about British anti-Polish attitudes and the large section on British attitudes compared to the non-existence German section. Does the addition really unbalance the article?

Further can I explain that I use references generally only one. If Splette wants to use it for a more general comment about anti-Polish sentiment, I support it BUT personally I think I it is best to use the source once only. Therefore I reject Chumchum7 comments as my inclusion is valid but other editors could use it for a more generalize view of anti-Polish sentient.

I actually considered adding about the fireworks that Chumchum7 referenced, writing “The Germans call illegally imported from the east, "Polen Böller," or "Polish firework". The German press then blame these "Polish firework" for the thousands of injuries and fires each New Year's Eve” but decided against.

Splette said “If failure to mention Polish suffering equals anti-Polish sentiment, as you suggest, this would mean the entire world hates Poland?”. My personal thoughts on this are as follows. Why would school books in South America and Asia talk about the issue? If a Japanese school book failed to talk about Chinese suffering during WWII, I would see it as anti-Chinese. German is responsible for much of the suffering of Poland hence playing up Germany suffering at the hands of Poles and playing down Polish suffering is anti-Polish.

To Splette, personally I believe that Germans today still see Poles in a negative light which the teaching in German schools is an example.

I stand by the addition but will accept a major vote on this page if you agree to this. At the least can I ask for something about modern German views on Poles being added? Jniech (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Splette wrote this: If failure to mention Polish suffering equals anti-Polish sentiment, as you suggest, this would mean the entire world hates Poland? Come on. And why did you single out Germany and put it in the article, which is mentioned in just a short paragraph while the source mentions various other countries where textbooks give not as much attention to Polish history as the Polish Foreign Ministry would like.
The answer to this is very simple: it were the Germans who caused the Polish suffering during WW2. It is thus much more important if the German textbooks fail to mention the Polish suffering rather than for example a textbook in Zimbabwe or Jamaica.  Dr. Loosmark  19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but got sidetracked. My apology to Splette if my comments came across as accusing which they were not meant to be.

Part of the objection was that it singled out Germany. As previous said this article lacks anything about modern Germans views on Poles. I could have used the reference about Polish American Congress complaining to New York Times to show how the current German media discuss the camps in occupied Poland.

Several newspapers in Germany have done this as well. They scrupulously avoid linking the word “German” with anything as evil as Auschwitz or the other German death camps.

In German newspapers, “Polish” is clearly and consistently the preferred way to describe the camps the Germans operated in Poland. That this would be a misrepresentation and a bold deception seems to be of no concern to the Germans.

I agree with Dr. Loosmark that as German is directly/indirectly responsible for the murder of millions of Polish citizens that they have more of a responsibility to cover Polish suffering.

Further the comments by the Polish American Congress show that a failure to mention something can be considered bias against a country.

The source meets Misplaced Pages requirement hence I urge the editors involved in this debate to support putting back this edit. On times editors may disagree with an edit but I ask you can you live with the change? I will accept a majority. Jniech (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

References

1. "POLISH CAVALRY MYTH" by War and Game. Wargaming and History January 4, 2008; (see: last paragraph)
2. Polish cavalry versus German tanks: die-hard WWII myth by Staff Writers, Warsaw (AFP) Aug 30, 2009
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/23/poland-catholicism-nazis-difficult-past

"belittling of the moral effort of ethnic Poles during World War II"

The following has been added to the article as form of anti-Polish sentiment:

belittling of the moral effort of ethnic Poles during World War II, such as the assistance that they rendered to Polish Jews.<ref name="RC">Robert Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska, Rethinking Poles and Jews Published 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742546667</ref>.

I've checked the source, and I can find nowhere on that page that it describes this as a form of anti-Polish sentiment. Can someone here please quote the relevant sentence, describing this activity as characteristic of anti-Polish sentiment? Jayjg 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about this though unfortunately I don't have the time to look into it with you. However, I just want to raise a friendly note of caution before we start removing material. The specific phrase "anti-polish sentiment" doesn't need to be mentioned in the source in order for the source to be cited in the article. Similarly, sources that don't use the word 'racism' but refer to prejudice against black people may be used in WP:Racism. Again, similarly, sources that refer to myths of Jewish lack of hygiene do not need to mention the phrase 'anti-Semitism' to be included in WP:Anti-Semitism. However, if we establish consensus that there is a dubious reference, then fine lets cut it out in the same way that we'd remove a claim that the use of the word 'blackboard' is an example of racism. As they say, Misplaced Pages is more about editors' consensus than hard and fast rules about requirements for inclusion. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, each of the counterexamples you give are problematic as a violation of WP:No original research. THF (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

UK section - WP:OR

I'm focusing on this section because I can make better sense of it, because it's the longest "by country" section and because I came here after noting that a rather trivial point relating to a column written last year by Simon Jenkins has been dropped in here as well as on his own page. The page as a whole seems to have similar problems - I guess all pages like suffer from being essay-like POV magnets, and maybe we're better off without them. Anyway ..

The section is simply a random drop of lots of off-hand comments, mostly from newspaper op-eds, strung together in a list format. Quite apart from having a terrible structure, there's virtually no evidence, or third-party sourcing, to attest that any of them are manifestations of "anti-Polish sentiment" in the UK. To take the Jenkins quote again - regardless of the origins of the "lancers vs tanks" myth, it actually reads as if he was being rather affectionate when referring to it (in passing, as it happens). Even if his intention was to make a direct criticism, in what way would that have been "anti-Polish"? Would a quote from a Japanese newspaper columnist referring to the Charge of the Light Brigade as being an example of inept military tactics be evidence of "anti-British sentiment" in Japan? Come off it.

Anyway, even that is all somewhat irrelevant - it's not up to us to analyse and classify statements from primary sources in this way, one way or the other. A decent section about anti-Polish sentiment in the UK - which no doubt exists in some form - needs to rely on material from proper secondary sources, which explains the concept and provides occasional examples of relevant incidents. Not this dumping ground of random quotes. N-HH talk/edits 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. However, these kind of WP:OR and WP:SYN problems are not limited to the UK section but apply to most of the article. SPLETTE :] 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with some of the views above. The WP:OR and WP:SYN problems are not limited to the UK in this article but the whole of Misplaced Pages. If you apply this standard to this article then a large part of Misplaced Pages needs rewriting.

Still the Simon Jenkins, David Miliband, Efraim Zuroff and Jonathan Freedland need checking but I suspect should be removed.

Most of the rest do seem to relay on primary sources. The rules state Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Personally I don’t see it as a problem as I aware of many secondary sources e.g. other newspapers covering the story. I am happy to add them to if necessary. Jniech (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagine an article on skyscrapers, with buildings included in the article that have no verifiable sources specifically describing them as skyscrapers, although an editor has included them as per WP:DUCK. Is that SYNTH? Yes. Is that how WP works? Yes. If other editors don`t like the inclusion of the Eiffel Tower in said skyscraper article because they don`t think its a skyscraper, we can talk about it. Consensus discussion is welcome, and required. I agree that this is what I have done here. Most of the section are my additions. I entirely accept the point by User: N-HH that I have compiled list of citations that do not use the phrase "anti-Polish sentiment". Rest assured that I am a consensus editor and will work with you to consensus. I am fully aware of (and respect) the SYNTH guidance and absolutely agree that synthesis of verifiable sources can be used maliciously to establish unencyclopedic content. At the same time, as Jniech says, much of WP is precisely such a compilation. I`m not an edit warrior and I will support consensus deletions. I`ll also explain my rationale for inclusion of Jenkins. Jenkins is a British historian who obviously made the mistake of thinking a Nazi lie was a fact. Those clever Nazis. Unlike the charge of the Light Brigade, the Polish cavalry charging Panzers never happened and was a work of fiction by the Nazi propaganda machine that WP has here . The anti-Polish sentiment is by the Nazis, ahead of their genocide of 6 million Poles, and is not derived from Jenkins. But a respected member of the British establishment on the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of WW2 in 2009 describes the Poles as idiotic because of the cavalry charge, which is precisely what the Nazis wanted to achieve with this lie in 1939. Racial and ethnic prejudice and stereotyping breeds like this, and is notable. This is why I restored that reference, N-HH, and no offence is intended. As to the Miliband, Freedland and Zuroff entries, these are what appear to be referred to in the Pollard, Timothy Garton Ash and Michael Schudrich complaints, etc. Miliband is specifically told to apologize to the people of Poland by Daniel Hannan (in his blog, which we prefer not to use as per WP:SELFPUBLISH ). Still, I`m not going to fight about any of this with you. This is just to show you my aims and objectives in the section. Go ahead and hack it to death, but please note the constructive work I tried to put into it in the first place. Yes, guilty as charged, there is plenty of SYNTH here. I say it is an example of good faith SYNTH with a fair amount of DUCK, I think it is useful information that many editors would support in a consensus discussion. Anyway, I am off on Wikibreak so I`ll leave it to you all now. Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is one ref to the Jenkins affair, on a blog http://blog.timelines.com/page/2/ - But WP:SELFPUBLISH doesn`t like blogs. -Chumchum7

Large parts of Misplaced Pages do need rewriting. This is just one example. I think it's virtually impossible to write a decent encyclopedia article about such nebulous concepts as "anti-XX sentiment ", and I'd prefer to just delete all these pages in their entirety tbh, with due apologies to those who have worked on them. Antisemitism is one obvious exception, because there is a rich academic record that documents and examines the concept and its history. In other cases, you just end up with fairly random content like this, compiled from various individual comments that individual editors claim is "anti-XX". Maybe some of them are, who knows - I think the Jenkins example is very weak, but even say the reference to David Miliband being critical of the Law and Justice party, is that actually anti-Polish as such? If a Polish left-winger says the Conservatve Party is full of homophobes and closet racists, is that an "anti-British" statement? It's actually fairly hard to apply the duck test to concepts that are quite vague to start with, and to matters of subjective judgment. And even then, consensus can't override basic policy here, such as WP:OR/SYNTH, and the fundamental principle that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

If we are going to have articles such as this, the way to build them - or more specifically, a UK section within them, for the sake of example - is to go to academic books or papers that look at the history of Poles in the UK, and/or the history of Polish-UK relations. Use that secondary material to document the issue, such as it is, and only cite specific examples that are explained as examples of "anti-Polish sentiment" in that source. Far better than chronologically documenting every random utterance from a politician or newspaper columnist in the last couple of years that might, possibly, be vaguely connected to the topic. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in both your statement of the problem, and recommended solution. This article suffers terrible from WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE; a Misplaced Pages editor decides something he reads in the papers is "anti-Polish", and stuffs it into this article. Jayjg 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know the rules of Misplaced Pages very well but my understanding is you can’t apply rules/standardizes to one just article. This article is inline with other articles therefore I see nothing wrong. Claims of OR/SYN seem only to be made when someone dislikes an article otherwise people seem to ignore issues with an article.

If we required academic books or papers on a topic then again a large part of Misplaced Pages would have to be deleted. For most articles there are no such books/papers merely editors putting random material together.

I have started to add additional references with such words as

• anti-Polish bias
• growing number of anti-Polish incidents in the UK
• The newspaper has strenuously denied that it is anti-Polish.
• about 50 Daily Mail headlines it said displayed anti-Polish sentiment.
• Polish Federation Accuses Daily Mail of Defamation
• right to be protected from racist or other derogatory terms in the media
• Giles Coren's anti-Polish article
• Coren's alleged Polonophobic comments

Hopefully over the next week I will finish adding references and those without proper references hence appear original research can be deleted. Jniech (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. One could take a look at Anti-German sentiment, Anti-British sentiment and others in the series. Also, as per my comparison above, one could re-write Skyscraper and delete e.g. the Great Pyramid of Giza. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely - rules apply to all articles. The fact that other articles may be badly put together doesn't mean that this one has to be too. In fact it means those should be sorted out as well, if necessary by deletion of content, not that they should act as examples to follow. I've already said I'd have no problem with that happening to plenty of pages here, in part or in whole. But equally no one editor is going to take on everything at once. As I have here, they spot things that jump out at them from time to time as simply being poor content, whether they "dislike" it or not. The bottom line for all the web of rules is that this place purports to be an encyclopedia based on material from reliable third party sources, not a random collection of trivia plucked out of the air by its individual, anonymous editors - often only a couple of them after all on each page - or a series of collaborative essays made up of their random thoughts on the world. Yes the editing process itself involves collaboration between a small number of editors, but they have to work around basic rules and usually rely on independent, decent sources for what they want included. Academic sources are better, but no, not essential. As you say, they won't exist for everything, but in some cases that is actually going to mean that the topic may not be worth covering - not every passing media frenzy needs to be chucked in, in order to make a point favoured by the editor promoting its inclusion, even if they are a genuine example of the topic under discussion.

Anyway, as for this page, now, given that it's probably going to stick around in some form or other - I think the top half of the UK section is probably OK, even if a little tainted still by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The Fry and Coren spats just about pass in my view, because they generated actual political controversy - even though of course it is worth remembering that they are an actor/tweeter and restaurant reviewer/light columnist respectively, and the significance of their alleged "anti-Polish" comments needs to be seen in that light. The Kawczynski statement is a good example of third party comment about "anti-Polish sentiment", rather than a purported example of it. The remaining random quotes should probably go, being mostly trivia and without any verifiable connection to the subject matter. N-HH talk/edits 16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with everything you say. I suppose this all comes down to what all our stances on WP are. Personally, I think WP is unique and I don't think it will ever be comparable to the Britannica nor should it be. Also, I tend to think more info is useful rather than less info. I like the pyramid being in the skyscraper article. Others don't. That's ok. Its all about consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW these are interesting and again, they are the kind of things that I would add because I think they're useful IMO. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on causes?

Is it worth adding a section on possible causes for Anti-Polish sentiment? At the moment we have a very one-sided article which appears to leave the reader to conclude that all anti-Polish feeling is caused by the people having such feelings being intrinsically nasty horrible people and that no Pole has ever done anything which in anyway could possibly have led to anybody having negative feelings about Poles. While is it true that some people have negative views about Poles simply because they are racists (for example members of the British Nationalist Party), there are clearly other people who have negative feelings towards Poles for other reasons.
A good example of this would be the BNP’s infamous campaign against Polish immigrant labour (which featured the use of a Polish-flown Spitfire). Clearly the BNP must have identified a source of anti-Polish sentiment which they attempted to exploit for their own purposes. Other examples would be: anti-Polish sentiment in Ukraine caused by the selling of the Ukrainian People’s Republic to the USSR in the peace of Riga and Operation Vistula; anti-Polish sentiment in Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania with regard to the interbellum policy of Polonization; anti-Polish sentiment in the Czech Republic and Slovakia stemming from Poland’s participation in the 1938 and 1968 invasions of Czechoslovakia; anti-Polish sentiment among Jews stemming matters such as, to give just two examples, Poland’s refusal in 1938 to allow Polish citizens who were Jews who had been expelled from Germany (an event which sparked Kristalnacht) to the fact that Poland still has no WWII restitution law and pre-war property owners have to take Poland to the European court to get their property back (see for example the case of the Hotel Europejski in Warsaw).
Obviously it’s going to take a very brave editor to try to introduce these matters to the article and I certainly wouldn’t want the task. However, I would like the discussion to be had. Varsovian (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Poland sparked Kristalnacht? What the hell are you talking about?  Dr. Loosmark  23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the articles on Kristalnacht (particularly the bit which says "The Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew." and Herschel Grynszpan (particularly the bit which says "There, however, Poland refused to admit them. The Grynszpans and thousands of other Polish-Jewish deportees were left stranded at the border, fed only intermittently by the Polish Red Cross and Jewish welfare organizations. It was from Zbąszyn that Berta Grynszpan sent a postcard to Herschel in Paris, telling him what had happened and pleading with him to rescue them and arrange for them to emigrate to America - something totally beyond his powers.") I would also suggest you consider whether the phrase "What the hell are you talking about" meets the requirements of WP:CIVIL. Varsovian (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I will you ask again, how did Poland trigger the Kristalnacht?  Dr. Loosmark  00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kindly read the articles and consider the phrase "an event which sparked Kristalnacht". Many thanks. Varsovian (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What has that to do with Poland? You claimed that Poland triggered the Kristalnacht. I suggest you immediately withdraw that claim.  Dr. Loosmark  00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not claimed that Poland triggered the Kristalnacht. Kindly remember what happens to editors who lie about the statements of other editors. Should we conclude from your repeated non-discussion of the topic of this section that you have no objection to the inclusion of this information? Varsovian (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You have claimed this: Poland’s refusal in 1938 to allow Polish citizens who were Jews who had been expelled from Germany (an event which sparked Kristalnacht). Lets make one thing completely clear, the Kristalnacht was triggered by the Nazis to due to their f*cked up brains. Nothing that Poland did or did not do had anything to do with the Nazis and their sickening campaigns directed at the Jewish people.  Dr. Loosmark  01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If Poland hadn't closed its borders to its own citizens, the Grynszpans wouldn't have been stuck at the border, Mrs Grynszpan wouldn't have written to her son begging for help he was utterly unable to provide, he wouldn't have reacted by shooting the Nazi ambassador in Paris and that wouldn't have triggered Kristallnacht. Although with that said, no doubt the Nazis would soon have found a different trigger for the events which happened on Kristallnacht. I note that once again you have not discussed the topic of this section: should we conclude that you no objection to the inclusion of this information? Varsovian (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If Poland hadn't closed its borders to its own citizens, the Grynszpans wouldn't have been stuck at the border, Mrs Grynszpan wouldn't have written to her son begging for help he was utterly unable to provide, he wouldn't have reacted by shooting the Nazi ambassador in Paris and that wouldn't have triggered Kristallnacht. do you have a source for these logical acrobacies or are you once again making WP:OR, something you were recently warned by an Admin not to do? On the plus side you got the second part of your comment right.  Dr. Loosmark  17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be an idea if you actually read WP:OR. "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence can be provided if needed. If no source exists for something you want to add to Misplaced Pages, it is what we call original research." I do not propose adding to the article that Kristallnacht was caused by Poland. However, I do propose adding that Poland prevented its own citizens from entering Poland in 1938 because they were Jews and nobody is likely to argue that that action caused anti-Polish sentiment in some Jews. Varsovian (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do not propose that Kristallnacht was caused by Poland then why have you mentioned that?  Dr. Loosmark  18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted repeatedly above, I have not stated that Poland caused Kristallnacht. I will now cap this exchange. Varsovian (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if you have not stated that Poland caused the Kristallnacht why have you mentioned it? I never heard anybody blaming Poland for the Kristallnacht. What has the Kristallnacht to do with this article?  Dr. Loosmark  19:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, I would suggest that you read the articles on Kristalnacht (particularly the bit which says "The Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination in Paris of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew." and Herschel Grynszpan (particularly the bit which says "There, however, Poland refused to admit them. The Grynszpans and thousands of other Polish-Jewish deportees were left stranded at the border, fed only intermittently by the Polish Red Cross and Jewish welfare organizations. It was from Zbąszyn that Berta Grynszpan sent a postcard to Herschel in Paris, telling him what had happened and pleading with him to rescue them and arrange for them to emigrate to America - something totally beyond his powers.") Varsovian (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am sure the Nazis blamed the Jews, the Poles, the Polish-Jews and however else they could think of and then accused them of being responsible for the Kristalnacht. That was standard tactic by the Nazis. If you want to claim that the Jews had anti-Polish feelings because they refused to admit refugees then please find a reliable source for your claim. So far you have not presented a single source which would say so. And please stop collapsing my posts, it is disruptive. You have raised the questions and they have to be addressed, even if you are not interested in the topic anyway, you don't have the authority to close topics at will.  Dr. Loosmark  20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Busy until the weekend but I had a quick look at the article on Anti-Semitism. It doesn’t have a section on causes but seems to have the reason for a particular event or cause of anti-Semitism in a time period. The Anti-Russian and Anti-German sentiment seems to follow a similar line. I don’t see anything in Anti-British sentiment on causes. Therefore I suggest this article not have a section but does include in each section, where possible, an explanation similar to the other articles.

Further regarding the issue of balance, could the article have some examples of pro-Polish sentiment? Jniech (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class Poland articles
• Mid-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics