Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/"Polish death camp" controversy
From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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: Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC).[]
This page seems to completely misconstrue the purpose of Wikiquote. It is a collection of mundane sentences (some are not even quotes, but merely notes of the date when some notable person uttered the phrase) that happen to use the same phrase, apparently assembled for the purpose of supporting the POV that this is an appropriate descriptor. There is not a single quote on the page that is actually about any controversy. — BD2412 T 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Vote closes: 13:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I took a look at the talkpage and noticed two things: First is, that Ningauble (in 2011) and Collingwood (in 2012) have posted the same argument, that none of the quotes are actually about the controversy. The second thing is the 2010 quote from Wiktor Moszczynski's Blog. This does seems like a quote about the controversy, which could/should be included in the article...!?
- Also I question the suggested requirement here, that the quotes in this article should (all) be about the controversy. It seems to me in this particular case, that this title is just preferable above a title like Polish death camp.
- If I consider this lemma, and the existence of text like the 2010 Moszczynski quote, it seems to me that this article has potential. It does need a clean-up and some improvement. I would like to propose a similar solution as with the Birthplace of Gautama Buddha nomination: Clean it up, improve it some more, let it rest, and consider it again in a year or so. -- Mdd (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Who is Wiktor Moszczynski, and why should a snippet from his blog merit inclusion in Wikiquote? Indeed, what is quotable about the mundane observation that some Polish people object to the use of the phrase, and try to "correct" media outlets that use it? BD2412 T 15:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- You got a point: The author seem to have some notability, but I don't know about the source. I agree this is not enough to keep the article. It should have at least some notable quotes. Some indication that somebody is prepared to improve this very specific lemma, would also be nice. Mdd (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Who is Wiktor Moszczynski, and why should a snippet from his blog merit inclusion in Wikiquote? Indeed, what is quotable about the mundane observation that some Polish people object to the use of the phrase, and try to "correct" media outlets that use it? BD2412 T 15:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Delete. I am not sure we can make assumptions about the contributor's POV, but I agree with everything else in BD2412's nomination. Using Wikiquote to document who has used a phrase that some consider inapt or objectionable does indeed completely misconstrue the purpose of Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Some quotations about the "controversy", or expressing indignation at the turn of phrase, have been added to the article; so the original deletion rationale does not apply to those additions.
Some people are evidently tormented by the fact that the English language lacks declensions or inflections to indicate "Polish" is being used in the locative case, rather than the nominative or instrumental. (However, it may be noted that even the complex adjective inflection in Polish grammar is also ambiguous about the locative and instrumental cases.) While I can sympathize with the angst of people who genuinely do not understand English well enough to realize the usage does not implicate the Polish people as agents of death, I have little sympathy for those who ought to know better (even having professional translators on their staff) and are just exploiting a trivial ambiguity to manufacture indignation: it is undignified.
Nevertheless, I could support quoting them, or commentaries about them, if the quotes were sufficiently eloquent or poignant. The examples in this article are not, so I still !vote to delete the article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[]
- Some quotations about the "controversy", or expressing indignation at the turn of phrase, have been added to the article; so the original deletion rationale does not apply to those additions.
- Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Keep, essentially per Mdd (talk · contributions), above. I agree with Mdd (talk · contributions) that there is good potential here for cleanup and improvement of the page. For relevant reading material on another deletion debate, please see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish death camp controversy. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- I don't see the Wikipedia discussion as being at all relevant. No one is denying that a controversy exists, but that does not make this a subject matter to be covered by Wikiquote. Wikipedia has an article on the Geology of Pennsylvania, undoubtedly a notable subject for an encyclopedia, but that hardly means that we should have a page of quotes where people use the phrase "geology of Pennsylvania". As a side note, anything that is quotable about Polish death camps could probably go to Poland, or Holocaust, depending on the focus of the quote. BD2412 T 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Respectfully disagree, but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion about that. Have a great day, -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- I don't see the Wikipedia discussion as being at all relevant. No one is denying that a controversy exists, but that does not make this a subject matter to be covered by Wikiquote. Wikipedia has an article on the Geology of Pennsylvania, undoubtedly a notable subject for an encyclopedia, but that hardly means that we should have a page of quotes where people use the phrase "geology of Pennsylvania". As a side note, anything that is quotable about Polish death camps could probably go to Poland, or Holocaust, depending on the focus of the quote. BD2412 T 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Further comment The article is cleaned up tonight, links are made to corresponding Wiki articles, and some more quotes have been added. -- Mdd (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- The two quotes criticizing Obama for using the phrase are the only quotes on the page about the controversy, and one of them is a mundane newspaper headline. Pages should not have quotes that are not germane to the subject of the page, which means all of the quotes except those two (and possibly except for the last one) need to be removed. BD2412 T 03:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- I wonder if the lemma title is taken to literal? If we would change the title to "Polish death camp" the argument, that the quotes don't relate to the controversy, will not hold any longer. But is this what anybody wants? -- Mdd (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- The title of the page is supposed to have some reflection on its contents. It is not a matter of being taken too literally, it is a matter of having any meaning at all. If the page were about the camps themselves, it would most appropriately be merged into Holocaust, of which these camps were one particular aspect. BD2412 T 12:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Some more quotes directly to the controversy are added to balance the lemma. -- Mdd (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Comment: I agree with BD2412 that the best course of action now (after the addition of quotes, many of which are regarding the camps themselves and not the controversy) is to merge with Holocaust. Or perhaps merge with Auschwitz concentration camp with a common title, such as Concentration camps. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- I wonder if the lemma title is taken to literal? If we would change the title to "Polish death camp" the argument, that the quotes don't relate to the controversy, will not hold any longer. But is this what anybody wants? -- Mdd (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- The two quotes criticizing Obama for using the phrase are the only quotes on the page about the controversy, and one of them is a mundane newspaper headline. Pages should not have quotes that are not germane to the subject of the page, which means all of the quotes except those two (and possibly except for the last one) need to be removed. BD2412 T 03:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Update: Great job at cleanup by Mdd (talk · contributions). The article should be kept at this point. Nice work. -- Cirt (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- You would be right if this were Wikipedia, and the point were to demonstrate that a controversy exists, rather than trying to provide any quotes of quality about it; it is only be sacrificing the notion that quotes should be quotable that we would get to that point here. BD2412 T 12:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Delete - here the quotations perhaps constitute the controversy, rather than describe it. The quotable content really belongs in the Holocaust page. --Aphorist (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- Keep but rename Jniech (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[]
- — Jniech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete This is a totally spurious controversy and it is no part of Wikiquote's objectives to support such nonsense.--Abramsky (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2013 (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.