Talk:Marek Jan Chodakiewicz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Activist: since that was posted on BLP noticeboard: it is inappropriate to post a negative view on a living person in the lead based on the attribution to a single/few advocacy sources
Line 78: Line 78:
:::: In mainstream [[WP:NEWSORG]] coverage in English, it is more or less the only thing he is known for. Being the main topic of two separate SPLC reports (one - in 2009 - well prior to trump being a political thing) is a rather "big thing".[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
:::: In mainstream [[WP:NEWSORG]] coverage in English, it is more or less the only thing he is known for. Being the main topic of two separate SPLC reports (one - in 2009 - well prior to trump being a political thing) is a rather "big thing".[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
'''Not undue''' -- SPLC is reliable for their identification of right-wing activism. And that's what the subject is known for, at least recently. Appropriate for the lead. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 05:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
'''Not undue''' -- SPLC is reliable for their identification of right-wing activism. And that's what the subject is known for, at least recently. Appropriate for the lead. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 05:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
*It is '''undue''' in the lead for two reasons. First, SPLC is an [[advocacy group]]. We should not promote their views/advocacy here, even if we want to mention their view in body of the page with appropriate attribution. Second, I do not think it is appropriate to post a negative view on a living person in the lead based on the attribution to a single advocacy source (or even a couple of biased sources). That could be done only if he is described as such in a large number of third-party RS, and this is clearly a "majority view". [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


== Chodakiewicz has been criticized for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom ==
== Chodakiewicz has been criticized for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom ==

Revision as of 16:11, 14 May 2019

Edits by User:71.163.198.132

I've reverted the recent edits to this page by User:71.163.198.132. To my reading they are not NPOV(edited by me at 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC), changed link from WP:POV to WP:NPOV), and phrases like "others view this as a classic case of character assassination" and "this ideologically motivated smear campaign against him is intended to silence and de-legitimize a bona fide scholar" are not encylopeadiac and contain Weasel Words. Especially when they are unreferenced, phrases like this cannot be put in a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear's Fool (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removals of well sourced text

User:Poeticbent www.splcenter.org is very much accessible and verifiable source. Second Jan T. Gross is a well known Polish historian as is Piotr Wróbel. Soutern Poverty Center is a well known human rights and racism monitoring organisation.--Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see the forest for the trees User:Tritomex. The attack piece was not written by Jan T. Gross and neither by Piotr Wróbel. It was written by one Larry Keller in a lowbrow sort of way. Perhaps you would you like to write an article about him, but regardless, in Wikipedia we have fair and square policy guidelines to follow about this sort of thing. Self-employed freelance writer, owner of http://www.larryakeller.com/ ... Server not found ... (says LinkedIn), is not a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center. You were misrepresenting the source right in the opening line by saying that the the Southern Poverty Center "considers Chodakiewicz views controversial". You have no quote for that. – By the way, this is not the first time I have run into your partisan stabs at editing and disruptive removal of references from articles related to Poland, based on either the lack of knowledge, or just plain ignorance. I suggest you stop right here. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: [including] Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Poeticbent talk 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Poeticbent The article is an official publication of Southern Poverty Law Center called intelligence report published by this NGO. Intelligence report is "the Southern Poverty Law Center's award-winning magazine. "The quarterly publication provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement agencies, the media and the general public. It is the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S."[1]. The title of the article is called "Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz with Controversial Views Serves on Holocaust Museum Board" so the first sentence is a direct quote and not any misinterpretation. Third, you accused me of partisan "stabs at editing and disruptive removal of references from articles related to Poland," which is a very serious accusation. The truth is that I removed a claim sourced with Yad Vashem official publication where the claim written at WIKI did not exist in source, nor anything similar to the claim existed in Yad Vashem publication. In fact, I saw many other similar cases regarding the HoLocaust in Poland when claims not existing in original sources have been used. Further I do not understand what your accusation of "partisan editing" against me actually means.I do not do partisan editing, nor I have any personal interests regarding Poland, I strictly adhere to Wikipedia polices of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and exactly because of this I feel the need that others also must adhere to this principles regardless of the edited subject. Finally, I find inappropriate your suggestion for me to stop editing subjects regarding Poland. Now are you claiming that Southern Poverty Law Center official site is not WP:RS or that I misinterpreted what has been written there?--Tritomex (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

right wing ties

there's nothing here about his right wing affiliations and views, this content should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.202.192 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide claims

I removed a claim that states he wrote about genocide of whites. It references to an article in which he clearly writes "there is no genocide clearly". Other claims will need to be checked if they have been falsfied as well. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he warning about an ongoing process of genocide of Whites (Boers) in SA? He does state that the genocide hasn't started yet - but is warning of current violence and atmosphere leading to genocide, no?Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activist

Per Newsweek - DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW? - Chodakiewicz is a "historian and far-right activist". This can easily be corroborated by his participation in Ruch Narodowy events such as a speech at a rally, his own publications in dorzeczy, and coverage in several Polish language publications detailing various aspects of this activism. This was described in our article as "political activist" (avoiding the far-right label in our text), but has been challenged by an IP [2][3] on the grounds of - "Give me the source that says he is “ a political activist". What would be the correct course action? Call him a "far-right activist" in our voice? Attribute the description to Newsweek? Leave it as political activist (saying that far-right is political does not seem to be OR)?Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Far-right individuals profiled by the SPLC generally have this information added to the lede of their bios. It's supported by a reliable source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it is indeed quite rare to non-existent for such information to be missing from an individual profiled extensively by the SPLC, particularly when such profiling is then repeated by the 3rd party RSes (e.g. NEWSORGs) in their own voice. The SPLC by itself, per consensus at RSN, as considered an expert source for far right politics. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Why did you revert this? François Robere (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's undue for the lede. It's not what he's notable for. Volunteer Marek 14:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in the West it is. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's a western academic and he was notable before he supported Trump or whatever. It's fine in the article itself, but in this case it's UNDUE in the lede as that's not what he's primarily known for. Volunteer Marek 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In mainstream WP:NEWSORG coverage in English, it is more or less the only thing he is known for. Being the main topic of two separate SPLC reports (one - in 2009 - well prior to trump being a political thing) is a rather "big thing".Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not undue -- SPLC is reliable for their identification of right-wing activism. And that's what the subject is known for, at least recently. Appropriate for the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is undue in the lead for two reasons. First, SPLC is an advocacy group. We should not promote their views/advocacy here, even if we want to mention their view in body of the page with appropriate attribution. Second, I do not think it is appropriate to post a negative view on a living person in the lead based on the attribution to a single advocacy source (or even a couple of biased sources). That could be done only if he is described as such in a large number of third-party RS, and this is clearly a "majority view". My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chodakiewicz has been criticized for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom

Polish responsibility? Would you describe responsibilty of Jewish politicians and police officers for their crimes as Jewish?Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 1968 was a protest of Polish students against communist rule.

Not only students, but also young workers and schoolchildren [4][5].Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ząb

Ząb was pl:Leonard Zub-Zdanowicz. I believe that young Chodakiewicz knew Ząb's widow, who may have influnced his opnions about the NSZ.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

A large chunk of source text was removed since "portraying him as bad because he's "socially conservative" and similar is just POV and UNDUE". Chodakiewicz's social conservatism is amply sourced and given his political activism as well as strand of writing is certainly relevant to the bio. Descriptions by 3rd independent parties are clearly relevant for us to portray this individual in a balanced and NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any of the removing editors making similar objections to adding a dozen such "chunks" to Jan Grabowski. Why is this article treated differently? François Robere (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who added this absurd sentence about Michnik ?

" Chodkiewicz's publication was reviewed positively in the Polish Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, whose editor Adam Michnik had previously called Eliach's account as an insult to Poland.[14][15]" First of all the statement by Michnik is I believe from 1996 long before this publication. Second of all it has nothing to do with Chodkiewicz. Third of all Eliach has been criticized by so many historians that I fail to see this as important, even Israel Gutman harshly condemned her. Fourth of all, did the editor who added this even checked who Adam Michnik is? One of the most prominent Jewish figures in Poland, a liberal thinker, who harshly condemns nationalism and anti-semitism. So the sentence is absolutely absurd and seems like a terrible SYNTH to imply that Michnik is some Polish nationalist attacking poor Eliach, which is as absolutely far from the truth. Who added this terrible sentence ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gutman did not "harshly condemn" Eliach. If we are to include a positive review, we should mention the position of the body making the review. Furthermore, the Gazeta piece itself covers the 1996 piece by Michnik and Chodakiewicz's analysis of it - "Są jednak w tej pracy momenty, w których autor obiektywizm porzuca. Trzeba niesłychanej ekwilibrystyki umysłowej, by odczytać odpowiedź Adama Michnika prof. Eliach pt. "Bezrozumny fanatyzm" ("Gazeta" w 1996 r.) jako "głos afirmujący". Michnik pisze: "Dobrej woli prof. Eliach najwidoczniej zabrakło. Nie jest to relacja o ejszyskiej zbrodni, jest generalnym oskarżeniem pod adresem wszystkich: AK i obecnych władz polskich. Oskarżeniem bezpodstawnym". Chodakowski udowadnia, że potępiając Eliach, Michnik ją popiera. Zdanie: "Nie umiem powiedzieć, na ile ta relacja jest ścisła", w którym Michnik odnosi się do ustaleń Michała Wołłejki prowadzi to tezy: Michnik całkowicie odrzucił wersję Wołłejki." - the last 3 paragraphs of the not too long Gazeta piece are about this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my question-was it you that introduced this sentence? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surname spelling

We have three names:

  • Chodakowski
  • Chodkiewicz
  • Chodakiewicz.
Please do your job correctly. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed Chodkiewicz (diff). Where do you see Chodakowski? Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above, green letters. Still Chodkiewicz - the same place. My comment belonged to the above thread.Xx236 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I thought you mean the article (in which there was also one Chodkiewicz). Chodakowski (green letters) is in a quote from the Gazeta Wyborcza - they spelled it that way in that paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chodakiewicz about Icewhiz

https://tysol.pl/a29491--Tylko-u-nas-Marek-Jan-Chodakiewicz-Icewhiz-i-inni Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! Also sad. Does he seriously think Israeli military intelligence runs editors on Wikipedia..? François Robere (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Volunteer Marek: It's perhaps the first time you argue against including something by Chod. Why is it? WP:SELFSOURCE/WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS allow this, as it's about Chod.'s own opinions. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. What are you talking about? BLPSELFPUB clearly disallows this.
Also, please provide evidence that this is "first time etc" or strike the claim. It's actually not true. More generally, discuss content, not editors.
You should also at least spell the guy's name out as your little abbreviation can be interpreted as an attempt at insulting a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected.
I've used abbreviations with other sources as well, where it suited me. You're free to interpret them as you wish.
The way it's phrased ATM doesn't make any claim against a clearly identifiable third party, only a statement regarding Chod's beliefs, so WP:BLPSELFPUB shouldn't apply. François Robere (talk)
And how many times have you argued for quoting him as a source, Francois? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps as few as none! I'm sure he's not an RS on most things, except in this case it's about his own ridiculous beliefs, so why not? If he wrote a whole blog post about what toothbrush he's using, we might've had to find a place for that too! François Robere (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marek_Jan_Chodakiewicz&oldid=897073696"