Talk:Islamophobia in Poland: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 154: Line 154:
:An interview with Pędziwiatr. I believe that the title is wrong, so I don't translate it. http://www.miesiecznik.znak.com.pl/europa-stanie-sie-muzulmanska/ [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:An interview with Pędziwiatr. I believe that the title is wrong, so I don't translate it. http://www.miesiecznik.znak.com.pl/europa-stanie-sie-muzulmanska/ [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:: Xx236 - you just linked to euroislam.pl - which is described thus in academic journals: "Since 2010, the association Europe of the Future and the '''portal Euroislam.pl''' led by Jan Wójcik and Piotr Slusarczyk respectively have been the '''most vocal Islamophobes'''."[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0888325413502073] We generally avoid linking to hate sites on Wikipedia. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:: Xx236 - you just linked to euroislam.pl - which is described thus in academic journals: "Since 2010, the association Europe of the Future and the '''portal Euroislam.pl''' led by Jan Wójcik and Piotr Slusarczyk respectively have been the '''most vocal Islamophobes'''."[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0888325413502073] We generally avoid linking to hate sites on Wikipedia. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:Says anti-Polish hate speaker Icewhiz.
:Please raad above - I don't need the source, beacsue Pędziwiatr admits his cooperation with the SETA. Please read before you write.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 07:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:27, 7 August 2019

Fronda, wSieci

These are fringe, marginal sources, even though User:Icewhiz has tried to use them elsewhere on Wikipedia as reliable, and I'm not sure if they're DUE for mention here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic WP:RSes on Islamophobia in Poland deem this as meriting mention - we follow sources. Neither Fronda nor wSieci are used as a source - nor should they be - we have an academic source covering their connection to Islamophobia. Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see that you've changed your mind about the reliability of these as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banasiak

Putting aside the fact that this guy is referred to as "liberal" and the fact that he's fringe and member of a party which didn't even cross the electoral threshold, which part of the source given supports the following claim:

"however, after the "positive and supportive" intervention of the Ministry of Justice, the case was to be reopened and reassessed"

@Icewhiz:? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was copied from Islam in Poland where it has been for a while. Icewhiz (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You put it in here so you're responsible for it. Why did you include information that was not actually in the source, up to including a false quotation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz:? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz:? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging me on this issue. At this point I think we have better quality sources available for the topic, so this content from Islam in Poland is not required.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we do, but that still leaves the question of WHY you added the false info into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a very early version of this article, this was copied from Islam in Poland (perma version) - where it was a long while. We generally WP:AGF, and the citations do seem to cover what they are supporting. I shall WP:AGF vs. yourself and assume that your challenge on the Ministry of Justice quote is correct - and regardless - there are simply much better sources available (as I've discovered in the last few days reading the relevant academic literature) - so I see no need to discuss this particular content. Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading to speak of a "very early version" of this article since this article has just been created. And the only reason why it was in a "very early version" is because *I* removed it. It is likewise completely false that "citations do seem to cover what they are supporting". You don't even have the excuse that the sources are in a foreign language since one of them is in English! And AGF or not, we do expect editors to WP:V sources when inserting text, especially with something so controversial. You yourself have screamed bloody murder and demanded that other editors be sanctioned after falsely accusing them of failing to verify sources. Why is it okay for you to demand sanctions against others for things which you yourself do? And THAT IS assuming good faith towards you, it's assuming that you failed to verify, rather than willingly put the false info into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede, other stuff

The lede is supposed to summarize the article. That's not what this lede does. Also, it may very well be that a background section on history of Muslim communities in Poland is appropriate, but let's stick to this topic please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to lead content - then move it to the body - don't remove wholesale. This is a newly developed article, and the breaking up into sections was only performed recently. Islamophobia without Muslims is contrasted to antisemitism with Jews by multiple academic sources and is definitely DUE for the lead and body. Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the lede content, and I object to you trying to use this article as a WP:COATRACK. For some reason you're trying to make article titled "Islamophobia in Poland" into an article about antisemitism in Poland. That's WP:COATRACK. Can you answer my query in the section right above this one? It kind of looks like you grossly misrepresented a source up to including a false quote from it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Academic journal articles on Islamophobia make the connection - we follow sources. Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to make an article on Islamophobia in Poland about anti-semitism in Poland is very clearly a violation of WP:COATRACK, whether or not your cherry picked sources mention both or not. You still haven't answered the question above regarding your insertion of false material with fake-sourcing above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Islamophobia. Numerous top-notch academic sources tie Polish Islamophobia to Polish antisemitism - both in terms of employment of the same old antisemitic tropes respun to target Muslim other and in terms of modern expression of Polish Islamophobia being coupled with Polish antisemitism. The newer bigotry is based, here, on the old bigotry and its expression coincides with the old. We follow sources - not unfounded opinions by editors not grounded in reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which means the connection can be mentioned, but trying to make a good portion of the article about Islamophobia be instead about anti-semitism is kind of ridiculous. And it's a pretty textbook case of WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The content you removed - in a wholesale removal of 3K of material - diff - was sourced to academic books and journal articles. Oddly you also saw fit to remove the makeup of the Muslim population of Poland. Academic sources on Islamophobia in Poland devote extensive space to comparing it to antisemitism - noting that Islamophobia is based on the prior antisemitic motifs and that Islamophobia and antisemitism occur jointly. Jan T. Gross's observation that Islamophobia in Poland and Eastern Eurpe (in the context of Muslim refugee fear) arises due to a failure to come to terms with Holocaust complicity - has been widely quoted by sources on Islamophobia in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that Iswhiz is unable to edit Israel and Islamophobia but supports Islam in Poland. Anything is good to attack Poland and Polish people. It's an obsession parallel to anti-Semiiitism. This Wikipedia is unable to stop the racist/ideological fighters. Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Events

Ecents of 2016. Please wake up.Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

The phobia has rational roots - a number of emancipated Polish women has married Islam believers, emigrated and learned about cultural differences, eg. no right to children.
Poles were victims of Islamic terror in Western Europe
Well - this source - does frame Polish migration from the homogeneous (ethnic/religious/national) Polish society to the multicultural UK and continued contact with friends and family back in Poland as a transnational transmission mechanism of Islamophobia into Poland. However, they haven't covered terror. Do you have a source or edit in mind for terrorism and/or intermarriage? Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have numbers, but probably Germany influences Poland more than UK does. Especially Eastern Germany with their anti-immigrant AFD support and immigrant centers.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly - we need a source though.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your page. You have to learn to write it, but you don't care, you publish accidentally selected trash. If this Wikipedia accepts your racist hate and propaganda, I have to move to an another project.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kiosk/ratunek-z-kobiecego-piekla/slyg4 MAny such texts about Arabs. Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People migrate from Sweden to Poland:
Polish painter Piotr Krosny attacked in Sweden https://euroislam.pl/somalijczycy-pobili-polskiego-malarza-w-szwecji-szwecja-nie-jest-juz-bezpieczna/ Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Russian man run away from Sweden with his three daughters.[2]Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lipks Tatars

Is there any real Islamophobia against Lipka Tatars? A drawing of a pig's head on the Kruszyniany Mosque? Wow! The world is horrifieed.Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The journal paper by Narkowicz&Pędziwiatr published in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, sees this as significant:

Yet perhaps the most devastating – not in scale but in symbolism – was the 2014 attack on the seventeenth-century Tatar mosque in Kruszyniany. A pig was drawn on the outside wall of the green wooden mosque and abusive graffiti was sprayed on the graves of the adjacent Muslim cemetery. The Tatars, having lived in Poland for several hundred years without experiencing hostility, were deeply affected by this unprecedented rise in Islamophobic attacks. This incident showed that, in the context of an unprecedented rise in Islamophobia, all Muslims are targeted through attacks on their places of worship, whether they have lived in Poland for centuries or just a few years.

[3] I don't know if the world is horrified, but Tatars previously long integrated in Polish society are affected by this new prejudice. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Level below zero. Don' you undertsand the connection between Islamist terror and Islamist refurbishing of Polish Tatars? Tomasz Miśkiewicz studied in Saudi Arabia and caused a conflict among believers.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the imagined "conquest of Europe" by Islam

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5013507,00.html Is my source islamophobic? Ynet should inform about it. Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A book

http://otworzksiazke.pl/images/ksiazki/muslims/muslims.pdf Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed

It seems the tag regarding Europa Przyszlosci was removed [4] with a false edit summary which claimed to address the issue, but didn't. Who or what is this group? A google search turns up nothing - mostly links to Polish language version of European Community's pages about the future of Europe. It seems like this is some super-marginal fringe group that nobody's ever heard off, yet it's given all this undue attention in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate your google searching attempts were unsuccessful. Europe of the Future (Europa Przyszłości) is covered in three cited journal articles on Islamophobia.[1][2][3][2] The group is clearly identified in the text, and placing the tag was not inline with the documentation of Template:Who. Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nice to have the three sources, unfortunately unavailable to the majority of readers. Rich people versus poor people, the rich ones win.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three journal articles specifically mention this group - which was groundbreaking in terms of Islamophobia Poland (starting off the mosque protests). There are a few more (the 2010 anti-mosque demonstrations being a pretty big deal). The text was expanded. Per Template:Who - "This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like" - there is nothing vague in the text - the group is very clearly named. @Volunteer Marek: - just because you personally haven't heard of something, isn't a valid justification for a clearly specified entity. Please justify this tag you've reinstated in terms of actual policy - I'm unsure how to address your concerns here further (3 citations - in OVERCITE turf really, and the group is very clearly specified). Icewhiz (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who IS this group then? And it's not just that *I* haven't heard of them, it's that there is NOTHING about them out there on the vast internets, aside from these few sources you dug up. If they were significant we'd be able to find *something* about them. Where are they based? Who's in it? How long have they been around? How many members? But there's nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The group is noted for organizing one of the first major anti-Islam protests in Poland and is covered in that context in several journal articles - in persisting coverage after the event (in addition to NEWSORG coverage of the event from 2010). I provided three top notch aources - I suggest you read them of you want to learn more.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't answer ANY of the questions. There is no info about this group anywhere what so ever. Who are they? Who's in charge? How many members? Can you provide even one link which describes who the group are? None of the sources you provided do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz at work

Icewhzi uses Islam as a tool against Poland an d Polish people. He continues his treaditional work - selecting trash texts from biased anti-Polish sources. It's a case of Westsplaining, which allegedly doesn't exists - foraigners write racist hate-texts against Polish people.

Poland accepted Chechens during their wars. The Chechens left Poland and a number of the Chechens participated in crimes. So the Poles are cautious now.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational Islamophobia verification tag

@Volunteer Marek: - you placed a Template:Verify-inline template. Per the template documentation - "Add the Verify source template only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information". Please specify what good faith attempts you have made to verify and why you have concerns. Beyond being in the journal article itself, this two sentence blurb is mostly contained in the publicly available abstract - here - making this tag quite confusing in given the requisite good-faith verification attempt here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you need to answer the question of why you put in false information into the article, complete with a manufactured quote, and pretended to source it, as posed right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were told precisely where that came from. I understand then that you have no specific concerns here then.Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask where it came from. I asked WHY you put it in there, as it's obviously false info not found in the source. THAT is my "specific concern".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific concern with content from Islamophobia on the move: circulation of anti-Muslim prejudice between Poland and the UK? I intend to remove the tag, as I've verified the content, unless you can point out anything in particular here. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that someone OTHER than the editor who added the material - the same editor who in a few edits before that added false information not backed at all by the source he included - verifies the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. The information is very clearly supported by the cited source - Islamophobia on the move: circulation of anti-Muslim prejudice between Poland and the UK[5] (published - a book section). As I have verified, I intend to remove the tag unless there is any particular concern. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the point is that we need someone other than you - especially since you just added clearly false info into the article with fake-sourcing - to verify. Hence the request. You can email me the article or provide quotes with context here. You should also not incorrectly claim that "sources are readily available". They're not. You should also read WP:AGF more carefully.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have - your sources are unavailable. If abstracts contain everything, why to write/read more? The Nature should use Twitter. Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read this

"the root of hostility to Muslim refugees in East European countries generally and Poland specifically is connected to the failure to come to terms with their role in the Holocaust and specifically complicity with the Nazis". A mastership of hate -speach. But the liberal and progressive Germans created the ADF, 11%. Xx236 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knife attack in Poland

https://gazetawroclawska.pl/wroclaw-atak-nozownika-w-galerii-dominikanskiej-ofiara-nie-zyje/ar/13951709 Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And? I don't see where Gazeta Wrocławska mention Islamophobia (as a hate crime? a response? as background?) - AFAICT they don't even mention Islam or Muslim in the piece. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is fear of criminals islamophobia?
A Chechen criminal group has been recently arrestted in Poland. Sure, a Buddist with a knife from Turkey. Xx236 (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/germany-travel-advisory.html "Exercise increased caution in Germany due to terrorism." Yes, they don't inform who are the terorists.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The travel advisory mentions neither Poland nor Muslims/Islam - let alone Islamophobia. Speculating on the religious background (or relevance thereof) of individuals reported to have been from Turkey - is WP:OR. Likewise, speculation on the religious background of people from Chechnya would be OR - and regardless irrelevant to this article unless a source makes the connection (e.g. arrest motivated by Islamophobia). Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't turn this into "list of Islamophobic incidents in Poland". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in to create artificial reverts

Icewhiz, you ceased making edits to this article on 8/7 9:58 [6]. I began making edits about ten hours later at 19:55 [7]. You immediately resumed editing and jumped in to stick your edits in between my edits, creating edit conflicts and separating out my edits with yours. I'm bringing this up because previously you tried using the same exact tactic to try and report me for 3RR [8] [9] [10]. Can you lay off of the WP:OWN for a bit and let other editors edit in peace? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to write an article here. I am not "creating editing conflicts" - but adding material from a journal article I read. Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were not "writing an article" (or editing at all) between 9:58 and 19:55. You immediately started editing again seconds after I made my first edit today to the article. I would be quite willing to chalk it up to a strange coincidence, except, as noted above, you've done this before and tried to exploit it for the purposes of spurious reports.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you already pointed in the ARBCOM case, if one were to check your and Icewhiz's Wiki-interactions, they'll be bound to find a whole lot of them for no reason other than the sheer number of edits you've both made in certain topic areas. By a similar logic, some proportion of Icewhiz's 77 edits on this page from the past three days is bound to fall closely to some of yours. François Robere (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Lol. Right. He made no edits between 9:58 and 19:55 and then when I make an edit at 19:55 and 19:57, he starts jumping in at 19:58. And you know what else I pointed out at the ArbCom case? That you and Icewhiz have never disagreed on anything (though apparently there was one instance out of 100+ where there was some mild disagreement) and that you always show up for some reason to support each other. Come on. In the past week, Icewhiz has replied to comments and questions I posed to you, then you show up and reply to comments and questions I've posed to him. You start using the esoteric word "superset" in discussions, Icewhiz starts using the same word. Icewhiz starts reverting with the inappropriate justification of "stable version", you start reverting with the same inappropriate justification. Please, can you guys at least try to keep up appearances? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well - I've been actually authoring quite a bit of content here (around 20K of new material (if we add back in the 6K VM just removed)) - it's been my main project for the past couple of days (I created a copied stubby-stub (copied from a version in Racism in Poland after some editors removed it on the basis of their personal opinion of Islamophobia not constituting racism) on the evening 3 August - but only really started working on this on 4 August). So yes - I've been done quite a bit of editing to this article over the last few days. I finished eating my dinner (during which I read an article from Gender, Place & Culture which I found earlier today) - and went to bang a bit on the keyboard entering it. At many random points during the past 2 days I've been editing this article - it didn't go from 0 to where it is without editing! Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You made no edits between 9:58 and 19:55, approximately ten hours, then immediately started making edits when I made an edit, you then proceeded to jump in and insert your own, fairly minor edits, in between mine in order to claim that I made multiple reverts, I then called you out for doing that on the talk page and predicted you were trying to generate an excuse for a spurious 3RR report, you then did exactly what I predicted. WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tag

@Volunteer Marek: - Please express your exact concerns with this tag.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verification tag on Pedziwiatr

@Volunteer Marek: - per Template:Verify source - you are suppose to add this template "only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information". In regards to diff. This information is on the top of page 462 (second page of article - starts at 461) - withing the opening paragraph (following the abstract) - it should be pretty obvious - it is the first instance of "highest" if you text search. Please explain what in your good faith attempts to verify this information led you to place this tag and why you still think it is necessary should you think it should still remain. Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the relevant quotation in proper context or better yet, send me a copy of the paper.
Please explain WHY (not HOW, that's easy to see) you inserted false information into the article and pretended to source it to a source which did not contain the information you claimed [11].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already responded to that, please keep each issue in its own section. I understand you haven't actually read the source, which is readily available - which leaves me puzzled to as why the tag was placed. I have verified the that the content appears in the source - "The Polish public has voiced some of the strongest dissent in Europe against taking in refugees fleeing the war-torn Middle East, and continues to express one of the highest rates of fear of Muslims among European countries" (first paragraph in article (following abstract), top of page 462). I will also note that several other journals articles with polling data mention Poland being the highest or among the highest in terms of Islamophobia. Any additional concerns here ? Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may have responded but you did not answer. And the two issues are obviously related. If an editor knowingly puts in false information into an article (see WP:HOAX) and then pretends to source it (with a source that doesn't say anything like the text claims) that raises obvious issues of WP:V. This is made even more pertinent when that editor claims that a source is "readily available" when that is clearly not the case (you got to shell out 43 bucks for it). Opposition to taking in refugees is probably correlated with Islamophobia but it's not the same thing. But thank you for finally (why was this so hard???) providing the relevant quotes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF and stick to discussing the issue at hand in each section. The source, published in Patterns of Prejudice, states "The Polish public ... and continues to express one of the highest rates of fear of Muslims among European countries". Please use appropriate tags - Template:Verify source is not a quotation request. I intend to remove the tag unless you have additional concerns. Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the subject, but the text accuses Pędziwiatr to work for a think tank Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research of an Islamic Turkish party Justice and Development Party (Turkey).https://euroislam.pl/jak-dr-pedziwiatr-tropil-islamofobie/Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need the above source, here is Pędziwiatr, K., (2017) Islamophobia in Poland: National Report 2016. In: Enes Bayralki & Farid Hafez, European Islamophobia Report 2016, Istanbul. SETA. 411-443 , so the SETA publishes his yearly reports.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An interview with Pędziwiatr. I believe that the title is wrong, so I don't translate it. http://www.miesiecznik.znak.com.pl/europa-stanie-sie-muzulmanska/ Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xx236 - you just linked to euroislam.pl - which is described thus in academic journals: "Since 2010, the association Europe of the Future and the portal Euroislam.pl led by Jan Wójcik and Piotr Slusarczyk respectively have been the most vocal Islamophobes."[12] We generally avoid linking to hate sites on Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says anti-Polish hate speaker Icewhiz.
Please raad above - I don't need the source, beacsue Pędziwiatr admits his cooperation with the SETA. Please read before you write.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]