Talk:Glaukopis

To use

• 10.18318/td.2016.en.1.4

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Polish version

It has no information that suggests this en-wiki article to be NPOV. My analysis of the paragraphs:

• An unsourced paragraph on the aims of the journal, probably quoted from their website.
• An unsourced paragraph about the various people who are affiliated to them, probably quoted from their website.
• A paragraph that vouches for the reliability of the journal by citing a communique from a Polish Ministry. Then, there are details about accessing back-issues.
• A one-line paragraph about an award by (arguably) the party-magazine of PiS.
• A one-line paragraph about their EiC(s), probably quoted from their website.
• A list of books published by the journal.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That said, you can add the people who are affiliated to them and their previous EiCs. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam - You removed this tag without following Template:POV#When to remove. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion. I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Just negatives only. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently very negative. Is this criticism DUE? Is the article neutral? IMHO the Polish Wikipedia article is more neutral, and what we have here reads less neutrally. An article that is overwhelmingly negative is generally not something that WP:NPOV encourages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)