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). Critisism 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)

Thank you for starting the discussion, I was writing my comment at the same time as yours and it was lost in an edit conflict, so I had to restart. Anyway, now we have a discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 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)

If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. There is nothing in policy that suggests that we shall bend over backwards and exclude reliable sources lest our article is overwhelmingly negative. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You do not remove the tag until this issue of WP:NPOV is resolved - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This speaks for itself - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please go on stonewalling. I am still waiting to hear the actual NPOV concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please explain what makes the added criticism due. Is in in-depth or passing? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You suggest that Jan Grabowski's criticism is in passing? Or, is this about Andreas Kahrs? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is Kahrs? I am asking you, as the editor who added these sources, if you think they are passing or in-depth analysis. Also, before someone misquotes me, I will stress I don't consider Glaukopis to be a particularly reliable or quality source. I certainly would not advise citing it for anything controversial. But our articles need to respect WP:NPOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe all my sources are accessible from TWL; why don't you read them? Andreas Kahrs is a scholar on the far-right and he received his PhD from Humboldt University of Berlin, one of the most prestigious institutes in the nation; the particular source has been cited about a dozen times by other scholars since publication.

I have also added a couple of more sources including from the Gazeta Wyborcza, a newspaper of record in Poland. Will add content from them, soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ps. The addition of the history section addresses most of my concerns about this being composed solely of criticism so I removed the NPOV tag. @GizzyCatBella, are you ok with this? The source review does suggest that coverage of this publication, at least in English, is mostly critical. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)