Talk:Rafał Pankowski

Recent edits

I reverted, as actual coverage in WP:RSes disagrees with the assertion that this is minor. In several of the paragraphs removed, our BLP subject was the subject of a full length article in a reputable international NEWSORG - which would seem to indicate this is WP:DUE. The article, at its current size of 8,112 bytes of prose has plenty of space to grow prior to pruning material. Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This "in depth coverage" which you claim - is that the fifteen word (one short sentence) mention, made in parentheses basically tagging it as an aside, in an article that's about 1000 words long? Or is it the the three paragraph blurb in some minor newspaper no one's ever heard of? Come on, who you're trying to kid? The other problem with this story is that the only source for these figurines being present in the parliament is Pankowski himself. So yeah, WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Get consensus to include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You are removing 4 different sections:

1. Hatred, free speech and one developer's connections with Poland's far right (correction) - interview with Pankowski as an expert on the Hatred video game - full length piece, summarized to a sentence.
2. "lucky Jew" figurines - again full length piece in The Art Newspaper, as well as paragraph in JTA (reprinted in a number of newspapers other than TOI). Both sources state the removal in their own voice and credit Pankowski in their own voice. Even if this was Pankowski himself - as an expert on racism and far-right in Poland this would quite possibly DUE - however in this case your assertion is false as nothing (other than the attributed quote of Pankowski's condemnation) is sourced to Pankowski.
3. Sentence on items with Nazi symbols on Allegro site - again full profile article in Al-Jazeera
4. Two sentences on "Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem" - with Pankowski's research findings as well as the Israeli foreign ministry condemnation of online attacks against Pankowski. Again a full length piece - the AP piece being reprinted by multiple NEWSORGs, and stating in its own voice that "Afterward, Andrzej Pawluszek, an adviser to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, said on Twitter that Pankowski had “attacked his own country.” Pankowski has since been denounced as a traitor and threatened in online comments..

Please specify a policy based rationale - grounded in reality (i.e. actually addressing the sources covering this) for each of your removals. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I have already done so. That's what the words "WP:UNDUE" and "WP:REDFLAG" in my comment above mean. Contrary to your false claim, there's no "in depth coverage" as already explained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll also note that most of the items here was also covered in Polish-language media (which we should avoid, per WP:NOENG and due to censorship/government supression in regards to content related to WWII ([1])), e.g.: full length pieces in Rzeczpospolita and Wirtualna Polska portal on the removal of "lucky Jews" from Sejm due to Pankowski. Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I should address sources which are not actually being used in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As you are claiming UNDUE or quite bizarrely REDFLAG (where is the red flag here, please do explain). Pankowski role in removing the "lucky Jews" from the Polish parliament has been covered extensively - in English, in Polish as pointed out above, as well as in Hebrew - [2][3]. Icewhiz (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Again - WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - the part about "covered extensively" is not true, as already pointed out in my comment of 15:26, 20 May 2019. Why do I need to repeat myself? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out to you, in response to your 15:26 comment, this was sourced to a full length piece in the respected The Art Newspaper (which you seemed to ignore for some odd reason), as well as a full paragraph in JTA (reprinting in ToI and elsewhere) the next year (showing sustained coverage). In addition, we have Polish and Hebrew language sources reporting on this. Do please try to address actual sources that have been presented. Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure The Art Newspaper is respected by someone somewhere, but it's an obscure source which may or may not be reliable. And per WP:REDFLAG that's not enough here. If you have "Polish and Hebrew language sources" then maybe we can add this in, but like I already said, I don't see them in the article. The two you mention above don't exactly say what you claim they say. If nothing else, they note very carefully that these claims about the statue in a story "BY" the Parliament, is something that Pankowski himself just claimed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

censorship - I love it. Please explain me the censorship in Poland. You don't have any idea about Poland, why do you make fun of yourself? I don't comment dancing, becasue I don't have any idea. But I'm an expert in censorship. I have fought the consorship during years listening to Free Europe, distributing illegal printings and reading them. At least 50% of POlish media are controlled by foreign media houses (Discovery TVN, Springer Newsweek and Fakt) and the government was informed by US embassy they better don't touch the TVN. Fortunately TVN doesn't earn enough, so some reorganisation is possible.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• VM - please provide a rationale for removing a third of the article - multiple different pieces of content sourced to rather good sources. Icewhiz (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Already did. Stop pretending I didn't. Stop the badgering. Also stop invoking "stable version" for an article recently created. That's just ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you did not. You keep on complaining (without addressing actual sources) about two short sentences on the sale of "lucky Jews" in the Polish parliament - that ceased following Pankowski denouncing this as "deeply rooted in negative stereotypes". You have not addressed removal of a third of the article, including - last blanket revert:

1. Fixing the wrong date on a citation - 2012 to 2016.
2. Description of The populist radical right in Poland: the patriots written by our subject in reliable sources.
3. Pankowski on football fan groups (anti-Muslim and anti-refugee) in Poland - covered in secondary sources, including an academic source.
4. Hatred video game.
5. "lucky Jews" (the only item you have discussed - all be it ignoring actual extent of RS coverage).
6. Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism and support of Israeli foreign ministry in light of online threats against Pankowski.

If you are challenging content - you should provide a clear rationale for the basis of your challenge.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

leading to the rise of Law and Justice (PiS) and its links to far-right movements

Law and Justice pretends to be something, eg. right, now the far-right moved to Konfederacja and your theories failed.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Anti-racism activist

Dr Bawer Aondo-Akaa is a real anti-racism activist, Pankowski commercialises his activism.Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

1RR DS now in effect

Yes, I know, I'm everywhere! El_C 07:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - you did not place an edit notice or something in the banner on the top of this page. Can you do so?Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you not see it? El_C 13:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable but

I moved this here because it's WP:OR to say this, IMHO. This should be used to add content, not OR. Maybe a list of EL. PS. On second thought I restored it with less OR. (Who says regularly, eh - we do?). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Pankowski is regularly interviewed as an expert on Poland's radical and far right, racism, hate speech, and extremism.

Well - he is at the very least described as an expert by all these NEWSORGs, no? Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

By some of them. I have no problem calling him an expert (through always remember to avoid WP:PEACOCK). My main concern is whether we can say, in editorial tone, that he is 'regularly interviewed'. What's the metric here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well - he is regularly interviewed (by a basic search - he clearly meets PROF C7 - he's interviewed all over the place as an expert) - but I do see your point. All of these interviewing outlets are calling him an "expert on X" (X varying (per citation above) - generally within racism / far-right). We could say he has been described as an expert, or that he is an expert. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

POV, Bad source tags

I removed the NPOV and Bad Sources tags as they have not been explained on the talk page (nor have any sources been proffered to support these claims). With the exception of his birth year (sourced to a speaker profile, profile on his organization - acceptable for birth year) and undergraduate, MA, and PhD, and current position at Collegium Civitas as well as some award information (which are sourced to his profile on Collegium Civitas - an acceptable source for such bio information) - bio details without POV issues one would assume - the rest of the article is sourced to mainstream NEWSORGs and an academic reviews. If there is a specific issue - please raise it here in a coherent fashion. Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)