Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz

Untitled

Man? No sound and fury about this "antisemite"? :)) Yes, he dared to criticize Jews, SOME Jews - and it would cost much. I like some of his writtings. See also Korwin-Mikke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.255.62 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He is still in Radio Maryja.

"Michalkiewicz left Radio Maryja, which by its opponents is considered to have a history of broadcasting anti-Semitic statements... [1][2]" - this is false information. Michalkiewicz still works with Radio Maryja. He worked also for Polskie Radio, but along with working for Radio Maryja.

This is his comment for them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOHAdfrc5UQ. (15/01/2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.100.116 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72 removal

User:Ryk72 you said sources you removed are not reliable. I linked to the online copy on semantic scholar and academia, is that wrong? One source is Jewish Political Studies Review and the other is Journal for the Study of Antisemitism you can read on Journal for the Study of Antisemitism in its Wikipedia page. Why is this not reliable in your view? --AltaMalt (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The links removed in my edit were to .pdf files hosted on semanticscholar.org and cloudfront.net (the latter error with "access denied"), with no indication as to where or when or even if those documents had been published in reliable sources. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Academia puts it up on cloudfront. Are JSTOR and Researchgate ok? --AltaMalt (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Bare URLs aren't great references. A properly formatted {{cite journal}} template would be best. But there's other issues. Not least that these sources don't seem to actually verify the content for which they were referenced. Michael Whine in the Jewish Political Studies Review does have a paragraph on the article subject, specifically on their not being prosecuted; but not something that supports the article text. I can't find the article subject in the text of Bilewicz, Winiewski & Radzik; though the name does appear in a footnote; again nothing in that footnote to support our text. Per WP:RSCONTEXT & WP:SYNTH, I'm not a fan of synthesising passing mentions (including in footnotes) into bold claims; though some editors differ. I am a fan of in-text attribution of viewpoints found in individual studies or papers, particularly discussion papers, and of keeping attributed opinion below the lead section; some editors differ. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, to include a sentence which states that someone is "known for" something, particularly in a two sentence lead, we really want sources which deal primarily with that person, and which directly make that claim. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Career in PRL

I restored the shorter version. The content that I removed appeared to be word-for-word translation of http://www.encysol.pl/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Michalkiewicz and is thus a copyvio. In addition, it's unclear how reliable this source is. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You removed valid info under false pretext. You can preserve it here all you want (nice trick). Word for word translation? Then modify it. Removing pieces of valid information is pure wrong and you know it. Preserve here my behind. --Imiejsce (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Imiejsce, GizzyCatBella, I've removed the text per Wikipedia policy on potential copyright violations, see WP:COPYVIO. It seems to be a direct translation of a Polish source that is not released into the public domain (or licensed appropriately for Wikipedia). However, since I don't speak Polish, I may have missed a declaration of license on the page, or I could be incorrect about how directly translated it is (see WP:PARAPHRASE#Translation for the guidelines on copyright violation with translation). If I have, I deeply apologize, but I thought that in this case it was better to lean on the safe side.

In addition, the source seems to be a tertiary source with a strong bias, but those aren't necessarily reasons not to use the source, just reasons to be careful about its usage. Since the information seems to be relatively uncontroversial, it would be okay to use the source, but the information should use more extensive sourcing. Since the source is a tertiary source, it should be possible to use its sources, which would allow for better verification.

So overall, I think that the source is valid to use, as long as it is not a copyright violation, but should be supplemented by additional sources, especially for the stronger claims.

Gbear605 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• • • I’m not okay withthat dude removing perfectly valid and credible details. he peeled off a whole bunch of info without taking the slightest effort of analyzing it. Then he preserved it on talk page to create an illusion of being concern about it. bull s*%^ kofmand, you cut data because michalkiewicz doesn’t align with your point of view. You did that to other pages also. Preserve on the talk page my a*%. Verify f*#% info, the source and details you removed are accurate. you never verified it you guessed hoping no one notice. bull s%^#, verify and restore the info dudeImiejsce (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This was a direct copypaste. I'm assuming good faith in the original because it was copypasted from the Polish Wikipedia, which normally would be fine. Problem is, it's a copyright violation there too. I actually think the source itself looks perfectly valid, so if someone wants to use the source to write something proper, go for it. Wizardman 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)