| Revision as of 20:05, 15 April 2007 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,696 edits ←Created page with '==Criticism== ''The IPN has been criticized by many, often being characterized as an organization created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts.'' ...' | Revision as of 02:07, 22 April 2007 edit undoJadger (talk | contribs)2,446 edits →CriticismNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| First, many is a ] word. It has been criticized by some, but unless we have a source that states 'majority', some - politicians and journalists - is more adequate. Second, none of the sources state it was "created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts". It is the Polish govenrment which is criticized for trying to use it for that purpose; the sources are critical of Polish government but not of the Institute (which has been created in 1998, a good 8 years before the current government started to try to use it for its purposes - note the critical refs are from 2006 and 2007). Let's take a look at the refs. criticized Polish government, but the Institute is only mentioned as the institution which analzes 'the archives of Poland's communist secret police'. Newsday similarily notes "independent Institute of National Remembrance will scrutinize the files ... and declare them clean or guilty of past collaboration." Sure, "Many in Poland loudly condemn the law as an excuse for a political witch hunt" - but this is a critique of the law and government, not the IPN, which - as its chairman states - is only carrying out a legitimate research. Similiarly Chicago Tribune makes no criticism of IPN, but only of the controversial law and government motivation. Thus, we should correctly note that it is only a small part of recent actions of IPN that are criticized, and primary criticism is against the Polish government which may be using IPN findings in political games, not against academic research carried by IPN itself.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | First, many is a ] word. It has been criticized by some, but unless we have a source that states 'majority', some - politicians and journalists - is more adequate. Second, none of the sources state it was "created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts". It is the Polish govenrment which is criticized for trying to use it for that purpose; the sources are critical of Polish government but not of the Institute (which has been created in 1998, a good 8 years before the current government started to try to use it for its purposes - note the critical refs are from 2006 and 2007). Let's take a look at the refs. criticized Polish government, but the Institute is only mentioned as the institution which analzes 'the archives of Poland's communist secret police'. Newsday similarily notes "independent Institute of National Remembrance will scrutinize the files ... and declare them clean or guilty of past collaboration." Sure, "Many in Poland loudly condemn the law as an excuse for a political witch hunt" - but this is a critique of the law and government, not the IPN, which - as its chairman states - is only carrying out a legitimate research. Similiarly Chicago Tribune makes no criticism of IPN, but only of the controversial law and government motivation. Thus, we should correctly note that it is only a small part of recent actions of IPN that are criticized, and primary criticism is against the Polish government which may be using IPN findings in political games, not against academic research carried by IPN itself.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :many is not a weasel word when it is followed by 3 sources :P | |||
| :--] 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:07, 22 April 2007
Criticism
The IPN has been criticized by many, often being characterized as an organization created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts.
First, many is a WP:WEASEL word. It has been criticized by some, but unless we have a source that states 'majority', some - politicians and journalists - is more adequate. Second, none of the sources state it was "created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts". It is the Polish govenrment which is criticized for trying to use it for that purpose; the sources are critical of Polish government but not of the Institute (which has been created in 1998, a good 8 years before the current government started to try to use it for its purposes - note the critical refs are from 2006 and 2007). Let's take a look at the refs. Guardian criticized Polish government, but the Institute is only mentioned as the institution which analzes 'the archives of Poland's communist secret police'. Newsday similarily notes "independent Institute of National Remembrance will scrutinize the files ... and declare them clean or guilty of past collaboration." Sure, "Many in Poland loudly condemn the law as an excuse for a political witch hunt" - but this is a critique of the law and government, not the IPN, which - as its chairman states - is only carrying out a legitimate research. Similiarly Chicago Tribune makes no criticism of IPN, but only of the controversial law and government motivation. Thus, we should correctly note that it is only a small part of recent actions of IPN that are criticized, and primary criticism is against the Polish government which may be using IPN findings in political games, not against academic research carried by IPN itself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- many is not a weasel word when it is followed by 3 sources :P