| Revision as of 19:29, 23 April 2007 editJadger (talk | contribs)2,446 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:42, 23 April 2007 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,696 edits →CriticismNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ''The IPN has been criticized by many, often being characterized as an organization created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts.'' | ''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 ] 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 | :many is not a weasel word when it is followed by 3 sources :P | ||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
| :--] 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | :--] 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :No, it is, just read ] which specifically advises against the use of "many" (How many people think that? How many is some?).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | :No, it is, just read ] which specifically advises against the use of "many" (How many people think that? How many is some?).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| "how many people think that" is >=3, as I have provided 3 sources. |
"how many people think that" is >=3, as I have provided 3 sources. It '''advises''' against using it as a weasel word, but when it is used in conjunction with multiple citations it is not a weasel word. | ||
| --] 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | --] 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :No. Instead of using 'some' or 'many' - unless they are uncontroversial, which is clearly not the case here - we should list specifically who is saying what. Your version created the misleading impression that IPN is an highly controversial institution, which is certainly not the case. It is a respected research institute and we should take care not to misrepresent it (per ] and ]).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:42, 23 April 2007
 | Poland Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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
- No, it is, just read WP:WEASEL which specifically advises against the use of "many" (How many people think that? How many is some?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"how many people think that" is >=3, as I have provided 3 sources. It advises against using it as a weasel word, but when it is used in conjunction with multiple citations it is not a weasel word.
--Jadger 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- No. Instead of using 'some' or 'many' - unless they are uncontroversial, which is clearly not the case here - we should list specifically who is saying what. Your version created the misleading impression that IPN is an highly controversial institution, which is certainly not the case. It is a respected research institute and we should take care not to misrepresent it (per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)