This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vlad fedorov (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 24 April 2007 (→Criticism of IPN by Russian sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:00, 24 April 2007 by Vlad fedorov (talk | contribs) (→Criticism of IPN by Russian sources)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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)
- I wonder how Pan Piotrus could complain for Weasel words, when he uses term "academic research" for the activities of the Institute? Why then committee of the Institute is called "Committe for prosecution"? "Prosecution" and "academic research" are two different terms, indeed. However, if Piotrus desires other sources - I would add Russian sources in support of "politically motivated witch hunts". Vlad fedorov 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is all well explained in the article. Please mind WP:NPA - or can I call you 'tovarishch Vlad'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder how Pan Piotrus could complain for Weasel words, when he uses term "academic research" for the activities of the Institute? Why then committee of the Institute is called "Committe for prosecution"? "Prosecution" and "academic research" are two different terms, indeed. However, if Piotrus desires other sources - I would add Russian sources in support of "politically motivated witch hunts". Vlad fedorov 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- First. I certainly mind NPA. On Polish language "Pan Piotrus" or "Panie Piotrusie" is pretty polite reference or something has changed in Polish language since the year 2000 - when I graduated from UW? On Russian language the thing like "tovarishch" is different and could count to personal attack. Second. You complained that Criticism section contains many weasel words. I suggested helping you to source these "Weasel words" with reliable russian sources. Your inclination to look for personal attacks in my posts is pretty ridiculous, however, you may call me "spadar Vlad", because I consider myself mainly Belarusian, not Russian. Vlad fedorov 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of valid sources
I believe that deletion of Russian criticism by Piotrus is an example of Tendentious editing WP:TE. There are no applicable policies and guidelines in Misplaced Pages precluding from adding valid existing criticism. Even further, Rusian criticism is analogous to Guardian in comparing IPN with McCarthyism, Russian sources cite Italian newspaper "La Stampa", cite Polish journalists and cite Polish sources on the scandals surrounding the existence of IPN. Vlad fedorov 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Russian criticism from this article is like deletion of non-fascist criticism from articles on fascism. Russia is a party invloved, and her POV should be presented here as notable and deserving coverage.Vlad fedorov 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Iwould like also to pay attention that article on Internet brigades is completly irrelevant to this article, despite Piotrus mentioning. However, I could also regard it as a personal attack on me by hinting, Piotrus, please, explain why have you mentioned Internet brigades article in your edit summary. I cite reliable sources (TV channels, and notable russian magazines) which have respective articles in English Misplaced Pages. Vlad fedorov 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that deletion of Russian criticism by Piotrus is an example of Tendentious editing WP:TE. There are no applicable policies and guidelines in Misplaced Pages precluding from adding valid existing criticism. Even further, Russian criticism is analogous to Guardian in comparing IPN with McCarthyism, Russian sources cite Italian newspaper "La Stampa", cite Polish journalists and cite Polish sources on the scandals surrounding the existence of IPN. Vlad fedorov 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the info is totally valid. Not that it would be easy to keep it here. I will try to research the matter. For now, I can only assure that all the sources cited are as mainstream a press as there can be. I am somewhat skeptical about using press publication for the historic article but since this is a current politics and society issue rather than a historic one, the mainstream press is certainly acceptable. We should just make sure how representative each of the points being brought up is. If the point is not widely discussed and universally agreed, the disclaimed "According to..." or something similar should proceed every statement. At the side note, I see nothing outrageous or unexpected in this kind of information. Witch hunt is not uncommon upon the regime change and institutions tasked with such investigation, even in good faith, will always be involved in similar controversies. Lustration, even when warranted, may never be fully fair. So, I do not approve the removal of information.
- Vlad, please do not repeat past mistakes re revert warring and discussing editors. Concentrate on content. --Irpen 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of IPN by Russian sources
I am not sure about the sources. But the inclusion of this section creates undue weight to promote certain POV. This article included already "Criticism" and "Reply to criticism" sections, which were of approximately the same size. The "Criticism" section included "McCarthyism", "smear campaign", etc. The section about Russian sources only repeats the same claims second time and create the undue weight. Therefore, I must agree with deletion of this segment by Piotrus.Biophys 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not object to merging all criticism under a single section. It only makes sense. --Irpen 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. First of all I have chosen not right name for the sub-section "Russian sources", because these are actually not only Russian, but also Polish and Italian sources. Second, of course we could shorten criticism section, but also we have to shorten response to criticism section and introduce in the opening paragraph information about contraversial nature of this institution, I mean "political police" first of all. We also should note that response to criticism covers not all questions which are asked by critics.Vlad fedorov 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)