Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 9 May 2011 (→Early history of Pomerania close paraphrasing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Arch1 /Arch2 /Arch3

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bideleux

Are we talking about the same book? Page 280: "This opened the way for Polish uprisings and a revived "Polish Legion" to participate in the "liberation" of Prussian Poland" (). Not sure about the problem, actually. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, something's off. I looked here (it's a different edition you link) - before I could see the whole thing and like I said, the text on the page was about the Habsburgs. Note that in the table of contents the chapter on "The kingdom of Bohemia and the Hussite heritage" starts on pg 216 which fits in with the Habsburgs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

History of macroeconomic thought

I have been working on an article you started, History of macroeconomic thought. I put the article up for peer review and got some useful feedback. I would like to put the article up for an FA or GA nomination, but I could use some more input. Are you OK with how the article turned out? Do you think an FA would be appropriate? Thanks.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks really good. I think it can easily get GA, though it could probably use some copy editing and probably a few other minor changes. I have less of a sense of what is required for FA and some of those requirements appear a bit esoteric and strange to me. But if you nominate it for FA let me know and I'll try and help in addressing any issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an FAC reviewer:

• Make sure your citations and references are consistently formatted and complete.
• Check MOS for dates, currency units, hyphens, dashes.
• Check that your images are free or have a good reason not to be.
• Brilliant prose. Try to get a guild of copy editor support. You can try begging on the basis that you've completed a "core topic."
• Make sure you've not left anything out content wise; check the outlines used in other major encyclopaedia, major textbooks, and magisterial survey histories.
• Have fun, be humble, ask for assistance, explain to FAC that its your first FAC, what the previous reviews have been, and what the importance of the topic is. Lure us in to read the article in your FAC summary when presenting the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Seige of Kolberg (1807)

I sincerely raplied in some detail to 3o requests at Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807) and I hope this helps alleviate some of the controversy there. I see you have some history of disputes with the editor Skäpperöd. Perhaps you see him/her as intentionally denying a role for Poland or Polish figures in the seige, or of other bad-faith practices, but, really, there is not much in this particular article that is worth a controversy of any kind. Picture sizes and caption details of what to most people are obscure figures from the Naploenoic War seems almost irrelvant when you probably have a lot more new information to contribute to Misplaced Pages which isn't covered elsewhere. I am happy to reduce the discontent and lessen disputes if you let me, but I also invite you to consider how much your time is worth and how little this dispute in this article means to 99.9% of Misplaced Pages readers, or how little these disputes play into the overall message of the article. Thanks for your many efforts in this article and to Misplaced Pages generally, I'll be happy to stay involved here as long as my appearance is valued. Leidseplein (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Paderewski and Adamowski relationship

I finally found a source that supports the family relationship between Adamowskis and Paderewskis. A book that was written to honor Helenka Pantaleoni (see the citation that I added to her bio here), states that Antoinette (Antonina) Szumowska, who married Josef Adamowski and who was Tad and Helenka's mother, was the "sister of Paderewski's wife Helene." I'm not much on genealogy or figuring out family ties, but I would say from this that referring to Tadeusz and Helenka as "cousins" of Ignacy Paderewski has a basis.~Mack2~ (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to A Gift of the Heart?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I learned about this book by chance, ordered it and have perused it. It could be used to embellish the story of Helenka's family and her entire career. I was hoping that it would have more information about her brother Tad. It says little: (1) he returned to the U.S. after being released from the OFLAG -- but nothing about his being captured or his life in the OFLAG; (2) that the OSS helped to bring him home from Naples. But it doesn't explain how and why Tad was in Naples after being released in Poland, nor why the OSS was involved in his return to the U.S. (I mean this was the precursor agency to the CIA, it was an intelligence agency; but the reason Tad was brought home by the OSS is that he was running from not the Germans but from the Soviets; that he was moving under an assumed name (Ralph Adams); he got that cryptic message to his sister that hinted that he was in Naples; and she as well as my F-I-L had a connection with the OSS (Donovan -- the director of the OSS -- is mentioned as a friend and supporter of Helenka's humanitarian work prior to the establishment of the OSS); and of course Guido had volunteered for service in the OSS, so they "owed" it to the Adamowski family to help to rescue Tad when he was on the lam. At least the book mentions the item (2) above, which is entirely consistent with what I know through the family (and btw my F-I-L is mentioned in the book as well but not in connection with Tad, rather in connection with his role with UNICEF).

There's quite a bit more information about Guido Pantaleoni, if someone wanted to do an article on him. But there's at least one discrepancy: says that while he was killed in 1943, they never knew that for sure until 1945 (this is consistent with what my M-I-L says); but the book says they never found his body, yet I found a source (which I linked in Helenka's article) that lists a burial site in Italy. It may well be, however, that this site is just a marker, and not where the body was placed.~Mack2~ (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW/ I am a little bit dubious about the statement that Helenka's (and Tad's) mother was the sister of Ignacy Pederewski's (second) wife Helene. Although it is consistent with what we have read about Tad being a cousin of I. Paderewski (that mention was in the Polish Olympic Committee article that you translated), the surname or maiden name of Helene is different from that of her putative sister Antonina. So I think a bit more evidence would be helpful.~Mack2~ (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! I found another title, In Her Own Words, by Helenka Adamowska Pantaleoni, a pamphlet published by the U.S. Committee for UNICEF in 1994, which has nearly 100 pages of reminiscences by Helenka. In her own words, she writes, "My aunt, Helena Pederewska, wife of the eminent Polish pianist and statesman, suggested that we move to Lucerne, where there was a good hospital, to await the baby's birth. And so Tad was born in the hospital there". (p. 2)~Mack2~ (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also learned that when Paderewski came to Boston for musical performances, he always stayed at the home of the Adamowskis in Brookline. But also that neither Helenka nor Tad were themselves big fans of music in their youth, in part because it so dominated their parents' lives, and it was always and everywhere in their house, which had multiple pianos and was constantly beset with music students coming for their lessons. This is consistent with what I knew through the family and from Tad himself. But I hadn't realized that Helenka shared that opinion. On the other hand, Helenka tells the story of how she really met Guido -- at a concert in NYC! -- and that she was a regular attender at musical events in her adult years.~Mack2~ (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For the first several years of their lives (in Boston), Tad and Helenka spoke only Polish and French at home. But of course they grew up in America and spoke unaccented English, which may have allowed Tad, in his "Ralph Adams" escape from Poland to Naples to seem credible as an American. Helenka tells a story in this memoire when she was studying theater one of her teachers or fellow-students thought she was putting on airs with such a sophisticated name, "Helenka Adamowska." And recommended that she call herself "Helen Adams," which became something of a family joke. Turns out that later on Tad resorted to such an alternative name to save his life!~Mack2~ (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for article review: St. Florian's Cathedral

Hello, I recently created a new article on Warsaw's St. Florian's Cathedral and I'd be pleased if you review it and post your thoughts on the article's talk pages. Please do go ahead and edit or enhance the article if you like without waiting for consensus ("consensus" = me! (for now)) Leidseplein (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence There has been a Catholic church presence in or around this site since 1583 gives me pause. If I remember correctly, the first catholic church in Warsaw was build in the 14th century. I couldn't find anything very specific but this says Historia figury świętej Barbary wiąże się z kościołem, który stał tu w XIV-XVI w (the history of the monument to St. Barbara is connected to the church which stood there from the 14th to 16th centuries). This pl-wiki article says something similar Pierwszy kościół powstał przed 1339 r. jako kościół filialny parafii św. Jana w miejscu obecnej figury św. Barbary na rogu ulic Solec i Ludnej. (First church here was build before 1339, as a church of the parish of St. John in the place of the present day monument to St. Barbara on the corner of Solec and Ludna streets".

Otherwise, very nice article. Are you going to submit it to DYK?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean a presence on the site of the future church.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, yes, I submitted it to DYK and I think it passed but hasn't been featured yet.

As to your point about the dates of the church presence, yes there is some confusion (on my part) and probably a little bit of controversy if you look at all the available resources as to when and where the first recorded church was or when St Florian's predecessor(s) started. I believe I took the 1583 date from the church website, where (from memory) it says something like a bishop or priest established a parish or some other kind of presence in Praga somewhere near where the current church stands in 1583. I don't think its terribly important to make sure we pinpoint this precisely - my overall point was to convey that while the church is fairly new (<100 years) the Catholic presence (especially insofar as it predates the Russian Orthodox presence)is several hundred years old.

Thanks again, and if you're interested I'll notice you about future Poland-related articles I'm planning to create. Leidseplein (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about writing up the article on the architect Józef Pius Dziekoński but I don't think I'll have time. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Schenk

I'll leave it to you, thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Eh

ANI is a Zoo, its who shouts the longest the loudest. I am planning to make motion to the Arbs in light of this develpment to broaden the scope of from "closely related" to "broadly construed." Its SPA pushing this I mentioned earlier at another user's talk page out of the last three thousand article edits of this user the only one not in that scope was one about Jews. This individual cant help themself. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right about AN/I but in this case I think the fault lies with the ArbCom who, in a very silly way, restricted the scope of Race & Intelligence decisions too narrowly. In fact, it really shouldn't just be "broadly construed" but just apply to "topics associated with race", period.

Looking through the guy's contributions it's actually pretty scary - there's a lot of articles that now need clean up and lots of POV removal. Edits like this speak for themselves, though in a lot of cases he is careful not to be too obvious about his POV. Maybe an RfC on the user is also in order.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points but also It occurs to me we could probably get warnings for both Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience on them. Thats in essence part of what we got going on here lot of the authors he is pushing. Both case have been used to curb such behavior. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note aprock (talk · contribs) just filed a request for clarification The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback/3O on Western betrayal

Infoman99 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see comment on article talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re WP:Shadowless Fists of Death!

Since I wrote my comment on WP:AN/I, I've been thinking that this would make a great redirect to an essay I've meant to write, "Misplaced Pages: Don't quote policy pages". (Or something to that effect.) The point of that essay is simple -- because the pages only describe -- do not prescribe or state -- what a given policy is, & because they can be editted at any time to read something completely different, they are usually out of sync with current working consensus. Besides, quoting policy will result with the response "TL:DR" at best, & serious suspicion at the worst. Whenever you need to explain what the correct behavior is, use common sense, paraphrase the section you believe applies to the present case, & be willing to admit you are wrong. Anyone who can do those things will find Misplaced Pages a productive experience in the long run; anyone who can't or won't is bound for a short & unpleasant time. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I sort of jumped the gun and created WP:SFoD. I think the points you make in the above are great though and would fit right in though!Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a few changes. What do you think? -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it. The only thing is, as a bit of humor, can I change the links from going to the actual policy pages (like WP:COI) to linking to various kung fu movies, epic battle shouts, and similar goofy stuff? I think the essay, since it makes a serious point, will still be taken seriously, but a few snickers won't hurt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we'll need a free image for this article. Any ideas? -- llywrch (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad. I'll look around and try to find something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bench Ghetto/ Getto ławkowe; odd-numbered seats/ miejsca nieparzyste

Hello,

I'm writting regarding your (?) article http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland .

I've found in it, in the caption under the photo in "Growing anti-Semitism" paragraph, rather odd translation for Polish phrase "miejsce w ławkach nieparzystych": "unpaired seats".

"Unpaired" means "withouth the other half (of a pair)" - one can have an "unpaired electron" (from an electron-positron pair) or an "unpaired shoe". When one talks about numbers, it is either "even number" (2, 4, 16, 128, and so on), or "odd number" (1, 3, 7, 45, 123, ...).

Furthermore, it is not actually the "seat" that carries an odd number, but the "bench" - so, "odd-numbered bench seat". (Or, " ~~ seats" - because this student is "allowed to take" -or rather, "restricted to use"- any of the seats in odd-numbered benches.)

Unless we decide that said "miejsce" in this particular case does not denote a "specific location" (thus: "seat"), but should be understood as "direction" (in a "command" sense of it), "a place/ an allocation within given space/ room" - as in "I know my place" phrase (in the sketch under the same title).

And should we decide so (which would be quite reasonable and logical), the caption should read something like "(sitting in) odd-numbered benches only".

Also, I feel that "Bench Ghetto" is better translation, for "getto ławkowe", than "Ghetto bench(es)" - the latter might suggest that it refers to some "benches from (or related to) ghetto", while the former, in my opinion, better conveys the essence of that "segregation issue".

Another "hmm...": "index"

English "index" is the equivalent of Polish "wykaz", "spis" (as in "indeks/ spis alfabetyczny", "indeks ksiąg zakazanych") - so, for English native speakers the sentence "Index of Jewish student of medicine at the Warsaw University" would mean something like "wykaz/ spis żydowskich student medycyny na UW".

Yes, I know: on the photograph one can clearly read (providing one speaks Polish) the title "wykaz wykładów i ćwiczeń" (and this is, I believe, the origin of the current Polish word "indeks" - a reference to that "wykaz"). Yet, the line below "wykaz ..." clearly reads "numer albumu ...." - which indicates, that the "item" (material object) in question is "the album", with the title "wykaz..." - and not the "wykaz..." itself.

For "indeks" (AFAIK an "equipment" unknown within the English-speaking world), the best translation would be (in my opinion): "student's book of registration of courses" (see discussion at http://pol.proz.com/kudoz/polish_to_english/education_pedagogy/1235920-indeks_studenta.html#2948560 )

"Medicine" - FACULTY of medicine.

"Seal" vs "stamp":

Seal: (noun) a piece of wax, lead, or other material with an individual design stamped into it, attached to a document to show that it has come from the person who claims to have issued it; a design embossed in paper for this purpose; a thing regarded as a confirmation or guarantee of something.

Stamp: (verb) impress a pattern or mark, esp. an official one, on (a surface, object, or document) using an engraved or inked block or die or other instrument: "the woman stamped my passport"; (noun) a mark or pattern made by such an instrument, esp. one indicating official validation or certification: passports with visa stamps.

(American Heritage Dictionary, 2005)

So, my final proposal is:

Book of registration of courses of a Jewish student, Faculty of Medicine at Warsaw University, with "Ghetto bench" stamp above the photo. The stamp reads: " odd-numbered benches only".

And I'm not going to correct that caption any more myself - wikipedia might be a great "general" idea, but rather poorly implemented at the root level. Editing it is as simple and intuitive as Windows would be with GUI written by bunch of Linux aficionados - in short: a one big morass of obscure instructions and "rules".

I've just tried to correct only that "unpaired" thing, and the page ended up missing the photograph. Contacting the author is another pain in... whatever. (Polish wiki is much better in this respect - one can simply, if he or she is unsure about this or that, "report an error" to the author - and that's it, plain and simple)

Regards,

Karol 62.21.120.167 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It's not "my" article though I have made some edits to it (mostly doing a copyright clean up). I generally agree with your translation proposals (though in English sources I think generally "ghetto benches" is used rather then "bench ghettos - I'll check again). I'll take a look at the article again shortly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dieter Schenk

On 8 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dieter Schenk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2003 the German author Dieter Schenk became an Honorable Citizen of Gdańsk after his work led a German court to overturn a World War II ruling on the defenders of the Polish Post Office in Danzig? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He was also featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Antiziganism

Hello Marek,

you have recently deleted some information from Antiziganism article. I have reverted your edit. Although you are right about the motives of the person, who originally inserted the pictures, it was reworked and now it presents neutral and very well resourced information (I preferred to rework it instead of deleting it, as I believe, that information should not be lost in edits, if it can be reworked in order to meet Wiki's standards). It also fits within the "Environmental Struggles" part of the article.

I invite you to work on the article, especially to rework the whole "Environmental Struggles" section, or to rework the information regarding the pictures, while preserving essential content. But please refrain from simply deleting it (especially in parts, which are well sourced). Pozdrawiam Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort. However, in my opinion, even putting aside the nature and purpose of the user who inserted those edits in the first place, I think the captions for the images are simply too long - they're each a paragraph on their own. Image captions should be long enough to be descriptive but at the same time they should strive to be concise (we don't want half the article written in image captions). So I'd rather see shorter captions, and the text from them incorporated directly into the article text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely regarding the length of the captions. However the whole part of the article is simply bad and needs rewriting. I looked at it and resigned - I don't know how to do it, without loosing essential content (actually I think that a lot of it is not essential). I would prefer adding it within the body of the text, however first that text needs to be redone. If somebody reworks the section and takes the info from pictures into the text, that would be perfect. I tried to redo it, but I found myself tempted to delete quite a large part of it, so I preferred not to touch that part at all, waiting for somebody with a better eye for it. Until the whole part is changed, there is no point in adding additional information into it, thus I left it in the caption as temporary measure. (the caption addresses both antiziganism - the majority population moved out from the places after gypsies/Romanis were moved in, as well as the environmental issue) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber's hair for FA

I agree with you on the need to put Justin Bieber's hair on the front page. I'm thinking of taking a trip to the university library in the morning - know of any recent academic treatises on Mr. Bieber's hair? Kansan (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on the fractional reserve banking talk page

Hi

where you said this:

Reissgo, if you want to put in the article that "central bankers don't really believe this" you need a reliable source to that effect. If someone wants to put in stuff about endogenous money that's fine but we must observe WP:WEIGHT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2010

I am sure you will find this interesting from national bank of poland on endogeneity of money and central banker ideas that appear to be regarded as fringe by many people?

http://www.bankikredyt.nbp.pl/content/2010/03/bik_03_2010_02.pdf

You might also find my talk page interesting which begins with undeleted version of one of my attempts to get these kind of articles onto the page. For the record none of that text is mine. it all came out of various references most of which are cited on that page

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd

I am attempting to write in the alternate view section of wiki and alternate view of frb but i am constantly being deleted for no reason other than people seem threatened by the citations

If you are able to explain to me what you mean by wp:weight in the context of king and others comments can you do so please? I am somewhat bewildered how such references are being dismissed as promoting a minority viewpoint outside of the mainstream and they are not allowed to have weight. Most people do not realise that the mainstream is something to do with text books and universities rather than the real world of finance? Why is this mainstream 'thing' so important to people?

Pioneer Fund on Rushton's Page

I'm not trying to use weasal words. I just think that's a more accurate description. The research of most Pioneer Fund Grantees seems to put East Asians at the top of their hierarchies on intelligence and temperament. While they clearly emphasize Black inferiority it does make the description of them as "White Supremacists" problematic. Meanwhile there is no room for complaint that they promote Scientific Racism. EgalitarianJay (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"White supremacist" is how they're described in sources so that's where that comes from. I'm guessing this is because the ol' racist trick of "say something nice about the Asians so you can quickly get to hating on the blacks and browns" is so transparent by now that few serious sources take that argument seriously. So it's just following the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is obvious that such research is fixated on validating White Superiority over Blacks. The concession of Asian superiority over Whites strikes me as a smokescreen. However I would recommend rewording it enough to acknowledge the White racist associations while getting away from charges of White Supremacy because it will only attract further edits to the page. We can provide an accurate description of the Pioneer Fund as a promoter of racism without claiming it as an advocate of White Supremacy. EgalitarianJay (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The information you added to this article and the Richard Lynn one is not properly sourced. In both you added information about them being Pioneer Fund board members, and that this is a racist organization. This is cited to various sources that are attacking the PF in general, not these specific people, and also the list of board members at the PF website to show these people are on it. This is WP:SYNTHESIS because you're combining information in separate sources in order to formulate an attack on specific people that isn't directly supported by a single source. It's even worse that you're doing it in BLP articles.

This edit is troubling as well. Eysenck is one of the most cited psychologists of the 20th century, and is best known for his defining work on the nature of personality. In your edit you refer to him as "Psychologist Hans Eysenck, known for his support of the idea that some races are inherently inferior." When introducing Eysenck in a single sentence, is this really the most notable thing that he is known for - and the most neutral way to explain who he is? It looks like you've deliberately selected the most negative statement you can possibly find about Eysenck in the 100+ sources that discuss him.

This kind of synthesis and editorializing in BLP articles is not conducive to building a neutral encyclopedia. I'm going to mention this to Miradre and Maunus too to see what they think.Boothello (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for specific feedback, diffs will go a long way to clarifying what you are talking about. The one diff you do provide does not seem unreasonable. It would probably be best to have this sort of discussion on the appropriate article talk page. If that doesn't work out, you should consider the appropriate noticeboard. If it is a BLP problem, you might consider taking the issue up at WP:BLPN. If it is a sourcing issue, you should probably take it up at WP:RSN. aprock (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re to Boothello. What do you mean it's "not properly sourced"? I provided three references in the article text and in one specific case listed a whole slew of further sources which state pretty much the exact the same thing. I did not put into the article that so-and-so (whether Lynn or whoever) are "racist" and "white supremacist" - only that the Pioneer Fund is described as such in sources. Which it is. There is no synthesis here. I have not combined any information from separate sources anywhere. You're either making stuff up or you simply do not understand WP:SYNTH policy.

Regarding Eysenck - he may very well be the most cited psychologist of the 20th century (which sort of says something about psychology as a discipline, at least historically, but that's off topic), but that doesn't mean the guy didn't hold some very offensive ideas. And in this particular context - Rushton and Pioneer Fund - it is precisely these offensive ideas which are relevant. Note that I didn't put that information into Eysenck's own article. So yes if I had put that in the article Hans Eysenck, then maybe you'd be right that that's undue. But this was an article on Philippe Rushton, discussing supposed praise for Rushton's work which has generally been described as racist - hence this particular aspect of Eysenck is very relevant. Again, I'm under the impression that you do not understand the proper policy (which would be WP:UNDUE here - and it wouldn't apply).

As regards BLP policy. I'm generally a pretty strong proponent of that policy and in many ways I think in fact it should be more stringent. However, the policy does not prevent us from presenting well sourced criticisms of individuals, and even less so, of organizations. And these statements are well sourced, and as I indicated on the talk page, there's a few dozen other sources out there which say the exact same thing - I thought three would be enough though. This isn't something that is even remotely controversial in mainstream sources (of course the matter is different if you find yourself in a conversation with a, uh, non-mainstream, person).

Re to Mirandre: Stay the hell off my talk page. You're not welcome here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this conversation. My comment (feel free to disregard, as I don't know the full context): Refering to Eysenck as "Psychologist Hans Eysenck, known for his support of the idea that some races are inherently inferior." is like referring to Abe Lincoln as "President Abraham Lincoln, known for his racism and support of the idea that some races are inherently inferior (see here or this article)." In neither case is the individual's racism their defining trait and a quote like that makes it seem as if it is - a false impresion.Faustian (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again it depends what is being discussed. If the general nature of Eysenck's work is being discussed then yes, you're right. However, when the specific topic IS in fact racist research by Eysenck's student, then this piece of information is crucial. And yes, it is taken straight from the source.

Think of this way - Lincoln's racism is not the main thing defining the man. However, if we're discussing, say a particular policy of Lincoln's in this regard - like the proposal to deport all African-Americans back to Africa - then these views of his become very pertinent.

BTW, I tend to agree with the author of that Time article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I may have chosen a bad example with Lincoln, then.In the case of Lincoln - he is universally known. However Eysenck is not known by the general public. Such a statement would create the false impression for someone not familiar with him (most readers), that racism is a defining attribute of his work, which it is not. Faustian (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm open to suggestions of better wording of course - but I think that this aspect is crucial for the context here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out my mistake with the comma. I fix it and added the hyperlink. The title in full (according to Timothy Reuter) is without comma, but of course as you rightly spotted in the short version does not makes sense. Mootros (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring clarification - a month later (let's finish what we've started)

We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know? for Ivar Ekeland

Jurassic Park is mentioned for a hook at Misplaced Pages's "Did You Know?" section of the front page. The DYK discussion concerns the mathematician (mathematical economist) Ivar Ekeland, whom (along with James Gleick) Crichton credits as having inspired the discussion of chaos theory.

I added a digression on Gleick as a political move, btw. 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Trivially,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Having added the Gleick stuff today (with misgivings about willful whoring after false gods ...), I appreciate your comment.

:* Would you consider adding a check-mark to make it official? David Eppstein did it.

• Do you have a preference between the two hooks (with one great picture and another spectacular illustration)?

Humbly yoked,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to support moving the article from 'Nazi concentration camps' to 'Nazi-German concentration camps'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nazi_concentration_camps#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow

What a mess. This is a type of the article that would I'd be afraid to poke with a 10-foot pole... either as an editor or as an informed reader. If it didn't have its own ArbCom yet, I am sure that it is only a matter of time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Up to and including the section "Causes" it's actually pretty neutral and factual. But then it goes down hill really fast, particularly with the "Impact" and "Public opinion" sections, which appear to be somebody just venting their personal prejudices, mixed with a bit of an attempt at keeping things non-crazy by other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not read those sections, but sometimes a fix needed is drastic (section removal). You may want to suggest it at talk, and see what happens. I've recently killed a section about Marx anti-semitism this way in Karl Marx. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Marek, the goal of NPOV policy is to present the balance of viewpoints about a topic that exists in reliable sources. That means if an individual has been criticized, it is appropriate to include some of that criticism in articles where they're mentioned. It does not mean that it's okay for you to dig up absolutely the most critical statement you can find about that individual in any source, and then make that the only thing the article says about them. Faustian and I both pointed out what was wrong with this when you did it for Hans Eysenck, and now you’ve done the same thing with Corrado Gini. Look at the article about Gini - do you really believe that it's neutral for his pro-eugenics and pro-fascism views to be the only things mentioned about him, with no mention of his contributions to anthropology or biological statistics?

I know what justification you gave for this about Eysenck - that Rushton is a racist, so when we're discussing what Eysenck thinks of Rushton, the only thing worth mentioning about Eysenck is that some sources call him a racist also. I assume this is also what you think about Mankind Quarterly: that since some sources call it a racist journal, we should say nothing about its editors except that they're believed to be racists also, and their academic credentials are irrelevant. This argument depends on the assumption that Rushton and Mankind Quarterly have absolutely no notability for anything other than racism, and that assumption is false. Rushton is also notable as a psychologist, and Mankind Quarterly is also notable as an anthropology journal. Therefore it is equally relevant that some supporters of Rushton and some editors of Mankind Quarterly have made important contributions to science. NPOV policy demands that we balance accusations of racism against these individuals with the view that they have done useful work, and trying to exclude the latter perspective is POV pushing. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

All your recent edits to the Mankind Quarterly article are examples of this. According to its history the article had been stable for several years, and the only previous dispute about its neutrality on the talk page was in 2006. The only thing you've done on this article is add copious amounts of criticism, under the assumption that this was necessary to "fix" its neutrality. So apparently all of the other editors who were involved in this article for the past five years were too biased to recognize the need for this? Your behavior looks very strange to me.Boothello (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop what? I'm adding well sourced and relevant information to these articles. Yes, I am very familiar with Gini and with the fact that he is best known for his development of the Gini coefficient. However, in the context of Mankind Quarterly - a journal which has been described as racist etc. - it is Gini's political views which are most relevant. Same was true for Eysenck.

I am not "digging up the most critical statements I can find" - I am just putting into these articles what is in most relevant sources. There's no digging needed here as the fact that these guys were virulent racists is featured prominently in any reliable source on these guys you grab off a bookshelf. And yes MQ is mostly notable as a racist journal, not as a "anthropology journal".

You state "the goal of NPOV policy is to present the balance of viewpoints about a topic that exists in reliable sources" - this is true. But this doesn't mean that NPOV entails the white washing of unsavory views of certain people or organizations, simply because they happen to have a fan base on Misplaced Pages. Neither does it mean giving equal weight to fringe and extremist views and defenses of such individuals. Please consult the policy again; WP:NPOV.

Finally, so what if the article was "stable" for five years? This "stability" argument is about the dumbest argument I've encountered on Misplaced Pages (not just here but in some other contexts as well). All it means is that the article was POV junk for five years and nobody bothered to fix it. This is unfortunately a widespread problem on Misplaced Pages, and correcting it is a laudable endeavor, not something to be criticized.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs a logo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the WikiProject :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to check

The main Pomerania article. Especially the history section. Seems like a lot of POV from articles and close paraphrasing was copied there.

Example: The Teutonic Knights succeeded in integrating Pomerelia into their monastic state in the early 14th century. Meanwhile the Ostsiedlung started to turn Pomerania into a German-settled area; the remaining Wends, who became known as Slovincians and Kashubians, continued to settle within the rural East

Starting in the 10th century, early Polish dukes on several occasions subdued parts of the region from the southeast, while the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark augmented their territory from the west and north. I bolded the interesting parts.

I especially like how Poland on "occassion" subdues. But Teutonic Knights "successfully integrates" and HRE "auguments" territory ;) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much all Pomerania related articles are like that. And for most of them the POV pushing has been so (skillfully) interwoven into the article that it's very hard and very time consuming to separate out the legitimate info from the propaganda and hard to remove the latter - which was probably the purpose of it being done in such a way in the first place. I'm going to get around to doing a major clean up when I have time. For now though making sure that readers are aware that POV problems exist in these articles is all that time allows. In this particular one - because it's essentially a summary article it might be quicker to fix it though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors at WP:AE

If you want to change the title of the section' from 'uninvolved' to 'involved', please notify everyone who commented in the section so they can decide whether to move their comments. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was obvious and non-controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Wolodyjowski (film)

This article exists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh, somehow missed it. Anyone, the image could go in there I think.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you add it there, with the rationales? I'll try to look at the Katyn mess tomorrow. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Found time to fix more refs over at Katyn. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:

The Synagogue was demolished in the riots of 1938, that's already mentioned. I don't see any reason to hide an information about the post-war usage of the building just because we don't have detailed information about its fate immediately after these riots. That the synagogue wasn't used as such for more than 60 years is definitely mentionable. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason why it wasn't used as a synagogue for more than 60 years is pretty much because the Nazis killed or expelled most of the Jews during and right before World War II. I think it's sufficient to just say that it wasn't used for 60 years.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So...

Part of my rationale behind the reconfimration RfA thing was to solicit feedback and you mentioned that you've disagreed with some of my actions, so I'm just wondering if there's anything you'd like to whack me over the head with while you've got the chance? Certainly if you have any suggestions on how I could be a better admin, I'd be keen to hear them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was some of the comments/actions related to AE (not related to myself but to others). I could look up the diffs. Basically it had to do with jumping in too quickly without studying the general context and situation first sufficiently. Water under the bridge though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Some of your recent edits such as at Alfons Hoffmann and Drzymała's wagon violate the established policy of doublenaming places sharing a German-Polish history as defined in the well known Gdansk vote.

For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).

...

In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.

Contrary to these principles you removed the alternative names mentioned in brackets. Please restore the proper names in accordance with the Gdansk vote as

Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism.

Thanks. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, first, please cut it out with the standardized warning template. I know you, you know me, we've been around for a long time, so you can speak plainly rather than hide behind these templates.

Second, there has been no "persistent reverts against community consensus" - you wanna put those names back in, be my guest - though please observe the "In biographies of clearly Polish persons" portion of the guideline. I removed them as part of the general clean up. Also, as I'm sure you're quite aware there are scores of other articles out there which blatantly violate the G/D vote, especially with respect to pre-1308 naming, yet nobody is rushing out and templating people over it. Maybe they should start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Early history of Pomerania close paraphrasing

Hey Volunteer Mark, I was reviewing Early history of Pomerania after a close paraphrase tag placed by you was reported here at WP:CP. It appears that the close paraphrasing may be from an offline source as I cannot find any matches aside from Misplaced Pages mirrors online. Your input would be appreciated at WP:CP to help close the report. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's from the Piskorski book, which I returned to the library. I'll have to go get it once again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AE

An arbitration enforcement thread concerning you has been started here: Boothello (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Marek, I am rather skeptical about this based on my experience.

1. There are many recently created SPAs in different contentious areas with behavior of highly experienced users. But you would have very hard time proving them to be sockpuppet accounts. And who knows, maybe they just came from other wikipedia projects?
2. An SPA account is not necessarily a problem. It is only a problem if he does not really create content and only edit war and complain about other users for years.
3. A group of SPA accounts is indeed suspicious, however do not fight with them, because it is you who are going to be banned, for example as someone who fights against consensus. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Szczecin

Do you know how to add Split template to history section in Szczecin article? It badly needs splitting into the main article but so far my attempts to add it have met with strange results. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be

It has been suggested that this section be split out into another page. (Discuss)

but not sure if "split" is actually the appropriate template. It should be something like "Move to History of Szczecin" but I can't think of one off the top of my head.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Mergeto-section is what you want, I believe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)