Talk:Edward Moskal

message: If someone disputes the neutrality of this article please state your reasons here before adding a POV tag. --Milicz 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means falsely, that what he said about Emanuel was not true.--Milicz 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said about Emanuel was a flat-out lie, and everyone knew it. But that's the least of this article's problems. Much of it reads like an essay, with personal analysis, rather than straight facts. For example, the entire paragraph that starts "The scholars of communism claim that.." has no place in an encyclopedic article at all. Gamaliel was right: This article needs a look by some fresh eyes. Maybe a WP:RFC would be a good idea. Fan-1967 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 comments

message: I guess I came across this looking at Rahm Emanuel article, but it was so horrendously filled with Unsourced libelous and negative comments - not to mention all the stuff about how great the last leader of the group was (totally irrelevant) - that my WikiHat just popped up and I had to clean it up. Per WP:BLP I can and will revert back to that format repeatedly.  If you have negative info about Mr. M. you want to share, fine. Just make sure it comes from a WP:Reliable source (Click link for info), preferably some news article linked on the internet. Two or three sentences on his predecessor might be appropriate, but that's about it.  Just search Mr. M's name on a search engine and you'll probably find lots of news stories.  Private web sites saying nasty things about him don't count ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way it works in any wikipedia article. Unsourced material can be removed. If you want to put it in, source it and then put it in. In BLP especially editors are urged to be alert for possibly false unsourced info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't tell me how Wikipedia works, it doesn't work based on deleting stuff at random, stop removing work unless you source your deletions.  Stop throwing around terms like libel as an excuse.--Milicz (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." - dated 2007.  Any interested editor has had over a year to source the article, if desired.  No interested editor has done so.  The material has been challenged and removed.  This is not "white washing".  The deletions are "sourced" by the warning at the top of the article.  It is unfortunate that no one has been interested enough to cite the "Plenty...." that "... was written about these issues in the Tribune, Sun Times and other articles", but no editor has had that interest.sinneed (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  After reviewing the article, I think the large-scale deletions need to be made, or SUBSTANTIAL corrections and citations made.  There is indeed much out there, but it is conflicting.  I can see why no one has taken on the task.  Since this individual is no longer living, it need not follow wp:BLP throughout, though since some of its subjects ARE alive, their information needs extra attention.sinneed (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 Changes made per [[WP:BLP]]

message: I have added the totallydisputed flag to the article.  I leave the others, because their dates are earlier, and I feel that record should not be lost.  Much of this is OR, some if PoV and OR, some could be sourced, but the sources will require careful handling, as they conflict.  Research is hampered because so very many sites took this article as valid and have copied it, cited it, and quoted it... and that was a mistake.  I caution any editor to be very wary of many sources that will pop up on a quick search.  That said, while http://www.searchgleaner.com/cloud/index.php?words=Edward+Moskal contains a copy of this (or this is a copy of it, which seems unlikely), it does have a rich list of possible sources an interested editor might study and possibly find useful.sinneed (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A very messy article indeed.  Near as I can figure, Moskal was not a real major player in much at all, and his main notability is his "anti-semitism" charged by some.  No way of finding out if any Poles had ever been on the US delegation to the UN, but I suspect some were for sure.  Lots of florid prose -- will you support some weeding in this garden? Collect (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to give interested editors, if any, a chance to defend the content before I attack it with my usourced-stuff-pruning-shears.sinneed (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is totally disputed? His obituary in the largest and most respected Polish daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, began with words "Know as a virulent anti-Semite", I'm not quite sure who disputes Moskal's antisemitism.  I added links to the sections to support the statements.--Milicz (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that anyone is disputing that he was an anti-semite.  The article contains a great deal of wp:PoV,wp:OR"he never...".  The flag simply means that some of us believe the article has things in it that aren't true, and things that are presented in eithe a pro or con light, rather than as a balanced or neutral view.  Some of the worst chunks have been cut out already.sinneed (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Disputed

message: 1st, the citation must actually support the words to which it is attached.  If it does not, this is A Very Bad Thing.
2nd, the citations need some kind of description of why they are there.  with the cite web tool, that would be a "title=" item usually.  With simple inline refs, just put a space after the URL and say what it is
3rd, the External links each need a note added to them, either after the URL or just after the closing ], explaining what it is.
sinneed (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fee sites ares imply archived articles, I guess you can turn them into print citations, but many of them had the information cite din the first free paragraph.--Milicz (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, I missed it.  That is possible, of course.  I personally do not volunteer to fix them, sorry.  I came here to see if I could help with an edit dispute and BLP violations.  I have and will.  These sources, as listed, are not appropriate and cannot stay.sinneed (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then the defacto standard of Wikipedia will be the elimination of content instead of expansion of content, I found all of the proper cites via Google Archive search, but if the bar is set so high as for me to find the proper print citations then by all means just start pruning what was an informative article into a worthless two sentence bio-piece.  --Milicz (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I am sorry you feel that way, and cannot agree with your statements as given.  As I said previously, I found many sources... but they conflict.sinneed (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: For facts, figures, quotes etc. Reason should be considered a RS. The magazine does have a certain editorial slant (mildly liberterian) so the opinions pieces should be used with caution. The parts of the article on Moskal though seem fine to use as RS.radek (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You have hit the proverbial jackpot.--Milicz (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important points about citations, external links 

message: As it reads now, it looks like Moskal was objecting to Moskal?  I think something got confused here perhaps? Collect (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  treasurer section 

message: I light-heartedly hope the new structure will lend itself to both expanding and tightening this article.  I think this was an important and controversial figure, and deserves a better article.  I don't plan to get into the anti-Semiticism, as I have no desire to have an edit war.  I want to focus on his life, the PNA and the PAC.  The PAC an PNA articles are both also weak, so I think I can expand all 3.
Any suggestions?  Heh, or of course, wp:Be Bold.  :)
sinneed (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: *  Polish language site, needs description.
*  Polish language site, needs description.
*  Polish language site, needs description.
* Polish language site, needs description.
* Polish language site, needs description.
* Polish language site, needs description.
Leaving them here for easy restoral.sinneed (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting unexplained Polish language links 

message: Ok, since I made changes without noticing all the work that had been done, I reverted back to the version just before all the fee refs were removed and then updated subsequent smaller changes. I might take a look for any other highly questionable unsourced info that should be deleted if not quickly sourced. Just remember the rule is that unsourced info can be removed and that poorly sourced info (like fee sites) can be easily challenged.  So the person should try to clean those up per above, ie with better descriptions of article and actual quotes from article. 
This rule I also found today here that I think applies since if you have to pay to read it, it makes it more difficult to read and therefore much more challengeable, as you saw it was challenged and removed: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_and_ID_numbers If your source is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Carol, hopefully we'll get everything sourced quickly.--Milicz (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted back to earlier version, still needs lots of sources

message: "Under its first president, Karol Rozmarek, who was elected by the Congress, PAC was the Polish lobby, and this tradition was continued by his 1968 successor, Aloysius Mazewski."
I cited this to the history page of the PAC... it does not *explicitly* say the PAC was the lobby... it just says it lobbys (repeatedly).  I am concerned this ref may be misleading... but for me it is a weak concern.  I wanted to bring it here for easy visibility.sinneed (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern over a ref I just added being possibly misleading. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Edward Moskal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521174301/http://www.polamcon.org/history/history1.htm to http://www.polamcon.org/history/history1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523211014/http://www.polamcon.org/history/history2.htm to http://www.polamcon.org/history/history2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081110092122/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_enforcer.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_enforcer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223003507/http://www.polamcon.org/ to http://www.polamcon.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified