Talk:Marek Jan Chodakiewicz

message: I've reverted the recent edits to this page by User:71.163.198.132.  To my reading they are not NPOV(edited by me at 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User talk:71.163.198.132|User:71.163.198.132]] 

message: User:Poeticbent  www.splcenter.org is very much accessible and verifiable source. Second  Jan T. Gross is a well known Polish historian as is Piotr Wróbel. Soutern Poverty Center is a well known human rights and racism monitoring organisation.--Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't see the forest for the trees User:Tritomex. The attack piece was not written by Jan T. Gross and neither by Piotr Wróbel. It was written by one Larry Keller in a lowbrow sort of way. Perhaps you would you like to write an article about him, but regardless, in Wikipedia we have fair and square policy guidelines to follow about this sort of thing. Self-employed freelance writer, owner of http://www.larryakeller.com/ ... Server not found ... (says LinkedIn), is not a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center. You were misrepresenting the source right in the opening line by saying that the the Southern Poverty Center "considers Chodakiewicz views controversial". You have no quote for that. – By the way, this is not the first time I have run into your partisan stabs at editing and disruptive removal of references from articles related to Poland, based on either the lack of knowledge, or just plain ignorance. I suggest you stop right here. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: [including] Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Poeticbent talk 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

text: User:Poeticbent The article is an official publication of Southern Poverty Law Center called intelligence report published by this NGO. Intelligence report  is "the Southern Poverty Law Center's award-winning magazine. "The quarterly publication provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement agencies, the media and the general public. It is the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S.". The title of the article is called "Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz with Controversial Views Serves on Holocaust Museum Board" so the first sentence is a direct quote and not any misinterpretation. Third, you accused me of partisan "stabs at editing and disruptive removal of references from articles related to Poland," which is a very serious accusation. The truth is that I removed a claim sourced with Yad Vashem official publication where the claim written at WIKI did not exist in source, nor anything similar to the claim existed in Yad Vashem publication. In fact, I saw many other similar cases regarding the HoLocaust in Poland   when claims not existing in original sources have been used. Further I do not understand what your accusation of "partisan editing" against me actually means.I do not do partisan editing, nor I have any personal interests regarding Poland, I strictly adhere to Wikipedia polices of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and exactly because of this I feel the need that others also must adhere to this principles regardless of the edited subject. Finally, I find inappropriate your suggestion for me to stop editing subjects regarding Poland. Now are you claiming that Southern Poverty Law Center official site is not WP:RS or that I misinterpreted what has been written there?--Tritomex (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals of well sourced text

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. 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/20110522015921/http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/detail/marek-chodakiewicz to http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/detail/marek-chodakiewicz
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227191719/http://www.iwp.edu/ to http://www.iwp.edu/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212223528/http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.128/news_detail.asp to http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.128/news_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413164410/http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.103/news_detail.asp to http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.103/news_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718034701/http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html to http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041125200115/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.3/br_156.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fahr%2F109.3%2Fbr_156.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230759/http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1415 to http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1415
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) 03:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: there's nothing here about his right wing affiliations and views, this content should be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.202.192 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  right wing ties 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. 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/20050415030504/http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/earhart_foundation.htm to http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/earhart_foundation.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041125200115/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.3/br_156.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fahr%2F109.3%2Fbr_156.html
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) 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed a claim that states he wrote about genocide of whites. It references to an article in which he clearly writes "there is no genocide clearly".
Other claims will need to be checked if they have been falsfied as well.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't he warning about an ongoing process of genocide of Whites (Boers) in SA? He does state that the genocide hasn't started yet - but is warning of current violence and atmosphere leading to genocide, no?Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide claims 

message: Per Newsweek - DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW? - Chodakiewicz  is a . This can easily be corroborated by his participation in Ruch Narodowy events such as a speech at a rally, his own publications in dorzeczy, and coverage in several Polish language publications detailing various aspects of this activism. This was described in our article as "political activist" (avoiding the far-right label in our text), but has been challenged by an IP  on the grounds of - "Give me the source that says he is “ a political activist". What would be the correct course action? Call him a "far-right activist" in our voice? Attribute the description to Newsweek? Leave it as political activist (saying that far-right is political does not seem to be OR)?Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Far-right individuals profiled by the SPLC generally have this information added to the lede of their bios. It's supported by a reliable source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is indeed quite rare to non-existent for such information to be missing from an individual profiled extensively by the SPLC, particularly when such profiling is then repeated by the 3rd party RSes (e.g. NEWSORGs) in their own voice. The SPLC by itself, per consensus at RSN, as considered an expert source for far right politics. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

text: It's undue for the lede. It's not what he's notable for. Volunteer Marek  14:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently in the West it is. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's a western academic and he was notable before he supported Trump or whatever. It's fine in the article itself, but in this case it's UNDUE in the lede as that's not what he's primarily known for. Volunteer Marek  14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  In mainstream WP:NEWSORG coverage in English, it is more or less the only thing he is known for. Being the main topic of two separate SPLC reports (one - in 2009 - well prior to trump being a political thing) is a rather "big thing".Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

text: * How many RS can you count in the "reviews" and "criticism" sections that state the same? François Robere (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Summarizing content of the "reviews" and "criticism" sections is difficult because of the mutually excluding/contradictory claims in these sections. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but how many of them state that he writes from a nationalist perspective reflective of antisemitic stereotypes? François Robere (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I must tell that text of this page is terrible. A. said this. B. said that. And so on. Looks like The Squabble between Polish historians. Personally, I would remove 80% of this meaningless "debate" from the page, but unfortunately, finding a consensus for that would be very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because of BLP considerations and others' insistence that everything be attributed, but the criticisms themselves are legitimate and important. François Robere (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  I am unsure, care to do an analysis? We have to be careful with possibly offensive / biased claims in lede, due to WP:BLP, you know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (lasted RSN) - the SPLC is a generally a reliable source for. Chodakiewicz, when covered in mainstream English media, has the SPLC designation attached. I will further note that his political activism is a large chunk of his coverage in Polish language media - though much of said coverage is in fringe far-right Polish media. As for histiography - this is not a "squabble between Polish historians" - Chodakiewicz's historical writings - when noted in an academic context are often noted as being on the extreme edge of historiography. Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll also note, that this recent paper (authors being experts in the European far-right) - Marlene Laruelle and Ellen Rivera, “Imagined Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. The Concept of Intermarium,” IERES Occasional Papers, no. 1 (March 2019) - Chodakiewicz is covered at length as a major propoenent of Intermarium (an irredentist concept which in this version advocates for the "return" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - and that in this particular instance fits with an eastward NATO expansion). . The SPLC designation is of course covered as well - . Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  Allegations date back years. They led Chodakiewicz not being appointed in the University of Virginia - and to the closure of the Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies at Virginia - the chair was then re-established in IWP by donations from Polonia activists.. Chodakiewicz himself has addressed the SPLC a number of times (in Polish) - e.g. here in 2010, or here in 2019 - where he also describes how "neo-Stalinsts" have sabotaged his academic career since his PhD studies - and concludes with  - google translate - . Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

text: * Oh, do tell that to the rest of the gang... François Robere (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activist 

message: Polish responsibility? Would you describe responsibilty of Jewish politicians and police officers for their crimes as Jewish?Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chodakiewicz has been criticized for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom 

message: Not only students, but also young workers and schoolchildren .Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 1968 was a protest of Polish students against communist rule.  

message: Ząb was :pl:Leonard Zub-Zdanowicz. I believe that young Chodakiewicz knew Ząb's widow, who may have influnced his opnions about the NSZ.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ząb'' 

message: A large chunk of source text was removed since "portraying him as bad because he's "socially conservative" and similar is just POV and UNDUE". Chodakiewicz's social conservatism is amply sourced and given his political activism as well as strand of writing is certainly relevant to the bio. Descriptions by 3rd independent parties are clearly relevant for us to portray this individual in a balanced and NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall any of the removing editors making similar objections to adding a dozen such "chunks" to Jan Grabowski. Why is this article treated differently? François Robere (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced content 

message: " Chodkiewicz's publication was reviewed positively in the Polish Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, whose editor Adam Michnik had previously called Eliach's account as an insult to Poland.[14][15]"
First of all the statement by Michnik is I believe from 1996 long before this publication.
Second of all it has nothing to do with Chodkiewicz.
Third of all Eliach has been criticized by so many historians that I fail to see this as important, even Israel Gutman harshly condemned her.
Fourth of all, did the editor who added this even checked who Adam Michnik is? One of the most prominent Jewish figures in Poland, a liberal thinker, who harshly condemns nationalism and anti-semitism.
So the sentence is absolutely absurd and seems like a terrible SYNTH to imply that Michnik is some Polish nationalist attacking poor Eliach, which is as absolutely far from the truth.
Who added this terrible sentence ?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gutman did not "harshly condemn" Eliach. If we are to include a positive review, we should mention the position of the body making the review. Furthermore, the Gazeta piece itself covers the 1996 piece by Michnik and Chodakiewicz's analysis of it -  - the last 3 paragraphs of the not too long Gazeta piece are about this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Please do your job correctly. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed Chodkiewicz (diff). Where do you see Chodakowski? Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Above, green letters. Still Chodkiewicz - the same place. My comment belonged to the above thread.Xx236 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - I thought you mean the article (in which there was also one Chodkiewicz). Chodakowski (green letters) is in a quote from the Gazeta Wyborcza - they spelled it that way in that paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who added this absurd sentence about Michnik ? 

message: We have three names:
*Chodakowski
*Chodkiewicz
*Chodakiewicz.
:Please do your job correctly. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed Chodkiewicz (diff). Where do you see Chodakowski? Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Above, green letters. Still Chodkiewicz - the same place. My comment belonged to the above thread.Xx236 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - I thought you mean the article (in which there was also one Chodkiewicz). Chodakowski (green letters) is in a quote from the Gazeta Wyborcza - they spelled it that way in that paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname spelling

message: Rafał Pankowski is a radical leftist fighter. Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pankowski is cited as an expert by news orgs - e.g. BBC, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post (" a leading expert on Poland's radical right"), Washington Post.... And the list really could go on and on. A sociologist (just the right field for study of fringe political movements), he holds an appointment in Collegium Civitas. He is furthermore extensively published in an academic setting. On what basis are you challenging him? Any sources backing up the assertion above? Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rafał Pankowski as a source 

message: The book had a Polish edition (Złote serca czy złote żniwa, 2011). Reviews:
*  (in Polish daily Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) ) seems neutral/positive
*  (in Polish popular history, non-academic magazine Histmag) seems very positive. Regardless, it also provides a rough analysis of what chapters/authors publish in the book.
*  this minor academic source just mentions the book briefly noting that "Rytualną kontrnarracją negującą tezy Grossa są natomiast książki autorów, którzy aktywnie krytykowali już jego poprzednie prace: Złote serca czy złote żniwa?"
I couldn't find any academic review in Polish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of these are academic - that some Polish right wing elements were positive here is of little note. The 15 page academic journal article on ceeol on the controvesy generated by this publication (a-historical claims, polemic, a whole chapter calling most of US academia neo-Stalinist) was published in Polish and then translated to English.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What journal article are you referring to? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  this was translated from Polish. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, I don't have access to this. Would you mind emailing me a copy of this, in either language? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Prekerowa was dead for a few years when this came out - this was a reprint of her earlier work - so not quite an author that agreed to this.Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Reviews of Hearts of Gold 

message: "Joanna Michlic characterizes Chodakiewicz..." I think Michlic's view should be kept here - as long as we allow similar descriptions by other academic of her in her bio. Peter Stachura noted that "both Polonsky and Michlic are perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era" (). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are not comparable. Michlic's research findings on Chodakiewicz (and other historians) are for starters not a viewpoint, but historiography research. They were also published by a multitude of reputable publishers (academic presses, mainstream peer reviewed journals) - and I say a multitude, as the she's published over five of these (books and papers - different studied sub-fields, updates over time, etc.) that address different aspects of (also) Chodakiewicz. In contrast - you are suggested we place an unpublished letter, which was rejected by the editor of History (who refused to publish it), and is hosted on a website of not great repute. If we have published material (either reviews, or historiography research) on Michlic - then it can be placed on Michlic's page.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: pl:Glaukopis is not "a website of not great repute" but an academic journal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite academic (as evident by the cover art or mission statement), and it's reputation - well - it is notorious if anything. And in this case - this wasn't event published in this fringe journal - it is (or was for a transitory point in time - as the weblink is dead) hosted on the website. Using this material would be a BLP violation vs. the alleged author - the PDF contains for instance  or referring to a Polish newspaper editor as  - it quite obvious why (if this is authentic) this was rejected by History (journal).Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Icewhiz, what you quote here Haaretz, Jerusakem Post, JTA frequently  publish lies. Why do you criticize Glaukopis? Please prove it's less reliable than your propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I appreciate your efforts at smearing what you might consider "Jewish" newspapers, Haaretz is a widely cited newspaper of record which has been in continuous publication since 1918. Its reporting is considered top notch, and its opinion pages host a wide range of publicists from all across the political spectrum. Unless you can actually back your libelous claims, I suggest backing off. François Robere (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  In some previous discussion I noted that mission statements like "we are particularly interested in the unknown aspects of the history of Poland and the world. By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial. Free from pseudointelektual fashion, we strive to discover the Truth about our past and present" are often euphemisms for "fringe theories" and "conspiratorial thinking". Coupled with regular contributors like Mark Paul (the problems with which you already know) and Ryszard Tyndorf (who has a really low citation count), I doubt we should use it for this sort of critique. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Both Stachura and Chodakiewicz serve on Glaukopis's board, so it's not exactly an independent opinion, but if you want to quote it let's first find which "academic circles" he's referring to. I suspect it's the same circles she and the rest of the western world criticize. François Robere (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "justify" it is, this is probably just a poor translation. Those are very critical reviews though, saying he "winds up praising the Ukrainian Nazi groups that actually helped perpetrate the Holocaust". That is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michlic's view 

message: This is a serious aspersion, particularly in the lead. Please keep in mind WP:BLP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported by a RS - Newsweek, and Southern Poverty Law Center - which multiple discussions have concluded is reliable for far-right figures. We generally include SPLC designations in ledes of BLPs and organizations. Objections here are not inline with Wikipedia's policy and are a serious NPOV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please link those RS. One news magazine and one NGO do not seem IMHO sufficient to violate WP:BLP with a serious accusation in lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a BLP violation - it is properly attributed, and most definitely DUE - SPLC is generally lede DUE. SPLC 2009, SPLC 2017, Newsweek. I do however think that mentioning just accusations of antisemitism is not sufficient, as his views on gays and other subjects have also been scrutinized. Other academics also see fit to mention this when discussing him - e.g. see here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also stated by several scholars, as quoted on this page and the BLPBP discussion started by the OP... François Robere (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  We already discussed it at WP:BLPNB... François Robere (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I do not think this is an outright BLP violation, however, I think including this to the lead is undue (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the sake of compromise we can discard the SPLC source, even though I think it's good enough. However, we're left with multiple academic sources that are lead-due and would read more or less like this: "He and his writing have been variously described as politically or ideologically motivated (Wrobel, Weinbaum, Katz, Janowski), nationalist (Polonsky, Michlic, Katz) and biased towards the right or far right (Gross, Roider), prejudiced against Jews and other minorities (Gross, Wrobel, Michlic, Katz, Pankowski), and conspiratorial (Roider)." François Robere (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was telling "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center he has a "long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism." in the lead. But saying something like "nationalist" would probably be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, you prefer the first..? () François Robere (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  The SPLC designation is lede due - it is included almost universally on Wikipedia in every BLP and organization profiled by the SPLC. If the contention is the contents of the profile (not that there are so contentious), we do something such as - . "..." - up to you. Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: *Based on such logic, one should look at the listings of all people and organizations classified as "extremist" by SPLC and other similar advocacy organizations (that one also comes to my mind) and include this info to the leads of BLP pages for all such people and label them as extremists. I believe that would be against our BLP policy. Yes, such info should be included to the lead, but only if that was supported by multiple 3rd party sources (like the claim about nationalist historian here). My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe, maybe not. Not all of them would be WP:NOTABLE, though. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Agree to the first half. Single source for "conspiratorial" is not sufficient. Would like to see quotes for "prejudiced against Jews and other minorities ". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of these sources are cited in the article, most with quotes. You can see the summary here and on the BLPNB discussion. François Robere (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of anti-semisitm 

message: The sentence "Other critics have criticized Chodakiewicz for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom." is cited to to this work. To the extent I can access parts of it, I'm not seeing it in this source. Can we have a quotation from this source which supports the text? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source given above (Reflections on the Kielce Pogrom p. 130.) says something rather different: "Another example of marginalising the anti-Semitism factor in the Kielce events is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's book"  Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems an older version of the article was more accurate .Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Wait, no, scratch that, that's a different part of the article, where the "Kielce pogrom" part is cited to a Newsweek article which doesn't even mention the Kielce pogrom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kielce pogrom 

message: François Robere, it was between talk and interview. You can see talk here: . Sommer and Chodakiewicz sat at table. Short intro of both. Then Sommer speaks for four minutes. Then Chodakiewicz speaks uninterrupted for forty minutes. Sommer then lets audience ask questions, and mostly Chodakiewicz responds. More lecture than interview, but Chodakiewicz was sitting not standing. Chodakiewicz talks of Debbie, who worked at San Francisco Children's Hospital, and the hamster in the rectum at minute 7. AstuteRed (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: TMI. Also, nurses aren't certified for such invasive procedures. François Robere (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

text: We can probably trim some, but I think it's the right order of magnitude. As I suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death, I think it's important to cover it. MJC is preoccupied with gender and sexuality (there's more on that under "reviews and critical assessment"), and this is his most significant text on the subject. The book's detachment from reality does not mean it isn't DUE here; rather, its importance within MJC's repertory means it should be covered in reasonable length on his article. François Robere (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with the sources being used in this section. Are any of them blogs, gossip sites, etc? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  ping for my question above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I concur per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BLP. Not every controversial (stupid, offensive, whatever) comment by a person that gets coverage in RS needs to be mentioned in our biographies. They should be mentioned only when they are actually relevant, and not for the reason of mocking/discrediting an individual. We can keep some of those sources and mention that he made homophobic remarks or such, no need to go into disgusting details at length, not unless this becomes a pattern (as in, he keeps repeating such comments again and again, and media write about again and again, i.e. not WP:ONEEVENT type logic). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I reduced the related contents and combined the section into "Political and sexuality-related views". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Talk, interview or debate?
 

message: "and his attitude towards minorities have been widely criticized" --> has been — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.229.13 (talk) 04:30, June 10, 2020 (UTC)
:Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  typing/grammar mistake 

message: I have concerns whether this article isn't too negative. The subject is certainly controversial and has been criticized, but to what degree this criticism should be present in the lead? Particularly concerning is the "Critical assessment" section, which seems to made of cherry-picked critical opinion of the subject, added mostly by a now indef-banned User:Icewhiz. If you look at the reviews about his books they are mixed, some positive, some negative, and so on, but this section is very one-sided. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add positive reviews if there are any of equal significance to the negative ones. buidhe 05:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether such sources exist, we have to be mindful of WP:BLP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing about BLP says we should censor enyclopedic and relevant criticism and therefore breach NPOV. buidhe 05:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to be more specific about what you think is undue. Most of the criticism is sourced to scholarly journals. buidhe 05:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excess detail from reliable sources can be undue and create a bias, particularly if it is cherry-picked to represent one POV. Whether it is excess here, I am not entirely sure, but the fact is that this section in particular reads like a WP:ATTACKPAGE (albeit, sourced).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't. If you think there are positive reviews that we're missing, then bring them on. Otherwise, we're not going to censor legitimate criticisms. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral? 

message: Placeholder. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some attention is clearly due