Talk:Richard C. Lukas

message: :Image:Richard c Lukas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Richard c Lukas.jpg

message: has repeatedly added the claim that Lukas's book is "the first systematic English language study by an American historian of the wartime experiences of the Poles and their relations with the Jews." This is a boastful claim offered without any sourcing, much less a reliable one. It should not be readded until and unless a reliable source is found. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firstness 

message: A recent series of IP edits did some very odd scrambling of the references. I tried to descramble, but some of the claims added were not in the specific references provided, so some claim deletion was done as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, the scrambled references have been reinserted enough times that it looks like intentional vandalism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:OWN, and try to achieve consensus on the talk page. Also, if you have a COI, please WP:DISCLOSE.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: - Are you editing this page as part of the group? I'm referring to your stmts of "other editors" and "we" above. Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, those are some vague accusations! I do not recall being the person to add any material from non-historians (at most, I've undone deletions); the only person who I recall adding content from was a quote from Lukas himself. The claim that you and your "we" are trying to fix references is false on the front of it; the reference citing David Engel has been repeatedly moved to material that has nothing to do with David Engel, the claim that your "we" was using to support the statement "He later wrote a military-diplomatic study, Eagles East: The Army Air Forces and the Soviet Union, 1939-1945, for which he received an award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics" was this, a source that mentions neither that book nor that award. Now, I see that that same reference has been slid down to cover quotes from Davies - the source quotes Davies not at all, it merely mentions that he wrote a foreword. When folks try to fix things like that, or erroneously marked-up italics (we don't use html EM tags on Wikipedia), or incorrect capitalization, or improper POV terminology, you just undo that as well. To those who are doing that, please stop  before you get blocked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Wait a minute - if the quote I am adding "from Lucas" is the edit you were complaining about, and your complaint was specifically that I was "citing people who are not historians" - are you claiming Lukas is not an historian? My "distortion of the original quote" was copied and pasted directly from the source. The supposed attempts to "fix" the breaking of the references was to restore the broken version repeatedly, even after the problem with the breaking of references had been brought up on this Talk page; if it isn't right or at least better than what came before, you should not be saving your changes, much less should the IP user have been labeling it as "referencing sources" when the edit was actually breaking existing references. And yes, improper capitalization, like when you undid this edit which explained that it was fixing capitalization. The edit summaries are there for a reason; please more accurately summarize your own edits when you make them, and as been told to you before, please stop marking non-minor edits as "minor". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I am concerned whether a single news article  is enough to warrant discussing a controversy about this award in light of WP:UNDUE/WP:BLP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award controversy - BLP/UNDUE? 

message: I just noticed in http://www.richardclukas.com/ (section controversy) this: "More recently, untrue statements have been listed on Lukas’s page by a contributor to Wikipedia.  The Wikipedia content reads “John T. Pawlikowski writes that the The Forgotten Holocaustis the most comprehensive work covering ethnic Poles under the Nazis and that the Polish-American community effectively canonized it. However Pawlikowski notes that just as historian Thaddeus Gromada was forced to make changes to Lukas’ speech (for the United Stats Holocaust Memorial Museum) due to antisemitic content, he too has reservations with Lukas’ work treating ethnic Poles and Jews as co-equal victims of the Holocaust: a basic error common among Polish-Americans that is rejected by other scholars.”  The reference to the speech is entirely false.  Proof of this exists within a newly obtained document from Dr. Gromada himself, seen here: " --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that text in the article (now or in the past)? SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been added by WP:SPA  and was removed by  (Thaddeus Gromada?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Peachout added it on 3 February 2020. The allegation about the speech was removed by Tadgromada29, another SPA, on 19 February. So it was there for 16 days. SarahSV (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, about as long as a different problem in the Grabowski article which IIRC you fixed. Just thought this should be mentioned on talk in case another SPA tries to restore this. Btw, do you think Peachout should be blocked? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this issue have to do with Grabowski? Also, the problems with his article remain. My version didn't last. SarahSV (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which version in which article? If there is a problem with Grabowski's bio, I suggest you can describe it there on his talk page. I hope there are no further BLP issues with it. I offered to help him with fixing any errors in my chat with him a while back, but I think he is too busy; last I heard from him he was trying to go back to Poland, which is not easy with the COVID crisis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims (BLP) issue 

message: Piotrus, some of the citations are written oddly. For example, 
 If you use the RefToolbar, that makes it easy to fill in the various fields. Or it can be done manually. Templates aren't required. SarahSV (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will check it out. I generally rely on the formatting tool in the Visual Editor. I am not sure why some get malformatted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find it if you go to "Preferences --> Editing --> Editor, and tick "Enable the editing toolbar". That should give you the citation templates drop-down menu. SarahSV (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I am confused why you remove the citation templates? I actually thought this was the error you mentioned (that you complained they were not used here) and so I reintroduced them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Errors should be fixed, but I still don't understand why you removed the citation templates? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored my edit, because you added errors to it. Your addition of citation templates wasn't the problem. If you look at this diff, can you see where you changed the publication details of one (including author=NA NA), and changed another to first name/last name? SarahSV (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Well, the obvious solution is to restore the citation template sans the errors you pointed out :) I will get right on it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that's better. The only thing left to do is restore the en-dashes, which were changed to hyphens. year ranges take en-dashes, e.g. 2019–2020. Also, you changed title case to sentence case: Who's Who to Who's who. SarahSV (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: "add a conflict of interest/ NPOV template warning to the page. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Club On a Sub 20COI is on the talk page. NPOV added. Lemonaka (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Club On a Sub 20 :@Lemonaka Hi, why the NPOV was added to this article? Seems like pretty standard biogram with basic facts of life, academic career and list of published books, with a short summary. I honestly don't see here a room for non-neutral POV. What are the issues in your opinion? Marcelus (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @MarcelusUndone, after carefully checking the booklist. There's nothing for promotion Lemonaka (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023 

message: I want to draw editors' attention to these comments by the BLP subject: . I don't know for sure, but it might be worth examining this page with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: His biggest direct complaint is that we are no longer including quotes from the foreword as reviews of the book. That absence is appropriate; its writer quite possibly got paid for it (not necessarily, sez the publisher who has scammed a free forward or two in its day), and even if not, it can not in any reasonable way be judged as an independent third-party source, as it's part of the book. We should no more take that as a viable source for review quotes than we should accept movie poster ad copy as reviews. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns by BLP subject