Talk:Racism in Poland/Archive 1

Anti-semitism

While anti-Semitism as a specific kind of racism is a notable issue, the original text gives a confused presentation of the issue, since the author probably knows the issue only superficially. For example, this should not be mixed liberally with Holocaust. Also the situation started to deteriorate before 20th century, contrary to what the intro said. And many other smaller issues not worth listing. Therefore I replaced the whole "Jews" section with a top note directing the reader to "History of the Jews in Poland," which is an attempt for a balanced presentation of this complex issue. In due time, and by an expert person, a section may be re-added, but as a summary, per wikipedia:Summary style, rather than an "article-within-article". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I just wanted to start an article off. The more willing to work on it the better.Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand... cutting absolutely everything does seem a bit weird. Almost like suggesting Jews don't deserve to be mentioned/giving them different treatment (now they're not in the body of text, just at the top).Malick78 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article History of the Jews in Poland and you will probably understand what I meant: the deleted text dwelled on many irrelevant things, but missed a big number of really crucial ones. About your "like suggesting...", please re-read what I actually suggested. I must add it is better to have none than to have something incorrect. By the way, like it or not, Jews did have different treatment almost everywhere they lived. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think contemporary antisemitism definitely needs to be mentioned, perhaps also anti-islamic/arab racism if there are good sources. We should also mention the recent growth of right-wing extreme organiztions often espousing racist ideologies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

While that stuff obviously exists, from everything I've read it's been pretty much on the decline. Basically you got a spike in anti-semitism/racism soon after the fall of communism and the associated economic discombobulation, the first half of the 1990's. It's been going down since then - with the possible exception of League of Polish Families (the "extremism" of LPR/LoPF is about comparable to the Tea Party movement or some "pro-family values" (sic) groups in US) one point becoming part of a coalition government. But that had more to do with political finangling and the close election results where a small party could make or break a government. Even then, they got their butts voted out/completely marginalized in the next election.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the opposite in regards to all of Europe, but especially the previous Eastern bloc. When I say extremists I am also not talking about the kinds that have succes in elections, but the kinds that commit random violence against people with racial or ethnic characteristics they don't like. I've definitely read that this is growing in places like Hungary, Bulgaria and the Eastern Germany - thoug not specifically Poland. Will seek sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to be careful about the timing here because the trends did flip, at least for Poland. Here is a fairly academic review [1] (not a 100% academic article, but rather a report written by academics specializing in the topic). The nice thing about this source is that, first, it treats the subject in a comparative manner which establishes context; of course there's racism/antisemitism in Poland but same is true for other European countries (actually just "all other countries") so the proper way to look at it is to compare across countries, which is what the report does. Second, rather than relying on anecdotes or unsubstantiated opinions it is based on actual concrete data, specifically from the European Values Survey. Third, it discusses trends over time, which is also an important dimension.VolunteerMarek 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an excellent source and I admit that my notion is mostly colored by biased Danish news reports in which "Eastern Europeans" are often described as inferior beings exactly because they are racists (paradoxically). The Danish intelligentsia recently extended that classifciation to rural danes who are also apparently all backwards racists. Hypocrisy is great, and its always just other people being hypocrites. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Sure. Just make a proper summary of how antisemitism is covered in History of the Jews in Poland, following wikipedia:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Panorama show

If you're going to include stuff based on the Panorama show, then NPOV requires that responses to the show are included as well. These responses talk about Britain, as well as Poland, for the obvious reason that most of the time it makes no sense to talk about racism in isolation in a single country - racism exists everywhere. Hence obviously, people make comparisons, which is what the European Values study does and what Stan Collymore does.

Additionally, making the completely false accusation of coatrackin' while busily constructing a WP:COATRACK oneself is disingenuous and just cannot be interpreted otherwise as bad faith.

On the other hand including various references to various incidents and anecdotes IS coatracking.VolunteerMarek 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Panorama accused Polish football of tolerating racism. 1:0 Tusk and others said the accusations were unfair. 1:1 That is NPOV already - we've reported both sides. Adding criticism of Britain is too much: a) the balance has already been achieved (we don't want it to be 1:2), and b) how does a riot in Britain relate to racism in Poland anyway? Your explanation makes no sense. (But I hope you like the football score analogy :) )

As for mentioning events, well, an article on racism in Britain would presumably mention the Stephen Lawrence murder, wouldn't it? Some events/incidents are highly notable in their field. We mention notable things. That's all I've done. Did you expect an article on racism in Poland not to mention individual events? Malick78 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: Why does this remind of the time when PasswordUsername was editing the article on Estonia?

• I have no idea who that is or what you're talking about, VM.Malick78 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

football

The whole football section is ridiculously undue - racism is prevalent in football EVERYWHERE in Europe. IF we are to include this stuff then the response to the documentary should be included as well. This is just basic WP:NPOV.VolunteerMarek 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Racism is everywhere in football, sure, but to different extents. Ukraine is worse than Poland, Poland is worse than Italy and Spain, those two are worse than the UK and the US, say. The fact is though that some responses are valid: Tusk defending Poland, that's fine. But taking potshots at other countries in a childish (non-scientific way) is silly. You have added scholarly stuff on comparative levels of racism in Europe - that's fine. But Colleymore whinging about the BBC and the Olympics - how is that relevant? It's non-sensical in fact - his comments. The BBC made the doc to show fans going to Poland that it might be dangerous. Why would the BBC make a doc for UK viewers about the situation in the UK where they live? His point was fatuous, but more importantly for this article - no longer about Poland. Same for the "British footballers' racist comments" - not about Poland. You know that's true, really. Malick78 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And may I suggest that rather than edit warring about this text against several editors, Malick78, you open RfC or some other form of dispute resolution.VolunteerMarek 20:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this edit summary [2] is just plain dishonest. The issue of Suarez's nationality is irrelevant - the source supports the claim, that's all that matters. Note also that Suarez is not mention ANYWHERE in the text that Malick78 is trying his best to remove. Again, irrelevant.

And it has ALREADY been explained numerous times, why this text is fully justified. And not just by me, but also by other "Polish nationalists" like User:Walter Görlitz [3] (disclosure, the part about "Polish nationalists" is obvious sarcasm).VolunteerMarek 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• You keep adding: "Polish sports journalist Rafał Stec suggested filming a similar documentary about racism in British football, which would highlight the alleged racist comments made in 2011 and 2012 by top British footballers". Rafal Stec says here: "Mógłbym też przywołać kazus liverpoolskiego napastnika Luisa Suareza, który wiosną naubliżał innemu ciemnoskóremu graczowi i został zdyskwalifikowany na osiem meczów." It's the second para. Obviously Terry and Suarez were the big names re: racism in the Premier League in 2011-12. So why do you call me "dishonest"?Malick78 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume you're being purposefully obstinate: Suarez. Is. Not. Mentioned. In. The. Wikipedia. Text.VolunteerMarek 21:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"by top British footballers". That's the WP text. And it doesn't match the source. Does it? Malick78 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it does. What are you talking about? If you want to suggest a different wording, be my guest.VolunteerMarek 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, which British footballers are mentioned in the source? Erm, Terry. No others. Only Suarez. Not British. Oh, and btw, why are we using an opinion page here for facts? RS says: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." - is the guy an authority of any kind? No. Just a jobbing journo. His views aren't hardly deserve to follow on from Tusk's, surely. Malick78 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

One more time. If you want to suggest alternative wording please do so. The text is obviously about players who play in British football, i.e. British footballers.

And Stec is the top sports commentator at Gazeta Wyborcza which is the top Polish newspaper, as you well know. It's obviously a notable opinion - though because it's an opinion it's being explicitly attributed. And did you miss the part in your quote which says: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable"? Is that like a WP:IDIDNTREADTHAT in addition to your standard WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? VolunteerMarek 21:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For someone who repeatedly failed to see the name "Suarez" in the second para of his own source, I'd refrain from commenting on eyesight. As for Stec, I don't know him so have no idea as to his expertise. Knowing about racism in the UK, however, is perhaps not going to be his strong point - unless there's proof otherwise. Polish sport is his forte. The whole article is strongly patriotic and desperate to criticise another country, meaning it is hardly neutral and reliable. That's why it's under the heading "opinion" I guess, and leads me to doubt its value in general. Malick78 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For someone who repeatedly failed to see the name "Suarez" in the second para of his own source, I'd refrain from commenting on eyesight. - again, you are being dishonest. As I have pointed out several times now, what I said is that "Suarez" is not mentioned in the Wikipedia text, which is the relevant part.

As for your personal opinion piece about Stec, again, as with the rest of your freely given opinions throughout Wikipedia, who cares? You do realize however that both Stec and GW are fairly leftist and that only a very ignorant person would accuse GW of being nationalist or even "patriotic". As long as we're handing out unsolicited opinions, then how about the fact that the BBC program was an idiotic sensationalist hit piece which marked an even low point for the organization than was thought possible (the fact that BBC seems to think that Austria borders Poland, while not strictly relevant to this topic, does provide a pretty strong signal as to the present day journalistic standards there). So yeah, even mushy cosmopolitan lefties like GW are gonna make fun of the program.VolunteerMarek 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether GW is leftwing or right, matters little: the piece itself is pretty patriotic stuff, overly so. So not neutral. Anyway, your text says "British footballers" - they're not. "British-based" might be more accurate (though I still contend that one comment from one upset guy, with his patriotism hurt, does not deserve to be mentioned here.) Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted a weird edit by Malik.[4] I do not understand why anybody would want to make the edit. The edit summary appears to relate to some other edit he/she made:

"no matter how much you want it, Suarez isn't British. anyway, the info is not about Racism IN POLAND. except for Baruchyan, but a few months here makes his view not notable".

--Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you'd read previous edits in the series, it'd have made more sense. As it is - the source doesn't mention British footballers. Could you change it please? I might be accused of breaking the spirit of 3RR if I do. The rest of the summary makes sense if you read the above (and similar stuff on the Controversies in Euro 2012 talk page).Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I read through the talk section. I understand fully why the statements that you mistakenly tried to delete need to be present in the article. I also read the sources that were cited. (I had to use Google translate for this, as I have no knowledge of the Polish language.) The edit was in 3 parts:

• A citation needed tag. If you want to delete this, then you need to replace it with a citation.
• Replacing "One instance of racism" with "One of the most notable instances of racism" - this is purple prose - it would be justifiable if a great world leader such as the Pope or Putin had said this, but they did not, so we do not need the purple prose.
• Deleting comments on the BBC propaganda programme "Panorama" - the need for these is explained in the talk page above.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• But Toddy: our article says "British players" made alleged racist comments. The source mentions Terry (English) and Suarez (from Uruguay). Hence the text is not at all accurate. It should be "British-based". Malick78 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You are pointlessly splitting hairs. The alleged racist behaviour was by employees of Liverpool football club, whilst working at the club, in England.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Football is not about racism. Among football fans the goal is to insult, provoke, kick ass of the opponent with whatever means possible. Yes they know the racist remarks will infuriate the opponents and they make good use of it. Everywhere around the world. So I fail to see the reason of the tag on the well-defined section about well-known issue. I din't trace the history of this page, but at the moment text seems rather balanced. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging this section with Racism_in_football#Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored this section because I can't see any reason or consensus that it should not be hereCathar66 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasons have already been given. It's UNDUE and out dated recentism. The consensus is above and in the talk page history.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel it is UNDUUE edit the content. Don't blank the section. Are you really saying there is no racism in Football in Poland. That would make it very exceptional.Cathar66 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is of course not at all what I said. Please stop misrepresenting my statements or trying to put words in my mouth. Let me repeat. The section is outdated and undue. Consensus above is not to include it. This isn't a "List of every racist incident that's ever occurred in Poland" article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

racism against poles

Racism against Poles is covered thoroughly in article Anti-Polish sentiment. Also please don't add original research into the introduction. - Altenmann >t 16:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, when Nazis occupation, there was no Poland, if you want to be so formal. - Altenmann >t 16:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

--- Answer --- The article Anti-Polish sentiment is one thing, but you must admit that I could say, that racism against Jews is thoroughlt covered in the article Antisemitism so let's delete all other information about it in all of the other articles. Second thing is - What do you mean by "original research"? The section "Ethnic Poles" has to be added, mostly because this what happened in Poland was based on RACE and ETHNICITY. It was PURE RACISM and you can not deny it. Why are you trying to wipe it completely instead of developing it? Third thing - you said there was no Poland during the German Nazi occupation. I see your claims at this point are very similar to what Adolf Hitler said. If you really mean what you say, then during the Jesus Christ era there was no Israel - it was the Roman Empire and the name "Israel" should not be mentioned in the Bible describing this period of time. I just hope you will open your mind and realize that Poles were the victims of RACISM in their own country, not once, not twice. I know that for an American/British/French/Italian/Spanish person this is unthinkable, but that's a true fact my friend. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

RECENTISM, football hooliganism and other non-encyclopaedic entries

I have to note that there's a remarkable amount of activity going into the 'development' of this article yet, for all the bold content being added, then reverted, there's no accompanying discussion of off-topic additions, nor even undue weight being ascribed to the latest content.

Almost half of the article suddenly being dedicated to the European Cup of 2012 is a tad heavy-handed in a relatively short article, full stop (see WP:RECENTISM). To add to this, it is nothing less than WP:SYNTH. Football hooliganism is recognised as being a complex behavioural problem in all countries. I there is anything to be developed, it belongs in the specific article dedicated to it, most specifically the relevant section on Poland.

In and of itself, the WP:TITLE of this article is possibly too broad. Is it about the history of racism in Poland, or is it a journalistic and WP:POV catch-all for anything encompassing "racism" and "Poland" with no interest in any issues in particular? The latest content additions imply that it's a WP:COATRACK.

While I can see merit in developing an article on "Football hooliganism (psychology)", I see not merit in focussing on a small number of fanatics in any given nation-state as if they represented the broader society in which they live. At best, mentions should only exist in a "See also" section, or a very brief summary (that wouldn't only deal with events in 2012) with a hatnote pointing to the main article/s.

If editors/contributors feel that there is merit in gratuitously lobbing vast tracts of content surrounding this particular issue, please explain yourselves here - on the talk page - rather than persisting with a slow edit war in the article itself. Thank you for your anticipated input on this talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In the run-up to Euro 2012 one of the biggest issues in foreign media was Poland's problem with (and lack of effort to eradicate) racism in football. It therefore seems quite important. The coatracking was when nationalists tried to mention UK problems with racism (due to it all being sparked by a BBC documentary). Malick78 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I did follow the news at that time carefully. The only stand-out incident was the Russian Independence Day march which was discussed from various points of view by the media. I don't recall any one perspective or analysis as being mainstream. Unless this article is to become a coatrack for a protracted section dealing with the historical background and events being parsed one at a time, I can't see it as being anything other than WP:UNDUE within the scope of this specific article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)