This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
It has no information that suggests this en-wiki article to be NPOV. My analysis of the paragraphs:
An unsourced paragraph on the aims of the journal, probably quoted from their website.
An unsourced paragraph about the various people who are affiliated to them, probably quoted from their website.
A paragraph that vouches for the reliability of the journal by citing a communique from a Polish Ministry. Then, there are details about accessing back-issues.
Piotrus, if you find that there are reliable historians — though I doubt that you understand the term — who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. But otherwise, I take a dim view of your shenanigans.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion. I have bold-faced the clause. You have probably missed that Piotrus did not open any t/p discussion; this entire section is drafted by me.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The article is currently very negative. Is this criticism DUE? Is the article neutral? IMHO the Polish Wikipedia article is more neutral, and what we have here reads less neutrally. An article that is overwhelmingly negative is generally not something that
WP:NPOV encourages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. There is nothing in policy that suggests that we shall bend over backwards and exclude reliable sources lest our article is overwhelmingly negative.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Who is Kahrs? I am asking you, as the editor who added these sources, if you think they are passing or in-depth analysis. Also, before someone misquotes me, I will stress I don't consider Glaukopis to be a particularly reliable or quality source. I certainly would not advise citing it for anything controversial. But our articles need to respect
WP:NPOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I believe all my sources are accessible from TWL; why don't you read them? Andreas Kahrs is a scholar on the far-right and he received his PhD from
Humboldt University of Berlin, one of the most prestigious institutes in the nation; the particular source has been cited about a dozen times by other scholars since publication.
I do not discriminate against vernacular sources as long as they are reliable (newspapers-of-record etc.) and not espousing fringe stuff. If you find positive coverage in such sources, you can add them.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
15:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not seeing any, which is why I agree with the generally critical portrayal of this source. I have to say I did not realize how problematic it was. Thanks for shining some light on this. If there is a new RSN discussion about it, I'd probably support depreciating it. Might as well
start, I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here16:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Extreme right
As
https://oko.press/nowe-czasopisma-naukowe-mein-na-liscie-m-in-pismo-wychwalajace-przedwojenny-polski-faszyzm has: "Na liście m.in. pismo wychwalające przedwojenny polski faszyzm Minister Czarnek znów dopisał do oficjalnej listy nowe czasopisma "naukowe". Tym razem wszedł na nią „Glaukopis”, pismo historyczne skrajnej prawicy." In English: "The list includes a magazine praising pre-war Polish fascism Minister Czarnek again added new "scientific" journals to the official list. This time it was entered by "Glaukopis", a historical magazine of the extreme right."
ManoelWild (
talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) - sock puppet of a banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁16:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The magazine has run covers with Francisco Franco, the Myślenice pogrom organizer Adam Doboszyński, pagan artist Stanisław Szukalski, and on the "horrors" of Freemasonry.
[1] - To redaktor naczelny pisma „Glaukopis„. Znajdziemy w nim „judeosceptycyzm”, pochwały przedwojennego polskiego faszyzmu, nacjonalizm we wszystkich odmianach, peany na cześć Brygady Świętokrzyskiej, okładki z generałem Franco, organizatora pogromu w Myślenicach Adama Doboszyńskiego, nacjopogańskiego artystę Stanisława Szukalskiego, szkalowanie dąbrowszczaków i oczywiście „grozę masonerii”.
[2] - Jak pisał w OKO.press w 2019 roku badacz skrajnej prawicy, dr Przemysław Witkowski, znajdziemy w „Glaukopisie”:
pochwały przedwojennego polskiego faszyzmu;
obronę kolaborującej z hitlerowcami Brygady Świętokrzyskiej NSZ;
okładki z gen. Franco;
pozytywne teksty o organizatorze pogromu w Myślenicach w 1936 roku, Adamie Doboszyńskim;
obrażanie pamięci polskich uczestników Brygad Międzynarodowych w Hiszpanii;
It was me who wrote In 2021, the magazine entered into a list of scientific journals approved (?) by the Government of Poland but tbh, it makes little sense. What is this list?
TrangaBellam (
talk)
17:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Does it claim to be a
peer-reviewedacademic journal? We usually accept a self-description to class a publication (even if it's a fringe publication and the "peers" doing the reviewing are more fringe scientists (see, e.g.,
Mankind Quarterly). If they don't have peer review but the editors alone decides what to publish, we call it a magazine. The respective infoboxes are quite different. --
Randykitty (
talk)
09:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply
That does indeed look like we should call it an academic journal. If their peer-review process is bad or, in contrast to what they say, absent, that would be for a criticism section. The journal does not meet
WP:NJournals as it isn't included in any database, let alone selective databases (see
here), but it looks like it meets GNG. --
Randykitty (
talk)
12:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)reply