Talk:Anna Zalewska

Regarding my edit
I'm about to remove a big chunk of this article per WP:BLP and WP:ONUS. I refer interested parties to the discussion at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. I would also point out that some of what I'm deleting is patent nonsense. What does "Her sacrosanct was aimed at the most recent investigation that was aimed at proving the revelation, according to Mr. Jan T. Gross, true." even mean in English? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of what you removed was indeed nonsense, but you also removed material which was sourced to a mainstream newspaper. When public officials do something that generates worldwide criticism, we should not censor that information. Impact Hub (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please contribute to our discussion at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. The i-link was provided for your convenience by already. Minister Zalewska is not a historian, and didn't actually deny anything. WP:NOTNEWS,  Poeticbent  talk  19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if she is a historian or not- she is a public official, in a position of influence (education minister!). We are not using her statements as a source of historical fact in an article about the pogrom - we are discussing the public outcry over her words, as documented by sources. The sources provided say she appeared to deny or minimize the participation of Poles . Impact Hub (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was sourced to a mainstream newspaper. I didn't realize that. By all means then, violate Wikipedia policy, because it was published in a mainstream newspaper. Just like the horoscope.


 * Please read the two policies to which I linked above, WP:BLP and WP:ONUS. Just because it was published in a newspaper doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Violate policy? not at all. the difference is, I actually read the policy. Here's what WP:BLP says regarding public figures: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.


 * There are multiple reliable 3rd party sources documenting this (and I will shortly add several more). If you have actual policy-based arguments, you are welcome to present them, after you familiarize yourself with what the policy actually is. Impact Hub (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Chill out, User:Impact Hub (with 12 edits under your belt since yesterday), and don't teach your father, how to make babies. You say, you "actually read the policy", good for you! Because WP:BLP also says in the opening section that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.  Poeticbent  talk 23:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Chill out yourself. None of my sources are tabloids, and neither you nor Shabazz are my "father". I recognize that you are offended that your Minister of Education has caught a firestorm over her comments, but that's life - when you're in the public eye and you say shit like that, you get skewered. And this encyclopedia reflects that, like it does for countless other politicians who say shit like that.Impact Hub (talk)

Impact Hub, if you're so convinced that your addition complies with WP:BLP, including WP:BLPSTYLE, please discuss it with other editors at WP:BLP/N. And lay off the personal attacks. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will. .Impact Hub (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)