Talk:Canadian Polish Congress

Fair use rationale for Image:KPK logo.jpg
Image:KPK logo.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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Poeticbent talk  19:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Polish Congress. 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/20061206011151/http://federacjapolek.ca/fp_en.html to http://www.federacjapolek.ca/fp_en.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) 20:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

First in Canada
The claim seems substantiated in, through snippet view is a PITA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the first "umbrella organization" as opposed to "organization" - it's misleading. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue
I have concerns that describing the organization as "zealously anti-communist and aggressively right-wing" in the lead is WP:UNDUE. A number of other sources I've cited don't seem to make such an assessment and instead treat it as just another NGO. (For the record, I am sure the organization is leaning in both of those directions, per WP:DUCK, but we don't generally stress such leanings in the lead, not unless multiple sources see it as a defining part of the organization, and I don't see such consensus among the sources. I have no objection to discussing such leanings in the body of the article, of course). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very few academic sources cover the KPK at all. Therefore this being present in the few sources that do makes it clear that it is rather DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a few, those are potentially controversial claims from single sources, not repeated anywhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Two academic sources. Absent sources that actually cover the KPK in an independent manner (per my BEFORE - very few and far between), your claim of "not repeated anywhere else" are rather weak - there isn't much of "anywhere else" to speak of. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the far right, we have a mention in passing, in an interview-style publication (academic, but WP:INTERVIEW nonetheless). We have other sources, including several book sources that discuss history of CPC, from few pages to likely an entire-length treatment, and no source seems to repeat such claims. If you want this in the lead, it is your responsibility to prove this is a defining characteristic, not mine to prove it is not. Please find more citations that the Moon is made from green cheese - I won't waste my time proving it is not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Piotr Wróbel would generally be seen as a domain expert in the subject matter here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He would, except that when he is cited, in passing, in an interview, it is a bit undue to treat such an off-hand, passing remark as a defining quality of an organization. I have no problems with his description being cited in the body, but you keep failing to present a compelling argument that such terms are 'defining'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Our Class
Various editors, among them Icewhiz, please explain why you are pushing a blatant misrepresentation, namely, that the play "Our Class" has something to do with the Kielce pogrom. And if the play has nothing to with the Kielce pogrom, as alleged in the cited article "Studio 180's Political Engagements", then why is it a reliable source?Tatzref (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Canadian Theatre Review" - an academic publication on Canadian theater, would generally be regarded as a reliable source for the contents of Canadian theater. The CTR piece clearly says KPK said " They suggested there was misinformation about the pogroms, particularly events like the Kielce massacre, which have been widely acknowledged as well-recorded, documented historical events.".Icewhiz (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will further note that CTR is definitely reliable for an attributed quote - " I immediately contacted this wonderful professor at University of Toronto who I had met while doing research— Piotr Wróbel, Chair of Polish Studies—and the publisher from a Polish daily paper. They both wrote back and said that this group is aggressively right-wing and will not stop. The professor suggested writing one brief note, “Thank you for your interest, but no.” There was no real demonstration at the opening, just a stack of flyers sitting on the front step of the Berkeley Street Theatre one morning with a stone on top of it. For about five consecutive days, these flyers would appear, so somebody had the time to deliver them but not the commitment to actually demonstrate..Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The CTR does not make it clear that it was CPC which organized the demonstration. The leaflets etc. could have been distributed by someone from another organization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * CTR refers clearly to CPC at the beginning of the passage. Reading 101.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading 102. The quoted text is ambiguous. It is possible, even a bit likely, the flyers and such where from CPC. But it is also possible they were not, and the quote does not make it clear the flyers came from CPC. The text is saying CPC made some comments, and then someone delivered leaflets. To say that they were from CPS is WP:SYNTH. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, as the flyers were placed at the entrance weighed down by a rock you could maybe argue that (highly unlikely, OR, but...). However the phone calls and Wrobel's comments on the nature of KPK are rather clear.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I have no problem with quoting Wrobel here. He is a reliable scholar, and his comment seems relevant (it should be attributed, of course). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no quotation from Wrobel in this article. It's a third party attribution to Wrobel made in the course of an interview by that third party, so it's unreliable. The editor/owner of Gazeta, the newspaper in question, was successfully sued by the past president of the Canadian Polish Congress for libel: Rogacki v. Belz, 2004 CanLII 21439 (ON CA) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii21439/2004canlii21439.html?autocompleteStr=belz&autocompletePos=3. They are not a reliable source on the Congress. The article in question is not reliable on many accounts. It is common knowledge that Our Class has nothing to do with the Kielce pogrom. It is a blatant misrep to say that it does. The Congress's materials are online so they can be verified - they contain nothing about Kielce: http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/OUR-CLASS-Study-Guide.doc. Yet another misrep. Besides the Congress was not protesting the play as such but rather the refusal of the theatre company to allow their brochures to be left inside the venue. The local media reported this. Moreover, there is absolutely no question that the play is full of historical inaccuracies. To suggest that it doesn't and that the Congress is pushing misinformation is a misrep. See Dominic Cavendish, “Is Our Class at the National Theatre really such a reliable history lesson?” Telegraph, November 9, 2009 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/6530381/Is-Our-Class-at-the-National-Theatre-really-such-a-reliable-history-lesson.html. According to Jacek Kopciński of the Institute of Literary Research at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Our Class is “far from a historical reconstruction of the tragic events. ... The casting of Polish history as a Polish-Jewish war ... is a gross simplification.” See Being Poland: A New History of Polish Literature and Culture Since 1918 (University of Toronto Press, 2018), p. 556.Tatzref (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that, relying on his memory, Joel Greenberg attributes the alleged identical words to not just one but two persons: "They both wrote back and said that this group is aggressively right-wing.." How likely is that? Besides, we have objective proof that Greenberg's memory is flawed and unreliable. He doesn't remember accurately what the play is about, nor does he remember accurately the content of the Congress's flyer. So this source is clearly unreliable on many counts.Tatzref (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph oped supports that a Briton of Polish descent (states this) was also critical of some aspect of this play (which was generally well received, and cerrainly is not a history - but a play) - unclear how this is relevamt to Canada. CTR is a reliable source, and they are quite clear who they spoke to and what was said. The KPK itself (handouts hosted on their kpk-toronto - containing a revision not remotely conforming to scholarship on Jedwabne) is not a reliable source (KPK-toronto also has a habit of updating such invective tracts - which are dated to Nov 2015, while CTR is from 2013 - so whatever they were pushing in 2013 and prior is OR).Icewhiz (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Puffery sourced to organization itself
We generally avoid sourcing to an organization itself (and definitely an organization such as KPK). This edit introduced rather sweeping puffery on KPK's influence (I'll note that a recent academic paper found it difficult to find anyone active in KPK to speak to) - sourced to KPK itself, with a SYNTHed sentence (no reference to KPK) sourced to the Canadian census. Icewhiz (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The KPK organizational info is as reliable as any organization's. In fact, the University of Toronto Polish studies web page directs you to look at it and provides a link. It is a well known fact that the KPK has ongoing contacts with officials from various levels of government so stop you biased insults. The Canadian Ukrainian Congress article also has census data, Icewhiz. Why don't you remove it?Tatzref (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The KPK's reputation aside, even well reputed organizations are generally non-neutral about themselves. We generally avoid such non-independent aources.Icewhiz (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The WJC reputation aside, even well reputed organizations are generally non-neutral about themselves. We generally avoid such non-independent aources. (Copyright Icewhiz) Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of Edit Warring
Icewhiz just issued an edit warring warning on my talk page. Icewhiz, you are the one who is deleting all my edits wholesale including sourced information:
 * 21:23, 9 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 10,942 bytes -29‎  Views - restored scholarly book by Patryk Polec removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses; removed nonRS that contains a third party attribution (not a direct quote)
 * 21:03, 9 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 10,971 bytes +324‎  History: Solidarity Movement - restored reliably sourced information removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses
 * 20:43, 9 May 2019‎ Tatzref talk contribs‎ 9,889 bytes +414‎  History: Katyn monument - Restored reliably sourced information removed by Icewhiz under false pretenses
 * Please explain each of these reverts.Tatzref (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to jog your memory, Icewhiz, this is part of what you removed under the guise of
 * 20:19, 9 May 2019‎ Icewhiz talk contribs‎ 9,475 bytes -701‎  Revert - not an improvement. We prefer reliable secondary sources over the website of the subject


 * The KPK spearheaded the erection of the Katyn monument in Toronto in 1980, being the first such monument in the world erected in a public place.
 * The KPK was a vocal supporter of Poland’s Solidarity movement.
 * Patryk Polec. Hurrah Revolutionaries: The Polish Canadian Communist Movement, 1918-1948. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2015, p.180.
 * Tatzref (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One more question, Icewhiz, why didn't you take it to talk instead of starting an edit war?Tatzref (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually did - e.g. "Puffery sourced to organization itself" above. Icewhiz (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2020 edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "reduce reliance on primary sources and remove mission statement". This mostly included self-promotional content cited to the org itself. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove this sourced info? "According to the 2016 Census, there are over 1.1 million persons of Polish origin living in Canada" GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed this detail because it was off-topic and a bit misleading: I assume that KPK does not claim to represent the entirety of Canada's Polish diaspora. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the statistic is relevant, and I don't know why you assume it does not, per lead: "was previously known as the Federation of Polish Societies in Canada. The Canadian Polish Congress serves as the central umbrella organization for some 150 affiliated Polish-Canadian social, cultural, charitable, educational and professional organizations throughout Canada... it is the main advocacy group for the Polish community in Canad." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This was cited to a primary source that does not relate to KPK. If there were a source that establishes relevance of the size of the Polish-Canadian community to the org, then it would be worth including. Otherwise, it comes across as SYNTH. In any case, the statement umbrella organization for some 150 affiliated Polish-Canadian ... organizations does not imply that KPK represents all Polish-Canadians, unless each and every one belongs to one of the 150 groups. That seems unlikely in the absence of sources to this effect. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Common sense suggests this is non-controversial and correct. Unless you can find evidence to the contary, stating that there is a competitor for that role among Polish-Canadian NGOs? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's understood that KPK is the only such umbrella organisation, but what percentage of Polish-Canadians do the 150 KPK-affiliated groups represent? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)