Talk:Edward Moskal

2006 comments
If someone disputes the neutrality of this article please state your reasons here before adding a POV tag. --Milicz 01:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all I know of him is what I read in the Tribune, but some of this looks a little toned down, like "Moskal erroneously said Emanuel..." Doesn't "erroneously" kind of imply an honest mistake, where most people might come to a different conclusion? Fan-1967 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it means falsely, that what he said about Emanuel was not true.--Milicz 02:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What he said about Emanuel was a flat-out lie, and everyone knew it. But that's the least of this article's problems. Much of it reads like an essay, with personal analysis, rather than straight facts. For example, the entire paragraph that starts "The scholars of communism claim that.." has no place in an encyclopedic article at all. Gamaliel was right: This article needs a look by some fresh eyes. Maybe a WP:RFC would be a good idea. Fan-1967 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

2008 Changes made per WP:BLP
I guess I came across this looking at Rahm Emanuel article, but it was so horrendously filled with Unsourced libelous and negative comments - not to mention all the stuff about how great the last leader of the group was (totally irrelevant) - that my WikiHat just popped up and I had to clean it up. Per WP:BLP I can and will revert back to that format repeatedly. If you have negative info about Mr. M. you want to share, fine. Just make sure it comes from a WP:Reliable source (Click link for info), preferably some news article linked on the internet. Two or three sentences on his predecessor might be appropriate, but that's about it. Just search Mr. M's name on a search engine and you'll probably find lots of news stories. Private web sites saying nasty things about him don't count ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You know instead of deleting entire sections and claiming libel you might actually want to edit this article, if not then stay out. Plenty was written about these issues in the Tribune, Sun Times and other articles, if you're unhappy with the article fix it, don't white wash it. --Milicz (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the way it works in any wikipedia article. Unsourced material can be removed. If you want to put it in, source it and then put it in. In BLP especially editors are urged to be alert for possibly false unsourced info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me how Wikipedia works, it doesn't work based on deleting stuff at random, stop removing work unless you source your deletions. Stop throwing around terms like libel as an excuse.--Milicz (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." - dated 2007. Any interested editor has had over a year to source the article, if desired.  No interested editor has done so.  The material has been challenged and removed.  This is not "white washing".  The deletions are "sourced" by the warning at the top of the article.  It is unfortunate that no one has been interested enough to cite the "Plenty...." that "... was written about these issues in the Tribune, Sun Times and other articles", but no editor has had that interest.sinneed (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the article, I think the large-scale deletions need to be made, or SUBSTANTIAL corrections and citations made. There is indeed much out there, but it is conflicting.  I can see why no one has taken on the task.  Since this individual is no longer living, it need not follow wp:BLP throughout, though since some of its subjects ARE alive, their information needs extra attention.sinneed (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1 week from today I plan to come back and restore the removal of the unsourced content. If any editor cares enough about the article to source it, remove the OR an PoV, I will certainly respect their work, of course. But this article is a mess, and has been flagged as requiring improvement since 2007. I don't think a week is going to help. sinneed (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally Disputed
I have added the totallydisputed flag to the article. I leave the others, because their dates are earlier, and I feel that record should not be lost. Much of this is OR, some if PoV and OR, some could be sourced, but the sources will require careful handling, as they conflict. Research is hampered because so very many sites took this article as valid and have copied it, cited it, and quoted it... and that was a mistake. I caution any editor to be very wary of many sources that will pop up on a quick search. That said, while http://www.searchgleaner.com/cloud/index.php?words=Edward+Moskal contains a copy of this (or this is a copy of it, which seems unlikely), it does have a rich list of possible sources an interested editor might study and possibly find useful.sinneed (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A very messy article indeed. Near as I can figure, Moskal was not a real major player in much at all, and his main notability is his "anti-semitism" charged by some.  No way of finding out if any Poles had ever been on the US delegation to the UN, but I suspect some were for sure.  Lots of florid prose -- will you support some weeding in this garden? Collect (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to give interested editors, if any, a chance to defend the content before I attack it with my usourced-stuff-pruning-shears.sinneed (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is totally disputed? His obituary in the largest and most respected Polish daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, began with words "Know as a virulent anti-Semite", I'm not quite sure who disputes Moskal's antisemitism. I added links to the sections to support the statements.--Milicz (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that anyone is disputing that he was an anti-semite. The article contains a great deal of wp:PoV,wp:OR"he never...".  The flag simply means that some of us believe the article has things in it that aren't true, and things that are presented in eithe a pro or con light, rather than as a balanced or neutral view.  Some of the worst chunks have been cut out already.sinneed (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Important points about citations, external links
1st, the citation must actually support the words to which it is attached. If it does not, this is A Very Bad Thing.

2nd, the citations need some kind of description of why they are there. with the cite web tool, that would be a "title=" item usually. With simple inline refs, just put a space after the URL and say what it is

3rd, the External links each need a note added to them, either after the URL or just after the closing ], explaining what it is.

sinneed (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I added descriptions to those sites I could, and notes for the others. A number of these citations fail wp:EL... no fee sites, no sites requiring registration. The ones for papers that have enough information can be turned into print citations.

There was one anti-Israel/anti-Judaism site (holywar dot org) that I simply removed because the wp:EL failure was egregious as I interpret it.sinneed (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fee sites ares imply archived articles, I guess you can turn them into print citations, but many of them had the information cite din the first free paragraph.--Milicz (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If so, I missed it. That is possible, of course.  I personally do not volunteer to fix them, sorry.  I came here to see if I could help with an edit dispute and BLP violations.  I have and will.  These sources, as listed, are not appropriate and cannot stay.sinneed (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then the defacto standard of Wikipedia will be the elimination of content instead of expansion of content, I found all of the proper cites via Google Archive search, but if the bar is set so high as for me to find the proper print citations then by all means just start pruning what was an informative article into a worthless two sentence bio-piece. --Milicz (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel that way, and cannot agree with your statements as given. As I said previously, I found many sources... but they conflict.sinneed (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A possible source for some of the offensive quotes: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28616.html. I don't know them but possibly an RS?sinneed (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For facts, figures, quotes etc. Reason should be considered a RS. The magazine does have a certain editorial slant (mildly liberterian) so the opinions pieces should be used with caution. The parts of the article on Moskal though seem fine to use as RS.radek (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have hit the proverbial jackpot.--Milicz (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

treasurer section
As it reads now, it looks like Moskal was objecting to Moskal? I think something got confused here perhaps? Collect (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, but I don't know if I broke it or if it was already broken. I expect to fix it if I ever find a source... or kill it if I can't. If I broke it, I am sorry. :)

Nope, I broke it... some members objected, and the president said he could wine and dine whomever he chose.sinneed (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restructure
I light-heartedly hope the new structure will lend itself to both expanding and tightening this article. I think this was an important and controversial figure, and deserves a better article. I don't plan to get into the anti-Semiticism, as I have no desire to have an edit war. I want to focus on his life, the PNA and the PAC. The PAC an PNA articles are both also weak, so I think I can expand all 3.

Any suggestions? Heh, or of course, wp:Be Bold. :)

sinneed (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Massive cuts

 * Thanks for looking at this after I brought it to WP:BLPN. However, do note that Blp reads: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.
 * Therefore I am going to revert again to my short version leaving in new info. If the individual who keeps putting in unsourced info does it again, I will both file a relevant complaint of BLP violation and call for the article to be deleted entirely. Let's conform to policy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed BLPdispute tag cause overly long explanation above got me confused - however, I'll still complain somewhere if all that defamatory UNsourced info goes in. (Defame away if you have WP:RS).
 * I actually rewrote the policy to be shorter with the main point in the first line. But back 2007 tag since there is unsourced info in there still that might be inaccurate, but at least not controversial/questionable. Note that some states do have defamation of the dead laws and if IL is one, whoever put all that defamatory info in there could be personally sued. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you plan to add sources to the rest of the unsourced stuff? If not, this looks like a "white-wash", and detractors will object that the edit was a PoV push.  Most of the content is unsourced.sinneed (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, several things: I don't understand why you whacked the other article issue flags. Most especially, whacking out all the negative unsourced, leaving only the positive unsourced, was a PoV edit...removing the PoV flag was a bit unkind.  At least, leaving it up would have been courteous. I have removed the bulk of the unsourced remaining content, removed the Refimprove, and added fact flags for the 2 unsourced statements, innocuous as they appear, just so we can start with this nice clean stub and hopefully expand the article with only sourced, neutral or balanced, content.sinneed (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Under BLP and possibility of defamation suits it is negative info that is greatest problem. But I don't have a problem with taking out all info except that that is sourced. Frankly, if he did all the things that the long article asserted he did, there should be some WP:RS talking about it.  If not, he may not be notable enough for wikipedia. If people don't think he is worth doing the research, then again perhaps he doesn't even need an article.  The guy who proceeded him who was supposed to be so great didn't have an article. My issue is abuse of BLP, since I don't care about the guy himself one way or the other. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of RS... but no one cares enough to enter them. They just add the unsourced negative junk and leave, come back and complain we are white-washing him for cutting it. :)  I got interested when I followed the link here from the last BLP violation objection and wielded my editorial hatchet.  Besides cuts, the only things I have added were the link for his school, his wake, and wording.  There were a lot of citations to RS's, but I cut them because they were just links to wp:EL breakers... paid newspaper archives or registration-required archives.  It would have been kinder if I had cut them to the talk page but that was a pain, and the editor adding them hadn't done any more with them.sinneed (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cutting unexplained Polish language links

 * Polish language site, needs description.
 * Polish language site, needs description.
 * Polish language site, needs description.
 * Polish language site, needs description.
 * Polish language site, needs description.
 * Polish language site, needs description.

Leaving them here for easy restoral.sinneed (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be readded once sourced, if there is interest.
Moskal was named national treasurer of the Polish National Alliance in 1967. He left the position when he was elected PNA's president in 1988, following after Alojzy Mazewski. He was re-elected in 2003. He was also elected as President of the Polish American Congress, an umbrella organization of 1,200 Polish-American fraternal, veteran and cultural groups, in 1988 and served in that office until his death.

During his term as President her computerized operations, completed the initiation of broadcasting by radio station WPNA (1490 AM) in the Chicago area and included banking institutions under the name of Alliance FSB with branches in Niles and Chicago, Illinois. During this period smaller Polish American fraternal groups merged with the PNA, which had become the largest ethnic fraternal organization in the United States.

Poland's President Lech Wałęsa awarded Moskal the second highest civilian honor of the Republic of Poland, the Commander's Cross with Star. He was also made an honorary citizen of the city of Kraków, Poland. The title of Honorary Doctor was bestowed upon him by the University of Poznań Medical School in 1997. His 60-plus-year career with PNA led him to a private meeting with Pope John Paul II, several humanitarian-related trips to Poland, and an appointment by United States President Bill Clinton to accompany Vice President Al Gore at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising anniversary ceremonies in Warsaw.

In reviewing this page, I see I left off: Cut many citations to ELs that were pay sites
...or that required a user id. Since most of these were to paid-access newspaper archives, the citation should have gone to the paper articles.sinneed (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I cut: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79636975.html This is a fee site, please remove.] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79636975.html This is a fee site, please remove.] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050323/ai_n13465475 Dead link] http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8350810_ITM Requires a user id, please remove.] http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8350810_ITM Requires a user id, please remove.] http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=109143F25A4B36A2&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM This is a fee site, please remove.] http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADHB&p_theme=adhb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ED0275A64405CE8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM This is a fee site, please remove.]

These were originally inserted with no titles or descriptions. I added the problems when I went to fact-check them.sinneed (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I missed the version with these refs cause had a very busy month. Actually, the rule is that as long as someone can access the source, even if they have to pay, it is allowable. However, in cases where it is more difficult - like a paid site or an obscure book, one can ask for specific quotes (in the text of the article or inside the reference), especially about any negative information or possible strong POVs. Also, such references should be complete with author, title, source spelled out in the reference, date so that people can search for alternate sites that the relevant article might be featured on.  Sometimes there are such sites.
 * If the person who originally put those refs in wants to do that work, that referenced material certainly would be more acceptable. :Remember that every factoid or group of factoids in each paragraph needs a source, even if that source mentioned in previous paragraphs. Use <:ref name="Source"> for repeatedly used references.)
 * Also, that editor should not just include the negative information. And all the material of the early version on how great the last leader of the group was is pretty much irrelevant. One or two sentences on the differences between them is more than sufficient. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking above, I see foreign sources also were deleted. Coincidentally regarding another article I put up a query on this today on the WP:BLP talk page. Should translations of such sources be used for BLP, esp. if information is negative?  I'm ambivalent, since sometimes I might want to use the dirt myself on someone :-)  So we'll see what they say. Otherwise the WP:BLPN noticeboard would be the place to ask about those sources on Moskal. (And then according to WP:V you still need the Polish sentence(s) in the footnote so others can double check the translation; so it should be limited information from the article, the more neutral the better.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has become a joke
CarolMooredc, Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic, what you have done is reduce the article to nothing. Don't be fooled Sinneed, this is a POV pusher who has effectively removed most of the true and widely written about aspects about Moskal out of the article, they are subjectively negative, Moskal saw them as positive. Moskal was quoted in Wprost magazine saying in 1998: "Jeśli ktoś nazywa mnie antysemitą, noszę tę etykietkę z dumą", translated: "When someone calls me an antisemite I wear that charge as a badge of honor". So to Moskal himself, what CarolMoore is stating is a Negative POV was actually a badge of honor for this man, he didn't hide from it because he believed in what he preached and didn't care that it was making him a political pariah. Then to state that maybe this man was possibly not notable is a joke in itself. CarolMoore's threats clearly show that she has a need to keep facts hidden, maybe she's a family member embarrassed by what this man stood for, but Wikipedia should be objective, the current article is not.--Milicz (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, what BLP violations did you speak of Carol? Moskal is dead. --Milicz (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidently you did not read my comments above about NOT seeing the refs someone put in before they were taken out. I provide typical wikipedia guidelines for proper referencing with the references. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But you cut out anything of interest about the man, who cares when he was born or when he died, what did the guy do that makes him notable? That stuff is missing, and the article in its current form now has little value to anybody interested in learning about the guy.--Milicz (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is to publish only SOURCED information, not just things people say are interesting and true. Please see wikipedia policies on WP:original research, WP:reliable source. Persisting in violating wikipedia policies and defending those violations is not good wikipedia editing. If you know that information is true, and it is WP:Notable enough to be published by a reliable source, put it in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of pointing me to Wikipedia polciies maybe you should read up on them yourself since you keep misconstruing them, you first claimed BLP violations, ignoring that Moskal is not a living person. Remember this was the basis for your unneeded and unwanted mass deletions.  Next you made a ridiculous claim of notability, which you are again repeating, and which means you have little understanding of the notability guideline to begin with.  You keep violating WP:LEGAL by bringing up spurious claims of the possibility of defamation suits, violating WP:DIS by engaging in "disruptive cite-tagging" and by not engaging in consensus building, but rather wholesale deleting without assuming good faith.  You continually violate Disputed statement by not taking the time to verify a disputed statement, but rather by outright deleting it.  Most importantly I think you are violating the most important Wikipedia guideline of all, Be bold, you should add revise and edit articles to make them better, instead your action seems predicated on fear WP:LEGAL and a policy that does not apply to those no longer amongst the living WP:BLP.  You have done nothing constructive for this article, do some WORK on it or move on.--Milicz (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for getting busy and not noticing that I'd somehow unwatched the article when all that recent sourced editing was going on. I only noticed in talk that foreign language sources had been deleted, not knowing that evidently English ones also had been. Since another editor had deleted them all, I actually was supporting your position that they were adequate refs, if correctly used.
 * I also explained my misreading of the BLP part of the policy in my putting up a BLP tag which I immediately took down. And again it could be that Illinois has a defamation of the dead law - I don't know. But the bottom line is that Blp reads: In the case of deceased individuals, material must still comply with all wikipedia policies and prompt removal of questionable material is proper.
 * It is obvious you have far more interest in this than I do and would do a better job of fixing up your own referenced material. It's a better use of your time than complaining about issues I've responded to several times already. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The material was not questionable, it needed a source that was not a paysite. In any case, I did try to find sources, they're all archived on the web and I don't have the time to travel to my local library to find the originals.  The archived articles supported all of the deleted facts.  Without the facts in the article, since they've been removed, no one else will bother to find the sources which are available, hence we're left with a non-encyclopedic whitewash.  Once again, defamation is a real reach when we're dealing with a public individual who wore his largest criticism proudly on his sleeve and never bothered suing anyone who leveled the criticism's on him while he was living e.g. The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, Gazeta Wyborcza, Wprost, Newsweek Polska etc. while he was alive.  The original article was based on a lengthy biography written of Moskal in the Siec Newsletter distributed by Dr. Michael Szporer --Milicz (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to earlier version, still needs lots of sources
Ok, since I made changes without noticing all the work that had been done, I reverted back to the version just before all the fee refs were removed and then updated subsequent smaller changes. I might take a look for any other highly questionable unsourced info that should be deleted if not quickly sourced. Just remember the rule is that unsourced info can be removed and that poorly sourced info (like fee sites) can be easily challenged. So the person should try to clean those up per above, ie with better descriptions of article and actual quotes from article.

This rule I also found today here that I think applies since if you have to pay to read it, it makes it more difficult to read and therefore much more challengeable, as you saw it was challenged and removed: Citing_sources ''If your source is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unfindable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably findable (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context.'' CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carol, hopefully we'll get everything sourced quickly.--Milicz (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Concern over a ref I just added being possibly misleading.
"Under its first president, Karol Rozmarek, who was elected by the Congress, PAC was the Polish lobby, and this tradition was continued by his 1968 successor, Aloysius Mazewski."

I cited this to the history page of the PAC... it does not *explicitly* say the PAC was the lobby... it just says it lobbys (repeatedly). I am concerned this ref may be misleading... but for me it is a weak concern. I wanted to bring it here for easy visibility.sinneed (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I will rework this into 2 sentences, so the facts can be easily cited, and the inferences will be left unreferenced.sinneed (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edward Moskal. 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/20090521174301/http://www.polamcon.org/history/history1.htm to http://www.polamcon.org/history/history1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523211014/http://www.polamcon.org/history/history2.htm to http://www.polamcon.org/history/history2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081110092122/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_enforcer.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/rahm_emanuel_enforcer.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223003507/http://www.polamcon.org/ to http://www.polamcon.org/

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) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)