Talk:Glaukopis

To use
TrangaBellam (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 10.18318/td.2016.en.1.4

Polish version
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.
 * A one-line paragraph about an award by (arguably) the party-magazine of PiS.
 * A one-line paragraph about their EiC(s), probably quoted from their website.
 * A list of books published by the journal.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * That said, you can add the people who are affiliated to them and their previous EiCs. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam - You removed this tag without following Template:POV. Your personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. I’m kindly asking you to restore it. GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Refer to edit summary of the user who inserted the tag. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You suggest that edit-summaries are a way to discuss content? Fascinating. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam you created an article grossly unbalanced. (verification in edit history). Critisism only. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you find that there are reliable historians who admire Glaukopis, feel free to add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the discussion, I was writing my comment at the same time as yours and it was lost in an edit conflict, so I had to restart. Anyway, now we have a discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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&#124; reply here 15:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You do not remove the tag until this issue of WP:NPOV is resolved - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This speaks for itself - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please go on stonewalling. I am still waiting to hear the actual NPOV concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please explain what makes the added criticism due. Is in in-depth or passing? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You suggest that Jan Grabowski's criticism is in passing? Or, is this about Andreas Kahrs? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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&#124; reply here 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 have also added a couple of more sources including from the Gazeta Wyborcza, a newspaper of record in Poland. Will add content from them, soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ps. The addition of the history section addresses most of my concerns about this being composed solely of criticism so I removed the NPOV tag. @GizzyCatBella, are you ok with this? The source review does suggest that coverage of this publication, at least in English, is mostly critical. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&#124; reply here 16:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * The magazine has run covers with Francisco Franco, the Myślenice pogrom organizer Adam Doboszyński, pagan artist Stanisław Szukalski, and on the "horrors" of Freemasonry.
 * Which source supports that the mag has run covers on Adam Doboszyński or the "horrors" of Freemasonry? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * - 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”.
 * - 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;
 * „grozę masonerii” i „judeosceptycyzm”. ManoelWild (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting that the magazine had run articles on these stuff but did it publish cover on the "horrors" of Freemasonry, etc.? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Govt. of Poland
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)


 * Probably pl:Wykaz czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Magazine or journal?
This should be a slightly less controversial topic, but how do we refer to this? Magazine or journal? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Whichever the RSes use most to describe it, which I'm guessing is a Polish word? Levivich (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Does it claim to be a peer-reviewed academic 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)
 * @Randykitty See here. They do seem to have a peer review process. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)

RSNs
This may be of interest to people: Bottom line is: it is recommended not to use this as a source on Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_328 (Feb'21, no formal close, I'd interpret this as no consensus, I did not participate)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_400 (March'23, no formal close, I'd interpret this as generally unreliable/biased - well, that was my vote at least)