Talk:Uważam Rze

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=421934

TrangaBellam (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some attention, too; too many sources. On my to-do list. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michlic[edit]

This text: Joanna Michlic notes that Uważam Rze Historia served as one of the many venues where "right-wing ethno-nationalistic historians" promulgated an ahistorical view of Polish history esp. concerning Polish culpability in the Holocaust.[6] is not supported by the source.

There's nothing in the source of Uwazam Rze as "serving as a venue" for anything. Volunteer Marek 03:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each of Gross’s subsequent publications since Neighbors met with the same reaction on the part of right-wing ethno-nationalistic historians and politicians: highly emotive and sinister attempts to counterbalance the ‘dark history’ by underscoring the ‘feel-good, light history [...] Lisicki’s article and his book are part of ‘a sinister, total ideological war’ against Gross’s Neighbors and other studies revealing the dark aspects of Polish past, as well as against the Western understanding of the Holocaust in the context of twentieth-century European history. This war is conducted in a variety of ways, with history treated as a central battlefield and the right-wing interpretation promulgated: first, new practices of history-writing have been introduced, in addition to the dissemination of ‘monumental and uncritical’ patriotism in state institutions, such as the IPN under the new chairmanship of Szarek and by individual historians representing a right-wing ethno-nationalistic vision of the collective past in the press. [Footnote 37: See, for example, [..], the monthlies Historia doRzeczy, Uwazam ze, Wsieci, and Fronda.]

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:TrangaBellam I don't understand your edit summary here since obviously I *did* use the t/p. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the edit-summary field auto-completes, using previously used ones. I meant for you to see my reply which was being formulated at the t/p. Since, your assertion —There's nothing in the source of Uwazam Rze as "serving as a venue" for anything.— appears to be untrue. Obviously, you can contest my edit on grounds of DUE, etc., which are rather subjective criterion. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but again, the idea that it "served as a venue" is OR. The text is referring to "individual historians" and this magazine is only mentioned in... the footnote (again). I mean, Tom Cotton has published op-eds in the New York Times - but you can't say that "The New York Times served as one of the many venues where "right-wing politicians" promulgated ... whatever it is that Tom Cotton promulgates". We really shouldn't be writing articles on the basis of what's in footnotes. Volunteer Marek 08:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar X says:

ABC interpretation of history has been especially featured in press like Alpha, Beta, and Theta.

Your position is we cannot write in our article on Theta that it has served as a venue for propagation of ABC? Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say "has been especially featured in press". Volunteer Marek 16:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]