Talk:Ełk riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

Are we sure this passes Wikipedia:Notability (events)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - even if we completely ignore Polish media. Wide international coverage during the event. A full profile-piece (2,700 words) in NRC Handelsblad a year after the event. Three separate academic journal articles that devote significant space to this (in 2 - the entire article, in 1 - around 50% of the article). This is well beyond the sources required for WP:NEVENT - and this is just from sources presently in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This indeed doesn't seem to be notable, zero results for "Elk riots" on google.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A minor event in a small town. Reported by news in Poland during the murder back in 2017. No coverage in years until sentencing of the suspect in 2019. WP:NOTNEWS and does not pass the WP:10YEARTEST This article should be deleted. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
False assertion. Covered in NRC Handelsblad - a paper of record - a year after events. Article has 3 academic journal articles treating this as a topic. Also was not local - imternational coverage and anti-Muslim attacks throughput Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This notability guideline for events reflects the consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. DON'T REMOVE TAGS WITHOUT REACHING CONSENSUS TO DO SO, ICEWHIZ. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tags should only be placed based on a policy rationale. Your assertion that there is no coverage "until sentencing" has been refuted. This event clearly passes WP:NEVENT, and specifically here are WP:THREE+1 sources that refute your claim:
  1. The radicalisation of the anti-muslim and antimigrant discourse in the social media on the example of local incidents in Ełk in 2016 and 2017 - 12 page academic journal article on the incident in Elk (mainly the 2017 ones). published in 2019.
  2. The presence of Muslims and immigrants in Polish public discourse on the example of reports press regarding events in Ełk at the turn of 2016 and 2017 - 18 page academic journal article on the incidents in Elk. Published in 2018.
  3. [1] - a 2,700 word piece in NRC Handelsblad (paper of record in the Netherlands)- published at the end of 2017 - a year after the events.
  4. Drinking vodka with anti-Semites. A case study of ‘Polish-Jewish relations’ today - 23 page article dedicated to analyzing two events - "This text analyzes the events that occurred between December 31, 2016 and January 6, 2017, namely the ‘scandal’ at the Café Foksal pub in Warsaw and its ramifications, as well as the simultaneous attacks on the Prince Kebab shop in Ełk. - one of the two events is the attacks in Ełk.
As I have provided WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of an WP:INDEPTH nature in reliable independent secondary sources - I am removing the tag, as these sources refute your assertions that this "Reported by news in Poland during the murder back in 2017. No coverage in years until sentencing of the suspect in 2019.". I will also note your assertion that this is Polish news is false - the BBC (as well as a slew of other international outlets) is not Polish. If you seek to restore the tag - please provide a policy based rationale. Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICEWHIZ has three editors questioning the notability of this article and doubting the basis for this particular piece. Despite the fact that the issue has not been adequately addressed and resolved, ICEWHIZ removed the customary tag twice [2],[3]. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC) See also "Did you know" self-nomination few hours after article creation [4]. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No - we have two editors. One editor says he found nothing in google. Another editor says this was only "Reported by news in Poland during the murder back in 2017. No coverage in years until sentencing of the suspect in 2019". Both statements were completely refuted by sources provide above (diff). Do you have anything concrete to say on the provided sources? Your assertion this was only covered by "news in Poland" has been demonstrated to be false. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the cited sources, particularly academic coverage, convinces me this is a notable topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean also that it's so notable to be DYK?Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella - restored the notability tag. GizzyCatBella please explain how a topic with multiple academic journal articles (published well after the event), national and international level coverage after the event (e.g. NRC Handelsblad a year later) - is not notable. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because of the DYK nomination, which I am reviewing now. GizzyCatBella, Xx236, MyMoloboaccount, I propose that any of you who question the notability of the article start an AfD procedure. This way, many editors can give their opinion, arguments can be systematically listed and reviewed, and the unclear status of the article can be resolved, allowing nomination for DYK—or deletion, for that matter.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say something substantially similar because I removed the Notability tag. I'd also like to suggest that this be taken to AFD if concerns are that serious (Please ping me if so). Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information about Kaczynski[edit]

Kaczynski didn't say that about about Muslims but about refugees in general, without pointing out any religion[5]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NRC Handelsblad disagrees. As do several other sources. The refugees in question were Muslim. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Pickel, Gert, and Cemal Öztürk. "Islamophobia Without Muslims? The “Contact Hypothesis” as an Explanation for Anti-Muslim Attitudes–Eastern European Societies in a Comparative Perspective." Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 12.2 (2018): 162-191. (source unrelated to Elk) - "Furthermore, Kaczyński regarded Muslims as a ‘menace for public health’ as immigrants come along with diseases and parasites" - so NRC's parsing here is far from unusual. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is precisely what Kaczyński said regarding diseases and refuges (video link:[6]) "In Europe, there are symptoms of the emergence of hazardous and long-unseen diseases; the minister of health should comment on refugees." (Polish: W Europie są objawy pojawienia się bardzo niebezpiecznych i dawno niewidzianych chorób w sprawie uchodźców powinien wypowiedzieć się minister zdrowia.) Despite the video link of Jaroslaw Kaczyński speech as proof what Kaczyński said, ICEWHIZ insists that Kaczyński said "Muslims carry diseases." Possible BLP rules [7] breach by ICEWHIZ. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Icewhiz says that a paper of record in the Netherlands (NRC Handelsblad) and a journal article (in the Journal of Nationalism) say so. It seems that WP:RSes in the field interpret and summarize Kaczyński's statements as referring, in fact, to Muslims. I provided an English language academic source - which is much stronger than a TVN24 video recording. Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz edited the article in a way that violates our verifiability policy; I did provide evidence that BLP did not say what Icewhiz claims (see my comment above). The sources Icewhiz introduced distort it, Icewhiz is aware of that by now.

I'm tagging this article for neutrality as well notability since there is no consensus for that either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. [8]

DON'T REMOVE TAGS WITHOUT RESOLVING ABOVE ISSUES [9] GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid ALL CAPS WRITING, and actually identify the neutrality and notability issues. A second academic journal support Kaczynski's statement has been provided above. As for notability (this clearly passes WP:NEVENT - you haven't, as of yet, identified nor addressed the sourcing provided (various academic journal articles - at quite some distance - including 2019 - from the event). Saying "no consensus" is not sufficient for a tag - you need to identify an issue based on Wikipedia's policies. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For good measure - Greenhill, Kelly M. "Open arms behind barred doors: fear, hypocrisy and policy schizophrenia in the European migration crisis." European Law Journal 22.3 (2016): 317-332. - an article cited some 73 times in an academic context (published in European Law Journal) has "For his part, Polish Law and Justice Party official and former Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski warned that Muslim refugees would bring parasites and diseases to the local population". And additional sources abound with this language. Looking are reporting of the original statement - e.g. GizzyCatBella's link to TVN24 ([10])) - it seems that the blurb GizzyCatBella is referring to was followed up by "To nie oznacza, żeby kogoś dyskryminować, ale sprawdzić trzeba - podkreślił prezes PiS. Pytał też, czy to prawda, że istnieją "jakieś porozumienia odnoszące się do sprowadzenia 100 tys. muzułmanów". -> " This does not mean discriminating against someone, but you need to check - emphasized the PiS president. He also asked if it was true that there were "any agreements regarding the bringing of 100,000 Muslims". So it seems unsurprising that subsequent WP:SCHOLARSHIP (and WP:NEWSORG) have summarized this as Muslims.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about language used[edit]

I'm here because of the DYK nomination. There are a few sentences which contains language which is not sufficiently neutral:

  1. On March 2016, a racist attack against the employees of Prince Kebab was staged by young locals. Please provide me with a source, regardless of language, which categorizes this attack as being racist in nature.
  2. football fans who are obsessed Not an encyclopedic tone. Rather, write strongly preoccupied or something like that.

Also, the following sentences are not specific enough, which may also affect neutrality:

  1. The leader of the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, Jarosław Kaczyński, had stated that Muslims carry diseases That in itself, is unclear. You mean to say he claimed Muslims are a danger for the health of the population?
  2. The Police did not intervene for several hours, watching as the crowd broke the shop's windows What was their motivation for this? Have they been asked?
  3. Polish media did not describe the event as racist or Islamophobic All Polish media?

These concerns need to be addressed in order for the DYK nomination to be passed. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answers:
  1. racist attack - source source (academic Uniwersyteckie Czasopismo Socjologiczne/Academic Journal of Sociology 22.1 (2019)) -says (in the English abstract) "In March 2016, a group of young people attacked employees of the kebab bar in Ełk. It was the racist attack." (the grammar error is in the source). The Polish language is - "W marcu 2016 r. grupa młodych ludzi dokonała, motywowanego rasizmem, napadu na pracowników ełckiego baru z kebabem." - "In March 2016, a group of young people raided the employees of the Ełk bar kebab, motivated by racism.".
  2. obsessed - diff - changed to preoccupied. Sounds better.
  3. Diseases Per Pickel, Gert, and Cemal Öztürk. "Islamophobia Without Muslims? The “Contact Hypothesis” as an Explanation for Anti-Muslim Attitudes–Eastern European Societies in a Comparative Perspective." Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 12.2 (2018): 162-191. (source unrelated to Elk, but it is an English language academic journal article) - "Furthermore, Kaczyński regarded Muslims as a ‘menace for public health’ as immigrants come along with diseases and parasites". NRC (the cited source) however doesn't contain public health, but I did expand (diff) to clarify.
  4. Police - I am unsure why they didn't intervene - the source does state they didn't intervene for several hours (and this allowed the disturbance around the shop to continue - so it is hard to omit). At the time reporting - e.g. Newsweek Poland also mentions this, but does not provide a reason or response.
  5. Source (journal article) - "The Polish media informed on the same New Year’s Eve that “a young Polish male was killed nearby a kebab shop in Ełk” (“Bardzo gorąco w Ełku. Wściekli ludzie demolują kebab po zabójstwie (VIDEO i ZDJĘCIA)”, 2017). The media referred to the alleged perpetrators of the killing as “Algerian,” “foreign,” “immigrants from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia,” “men of Arab origin,” and “an Algerian man with a Polish passport.”. However, I take your point it is unlikely this was all Polish media (there is some liberal media in Poland - e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza probably did not report this way) - and the author is probably making a general statement in regards to media in general (private and state run) - and the generalization (though present in the source) is probably not all-encompassing. See - diff which tones this down a bit.
@Farang Rak Tham: - any other issues and / or followup on these ? Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, the issues regarding neutrality are solved. Is the excerpt about public health in Pickel et al. and the excerpt in the NRC summarized from the same statement? If so, you should include the part about the menace for public health, it wouldn't be OR, and it shouldn't be left out.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same famous stmt. Added.Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid issues haven't been resolved, particularly false attribution of a quote to Jaroslaw Kaczynski and notability issue.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False attribution? This is sourced to NRC Handelsblad. And WP:V has been demonstrated via journal papers - [11] in Journal of Nationalism, and [12] in European Law Journal. These are 3 top-notch sources reporting more or less the same - are you challenging their reliability ? Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

Per Template:POV, please enumerate in this section any outstanding NPOV issues so that we might discuss them. So far - it seems the sole objection is a quote attributed to Kaczyński and sourced to NRC Handelsblad (further WP:Ved by [13] in Journal of Nationalism, and [14] in European Law Journal) - which are generally top-notch sources, so tagging based on this seems spurious. Any other issues? Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:SILENCE here, and a failure to comply with instructions Template:POV#When to use, I removed the tag. If you wish to reinstate the tag - please list your concerns in a clear and coherent manner here, using mainstream sources to support any factual assertion or dispute.Icewhiz (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I add this to a wrong category?[edit]

I added this article to the category [Riots and civil disorder in Poland], but it was removed from that category. Does it not belong there, and if not, why not? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ełk_riots&oldid=1207096777"