Talk:Polish American Congress

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.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007 note

I removed the unsupported claim that the Polish American Congress is "representing at least 10 million Americans of Polish descent and origin". 10 million is the most optimistic total number of all Americans who can trace any Polish ancestors within five generations - so even if all of them held membership in this organization (and its affiliates), that would still make it only at most 10 milion :-). In reality, the membership of this organization is limited to an older generation of activists and a small number of traditional ethnic businesses, which control the organization's agenda. Polish American Congress speaks only for itself and does not have any mechanisms to represent or even to gather opinions from the Polish American community at large. Nadau 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 January work and proposal to redirect the Eastern Mass division back to here.

I have added some links into the PAC site, and added a direct link in the ELs to the History section. Also added a flag for the lack of sources. I see many out there, but many are controversial and I am not going to try to pick among them, as I lack knowledge. I light-heartedly hope the article is better now than it was before. If not, my apologies. All the best! :)sinneed (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The Eastern Mass article has no information except its formation date... it had more (the sentence was a bit longer) before but it was all incorrect, referring to the national organization's size, founding date, etc., instead of the Eastern Mass information. I was able to correct the formation date. It does not seem to need a separate article. I will put in a redirect if no one objects over the next few days.sinneed (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bigotry Committee

I suggest deleting this section. Anyhow, it is not "bigotry" that is at stake, but "chauvinism", if anything. FYI, Michal Preisler, its organizer and an Auschwitz survivor, is worthy of another separate article: read his obituary here and in English here. Zezen (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Polish American Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Polish American 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PAC talking about PAC

In regards to diff - if we are to quote PAC funded studies about PAC or PAC district presidents writing about PAC - then stating the connection to PAC is required. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source here is an academic paper and the author is an academic. If the peer reviewers deemed the connection not problematic for a COI, neither should we. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The COI is clearly, and quite honestly, stated in Pienkos's article - in the first page. Journals can accept biased sources - and when they do - a relevant asterisk is usually very clearly displayed (as it is in the cited article). I would further generally question the independence of the Polish American Studies journal, which seems to be published by the Polish American Historical Association, from the Polish American Congress. One of the papers was read at the Polish National Catholic Church - which seems per the cited paper itself seems connected to PAC. Icewhiz (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it to WP:COIN if you like; as I said I don't see the need to attribute non-controversial statements like this beyond saying who said that. Being affiliated with PAC and talking about Polish-American sources is about as problematic as being affiliated with Yad Vashem and talking about Jewish history. If you think we should attribute each reference to Jewish topics for its writer or publication outlet association with YV, well... there's lot of attributing to do. Perhaps you should get started on it early? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COIN is for editors - not for cited sources who clearly disclose their own COI. Your comparison above is obscene - there is no issue with Yad Vashem writing on Jewish history - and your suggestion we should mark "Jewish topics" in a special manner should be struck forthwith (and how, pray tell, is Jewish history even relevant to PAC?). Should Yad Vashem (or a person associated with Yad Vashem) make a flattering comment about Yad Vashem - then yes - that should be clearly attributed, along with the connection to Yad Vashem (and the same goes for any other organization). In this particular case - you are citing a paper funded by PAC (Pienkos) and in the second instance (Blejwas) - the author was the president of the Connecticut District of the Polish American Congress. Neither source can be considered independent of PAC - in both instance we have PAC patting itself on the back. Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then use RSN. We don't attribute affiliations of authors of scholarly sources unless we are dealing with extreme cases and this does not appear to be the one here. The YV example is perfectly valid here, outside some people's holy cows treatment. If you prefer instead, consider this: should a Wikipedia editor who writes a peer reviewed paper about Wikipedia disclose in his or her academic paper they are a Wikipedia editor? Anyway, for now I suggest that you do the uncontroversial and helpful thing, i.e. add information about PAC affiliation to the biographies of the two academics we cite. I've even created one of them, so you just have to add the sources you found about their affiliation to their articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]