Jump to content

Talk:Ryszard Kapuściński

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

Tłumaczenie

[edit]

Ktos powinien przetlumaczyc ta wypowiedz o Kapuscinskim Salmana Rushdiego z Polski zeszlego roku (na rozdaniu Nike). "Jeden Kapuściński wart jest tysiąca skamlących i fantazjujących gryzipiórków. Dzięki jego niezwykłemu połączeniu reportażu i sztuki stajemy wreszcie tak blisko tego, co Kapuściński nazywa niedającym się przekazać prawdziwym obrazem wojny." Kowalmistrz 10:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zrobione. Ale pewnie ktoś to skasuje najbliższą edycją... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.160.228 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

[edit]

This article needs a serious reworking. The IP editor who is singlehandedly responsible for it chose to disperse the biographical details, critical reception, and later evaluation throughout the article, spread over sections whose titles do not conform to the MOS and are more poetic than anything. Moreover, the article is larded with quotes (and I've begun trimming them), with needless biographical detail of people who are cited, and with redundant coding (such as piped links whose only function is to add no-break spaces--and those are found all over the place, esp. where they are not needed). The tone also is not very encyclopedic. This article needs help, probably more than I can give it. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Totally agree. It should be trimmed by half and their are POV issues, anecdotes, repetitions, just a mess. Not to mention bizarre words like "expatiate" and "oppugn".Zavtrakat (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

This section needs serious discussion. There are statements which simply are not supported by sources, ie. claim that current reception of Kapuscinski work is negative in Poland, statement which is really not true. Kapuscinski is being read in schools and is in high esteem. Criticism of his work is often political, as he was an influential person throught his life. Right-leaning critics are very harsh on him, but this in no way may be regarded as consensus or summarize his achievements. I think we need to keep this section, but edit it in a way to put things in perspective and avoid generalizations currently clearly visible in wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.145.61 (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. This article reads more like a political hit piece than an encyclopedia article. Very low quality. The Polish version doesn't have any of these "controversies" and neither does the French version. Hendrixski (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's been criticized sometimes after his death, especially in English-speaking countries, for condensing and rephrasing some of the stuff he presented as oral history (e.g. the incredibly stylish, laconic, dry-as-ice remíniscences in The Emperor) but I suggest that's due to a misunderstanding/belittling of his craft. Most people who read his work with some literary experience would have understood that he was not just doing raw verbatim transcripts, and most ordinary journalists actually condense and rearrange their interiew quotes some of the time to achieve greater cogency, greater punch. Kapuscinski was not writing for tabloid readers, he aimed at an audience with more literary understanding, though he was also a superb journalist, and the liberties he took with his material are essentially no different from how people like Norman Mailer or John Pilger - or many ordinary newspaper and magazine reporters - have been handling their documentary spoken material. The stories and tone of "The Emperor" are given in an idealized, layered version of what his interviewees would have said. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever one thinks of the criticisms of Kapuściński's truthfulness and concern for accuracy, the existence of the controversy should be noted in the article, even if only to dismiss the accusations that have been levelled against him (if they can indeed be refuted). What Kapuściński is accused of goes far beyond (say) the reshaping and merging of conversations for literary effect.

Two critical articles: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2007/01/the_lies_of_ryszard_kapuciski.html

http://www.richardwebster.net/johnryle.html

Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Accuracy of reportage controversy reversion

[edit]

I have reverted the deletion of the section covering this aspect of Kapuscinski's work, as it was widely reported at the time and continues to be a matter of controversy (eg the recent court cases). The section is fully referenced to independent sources. The deletion, and resulting tone of the article, suggests hagiographic/POV editing.Robma (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reverted this, and will take to arbitration if it is reverted a third time. The issue covered has been widely reported by disinterested parties, thus justifying inclusion, and makes clear - with references - that it is disputed by others. Robma (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author: Artur Domosławski. Title: Kapuściński non-fiction. Publisher: Wydawnictwo Świat Książki. ISBN 978-83-247-1906-8. In Polish Wikipedia, stand-alone article: pl:Kapuściński non-fiction. Western commentators seem to have no access to original book by Domosławski, who's a subject of similar controversy regarding the use of anonymous sources, and his court-case, no less. This needs to be approached with caution, without going into Western claims verging on the absurd. Poeticbent talk 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. Please don't feel bad User talk:Wen D House about my removal of your (poorly placed) section about the book controversy. Your paragraph was not salvageable because of the way it was written. It was based on attack pieces produced by hack-writers who don't even know the name of the book writer (i.e. Artur Domosławski) and cannot spell his name. They do not count. The relevant information can be rewritten based on reliable (non-partisan) third party sources, and placed here, on the talk page first, for possible further discussion. It's not the end of the world, Poeticbent talk 22:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks v much for this. When I began editing this page to include the various (independent) sources for controversy, the somewhat hagiographic tone of the entry and POV attacks on those who contribute made me wonder if it was stalked by trolls. I've learned my lesson. Robma (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info about the final court verdict from August 2010 (Maisner vs Domoslawski). http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/218696,Kapuscinski-daughter-loses-case-against-her-fathers-biographer- I do not know how to add it to references list. Titus Atomicus (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of biographical detail

[edit]

As an Englishman who has been living in Poland since 2002 I first started reading Kapuscinski this year - 2015 - after my Polish wife recommended him (she lent me The Emperor in English whilst reading Travels with Herodotus), and I am absolutely stunned by how good his writing his. I started off with The Emperor, then moved on to Shah of Shahs and am now reading Imperium before I move onto Travels with Herodotus and The Soccer War.

His writing is superlative - on a par, in my opinion, with George Orwell's in terms of its thematic range and style (as well as Jack London and Upton Sinclair). I read this Wiki article to find out more about his life and was rather disappointed since it seems to me more of a chronological narrative of what he was doing when. I think it needs to include a lot more personal detail about this incredible writer. I know there is a biography written about him that has been translated into English - 'Ryszard Kapuściński: A Life' by Artur Domosławski - and I will take a look at this once I have finished with his books. Ivankinsman (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews of Domoslawski book: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/02/ryszard-kapuscinski-biography-domoslawski-review http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/ryszard-kapuscinski-a-life-by-artur-domoslawski-trans-antonia-lloyd-jones-8053755.html Titus Atomicus (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ryszard Kapuściński. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact / fiction

[edit]

I've just added about six citations to support the content on the verifiable debate on K's allegory versus his empiricism. Clearly the lead needs further adjusting to support the content lower down. The undiluted praise at the top reads like advertising rather than encyclopedia. I'll step back and see if someone else can chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @Chumchum7: If you want feedback, here's what I think. The source you quote looks like an attack page. Slate.com is described as 'number two' among "the top 12 most EVIL news publications in America" or that: "Slate makes FALSE CLAIMS" according to others.[1][2] This is not a good sign. If you want to form an informed opinion, you need to go back all the way to the original criticism which might have inspired these attack pages. I suggest you read the 16-year-old book review titled "At play in the bush of ghosts" by John Ryle originally published at Times Literary Supplement as “Tales of Mythical Africa”, 27 July 2001, regarding: Ryszard Kapuściński, The Shadow of the Sun, translated by Klara Glowczewska, 336 pp, Penguin, 2001. See: Reprint of the review in full. Poeticbent talk 23:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Poeticbent and thank you for your comment. Perhaps you might recall we had friendly cooperation many years ago on other articles. I'm open to discussion about whether Slate has been ruled by Wikipedia as not a reliable source, though I'm not sure what you mean about Slate being an attack page; sure, it provides a counter-thesis but it does this by using testimony and evidence, and includes praise for Mr K. Also it's not the source that my additions rely on. I've actually cited around six sources which themselves cite further sources. I've also already used the citation that you've linked, which sourced the Times Literary Supplement through another source, if you have time to look again through my citations (it's number 10 in the article). I've also cited the Guardian, the Financial Times and several reputable commentators including the former chief of the Nobel Prize for Literature committee. As it happens we should add Kapuściński's own description of his work as not conforming to the conventions of journalism. By Kapuściński's very own account, it's something like 'literary journalism' containing magical realism or allegory with a relaxed attitude to fact. There are people who dislike that, there are people who like that. Including it all is the encyclopedic thing to do. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chumchum7, the difference between an attack page and a page of justified criticism is actually very easy to tell if you know what you're looking for. It is a difference between saying: "you have erred here and there", and saying: "you're a liar (no proof necessary)." The article in Slate.com is making a mountain out of a molehill without any specifics, whatsoever. It mentions a single 2001 source I've just given you. Please read it. The source speaks of a single book (!) with some valid points but also a few unnecessary exaggerations with pretty thin source-base. Poeticbent talk 14:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a misunderstanding. To reiterate, I had already added the 2001 source (the piece by John Ryle) as a citation in the article before you mentioned it on this Talk page. You're also asking me to read a source that I have already found and added myself, which of course I have already done. Shafer does not mention only a single source, he mentions about six sources praising Kapuściński, plus Kapuściński himself, plus the John Ryle source. I can see the point that he is seconding the allegation of an earlier source and adding his own views to it, but I don't see the rationale in WP policy terms for excluding the opinion of Jack Shafer while including the opinion of Timothy Garton Ash, Peter Englund, Neil Ascherson, Daniel Alarcón, Richard Bernstein, Bill Deedes, Philip Melling, Tiziano Terzani, Gabriel García Márquez, and Luis Sepúlveda - all of whose opinion is present in the article and most of whom do not go into extraordinary detail to support their opinion (in fact only Ryle does, as far as I can see). Wikipedia articles on authors tend to have a reception section, and this tends to be both negative and positive. Take our article for example on George Orwell - a proud democratic socialist who is criticized by a source for being "an enemy of the Left", which would make him turn in his grave. He is also criticized by another source as being "self-deluding." We include the opinion. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the text to conform with what I said about the tenets of the WP:BIO policy guideline in Wikipedia. Explaining it here would take a lot more unnecessary effort. My concerns were being overlooked amid the constant change of focus. At least now we can see what I meant exactly. Your feedback is highly appreciated. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You write, "My concerns were being overlooked amid the constant change of focus." Your concerns were not being overlooked, and there was not a constant change of focus. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about my conduct. I'm glad you've now edited the article, as I was having difficulty understanding you on the Talk page. By way of feedback, the new information should be in chronological order and therefore Ryle should come before the biographies. Also 'Controversy' isn't the right title because the first biographies were uncontroversial. There should be one 'Reception' section for the whole article, including praise, criticism, biography and controversy. Burying criticism at the bottom of the article is not policy.-Chumchum7 (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Note the accusation of 'vandalism' on this article from a newly generated, single-purpose account, WP:SPA, and the removal of sourced content by them: [3]. Given this very serious allegation, the removal of sourced content and the history of disagreements on this article, it may be time for an administrator to take a look at it, with a view to locking it. They can run an IP check on that SPA while they're at it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this entry has been pathological for some time now and requires attention.Robma (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

[edit]

I've fully protected this article for a week. Please use this time to try to reach agreement on the disputed matter. If you can't agree, consider opening an WP:RFC. Any attempt to portray Slate as as an 'evil news publication' will probably not be taken seriously on Wikipedia, but you can always ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the article

[edit]

Let's take a look at some best practices. The featured article on Ernest Hemingway has a far more biographical lede, with no comment on his merits as a writer apart from the mention of him winning the Nobel prize. I suggest we edit this lede accordingly, and move current content there down to some form of 'reception' section that will include all the praise as well as content about the 2001 Ryle essay, etc. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lede:

Ryszard Kapuściński (Polish: [ˈrɨʂart kapuɕˈt͡ɕiɲski] (About this sound listen); March 4, 1932 – January 23, 2007) was a Polish reporter, journalist, traveller, photographer, poet and writer. He received many awards and was considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Literature. His personal journals in book form attracted both praise and criticism for blurring the conventions of reportage with the allegory and magical realism of literature. He was the Communist-era Polish Press Agency’s (PAP’s) only correspondent in Africa during decolonization, and also worked in South America and Asia. Between 1956 and 1981 he reported on 27 revolutions and coups, until he was fired because of his support for the pro-democracy Solidarity movement in his native country. His notable works include Cesarz (1978; The Emperor, 1983), about the downfall of Ethiopian ruler Haile Selassie, also considered to be a satire of Communist Poland; Wojna futbolowa (1978; The Soccer War, 1991), an account of the 1969 conflict between Honduras and El Salvador; Szachinszach (1982; Shah of Shahs, 2006) about the the downfall of the last Shah of Persia and Heban (1998; The Shadow of the Sun, 2001), the story of his years in Africa.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ryszard Kapuściński. 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) 01:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ryszard Kapuściński. 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) 17:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryszard_Kapuściński&oldid=1194916582"