Talk:Tomasz Kamusella

Similar situation of Slavic speakers in Germany

Maybe its worth comparing: While Kamusella argues that the will of 60,000 persons, who indicated Silesian as their language of everyday communication in the Polish census of 2002, could not be disregarded in any democratic state , the people of the Sorbs or Sorabs are only approx. 40 000 in Germany. The Sorbs, a Slavic minority in Germany, speak Sorbic which has been declared an official language by the East German Government in 1949, and is today gleichwertig mit der Deutschen Sprache (= equivalent to the German language) by the law of the States of Brandenburg and Saxony.

I do not know if you think this could be mentioned, but it came to my mind when i saw the number of 60 000 and realized, it is quite a similar situation in the neighbouring country.

Pozdro

Piotr PeterBln (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC) blocked indefinitely for abusive comments, including legal threats.

Nothing about controversies?

Like this one: [1] Dr Tomasz Kamusella nie jest reprezentantem środowiska filologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego - uznała w czwartek rada Wydziału Filologicznego "Głoszone przez niego teorie nie mają nic wspólnego z prowadzonymi na uniwersytecie badaniami i są nam całkowicie obce" - czytamy w przesłanym nam stanowisku.

Rada wydała oświadczenie po tym, gdy wokół kontrowersyjnych treści zamieszczonych w "Glosariuszu regionalnym województwa opolskiego" autorstwa Kamuselli rozgorzała dyskusja.

Jak zapewnia dziekan Wydziału Filologicznego prof. Stanisław Kochman rada już wcześniej wytykała Kamuselli kontrowersyjne treści w jego publikacjach.. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism or Controversies?

This inadequate reaction, in breach of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and research, was caused by the inclusion in the Glossary Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego the information on the two differing interpretations of the status of the Polish western border, namely the Polish and Soviet interpretation and the interpretation of West German and the Western Allies.

Using unofficial channels Opole University and the Opole Region authorities had this Glossary banned from lending in the Polish National Library in Warsaw. In retrospect, this decision of applying censorship was found to be illegal and was reverted, see: http://www.nto.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120117/POWIAT01/461115347 ; http://www.nto.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120115/REGION/853367746.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Autobiography?

(Copied from my talk page, where talk posted the following missive) Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Tomasz Kamusella. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Poeticbent talk 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Poeticbent never explained what might led him to believe I am the scholar to whom the entry is devoted, neither did he provide a proof of it.

Furthermore, the Wikipedia's advice on such a possibility, among others, is as follows: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. " (see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons).

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Self-Publishing

(Copied from my talk page) --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (GMT) In the change introduced on 19:16, 24 March 2015‎ by User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,230 bytes) (-5,125)‎ . . (→‎Books in English: rmv reviews and self published), it is proposed that the titles deleted were of books that were self-published. I wonder if a proof could be given that it is indeed the fact, meaning that the books were self-published. Likewise, is there any guideline on not using book reviews as references commenting on this or that volume? I see, browsing that many Wikipedia biographies use book reviews in this way. User:Hyrdlak 11:10, 29 April 2015 (GMC)

Is there any Wikipedia guideline against taking note of self-published books? User:Hyrdlak 13:57, 23 August 2015 (GMC)

Deletions by Volunteer Marek

(Copied from my missives posted on Volunteer Marek's talk page) In the change introduced on 19:16, 24 March 2015‎ by User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,230 bytes) (-5,125)‎ . . (→‎Books in English: rmv reviews and self published), it is proposed that the titles deleted were of books that were self-published. I wonder if a proof could be given that it is indeed the fact, meaning that the books were self-published.

With regard to the above, it is quite a standard to provide the titles of all the books published by a scholar, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman.

Dear Volunteer Marek, I wonder why you chose to delete all book chapter and articles by T. Kamusella from this entry, while it appears quite a standard element of biographies of scholars, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Anders_Rudling.

Likewise, is there any guideline on not using book reviews as references commenting on this or that volume? I see, browsing that many Wikipedia biographies use book reviews in this way, also in the main body of the entry, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Fox.

And if you want an example of an article that makes the fullest use of all the aforementioned elements plus many others, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snje%C5%BEana_Kordi%C4%87.

Personally, I believe that articles on scholars and researchers should let Wikipedia readers to access the former's research. In this way Wikipedia functions as a portal to knowledge. Does it make sense to limit this portal, making it in a small hole through which one can hardly see anything.

Last but not least, why did you choose to bowdlerize the entry on T. Kamusella? There are many other biographies of scholars, which could be cut down to the size preferred by you. But is it the size preferred by other Wikipedia users, as well?

User:Hyrdlak 13:10, May 5, 2015 (GMC)

Dear Volunteer Marek,

I see that you persist in bowdlerizing this entry. I propose you take a minute and read through my reasons of undoing your changes. I would be happy to hear your arguments why you disagree with me, as long as they are supported by proofs. Otherwise, I propose to refer our disagreement to another editor. Regarding your latest May 18, 2015, please, feel free to point out and improve on any fragments that seem to be too resume-like to you. Don't bowdlerize this entry.

User:Hyrdlak 14:21, May 18, 2015 (GMC)

Encyclopedia is not a collection of resumes

(Copied from my talk page) First, Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance. For a very minor academic who barely passes the threshold of notability, the article in your version goes out of its way to promote him and his works. Only the most important books and articles should be listed. The article should not read like a resume or a CV, which it does now. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn or a similar site. Please don't remove the tag until the problem is addressed. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Test of Notability

Let us apply to T Kamusella the text of notability for academics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29):

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

>> Between 2001 and 2014 Kamusella published around ten books in Polish (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Ksi.C4.85.C5.BCki_w_j.C4.99zyku_polskim) and numerous articles (c 100) in English and Polish (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/tomaszkamusella/T%20Kamusella%20Full%20List%20of%20Publications%202012%20June.doc) on the history and present-day situation of the nation / national group / ethnic group of Silesians and their Silesian language. He was the first scholar to use the terms ‘Silesian language’ and the ‘Silesian nation’ as declared in the 2011 Polish census by 0.8 million people who consider themselves to be of this nation and by 0.5 million speaking this language (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesians and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_language). When it comes to learning about this nation / ethnic group of Silesians and their Silesian language, there is next to nothing about the subject in English apart T Kamusella’s works.

In addition see the information on T Kamusella’s numerous books in worldcat: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Kamusella%2C+Tomasz&qt=results_page#x0%253Abook-%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Aprintbook%2529%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Adigital%2529format.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the aforementioned information on T Kamusella’s Polish-language books and on his articles devoted to Silesian history and language. The information on the Polish-language books is still surviving in the entry on this scholar in the Polish Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Ksi.C4.85.C5.BCki_w_j.C4.99zyku_polskim), alongside some info on his edited volumes (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Redakcja_prac_zbiorowych_w_j.C4.99zyku_angielskim).

>> During the last decade T Kamusella researched, in a comparative and interdisciplinary manner, the politics of language and nationalism in modern central Europe. The results were published in the well-received The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, as proved by over 20 reviews published across the world.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the footnote with the reviews. Some can be still seen in the entry on T Kamusella in the Polish Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Kamusella#Ksi.C4.85.C5.BCki_w_j.C4.99zyku_angielskim) and at his university website (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/tomaszkamusella/T%20Kamusella%20Full%20List%20of%20Publications%202012%20June.doc).

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

>> T Kamusella is an elected fellow of the Royal Historical Society, as can be gleaned from p 1 in this document: http://royalhistsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RHS-Fellows-K.pdf quoted in the footnote surviving in the entry on T Kamusella in the Polish Wikipedia.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the footnote.

>> Since 2013, T Kamusella (as elected by the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies in the US) has been a member of the Committee of the Kulczycki Book Prize in Polish Studies, see: http://www.aseees.org/programs/aseees-prizes/kulczycki-book-prize-polish-studies. I decided not to bother with adding this information to the entry on T Kamusella, because Volunteer Marek is sure to delete it.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

>> T Kamusella is a Reader in Modern History at the University of St Andrews. The university is the best in Scotland, the third best in Britain and in the group of the world’s 100 best universities, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_St_Andrews#Rankings_and_reputation. The Oxbridge academic title of Reader (academic rank) is equal to that of professor at other universities, see the Overview section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader_%28academic_rank%29.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the information on the academic position of T Kamusella at the University of St Andrews, alongside the footnote leading to the university website of T Kamusella.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

>> T Kamusella is the founder and co-editor of the book series Nationalisms Across the Globe, in whose framework 16 volumes have been published so far, see: http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.ccc.seitenstruktur.detailseiten&seitentyp=series&pk=1579.

NB: At 19:12, 24 March 2015‎, talk removed the information on the series and T Kamusella’s involvement with it, alongside the footnote.

• Conclusion

On 18 May 2015, at the talk page of the entry on T Kamusella talk proposes that “Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance. For a very minor academic who barely passes the threshold of notability, the article in your version goes out of its way to promote him and his works.” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tomasz_Kamusella#Encyclopedia_is_not_a_collection_of_resumes).

>> In light of the aforementioned facts, a pattern appears, namely talk tends to delete all these pieces of information that unequivocally point out to the notability of T Kamusella as an academic. I am not sure why talk does this, but due to his observable involvement in writing and editing of entries on matters Polish, I may suggest that his personal dislike is the topic of the Silesian language and nation/ethnic group. Hence, any scholar doing research on these subjects, perhaps according to talk should be ‘cut down to size.’

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Comparisons

Comparisons are always fraught with the problem that people and their achievements are different and not always really comparable. talk proposes that “Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tomasz_Kamusella#Encyclopedia_is_not_a_collection_of_resumes). Well, when it comes to research on the multiethnic history and present of Upper Silesia, the Silesian and the Silesian language and to the comparative history of language politics and nationalisms in central Europe, Kamusella is a way better specialist on these subjects than Bauman or Rudling. Basically, the two latter scholars’ fields of research are different from Kamusella’s.

But by applying the Wikipedia test of notability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29), I agree that Zygmunt Bauman, a British and European doyen of sociology, aged 89, is more notable than Kamusella. I am not so sure in the case of Per Anders Rudling. According to his Wikipedia biography, Rudling published only one book, his overhauled doctoral dissertation. This information is reconfirmed by worldcat (see: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Rudling%2C+Per+Anders#%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Aprintbook%2529format).

According to worldcat, Rudling has published 23 articles (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ARudling%2C+Per+Anders.&qt=hot_author), while Kamusella at least 97 (http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Kamusella%2C+Tomasz&qt=results_page#x0%253Abook-%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Aprintbook%2529%2C%2528x0%253Abook%2Bx4%253Adigital%2529format).

Rudling has not been permanently employed at any university yet, let alone gained a tenured post. Furthermore, he is not an elected member of an important learned society, or an editor of a book series or periodical.

On this basis, though personally I disagree with such comparisons, I would propose that Rudling is a minor scholar in comparison with Kamusella. This test falsifies Volunteer Marek’s initial proposal that it is the other way around.

Hence, if Rudling’s all refereed articles published in journals and books in English, Russian, Ukrainian and Swedish are allowed, perhaps, the same should be allowed for the entry on T Kamusella.

One can also use en.wikipedia.org as a kind of metrics, and while references to P A Rudling’s works occur in 30 odd Wkipedia articles, the same is true for 70 odd Wikipedia articles in the case of T Kamusella.

At present the entry on P A Rudling amounts to 14,400 bytes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Per_Anders_Rudling&action=history), while that on T Kamusella to 7,500 bytes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history), bar the recent (19 June 2015) technical additions of 2,000 bytes. These additions are related to the introduction of the new format of bibliography and do not add anything to the radically parred down contents of this entry on T Kamusella.

Furthermore, in relation to the aforementioned entry on Snježana Kordić (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tomasz_Kamusella#Deletions_by_Volunteer_Marek), the work of this academic with several books under her belt is presented in a most exhaustive manner in the entry that amounts to staggering 84,200 bytes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snje%C5%BEana_Kordi%C4%87&action=history). No editor or user seems to be questioning this extensive manner adopted in this entry. I would say many readers looking for specialized information in her fields are really thankful for this in-depth treatment, which peoticbent and Volunteer Marek deny to the entry on T Kamusella.

In the case of the 6,300-word-long entry on Jo Fox 6,300(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Fox&action=history), a quarter of it is composed composed from reviews of her books. The reviews add to half of her published works featured in the entry. The reviews prove the notability of the scholar in her field, and no one is proposing to remove them.

In light of the above, the entry on T Kamusella seems to be treated by Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek in line with some other principles that govern the composition and maintenance of the entries on Jo Fox, Snježana Kordić or Per Anders Rudling. I am, not surprised it is so in the last case, as it is Poteicbent herself/himself who created this entro on 30 May 2014 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Per_Anders_Rudling&action=history). That the entries on Jo Fox and Snježana Kordić do not attract the heavy treatment at hands of Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek is perhaps caused by the fact that they do not deal neither with matters Silesian or Polish.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Vandalism and Threats

In light of above, Poeticbent’s and Volunteer Marek’s removals of vital pieces of information on T Kamusella’s scholarship, academic career and contributions to scholarship appear to be unsubstantiated and either ideologically motivated or malicious.

As can be observed at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history :

On 26 February 2015 and on 17 March 2015 Poeticbent talk removed almost 5,000 bytes of data fr4om the entry on T Kamusella. On 24 March 2015, s/he was swiftly followed by talk, who removed two-thirds of the remaining text of the entry on Kamusella, namely 11,800 bytes. S/he added the following remark: “encyclopedia article isn't a cv. Remove reviews and remove self-published works.”

But Volunteer Marek provided neither a proof that Kamusella’s books are self-published, nor a Wikipedia guideline advising against including self-published books in biographies of scholars.

On 20 April 2015, I tried to reinstate some of the deleted information, mostly on the deleted books and articles.

On the very same day of 20 April 2015, Volunteer Marek reverted my editions to her/his earlier draft of the entry.

On 17 May 2019, I reintroduced the unbowdlerized draft of this entry with the following remark addressed to Volunteer Marek: “I reintroduce the unbowdlerized version of this entry. The user Volunteer Marek regularly down-scaled it, on the basis of unsubstantiated claims. I wrote to him on my reservations, but so far have received no reply.”

The following day of 18 May 2015, Volunteer Marek reverted my editions to her/his earlier draft of the entry and remarked: “not a CV or job resume. List the most important works if you must but cut it out with the promotional material.”

On the same day of 18 May 2015, I undid Volunteer Marek’s changes and added the following remark: “Undoing recent changes. PS: Volunteer Marek, I propose than instead of repeatedly cutting the publications included with no reasons given, you may reply to my message on this entry.”

Also on 18 May 2015, I followed with a minor revision and wrote to Volunteer Marek: “Undoing recent revision. PS: To Volunteer Marek, feel free to point out and improve on any fragments that seem to be too resume-like to you. Don't bowdlerize this entry.”

On the very same day of 18 May 2015, Poeticbent reinstated Volunteer Marek’s version of this entry and remarked: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies.”

Poeticbent did not care to explain why he considers Volunteer Marek’s edit to be ‘expert.’ In light of the aforementioned Wikipedia test of notability as applied to T Kamusella’s work and in comparison with entries on other scholars, it appears that Volunteer Marek’s edit edit is anything but expert.

I sense that the ulterior motive is, first, to discourage me from editing this entry on T Kamusella. Second, to gradually downscale this entry and deprive it of references and supporting information. Third, the entry would be declared as insufficient. Fourth, the scholar in question would be declared as not notable. And finally, the entry would be primed for complete deletion. As a result, an important source of information on the history, culture and language of Poland’s 0.85 million Silesians would vanish.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Are Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek the Same User?

On 17 March 2015, at 19:26 Poeticbent talk proposed that the entry on T Kamusella should be changed or might be deleted (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyrdlak#Tomasz_Kamusella).

Exactly a week later, the deletion of the two-thirds of the original contents of the entry on T Kamusella was carried out by talk on 24 March 2015 between 19:12 and 19:24 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history).

After Volunteer Marek’s latest deletion of the reinstated sections in the entry on 18 May 2015 at 7:10, I reinstated it again at 13:13 – 13:15. Next, at 14:05 Poeticbent, parred down the entry in line with Volunteer Marek’s original deletion of 24 march 2015. In addition, Poeticbent wrote: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&action=history).

Poeticbent fails to explain why he consider Volunteer Marek’s deletion to be an ‘expert edit,’ and in order to reinforce his and Volunteer Marek’s stance on this deletion Poticbent threatens reporting the matter to AN/I. I guess he means Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Given Volunteer Marek’s and Poeticbent’s highly coordinated action to rid the entry on T Kamusella of essential and important pieces of information that make this entry relevant for readers and establish the notability of T Kamusella as a scholar, I suspect that Voluneer Marek and Poeticbent may be the very same user.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Possible Resolution

I have never received and replies from Poeticbent talk and talk to the questions I posed to them between March and May 2015. Whatever they wrote in answer was not supported by any arguments or explanations and in some cases sounded like a threat.

This approach is not conducive to objective and transparent discussion, which are the main values of the Wikipedia.

Thus, I propose other interested users and readers may have their say, alongside Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek. If I do not hear from anyone for three months (till 23 November 2015) or so, I will reinstate the original draft of the entry on T Kamusella. If then Poeticbent or Volunteer Marek will ‘expertly’ cut it down as they already did in the past, I will refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (GMT)

Slander?

Dear Volunteer Marek, I have just removed a bit hasty fragment with spelling and grammatical mistakes and just one reference. In this fragment you fail to explain even the gist of the matter (see the entry on the Glosariusz you are in the process of removing, namely, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki_Glosariusz_regionalny_Wojew%C3%B3dztwa_Opolskiego) and do not add on its aftermath, which turned out to be rather shameful for the Faculty of Philology. To help you with research, here are some articles in which you can find needed information:

• Co było w glosariuszu [What Could Be Read in the Glossary]. 2004. Gazeta Wyborcza (Opole Insert). 22 Oct. http://miasta.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,2352582.html.

• Pszon, Joanna. 2005. Kamusella nie naruszył racji stanu [Kamusella Did Not Breach the Polish Raison d’État] (p 1). Gazeta Wyborcza (Opole Insert). 17 Jan. http://miasta.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,2498609.html.

• Dr Kamusella nie obrażał [Dr Kamusella Did Not Offend]. 2005. Gazeta Wyborcza (Opole Insert). 19 Jan. http://miasta.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,2502511.html.

• Stanowisko Senatu Uniwersytetu Opolskiego w sprawie odwołania dr T Kamusella od treści stanowiska Rady Wydziału (pp 77-78). 2005. Indeks. Pismo Uniwesytetu Opolskiego. Nos 1-2 (57-58), Jan-Feb. http://www.uni.opole.pl/downclick.php?id=indeks5758

• Śląski męczennik. Tomasz Kamusella w opolskiej bibliotece Caritas [The Silesian Martyr: Tomasz Kamusella in the Caritas Library in Opole]. 2007. Schlesisches Wochenblatt. No 3, 19 Jan. Opole: TSKN.

I guess, objectivity is a value to which you aspire. So good luck with fact checking.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 23:25, Sept 4, 2015 (GMT)

If you see any grammatical mistakes in that sentence then please correct. I don't really see anything egregious (maybe somewhat sloppy style in referencing "methodological controversies"). I don't see any spelling mistakes either but hey, if you do find one, go ahead and correct.

As to "explaining the gist of the matter", the text follows the source and in fact gets right to the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

PS. I really like this one: " Śląski męczennik", Schlesisches Wochenblatt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Hyrdlak, the version here was slander. Gazeta Wyborcza is harsh towards these shenanigans by Opole politicians opposed to the German view that "Silesia was part of the eastern German lands under the temporary administration of Poland and the USSR 1945-1991" published in the glossary. The political opposition here was covered, and should be included as background if we include this press release that was motivated by it. Bob not snob (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

More Fodder for Thought for Poeticbent & Volunteer Marek

Dear Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek, you keep insisting to include the section of Opole University's 2004 announcement on T Kamusella and provide just one reference. As I suggest in the previous section this announcement was libelous, and I included some follow-up references on the matter to prove the point. Furthermore, did you check in the Glosariusz whether Kamusella wrote anything like that on the German-Polish border, which the single reference (wrongly) attributes to him and you uncritically repeat? And should you pursue the matter further, why not to refere to Kamusella's press replies to the groundless accusations, see: Interview with Tomasz Kamusella conducted by Mirosław Olszewski. 2005. Zostałem bezwzględnie potraktowany przez urząd i uczelnię [The Regional Authority and the University Denigrated me in an Arbitrary Manner] (p 6). Nowa Trybuna Opolska. 19 Jan.

• Kamusella w sprawie pamięci według SLD (p 2) [polemic: Kamusella on How the Governing Party SLD Commemorates the Onslaught of the Red Army into Oppeln]. 2005. Gazeta Wyborcza (Opole Insert). 27 Jan.
• Podwójne standardy [Double Standards] (p 2). 2005. Gazeta Wyborcza (Opole Insert). 15 Mar.
• Do dyskusji trzeba dwojga [polemic: It Takes Two to a Discussion] (p 81). 2005. Indeks. No 3-4, Mar.-Apr. Opole: University of Opole.
• Odpowiedź na oświadczenie prof prof Stanisława Senfta i Wiesława Drobka [polemic: A Reply to Prof Stanisław Senfta and Prof Wiesław Drobek’s Declaration] (pp 133-134). 2005. Śląsk Opolski. No 3. Opole, Poland: Instytut Śląski.

Good luck with your efforts to achieve more objectivity. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:04, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

Fake

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomasz_Kamusella&diff=921890481&oldid=921889536 the local Opole edition of Wyborcza does not have this quote. No "Polonophobia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.41.223 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's right there. I already quoted the relevant part in the edit summary. Here it is again: Ostro krytykowano braki metodologiczne, nieznajomość literatury przedmiotu, formułowanie tendencyjnych wniosków, wreszcie polonofobię. Volunteer Marek 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)