| Revision as of 20:01, 23 November 2020 editAdamwtw (talk | contribs)8 edits Adding a vote for version B with justification← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:29, 23 November 2020 edit undoGizzyCatBella (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,604 edits →VoteTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ===Vote=== | ===Vote=== | ||
| * '''A''', because it uses 3rd party reliable sources. Wolniewicz was a far-right media personality and his writings are filled with oddities and bigotry. Wolniewicz's own writing is not neutral. ] (]) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC) | * '''A''', because it uses 3rd party reliable sources. Wolniewicz was a far-right media personality and his writings are filled with oddities and bigotry. Wolniewicz's own writing is not neutral. ] (]) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)<--- <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | ||
| * '''B''', because it is much more comprehensive and a better basis for further work. That version provides a rich biography, bibliography, and an overview of Wolniewicz's scientific work, in the fields of logic, philosophy and theology. While his most recent public appearances have attracted in some cases media interest, the article shouldn't focus on that aspect alone; Wolniewicz's main contributions are present in his writings, books and essays. It's true that some mainstream media have described that Wolniewicz's work *might* be viewed as e.g. islamophobic, it doesn't mean that it an encyclopaedic entry should state as a fact that Wolniewicz was islamphobic - these are different things. It should be noted, that such opinions have been formed, but again, this is an opinion, and the focus here should be on facts. Moreover, the choice of sources is quite one-sided, so whichever version gets chosen, this should be amended as well. If we allow left-wing media to be included, the same rules should apply to right-wing media as well. I'm not saying that the article in version B is perfect - for sure, more material presenting how Wolniewicz's work has been received and more on his public activities from 2000 onwards can be added. ] (]) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC) | * '''B''', because it is much more comprehensive and a better basis for further work. That version provides a rich biography, bibliography, and an overview of Wolniewicz's scientific work, in the fields of logic, philosophy and theology. While his most recent public appearances have attracted in some cases media interest, the article shouldn't focus on that aspect alone; Wolniewicz's main contributions are present in his writings, books and essays. It's true that some mainstream media have described that Wolniewicz's work *might* be viewed as e.g. islamophobic, it doesn't mean that it an encyclopaedic entry should state as a fact that Wolniewicz was islamphobic - these are different things. It should be noted, that such opinions have been formed, but again, this is an opinion, and the focus here should be on facts. Moreover, the choice of sources is quite one-sided, so whichever version gets chosen, this should be amended as well. If we allow left-wing media to be included, the same rules should apply to right-wing media as well. I'm not saying that the article in version B is perfect - for sure, more material presenting how Wolniewicz's work has been received and more on his public activities from 2000 onwards can be added. ] (]) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| * '''B''' - Obviously, entirely well-sourced B. PS - Alexia<--- <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>, have been edit warring (see edit history of this page) with multiple editors to push their deficient in my opinion (but not only mine) variant for months. Since February 2020, to be exact, and reverted another editor AGAIN just now. Thank you. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:29, 23 November 2020
 | Poland C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Biography C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Homophobic Racist Anti-feminist
Wolniewicz was known for being a racist-homophobic radio personality. Sources tell this: , page 98, . He was a radio personality for 20 years on the far right bigoted Radio Maryja: . Most of the article has no sources and looks like it was written by a fan.Alexia Bold (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In obituaries:
1. Gazeta Wrocławska, wiadomosci: Polish: " Słynął z kontrowersyjnych poglądów m.in. na temat transplantacji i feminizmu, który uważał za sprzeczny z naturą. Jego poglądy często uznawane były za antysemickie i islamofobiczne." English: " He was famous for controversial views, including on transplantation and feminism, which he considered to be contrary to nature. His views were often considered anti-Semitic and Islamophobic."
2. Gazeta Wyborcza: Polish: "Jego kontrowersyjne poglądy były trudne do zaakceptowania nie tylko przez jego przeciwników, ale również w środowisku, w którym się obracał ..." English: "His controversial views were difficult to accept not only by his opponents, but also in the environment in which he turned". Covers specifics like antisemitism and preaching the sinking of immigrant boats.
3. Rzeczpospolita: Polish: "Poglądy Wolniewicza budziły kontrowersje. Miał wyjątkowo radykalny niechętny stosunek do transplantacji ... Jego poglądy często uznawane były za antysemickie i islamofobiczne". English: "Wolniewicz's views were controversial. He had an extremely radical reluctance to transplant ... His views were often considered anti-Semitic and Islamophobic". Covers specifics. .
Most of the space in the obituaries is on the radical views. An extremist on the radio and TV. An extremist on YouTube.Alexia Bold (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Content sourced to Wolniewicz's book
Wolniewicz was a far right troll, this is the way he is covered in reliable sources. Lately, large blocks of fawning supportive content based on original synthesis of Wolniewicz's screeds was added to the article. This has to go. Alexia Bold (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- ”far right troll” eh? - I tagged NPOV this article for now. Someone should look at it more closely - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Concur, content from Wolniewicz's own book is not good.--SalutV (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Commentary instead of facts
The material presented below is purely subjective and contains a specific view of assessment of Wolniewicz's views, instead of focusing on facts, which would allow the reader to form an opinion of their own. Let's focus on improving the version of the article with much fuller factography, and which puts an emphasis on Wolniewicz's academic work, instead of focusing only on the socially controversial issues, with a single interpretation being presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwtw (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC: Use Wolniewicz own writings or 3rd party sources for article
 |
|
Which version should this article use:
A: , using reliable 3rd party sources
B: , using Wolniewicz's books and articles as sources.
Alexia Bold (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Vote
- A, because it uses 3rd party reliable sources. Wolniewicz was a far-right media personality and his writings are filled with oddities and bigotry. Wolniewicz's own writing is not neutral. Alexia Bold (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)<--- — Alexia Bold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- B, because it is much more comprehensive and a better basis for further work. That version provides a rich biography, bibliography, and an overview of Wolniewicz's scientific work, in the fields of logic, philosophy and theology. While his most recent public appearances have attracted in some cases media interest, the article shouldn't focus on that aspect alone; Wolniewicz's main contributions are present in his writings, books and essays. It's true that some mainstream media have described that Wolniewicz's work *might* be viewed as e.g. islamophobic, it doesn't mean that it an encyclopaedic entry should state as a fact that Wolniewicz was islamphobic - these are different things. It should be noted, that such opinions have been formed, but again, this is an opinion, and the focus here should be on facts. Moreover, the choice of sources is quite one-sided, so whichever version gets chosen, this should be amended as well. If we allow left-wing media to be included, the same rules should apply to right-wing media as well. I'm not saying that the article in version B is perfect - for sure, more material presenting how Wolniewicz's work has been received and more on his public activities from 2000 onwards can be added. Adamwtw (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- B - Obviously, entirely well-sourced B. PS - Alexia<--- — Alexia Bold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , have been edit warring (see edit history of this page) with multiple editors to push their deficient in my opinion (but not only mine) variant for months. Since February 2020, to be exact, and reverted another editor AGAIN just now. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)