Talk:Aleksander Wolszczan

Undue weight.

Per undue weight his loyalty signiature needs reduction. The man is a astronomer and not a politician, he was forced to follow a quite common procedure to sign loyalty before leaving the country. Wikipedia is not a tabloid news source so we don't need to have more about this common practive that now is being spreaded by newspapers as sensation then about his great achievements to science.--Molobo (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are creating your own history. He was not forced. It was not just loyalty, but regular cooperation. This is not tabloid news, as it was confirmed by the rector of N. Copernicus University.

Such information should be in a section "Biography". There is no such one, and we cannot put it in "Scientific career", however. That's why I've decided to create a section "Other facts", as these are facts of his life.

--Q (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolszczan admitted that he was not forced to sign anything and nobody put any pressure on him to cooperate. The agents were all very kind and didn't even suggest that he wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country without the signature. He was receiving remuneration for information provided to the agency, which proves that the information was important to SB. Sliwers (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid news can be confirmed by authorites. It does not make it newsworthy. As to claim that if somebody gets money his work is important is original research, they are tons of cases where it isn't true. Also why are discussing this tabloid news instead of his discoveries ?--Molobo (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight ? Controversy involving importance of a biographical fact ? Yes, but this is not a tabloid BS - there's historical evidence and the matter is not regarded as libellous by Wolszczan himself (you can tell if you've read his statement). Is really leaving out this part of his biography right ? Perhaps putting it in the proper context and perspective would be more correct by Wikipedia standards ? Kpjas (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed undue weight compared the lenght of the article in regards to his historic achievements. I am not for leaving it all out, but one sentence should be enough.--Molobo (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And the one sentence, in my opinion, does not deserve a separate section. Kpjas (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I added second sentence? Because it's true. Kij999 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is a new, fairly lengthy, English-language article in The Daily Collegian (Penn State campus newspaper). -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I am concerned that the section "Involvement with the SB" violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The way the section is currently worded advances the position of the far right politicians who are going after Wolszczan, rather than an unbiased point of view. The word `informer' in particular has a negative connotation, and the issue of payment is open to interpretation. More care should be taken to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't become a tool to advance the talking points for a particular political agenda, particularly if the information is defamatory.

I believe that the information included in this section is malicious and is unrelated to the reasons why Wolszczan is noteworthy enough to include in Wikipedia, so I am deleting the section. However, if the consensus is that this controversy is important enough to include, I have a few suggestions. 1. The phrase "had been a paid informer of" should be replaced with "was contacted by". 2. The section title should mention the controversy, possibly "SB Controversy". 3. The identities and political affiliations of those making the accusations should be mentioned, because this is essential to the context of the story. 4. A better reference should be included if possible.

Aitch naught (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the version that excludes the accusations of SB involvement since the previous version was problematic, but there has been no effort to address the NPOV problem. If you want to add this information again, it would be helpful for you to explain on the talk page how this can be done without violating NPOV, rather than starting a revert war. 128.118.150.64 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the article: prof. Wolszczan acknowledged himself that he had been a paid informer on TV, live after news magazine "Fakty" on TVN24 (see [1] or [2] if you speak Polish). He signed an agreement to work undercover for the agency and was paid for his work (not only are there bills, but he even confirmed it in the interview). Why would you like to remove information that is true and replace it with one that is incomplete? This story is not just a set of accusations - there are genuine documents archived at the Institute of National Remembrance and prof. Wolszczan confirmed all the accusations. Sliwers (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds notable to me, but I'm not super experienced in BLP. Endercase (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

note

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en/?id=28202628 -- please decrease similarity some more and cite. Endercase (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleksander Wolszczan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520111936/http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Wolszczan8-2007.htm to http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Wolszczan8-2007.htm

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) 12:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

works

gyuhjkhgfdretyuijklm,nvfdgset4567yuijkn,bmvgfdher435678ouijknbmvgfdswe4567yuiojklhgfdertyuioiuytrewertyuioiuytrewertyuil,mnbvcxzsertyujknbcxsetrfvbnhhgvoeinr gvpowtronir0oigpoewibvugpoeinrj[povm[mcnuvopbiguoiwerupyoiwveupn

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleksander Wolszczan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304060156/http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/rsolecki/aleksander_wolszczan.html to https://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/rsolecki/aleksander_wolszczan.html

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) 14:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)