Talk:Bogusław Wolniewicz

Homophobic Racist Anti-feminist

Wolniewicz was known for being a racist-homophobic radio personality. Sources tell this: [1], page 98, [2]. He was a radio personality for 20 years on the far right bigoted Radio Maryja: [3]. 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." [4][5]

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. [6].

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: [7], using reliable 3rd party sources

B: [8], using Wolniewicz's books and articles as sources.

Alexia Bold (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC) <--- — Alexia Bold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Adamwtw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• B - Obviously, entirely well-sourced B. PS - Alexia<--- — Alexia Bold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , has been edit warring (see edit history of this page[9]) 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)
• B - this version is definitely better based (it contains more than 100 references). Of course, this is not a perfect version and some information could be added. Version A contains false information. You can easily check it, e.g. here is an article from the "reliable" source: https://www.wprost.pl/kraj/123449/Zydzi-atakuja.html, and here is a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlCjmYFk64E 3:17) that shows what Bogusław Wolniewicz really said. Moreover, it contains information not supported by any sources (especially about criticism of the EU), as well as only negative opinions about Bogusław Wolniewicz. Wolniewicz's publications are of course the best source for discussing his philosophical views - if not, please indicate better sources. But what could they ultimately be based on, if not Wolniewicz's publications? Mateusz154512 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)<--- — Mateusz154512 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Mateusz154512 You-tube can not be used as a source, I believe. Regardless of the outcome, it would be best if you still worked on this article. Your version, much better, however still needs more 3rd party reliable sources and additional work. I'll also note that you haven't edited any other articles besides this one, similarly to another account, thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• A, Wolniewicz was known for Holocaust denial, he was an antisemite who shouted in a packed church "The Jews are attacking us! We need to defend ourselves", he called for the sinking of boats with helpless immigrants to Europe, and compared transplantation to cannibalism. His obituaries ([10][11]) are almost entirely devoted to these positions and the controversy he caused. Using Wolniewicz himself as a source is out of the question, and A follows reliable independent sources.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Strike sock

@Astral Leap Thank you for noticing that Adamwtw appears to be also a single purpose account..hope they come to the agreement here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Astral Leap The first two are simply false. The third is taken out of context, and the fourth is true. What's in the obituaries should be reflected in an encyclopaedic article, but it's far from the full picture. Adamwtw (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither The question as it's posed is disingenuous and biased. Neither version meets encyclopedic standards for neutrality. Glendoremus (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Neither - B skips over all the ugly stuff Wolniewicz was known for during the past two decades, while A mostly omits his positive acomplishments. I think we should take B and add missing stuff from A. Trasz (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• :Trasz I see you your point that some of Wolniewicz's philosophical thought, his output before his final ugly two decades, should be in the article. However B is not a good basis for that as it is entirely based on Wolniewicz's own writing. I suggest taking A as a basis, and adding some of the material from B, but with better sources.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC) strike sock

  Hm, wasn't there a general Wikipedia rule about having to use "second-order sources" instead of primary ones? If so, then I agree. Trasz (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• B, Probably it is not the perfect version because of missing some information. However, it's better than A because it has more references & more comprehensive than A, which makes it more reliable. Rondolinda (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Use A, but add some of B. Wolniewicz is best known for the last two decades of his life, when he was a Radio Maryja personality. But Wolniewicz was also a philosopher during his career years, and his philosophical positions should also be covered, though with better sources. Nyx86 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC) strike sock
• Merge both and ensure that any content from the subject's works themselves is clearly attributed as such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly A, also use B. All references can be useful. Referring to some of the subject's works can make the article clearer for the reader. Championmin (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Whilst not a prolific contributor, I'm a prolific reader of Wikipedias. I noticed a while ago, that this article keeps changing back and forth. The old version is much better and should be taken as the basis. Is there really a rule that a philosopher's own writings cannot be cited when covering his philosophy? The problem with the long version really was that it was way too detailed for laymen (happens often on Wikipedia, and scares off readers. My proceedings on such cases are simply to switch between various language editions to find more concise versions with the essential information). Both the philosophy part as well as controversies should be treated in the article; all in all the "long version" was way superior and should be taken as the basis.Potugin (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Talk:Bogus?aw Wolniewicz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Bogus?aw Wolniewicz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Bogus?aw Wolniewicz until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)