Talk:Radio Maryja

Ksenon's sockpuppetry

Ksenon has now begun to edit as users 83.5.218.85 and 83.5.182.181 so that he doesn't get blocked again. This is against Wikipedia rules, it's sockpuppetry, and it is pathetic.--Milicz 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the editor was, your insinuations that Im pathetic break Wikipedia and, what's more, moral rules, so why dont you refrain from showing your indecency. I am not editing the article any longer as I respect Wikipedia rules, as can be witnessed in my editing history, so take your demagoguery somewhere else. Back on topic, Wikipedia is not a forum for political agendas, which you seem determined to force through, and which I can not allow, unless your determination to get me blocked comes to fruitition, reflecting your true adherence to the democratic spirit of Wikipedia. Your obvious POV is shameful and exposes Wikipedia's vulnerability. Im off- will be back tomorrow -bye. Ksenon 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the sockpuppet, and it is PATHETIC. The editing times clearly prove it. I have no political agenda yet YOU CLEARLY DO, and all you do is accuse. You never take any constructive criticism, you just delete and accuse and I'm sick of it. Take some responsibilty, take some criticism and try to include it into your version instead of deleting everything. Why don't you answer specific questions regarding the articles and your gross generalizations? Wikipedia spirit? I wish you had some.--Milicz 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relying on Nasz Dziennik and Trwam as legitimate sources

I just checked your sources Ksenon, Nasz Dziennik the often times controversial ultra-nationalistic Polish daily which also has overtones of anti-semitism [1] and which is closely tied in with Radio Maryja (Ewa Sołowiej, Rydzyk's close associate and former Radio Maryja Warsaw Burea chief)? Not a very objective source, and not one that a serious researcher or journalist would rely on. Trwam on the other hand is RUN by Rydzyk, the same guy that runs Radio Maryja! This reminds of the planted journalist in the White House press room. I didn't know about this stuff, as I said I don't have an interest in this apart from having truthful articles in Wikipedia. At least you haven't cited Szczerbiec.--Milicz 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milicz's POV version

He tries to put extraordinary emphasis on the radio's critics, something that was already in the article in a neutral form. Also see below for some. Oh, and the hate site you add is balances on copyright infringement. Also, see below for sources. You might want to check the Polish article out to see masterly NPOV balance. Cheers Ksenon 16:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting any extra emphasis on the radio's critics. You are pushing a clear POV, I am not, I don't have an agenda as you seem to think I have. You are trying to make Radio Maryja into a victim and you are removing my attempt to balance your UNCITED point of view, Radio Maryja may be a victim but to many critics it is not. I have no idea what your claim of copyright infringement is about since those sections are cited. I did check the Polish Article, I'm surprised you would bring it up since it includes a section called Debate over Radio Maryja, "W opinii krytyków, Radio Maryja żeruje na stereotypach, na ludzkiej ignorancji, niewiedzy, oraz na kompleksach ludzi niewykształconych. Krytycy twierdzą, że Radio Maryja w skrajny sposób propaguje antysemityzm i radykalną ksenofobię oraz skrajny konserwatyzm, szerzy informacje o istnieniu rzekomych ogólnoświatowych spisków masońskich i ukrytych knowań w wielu aspektach życia społeczno-politycznego Polski." and links to a seperate article[2] that goes far further than that, or what anyone else has written in the English language version when it comes to criticism. So why don't you take a dose of your own medicine, and why don't you edit instead of delete, works a lot better. --Milicz 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To try to claim that your version is a compromise is a real insult to the word compromise. You have not tried to appease anyone, you simply delete. Try to follow wikipedia rules and stop violating 3RR.--Milicz 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am following rules (one broken 3rr, needlessly sucked into a revert war, smartened up now), and I am not deleting, as anything you add is heavily biased and hyper-emphasised as if trying to prove a particular POV. Cheers Ksenon 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't emphasized anything, in fact I have inluded (and fixed up) your poorly written defense of Radio Maryja. You on the other hand claim that Radio Netherlands, Polityka and the BBC are hate sites, and you delete instead of edit. Therefore you're not very convincing.--Milicz 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you weren't blinded by your own POV, maybe you'd have noticed that I havent omitted any of those sites you mentioned (which are well-respected, unlike the trashy and copyright-violating sites youd like the reader to be redirected to), or is that a lousy attempt at a strawman argument? Judging by your edits, youd like to direct the reader to the "right" conclusion. That is not NPOV.

I think it's pointless for me to keep trying to bilateraly negotiate anything here. Ksenon 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a POV on this matter Ksenon, unlike you. You ignore the Polish article that you brought up, and I just now realized that you're claiming the Stephen Roth site to be the trashy site, if that is the case then you should be ashamed of yourself. If it's not I apologize, but I have no idea what other cites you're referring to.--Milicz 16:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenon's undiscussed changes

If we allow such absolute swill to fill the pages of Wikipedia then God help us all. This article should be locked in its current state.--Milicz 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an unsubstantiated attack. Please lock this article before Ksenon reduces it to poorly worded Maryja propoganda again. --Milicz 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenon, please stop reverting the page, if you want a critics section and a counter-criticism section, fine, but all you do is delete.--Milicz 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a counter-criticism section which is far more POV then anything in the critics section, now stop reverting. Your point of view, BTW is not neutral, it is anything but. --Milicz 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already were references to it in the article, but specifically and emphatically accusing the radio of systematic anti-semitism is smear. Ksenon 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section is about controversies surrounding the station, the controversies do exist and they are cited. I included your explanation for these controversies (secular post-communist media is to blame), but you can't just ignore the critics charges. You can add your charge that "There is a smear campaign against the radio that RN doesnt have to know about, esp. in Polityka There already were references to the controversial views of some of its listeners, not HOSTS" to the article. But you're deleting accusation that do exist. It is not our job to state who is right, the point is to show both sides if need be. --Milicz 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is slanted and hits the reader as basically focusing on dubious and dual criticism. But Im not hell-bent on pushing POV, so I will refrain from engaging in revert wars. Ksenon 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "toned down version" includes the following non-factual statements that have your POV Ksenon:

"These points do not fit into the secular lines of the mainly liberal and post-communist media"

That is not fact Ksenon, that is your uncited opinion, continuing on

"sparking virulent attacks on the radio, its listeners and its founder, by means including falsitude and manipulation" Please show me any legitimate work that shows Maryja is being attacked by "falsitude or manipulation", just one source would be nice.

Sure, even a biased site like yours has some miniscule info on it:

http://www.ojciec-dyrektor.de/301.htm

http://www.jerzyrobertnowak.com/audycje/ataki_na_radio_maryja.htm

http://www.radiomaryja.pl/ataki-tvn.htm

Ksenon 16:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing Radio Maryja, and religous sites, but OK, why don't you use those cites in the article the same way critics are used in the article???--Milicz 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention- Radio Maryja is a subject of a heated debate in Poland

Editing an article on this issue is thus comined with the probability, that users instead to add their arguments, will try to erase the existing ones. Moa anbessa 15:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moa, how familiar are you with our policies? In addition to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view you should practically memorize {{wikipedia:No original research]]. If you violate these policies people will delete your work and no one will defend you. If you comply with these policies fewer people will delete your work, and if anyone does you will have much support. The crucial thing (referring to two other policies) is that you will be on strong ground if instead of drawing on your own personal knowledge you draw on and provide verifiable sources. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debata_o_Radiu_Maryja has a bunch of data, you might be able to get information from there in bulk, without much in the way of debate (as it already exists as sourced and linked articles). Anyways, I've added this page to my watchlist. Ronabop 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, hopefully factually cited info will no longer get deleted now.--Milicz 18:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking good faith edits?

I'm sure we can keep this article sane, provided it is well sourced. I've restored Moa's last edits, and done some grammar cleanup, and it would be good if some of the statements were better sourced. Ronabop 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read my explanations Ksenon 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm seeing the accusations of anti-semitism coming from several reliable sources, why were those removed? Ronabop 06:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lingering tendency to associate the Catholic church with anti-semitism in the generally secular and left-wing media. Besides, the views of some viewers do not reflect official policy. How can references such as "our elder Jewish borthers" used by the radio be anti-semitic? Listen first, then spew if you have to. Ksenon 12:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this is *not* the official Catholic church station (That would be Radio Jozef, right? I had some cited text explaining that Jozef was the actual, official, Catholic station, and that Maryja was booted from the church's offices, but you removed it.).

As far as referencing 'our elder Jewish brothers', use of that term would depend on the context. The links I've found so far seem to indicate that Maryja is supporting bizarre anti-semitic notions such as Jews controlling the media, Jews controlling the banking system, Jews taking money out of the country, Jews being warned away from the WTC., etc. Ronabop 15:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article is a complete nonsense

the main feature of radio maryja is that it is antisemitic and is run by catholic church. It is written now in tha article that although it is run by the church, it is not an official church radio (!!!), and that it is not antisemitic, but its listeners are. This is a nonsense! Those jesuit censors that cut my edits should be carefully observed- they cut too much. Moa anbessa 11:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2289567.stm ... Maryja isn't part of the catholic church, though it does seem to be tightly connected to a catholic political party. Ronabop 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Maryja and antisemitism

Sources for that: http://www.or.org.pl/artykuly/acala-rm.html http://www.radiomaryja.pl.eu.org/ http://rydzyk24.e-sai.org/ I have compiled these links for Ksenon. He was erasing them from the main article. Moa anbessa 11:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More: http://www.masterpage.com.pl/outlook/catholic.html http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/poland.htm http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=media&storyID=nL23156850&imageid=&cap= http://www.diapozytyw.pl/en/site/slownik_terminow/antysemityzm/ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=412339&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y Ronabop 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"These proofs"

http://www.radiomaryja.pl/ataki-tvn.htm

It is well documented. Read what some of the leading professors in the country have to say

Well documented? That's ridiculous. All these "leading professors" are people connected with Radio Maryja. That source is completely unreliable. Authors of those articles try to prove that TVN program was prepared using some propaganda techniques (BTW Radio Maryja uses such methods non-stop) but I see no proof that there was any "fabricated material".

This fragment: "...secular lines of the mainly liberal and post-communist media..." is clearly an opinion, not everyone could agree with such statement. Generally, whole article looks like Radio Maryja propaganda, all controversies are described in just one sentence without examples and further explanations.

I have no time to work on this article now, but it's definitely not neutral. 83.23.61.102 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

background info

I cannot pretend I'm impartial, but I will try to make my best to give you some background

Radio Maryja is directed by Tadeusz Rydzyk CSsR (a charismatic catholic monk) with some level of blessing from the church, but the sheer amount of support the director receives from the radio listeners surely can make church hierarchs uneasy
There is no catholic political party in Poland, although some of the parties exhibit strong ties to catholicism (perceived by them as integral part of polishdom)
Quite a few of the media in Poland exhibit outright hostility towards Radio Maryja and related media and the father director himself. This meets with similar response
Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik and TV Trwam share the background, POV, the contributors and the audience, so they can be seen as different forms of the same medium - this is the source of Rydzyk's Empire common name. No other nation-wide media present similar POV and there is no lack of nation-wide media in Poland.
Calls to shut the radio down have occured, with explanations ranging from radio noise interfering with plane communication to antisemitism - this was done by groups and individuals otherwise announcing themselves as proponents of free speach and general liberty
Accusing the radio of nationalism is strange indeed since the radio defines itself as strongly tied to national identity and promotes national cultures as opposed to the globalised monoculture
The estimations of the number of listeners are uncertain, but it is believed that there are enough of them to have decided about the outcome of the last parliamentary and presidential elections in Poland (2005), which was contrary to what other media touted as the predicted results

--matusz 02:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Accusing the radio of nationalism is strange indeed'.... Uhm, so, is the radio station essentially self-defined as being nationalist, both by itself and its critics? Ronabop 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A hate radio"

Is there a better phrase for this? It doesn't sound "right". Elpaw 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to controversies surrounding Radio maryja, I also added citations for all of the discussed facts.--Milicz 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You basically added links to hate sites. Why not just try listening to the radio instead of spreading lies? Btw, views of listeners do not reflect the radio's policy, so it's ludicrous to accuse it of anti-semitism and other forms of extremism. And calling it a hate radio is dangerous misinformation, as youre the hater here, as your editing style shows. Ksenon 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not hate sites, those are "critics", and people have a right to know what supporters and critics of the station think.--Milicz 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The radio draws criticism, but to introduce the station as controversial right up front would require a new policy where any concept or entity that draws any criticism (99.9% of articles out there), big or small, to be labelled as such. All criticisms are included in the article. Milicz is basically trying to shift the delicate NPOV balance towards the controversial side, totally ignoring the radio's real message and focusing only on underlining the accusations as much as possible, even if they dont have to be true. Ksenon 07:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Saw the request for comment. My thoughts on the article:

Intro is too short, doesn't cover enough.
Criticism section is well sourced.
Counter Criticism section is unsourced. Please find sources, and also make sure to make counter criticism sections a subsection of the criticism section.

Peace, --Urthogie 11:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on in Poland

http://kmdm.net/sat/metro.gazeta.jpg The new craze. Proven to be a bunch of crap, much like the stuff Milicz pushes, which is based on these types of publications. Nevertheless, they are included, though not in an "in your face" form. Peace. Ksenon 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of pushing anything, because I'm not. I did my due diligence on this, I went ahead and listened to the links, I went and read the reports, I went and checked your cites, and the facts simply do not reflect what you are saying.--Milicz 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop revert warring

Hey guys. If you continue to revert one another back and forth, and not responsibly use the talk page, I'll get it protected. Everyone, please calmly bring up your issues here before editing. Thanks.--Urthogie 11:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

This is an attempt at informal mediation in reaction to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10_Radio_Maryja. --Fasten 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenon: You mentioned Matusz's summary on the article's talk page. Were you referring to #background_info? --Fasten 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that Ksenon was referring to #background_info when he spoke of the summary, because that is all I ever saw from Matusz. --Milicz 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (by the way: I write names in bold when I address somebody, especially at the beginning of a paragraph - there is no need to follow that and write all names in bold). Do you still require mediation? --Fasten 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright :) I think we still need mediation. We currently have a stalemate, nobody is adding or removing from the article for fear of reverts,--Milicz 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I removed an entire section for being completely unsourced(commented it out). Noone seems to have gotten mad.--Urthogie 10:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep our fingers crossed.--Milicz 17:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to cross my fingers, I have wikipedia policy on my side :). The stuff needs verification to be put back.--Urthogie 18:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Ksenon doesn't contribute to the page or this talk page there doesn't seem to be any need for mediation? Is that correct? By the way: Mediation by the Mediation Cabal is informal and has no authority, I'm mainly here to give advice on policy, make you see each other's point or recommend procedures to solve a dispute. --Fasten 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Thanks for stopping by though!--Milicz 21:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep the page on my watchlist in case you need mediation later on. --Fasten 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this case. --Fasten 12:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]