Talk:Polityka

Criticism
While I agree that some passages that 137.120.127.159 wrote were biased, but after few improvements his contribution may be implemented into this article as a criticism section. I suppose that his arguments were derived from R.A.Ziemkiewicz book named Michnikowszczyzna. Zapis choroby, because 137.120.127.159 writes very similar to Ziemkiewicz about perceived Polityka post-communist bias and its involvment in Rywin affair, so this book may serve as a source. Although I am against presenting opinions as facts, as it was done by 137.120.127.159, it isn't something inappropriate to write about these things which were described by him as long as it is done from neutral point of view. Jogers, you shouldn't delete everything and call sources unreliable just because you don't agree with the author... Ammon86 16:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that everyone may be criticized, but this is a rubbish. What are examples of a "post-communistic bias" in Polityka articles? Which editors were "ideological supporters of post-communism"? What is "post-communism", by the way - democratic leftist parties? (Apart from, that it is a very convenient slogan). What's wrong with supporting democratic parties, anyway? Besides, Polityka criticized some movements of all governments (of course, current government of Jarosław Kaczyński is very severly criticized, but it is a different story). Political allegiance: social liberal in an article says all, that one might expect to find in Polityka. "Some of the controversies around the newspaper included the alleged knowledge of its editors about the corruptive bahaviour among intellectuals and businessmen(e.g. the meeting of Lew Rywin with Adam Michnik" - it is a nonsence, Polityka is not Gazeta Wyborcza and had nothing to do with Rywin. Ziemkiewicz is a very POV source, or rather it may be a source to know the obsessive vision of the world of some rightist authors. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You may find definition of "post-communism" in the meaning probably used by 137.120.127.159 here: (in polish). Many polish journalists and writers (eg. Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz or Waldemar Łysiak) accused Polityka of such bias, so it is justified to write about such criticism. I'm not judging if they are right or wrong, and it isn't our task to judge anybody's opinion when we are writing Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, many users have problems with separation of informations and opinions, just like 137.120.127.159 did. "Ziemkiewicz is a very POV source, or rather it may be a source to know the obsessive vision of the world of some rightist authors" - now you are very POV. What Ziemkiewicz wrote was an opinion, and opinions as such cannot be objective. One may agree with them, while another - not necessarily. But I see nothing wrong with adding book of known journalist (writing to, among others, to Rzeczpospolita, Newsweek or Wprost) as a source. Ammon86 12:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of "post-communism" in the Polish Wiki is very concise and inconsistent with post-communism here. Again, I would like to see examples of post-communist bias, because I still don't understand what it means. Like I've said, it's very convenient slogan, with negative connotation, but without specified content. Did Polityka show bias towards "destroying of opposition and using lawless methods" or other elements of totalitarian rule? I think not. I agree, that my opinion on Ziemkiewicz was POV, that's why I wrote it in article talk, not in article itself. By the way, I've just read similar statement by Jacek Żakowski, that Michnikowszczyzna is a way to know author's state of mind, not Michnik. I mean also, that a liberal author might criticize conservative magazine for being conservative and vice versa, but it is obvious and should not be written as "controversy". Regards. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't call your sources unreliable, Ammon86. You just didn't provide any when restoring an information challenged by Pibwl who called it a "strongly-POV rubbish". Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. That's what Verifiability says and it's one of Wikipedia's core policies. I don't have any opinion about the subject. Jogers (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)