Talk:Przemysław Czarnek

BLP and 'homophobic'?
See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for discussion. Boud (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Archive: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive318
 * Boud (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Women's rights
First of all, I tagged the assertion in the lede as a failed verification, because the cited source does not at all say that Czarnek is "opposed to women's rights". He is quoted with a statement about the suggested career path for women, and the article made no analysis of it. Secondly, I support the proposed neutrality of heading for exactly the same reasons: the article doesn't even mention "women's rights"! So how can we possibly say he's speaking of "women's rights" when he's actually opining on "women's choices". It's a choice a woman makes whether to have a child, take a career, both, or whatever. These are choices, that may be encouraged or discouraged by legislative action, but ultimately in a free nation such as Poland, they are indeed choices. Elizium23 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The factual accuracy of this article, as a whole, is in a rather sorry state. Perhaps there is a language barrier to Wikipedia editors attempting to read sources in the Polish language. Regardless, I think this article could stand a good combing of sources to find out what they really say and being faithfully summarized in the article, instead of the extreme non-neutral rhetoric contained herein at the present time. Elizium23 (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with your concern, Elizium23! I tried to fix the issue but got reverted with this ridiculous edit summary: . It's as if WP:V and WP:SYNTH don't count for some users any more. Potugin (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per our own article on Women's rights, "Issues commonly associated with notions of women's rights include the right to bodily integrity and autonomy...to have equal rights in family law, to work, to fair wages or equal pay, to have reproductive rights." Czarnek's statement (and a host of others that a quick Google search reveals) expresses opposition to these ideas, and thus this is directly related to women's rights. If he said that he thought that LGBT people should go to conversion therapy and become straight, but didn't mandate doing so, it would be ridiculous to argue that he wasn't against LGBT rights; similarly, just because he is not FORCING women to not work and bear children at 20, doesn't mean that he isn't opposed to fundamental tenets of women's rights. Expressing disapproval towards women's autonomy in their careers and in their reproduction is, without question, a position on women's rights. Cran32  ( talk  &#124;  contributions ) 16:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop making your own rules. Other Wikipedia articles don't count as sources nor as basis for any "interpretations". Applicable policies are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. I apply these policies rigorously, which is why I also performed this edit today. So find decent sources that directly deal with Czarnek&woman's rights or give up.Potugin (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. I just checked the Polish Wikipedia. There's a relevant section entitled "Wypowiedzi na temat społecznej roli kobiet" ("Statements concerning the topic of women's role in society"). It has sources, uses objective wording and translating it completely might make sense, provided that someone also takes the trouble of verifying these numerous references linked there.Potugin (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to how any of the policies you cite are applicable - especially WP:SYNTH, given that the only thing that the source is being used for is a direct quote. The literal definition of women's rights isn't an "interpretation." Nonetheless, incorporating the content from the Polish article on this topic is a good idea, and (assuming sources check out) I'll do that later today. Cran32  ( talk  &#124;  contributions ) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm perfectly fine with that approach (incorporating the content from the Polish article on this topic is a good idea, and (assuming sources check out) I'll do that later today.). As long as it concerns only this particular section (the article on pl.wiki is quite detailed and I damn need to use dictionary all the time when reading Polish, so I can only say this specific section AND its title were fine).Potugin (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's WP:SYNTH, because you're taking a statement in a WP:RS which says nothing about "women's rights" and then you're taking a definition/statement about "women's rights" and using your own judgement to meld them together and make them related in your own mind. The conclusion and connection must be explicitly made by the reliable secondary sources. You are not allowed to perform such analysis for yourself. Elizium23 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is correct: there is no SYNTH here. If a source says that person X made a statement about triangles and rectangles and the Pythagorean theorem but the source omits the word "geometry", then writing that "X has such-and-such opinions on geometry" would be using elementary reasoning, not subjective interpretation; it would not count as SYNTH. There is no "conclusion" involved in deciding which domain of knowledge is involved. Whether or not women have (or should have) the same rights as men is part of the topic women's rights. No "conclusion" is drawn from the source. Boud (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's pretty simple: find a source that says he commented on women's rights. If it is obvious to you, then it should be obvious to a scholar, reporter, etc. On Wikipedia we summarize what the reliable secondary sources say, because the reliable secondary sources are the ones doing the analysis and drawing conclusions about what the comments mean. Elizium23 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

find a source that says he commented on women's rights: I would like to put this in the article and remove the original research template, but first just make sure that we're all on the same page as to what these sources say. This source from ofeminin.pl says: "Minister Przemysław Czarnek zasłynął z wypowiedzi, którymi uderzał w prawa kobiet..." (Minister Przemysław Czarnek became infamous for his statements opposing women's rights) Is this okay? Cran32 ( talk  &#124;  contributions ) 13:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what we're looking for. Elizium23 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cran32  ( talk  &#124;  contributions ) 16:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a mistranslation: "którymi uderzał w prawa kobiet" use the  google translate if you do not know polish. This emotional description of what this guy said cannot be generalized to a very strong general  statemnt that he "opposes women's rights". Such misinterpretations as disallowed per WP:BLP. Among other things, this policy says that questionable statements must be deleted from bios  on sight. Therefore please do not continue restoring them.  Lembit Staan (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. I reviewed the articles cited and I see it is a non-neutral attack text which has close to none arguments to confirm that this person opposes women's rights. All it did is quoting his conservative opinions favoring the traditional role of the woman. Holding conservative views does not mean "opposition to women's rights". (his issue with LGBT rights is a completely different story and indeed may be described as an opposition to LGBT rights) Lembit Staan (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct that the sources only say that Czarnek verbally opposed women's rights in one speech, which doesn't summarise his overall pattern of policy actions. Nevertheless, the speech itself was clearly controversial, which I have put in place in the lead to take into account your valid concern.Getting back to translation issues, a better literal translation could be "which impacted on women's rights". The author claims to quote the verb ,,uderzyć" several times from Czarnek (in different verb forms), and turns it around in the initial summary, saying that it's Czarnek who "impacts" on women's rights, rather than feminists who "impact" on the family. That's the judgment of the author, who makes her interpretation as well as extensively quoting and paraphrasing Czarnek.There is no aspect of "personal attack" here. You seem to be introducing an interpretation of "traditional role" into the sources, but that's not what they say in relation to the comments on women's rights. See 's comment above that helps clarify things: Expressing disapproval towards women's autonomy in their careers and in their reproduction is, without question, a position on women's rights. Boud (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC) (clarifications: Boud (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC))
 * I am not introducing any interpretations into the article. The current version is OK with me. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Czarnek quotes
The source that you have twice removed gives multiple quotes that the author attributes to Czarnek. Unless the quotes are falsely stated, they represent statements by Czarnek on the massacre. The author also comments on them, quite critically. Given the media interest in Czarnek's statements, I don't understand why you appear to argue for totally removing the reference.

For example, 4:12 – ... „członkowie SS-Galizien byli główną częścią załogi Sobiboru” - this is attributed to Czarnek by the author Oleh Wistowyk. Boud (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * My removal of "naszeslowo_Sahryn" reference: This ref is a collection of cherry-picked quotes commented by his opponent with a natural purpose of presenting of Czarnek negatively. Ass such, ithis is a violation of WP:BLP: using a non-NPOV source. The criticism of a person by other persons must be described by a secondary source, because a wikipedian is not in a position to judge whether this criticism is valid or twisted. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Unfortunately this happens very often in Wikipedia articles about controversial persons: an encyclopedia should not summarize bickering of political opponents: it should summarize secondary sources which describe this bickering. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. If I understand right, you are no longer disputing the accuracy of the quotes. It seems that you have withdrawn your statement, ""So now you have introduced a different argument. You are presumably pointing to the words by Wistowyk, e.g. ,,manipulacji, przekłamań, półprawd," of which the first two are overt claims by Wistowyk that Czarnek has deliberately stated factual inaccuracies, and the third strongly suggests negative intent ("half-truths"). However, the content is mostly a list of Wistowyk's claims of what, according to him, are factually wrong or misleading claims by Czarnek. I'm not convinced by "bickering of political oppponents" - even though Wistowyk does add his inference on intent, rather than debate the facts alone, there is a substantial amount of factual type counterclaims, independently of who is right. In, there is no text in the Wikipedia article claiming that Wistowyk's analysis is correct, and there is no description of Wistowyk's claims of deliberate inaccuracies. WP:BLP does not exclude sources of a living person just because the sources attribute negative intent. What matters is mainly what information is used from the source. Reliable sources quite often add some interpretation that is not useful for a Wikipedia article, since it's the factual claims that are more useful. This source appears to be one of the best sources we have on what Czarnek actually said - even if it only includes a selection of quotes rather than being a full source. Since the source is not used as a source of criticism, but only as a source pointing to some of the actual statements, I don't see the relevance of WP:SECONDARY. Boud (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Not the words Czarnek" - Sorry for sloppy summary (but you summarized my summary rather liberally as well). My major objections stay: (a) cherry-picking (b) non-neutral source. Also, in response to yours: Per WP:PRIMARY, "what he actually said" should be used only for the corroboration of info taken from secondary sources. Often people say lots of nonsense, not everything is of encyclopedic value. Also, the phrase you wrote to attach this ref is devoid of any encyclopedic information. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S."Not the words Czarnek" - I reviewed the text in question again, because I didnt believe I am such an idiot - and indeed I was basically right: first 50% of the text are indeed not the words of Czarnek, and in the second half only short blurbs are quoted. I also reviewed some of the criticism and see problems with it as well. All said, reaffirms my position regarding WP:BLP.  Lembit Staan (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I fforgot to mention that the blurb "Czarnek commented publicly, stating his view of the events" is redundant in view of the immediately following text. 16:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So which part of WP:BLP this is against, according to you? Trasz (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are linking to an attack publication without adequate reason. See my P.P.S. WP:BLP disallows controversial information in articles. There is a huge number of criticism, valid or not, aimed at every member of the current conservative govt. We can use only neutral secondary sources which summarize the controversies, to build our articles.  Lembit Staan (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've just noticed that the author of the disputed ref Oleh Wistowyk is a thoroughly unknown person, i.e., of unknown expertise, and as such cannot be a reliable source for us. Case closed. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)