Talk:Roman Giertych

@Molobo: You said that "Buttiglione's views are not subject of debate here". I fully agree, I was also wondering what this was doing here when Roman Giertych is not even an MEP - it should be moved to the main party article. That said, no matter where we put it, as long as we have this piece, it should at least be accurate. Now, you modified my phrase "beliefs that many considered sexist and homophobic", stating the reason for Rocco Buttiglione's rejection, to "Catholic beliefs". This is inaccurate: He was rejected because many people in Italy and elsewhere considered them sexist and homophobic, and the majority of MEPs evidently adopted this view. (At least, to the best of my knowledge, no other reasons have been put forward). That Buttiglione's views coincide with certain Catholic values was certainly not a factor, given the large proportion of Catholic MEPs. Further, you stated that "claiming their are homophobic is POV". Obviously - but then it was properly labeled as such: Nobody said his views " are sexist and homophobic", but " many considered [them] sexist and homophobic". The first phrase is a POV, the second merely reports that such a POV exists. Can you see the difference? As a student of journalism and communication you should be able to, actually. But wait, I forget that at your university (?) fides comes first, and ratio second... ;-) --Thorsten1 18:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

 * Yawn...You have an obsession, I study at Wroclaw btw.--Molobo 12:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me where you study! A beautiful place, and I happen to still have quite a few friends at the University there. Who knows, maybe we'll pass each other on the koszmarowa campus some day... ;-) But would you also care to respond to my concerns regarding your actual edits in this Wikipedia article? (Sorry for being so obsessive about them). --Thorsten1 12:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven's seen a poll conducted among MP that show a majority believing views of Rocco sexists or homophobic.If you can provide them I will gladly see them.Furthermore Buttiglione did nothing more then presententing doctrine of catholic church.--Molobo 18:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Molobo, but - do you ever read papers other than, say, Nasz Dziennik? At the time of the Buttiglione affair, media all over Europe (Poland being no exception) were reporting on his statements and pointing to their alleged homophobic and sexist overtones. Here are some examples picked completely at random from major UK news sources:
 * "The problem is simple: Mr Buttiglione, nominated by Silvio Berlusconi, has said publicly that he believes homosexuality is a sin and that the purpose of the family is to allow a woman to have children and to be protected by her husband." The Guardian, 13 Oct 2004
 * "his remarks on homosexuality and the role of women during a confirmation hearing ago sparked an institutional crisis which led to him withdrawing his candidacy." BBC, 21 October 2004
 * "Mr Buttiglione faced opposition from the European Parliament over his views on homosexuality and women." BBC, 30 October
 * "By Rocco Buttiglione's logic, David Morley got what he deserved. The once-aspiring EU commissioner believes homosexuality is a sin. The wages of sin, at least according to the book on which the Italian minister bases his morality, is death." The Guardian, 3 Nov 2004
 * There was no and there can be no serious doubt whatsoever that the MEPs' decision to reject Buttiglione was informed by this discussion. Your claim that it was fueled by some vague anti-Catholicism is ridiculous - especially as most Protestant churches, as well as orthodox Jewish or Muslim doctrines for that matter, share the same views that you seek to define as exclusively Catholic. However, I am sure that you can provide a "poll" to show that MEPs explicitly rejected Buttiglione because his expressed ideology coincided with the views of the Catholic church. If so, I will be glad to accept your version. Otherwise, I will restore my own version in order to keep Wikipedia in line with verifiable sources.--Thorsten1 20:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You can argue about his views somewhere else.This is not the suitable page.Buttiglione didn't use the word "Catholic views" to defend themself, he presented his Catholic views during the interview.--Molobo 20:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC) "Sorry Molobo, but - do you ever read papers other than, say, Nasz Dziennik? " I don't read it at all.But perhaps you should stay away from wiki if personell exchanges are all you care about.--Molobo 20:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Still waiting for the poll of course.--Molobo 20:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC) But I do thank you for providing sources which confirm that Rocco was attacked after presenting catholic views.--Molobo 20:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Molobo, your opinions are so cliched and your arguments so utterly simple-minded that I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these days you turned out to be some clever Polonophobe's sock-puppert, created for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sheer backwoodsness of Polish editors... :D --Thorsten1 21:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your personal bias.Your edits can be regarded from now as extremely POV and put under scrutiny.--Molobo 22:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine then. I think the details you inserted somewhat contradict your otherwise very rational proposal to "argue about his views somewhere else". ;-) BTW, you still do not grasp that I am not arguing about Buttiglione's views at all. Who knows, I might even agree with them... I only insist on describing what other people's opinions are, which are, unlike yours or mine, politically relevant.
 * BTW, am I correct in assuming that your constant removal of the quotes from around "homosexual lobby" means you believe in its actual existence? You might want to show your colours so that people can decide whose edits "can be regarded from now as extremely POV", as you put it... --Thorsten1 23:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My belief in its existance or not is of no importance to the article.However if you want to claim that they are no organisations serving to represent sexual minorites which were called homosexual lobby by LPR be my guest--Molobo 23:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "[...] which were called homosexual lobby by LPR". Well, that is what I'm on about, actually. The term, as employed by the LPR, is not part of the regular political lexicon, but part of that party's specific lexicon. A common way to indicate this is putting it in quotes. And I am surprised that you keep removing them, even though you do not think this is important. Śpij dobrze, biedactwo! --Thorsten1 23:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you able to post without personal remarks ? --Molobo 23:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Humiliation?
I have doubts about the so-called humiliation of Giertych. It was a minor incident, featured during one of interviews Tymek 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, this article does not give any sources for most of its claims. Given the notice at the top of this talk page that clearly says "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, it is in dire need of sources. The statement "The European press considers his attitude towards homosexuality as "homophobic in its final stage" clearly cannot be sourced, and it should be removed or reworded with proper sources.  Also, the part of his bio where he is described as "militant" should be sourced.  I don't think this humiliation incident should be included as it is hardly notable. Ostap 04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Source problems
More POV problems with this article. In the section "Attitude towards homosexuality", it lists an incident where he yelled something in Polish.
 * "At a march opposed to homosexuality on March 13, 2006 in Warsaw, Roman Giertych said, "Stop pedałowaniu!".[2] This was a pun, literally meaning "Stop pedalling [as in riding bicycles]!", since the Polish word "pedał" has a second usage, as a colloquial and offensive name for homosexuals, derived from the word pederasty.[3]"

First of all, what was the march about? Was it "opposed to homosexuality" or was it opposed to the legalization of homosexual marriage? This needs to be clarified and sourced. It then says that this word he used is also offensive. The only citations given are to two dictionary definitions (one doesn't even work). This is WP:OR, and the section needs to be removed until someone gets an actual source for this incident and what he meant. Ostap 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it until or unless it can be properly written and sourced. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also edited the see also section. If that material can be sourced into the article, go for it. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to update the picture
The picture needs to be changed. 2A02:3030:810:6245:1:0:39E4:9FEF (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)