Talk:Telewizja Polska

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoTVP.jpg
Image:LogoTVP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TVP or TWP
Telewizja Polska not Television Poland --125.25.39.32 (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidences
Give at some evidence:

1. Telewizja Polska will be prohibited in Thailand, Cambodia, Burma and Laos.

2. IP address 125.25.xxx.xxx constantly vandalize things associated with Poland.

3. RTP is using only in Portugal as Rádio e Televisão de Portugal. Never not used in Poland.

4. Polish rouge is fake but Nazi Germany is real.

5. TV KLKG & RTP1 are fake but Telewizja Polska & TP1 are real.

6. TV ACG2, RTP2 & TV2 are fake but TP2 is real. --188.47.22.136 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

TVP2
Timeline doesnt give a date for start of TVP2 or the digital channels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.55.209 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisms
How many times can still go back to the fake from the real article. Wikipedia is not fiction & place for jokes. --31.63.21.190 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telewizja Polska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120708200929/http://archives.arte.tv/arteinfo/dtext/general/partner.html to http://archives.arte.tv/arteinfo/dtext/general/partner.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research
states in an edit summary, "If you write to me in a private message, I will show you the opinion of many people that TVP is reliable." In fact, if you lack a published, reliable source to back this up, which could be cited in the article, then this is by definition original research that does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Especially when many reliable sources, such as Reporters Without Borders, say the opposite. If they think that the cited sources are not reliable, the place to go would be reliable sources noticeboard. (t · c)  buidhe  15:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

All the peer-reviewed academic sources that I can find are highly critical, for instance: "In 2016 it became very clear that, at least with regards to news and current affairs, TVP, far from being a watchdog, had turned into something quite different. With Kurski, a self-proclaimed ‘bull terrier,’ at its helm openly expressing his readiness to pounce at Kaczynski’s enemies, the role of TVP in controlling power holders is clearly in abeyance. A monitoring study of TVP’s flagship news program Wiadomości (News), conducted by the WSPT University for KRRiT (Wirtualne Media 2016), demonstrated that the programme did not meet its legal obligations under the Broadcasting Act of 1992, to deliver pluralist, objective and independent information... The findings showed that TVP broadcast exclusively the official stance of the government. ... The opinion of the of the opposition was heard or visible but always introduced with a biased commentary, such as: ‘opposition unhappy again’ or ‘opposition attacks the government again.’ The study assessed the information presented by TVP as partial, incomplete, biased and one-sided. Mrozowski also pointed out that, compared to the other two news programmes, TVP’s news programme is monocentric, and dominated solely by politics, to the degree of ‘obsession’. Jan Dworak, the President of KRRiT, concludes that Wiadomosci ‘has ceased to be a reliable programme and become a propaganda tool for the government that […] resembles news produced before 1989’ (Newsweek 2016)... It is evident, therefore, that under its new management TVP is not fulfilling the primary functions of a democratic public service broadcaster. Informing citizens about public life, monitoring and controlling power holders, and giving voice to the citizens become problematic when the broadcaster speaks with the voice of the ruling party. TVP is, therefore, failing citizens in its obligation to provide them with objective and relevant information. TVP’s role as a facilitator of public debate is similarly flawed as it has shown itself to be incapable of taking critical or reasoned positions against its political masters. Indeed, it can be argued that TVP’s only role is now to serve the government, just as during communist times, when it acted as the ruling party’s very own ‘transmission belt’ (O’Neil 1997). In addition to this serious failing, it must also be understood that systematically airing one-sided arguments and muffling critical debate are practices that are inherently inimical to citizens’ engagement in public life."

"...state-owned media in Poland have become a propaganda tool of the ruling party. The propaganda of the populist Right in the analysed programmes was based on two threads: the promise of social assistance from the populist authorities and nationalist, homophobic and exclusionary ideology. From this perspective, the government's opponents were portrayed not as competitors in the political dispute, but as ‘enemies of the nation’ subordinated to ‘foreign forces’. The political opposition, LGBT communities, liberals, the Left and cultural elites played the role of dark characters on state-owned television. On the other hand, Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of the Law and Justice party, played the role of the almighty ‘father of the nation’ and was the source of truth and the author of the main message in the news programme."

"The Law and Justice party (PiS) drew widespread condemnation in both Poland and the West after passing controversial media reform laws that give it more influence over the state-backed broadcaster, TVP, which is now widely seen on the left as an official channel for PiS propaganda. However, it has been pointed out that the previous governments, including the Civic Platform government that was in power earlier, similarly passed policies that intensified the polarization of the Polish traditional media. This underlies the especial difficulties of understanding “fake news” in a country like Poland. One research subject, an academic who studies Polish social media, stated that it is incredibly challenging to meaningfully study “fake news” when the state-backed television channel, TVP, has repeatedly been shown to itself be propagating objectively false information, and when media outlets are viewed as inherently partisan in some way or another"

"Currently, criticism of PSM’s representation and coverage of political actors has been particularly strong. Although some right-wing commentators describe substantial alterations in TVP news formats as a “good change” (Wybranowski, 2016), oppositional voices are more pronounced. According to the Eurobarometer survey, only 29 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “Polish PSM media are free from political pressure” (Eurobarometer, 2016). According to the 2017 CBOS survey, positive evaluation of TVP’s performance by respondents fell from 83 percent in 2011 to 55 percent in 2017 (wirtualnemedia.pl, 2017). The 2018 Digital News Report observes that in terms of media user trust, TVP rated lower than the tabloid newspaper Fakt. By contrast, RMF FM and Polsat, whose owners try to avoid political conflict, have higher trust scores (Reuters Institute, 2018, 95). While exerting political pressure and control over PSM in Poland (and public television, in particular) is not a new phenomenon, recent political bias, especially of TVP news genres, has reached an unprecedented scale."

"Government control over TVP contributes to public service media being a tool for propaganda and politics..."

We do not pretend there is a genuine debate if such does not exist. (t · c)  buidhe  15:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not interested in the moral assessment of TVP, I'm only interested in the quality and objectivity of Wikipedia; and presenting opinions in the headline is manipulation and abuse. The entire headline is based on opinions, innuendo (even if they question the authority of an institution, they are often somehow ideologized). What someone claims is not necessarily true - especially when it is based on a political struggle. Someone who is not from Poland and does not understand these realities will never fully understand it. I understand that someone may want to specify the criticism for TVP. That's why someone created a section entitled Post-2015 changes. I only disagree with giving opinions to the reader who comes to this page in the first sentences (lead). Respecting your opinion, I am waiting for your reply. DM:  Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * . What, when another party in Poland comes to power one day, you will find that these are no longer the mouths of propaganda? Only because they will not be criticized by the liberal media and NGOSes, more friendly to the Polish opposition? Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We present information according to due weight. If most or all reliable sources say that TVP does not provide fair or objective news coverage, we note that (it is probably what they are best known for since 2016 or so). This is the same on other articles; even though Kotleba rejects that it is neo-Nazi, reliable sources say it is, so we do too. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . You didn't answer my questions. Moreover, I still maintain that relying on information from opinion-forming portals of one profile (liberal) is manipulation. TVP's rating does not come from TVP, but from the viewers. And I support it all the time; you have opinions in a separate section, but it is not fair to convey the opinion of a journalist in the lead.  I am also asking for your evaluation of, who was involved in withdrawing my editions Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we do not base articles on your original research or what you think the article should say. We base it on published, reliable sources—some are quoted above. If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to find reliable sources that support your position that TVP is an objective, fair, and balanced source of information. Also, Timothy Garton Ash is not a journalist, he is a highly notable scholar of contemporary history. I am not sure what you are referring to wrt Ninetyone, but I only evaluate content, not editors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . Glad you changed your lead. It is probably far from perfect, but at least it presents something for which it is criticized (and the reader will be able to verify something), rather than being presented with some scientist's opinion as fact. Thanks. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's good that there are changes to the content of the article. Why couldn't you approach the subject honestly and professionally from the very beginning and confront the two sides? Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we do not present two sides if only one is found in reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed research. The president of the organization's opinion is not noteworthy, since it is expected (WP:MANDY) that he approves of his own job performance. Some random pundit does not get equal weight to respected international organizations and scholarly analysis. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in the edit summary; "I have done reliable editorial work; it is unacceptable for one user to withdraw them based on his point of view. I have prepared both the lead and the section in a reliable manner. User Buidhe constantly forces his views, he wants only criticism at the top". My sources are okay, they don't hide the opposite - so please respect my work, because I also do it in my spare time and in good faith. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I never accused you of editing in bad faith. However, you haven't addressed the issue that I raised: Not all sources are equally reliable, not all viewpoints are of equal WP:DUE weight. In this case I believe your edits create WP:FALSEBALANCE since you are citing the president of the organization and some random, non-notable pundit as equal weight to peer-reviewed research and respected international organizations such as OSCE and Reporters Without Borders. (t · c)  buidhe  16:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your sources can also be questioned - you add articles written by a journalist associated with the Polish radio Tok FM (owned by Agora, the owner of the liberal Gazeta Wyborcza). Nowhere have I given the statement of the president of TVP for granted, but just quoted his statement - just like you quoted the opinion of a British Sociologist. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are talking about since I cite multiple sources for each point, not all of which are at all involved in Polish politics. Anyway, not all opinions are equal, if they are published in a peer reviewed scholarly source, they have much more weight than some random person expressing an opinion. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the " Reliable sources" section - it does not exclude press articles. It's very good that you have put in the effort to prepare the information about the criticism; I appreciate it very much, I do not question the credibility of the sources (at first glance, because I did not have time to read them in depth - but I believe in your good will). However, the real opinion of a journalist or politician does not have to come from the reviewed doctoral thesis (master's thesis? Whatever) to be considered credible according to Wikipedia standards. But even if you had allegations of lack of credibility - I answer: one link is from the industry media portal, the other is the official record of the debate in the Polish Parliament committee. Best wishes. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that some news articles can be reliable sources for certain information, but that does not solve the problem of false balance where one non-notable person's opinion is being presented as equal to peer-reviewed scholarship and international organizations. Record of debate in Polish parliament should not be cited, it is only usable for WP:ABOUTSELF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything against "WP: ABOUTSELF". This is plausible because it is the exact quotation of the words (word for word, zero paraphrases) I was referring to in the text. Moreover, as for the value of the sources, I referred to it in the previous source. We (as Wikipedia users) cannot judge the statements of journalists or experts [except verifying that the sources are credible, in our case they are]; we only present them in an honest form, and the conclusions are drawn by the reader (who may enter and find out more). Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't addressing my point about these sources not being of equivalent importance and due weight. This is discussed in the NPOV policy; policies are not optional: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. I've presented many strong sources that argue that the impartiality of TVP has deteriorated under the new administration, but you can only find one non-notable pundit and the person who runs the organization who disagree. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not accept the argument; What is this for relating in the discussion about the Polish television station to the situation of the Holocaust and the Jews in Germany before World War II? Your sources are not indisputable (such as, for example, those about Hitler's Germany) - give me a better Wikipedia policy in which sources from scientific publications are more important than Internet publications. Moreover, the multitude of sources does not prove that someone is more right (even fewer footnotes should be given so as not to mislead the readers). Therefore, I propose to accept my edits as you don't have absolute Wikipedia guidelines that would negate my edits. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Both of you: if there is a fundamental disagreement about content, then the editors who disagree need to stop editing whilst consensus can be reached - your edits make it impossible for other people to get involved. Instead, propose and discuss changes here, and once consensus is reached, you can edit the article. But we are where we are, so I have made some changes to reflect my comments below. In general terms, using quotes for particularly strong positions where there is disagreement is a good idea - it makes it clear that it is not Wikipedia's voice being spoken. In general terms, and as WP:UNDUE makes clear, where a particular point of view is in a significant minority, we should not give it undue weight. It is clear in this context that there are a significant number of reliable sources supporting the criticism of TVP, and a very small number of sources of any sort saying the opposite (and the contrary views are pretty weak, saying you can't broadcast propaganda because you don't have a monopoly is barely a credible viewpoint to include and is only just worthy of inclusion). Also, some of the views of the TVP President are currently sourced to a Sejm transcript, and these need to be replaced with a secondary source, otherwise it starts to get a bit WP:SYNTHy. Overall, the article as it stands it's horrendous, but we could do some useful tweaking to bring it up to scratch. ninety:one  23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The new sources added don't really help the problems addressed by Ninetyone. News articles quoting the president of the company don't establish that these views are held by anyone else. And we rarely give much weight to what organizations say about themselves, since they obviously have self-interest in being perceived well. (t · c)  buidhe  15:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they do. User Ninetyone asked to replace the link from the transcript of parliamentary sessions with a reliable source, which I also did. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They raised a number of issues of which your sources only fix, at most, one of them. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should first add the source to the information you put in the lead. Still waiting (via "Wikipedia: Citation needed" template "). ;) Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it into the lead. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I confused this edition with the others. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the best way is to get offended and withdraw the entire contribution :) I don't know what your interest is in pushing one side of the view (with the rejection of the other - how "democratic"), but you are acting to the detriment of Wikipedia Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a major concern that some of your additions are UNDUE. Per WP:ONUS, it's up to you to get a consensus for adding this information. We are usually wary about giving excessive weight to people with a vested interest in being perceived well. That is not a value judgement on you personally or my being "offended". (t · c)  buidhe  10:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You withdraw well-source articles, you ignore the rule that "more sources don't mean better argument" (especially since they are about the same thing). You are ignoring my comment "WP:OVERCITE; WP:REFBOMB; WP: CITETRIM limitation of the number of sources in relation to the above-mentioned Wikipedia policies." and you revert the changes. How are we going to work together if you bend the rules so much? Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC) PS. Once again; I do not lie to the sources, I do not provide a niche view, I clearly define who speaks on a given topic. And you withdraw the entire "response to criticism" section, thereby preventing the reader from critically verifying all information.
 * The consensus so far is that your additions are verifiable, but that you have not demonstrated that they are WP:DUE. The WP:ONUS on you is to do this, preferably by citing research, or other authoritative sources (not opinion pieces, pundits, or TVP's own position).
 * You are not supposed to remove references when they provide additional information or support a controversial point. WP:OVERCITE is an essay. Instead, try WP:BUNDLING as I did.
 * I did not remove the "response to criticism" section, I reduced undue weight and combined it into the previous section. Your changes to this section are misleading and unhelpful, giving equal weight to the perspective of one random pundit and the station of itself versus very well sourced discussion of the changes in the station since 2015. It is misleading to put Inwazja or the controversial program on Trzakowski into a "criticism" section, as these programs were certainly broadcast and the station was not criticizing itself in those segments. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have addressed most of the allegations above. As for the film "Invasion", it found itself in the "criticism" section, as it was criticized by the Polish Ombudsman. After all, if on each side of TVP there are allegations of alleged anti-Semistism, anti-..., etc., it is still fair to prepare a section that will refer to it - the Polish conservative journalist is as important encyclopedically as the opinion of the British historian you added. Wikipedia, according to its policy, is not a collection of columns and mass criticism, it has a place to present both points of view (if they are not niche, harmful and obvious - like historical disputes about Germany during the war). If they are well source, they can remain. PS. It seems to me that we are constantly revolving around the same topics, in the current form the article is closer to what it is supposed to look like than in the form of liberal media columns which this TVP is supposed to be bad.  Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Ash is a highly notable international commentator, yours is apparently non notable, and lacks WP:DUE weight. You say that your version is better but so far the consensus is against it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A good solution is to remove the political accent from the evaluation of TVP, only to leave neutral information (throwing out liberal accusations and statements by journalists and the head of TVP). Who will want to read about the changes after 2015 has its own section :) I hope that I have finished the discussion :) [Look, the Polish version does not have this written for the first lead, also others; more important is what channels offers, not what some say about ideological topics]. Najgorszakomediaromantyczna (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Polish Wikipedia has its own policies, but on English wikipedia we are most interested in the aspects that receive coverage in reliable sources. In this case, post-2015 changes have attracted lots of (mostly negative) coverage and therefore it is due to include a few sentences on it in the lead. The article could of course be expanded with more information on earlier eras, Communist propaganda and so forth. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of TVP.svg

Were
Italic 2601:405:4500:1ED0:51CC:38E5:8FAD:9D56 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * TVP World Logo 2022.jpg

Move Telewizja Polska -> TVP
Check out how every single other public broadcaster is covered on Wikipedia, including BBC, but also the Romanian one, TVR Galehautt (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait the virrent situation out before making any radical changes to the Article
.title 93.177.90.216 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)