Talk:Bogumił Grott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RM[edit]

The second link, to that letter, doesn't work. Also, I would refrain from calling the radio station "right wing" (on economics they're pretty far to the left for example - I think). "Controversial" should be enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the phrasing "is a contributor" suggests that he writes a regular column or something. Does he? If he's just written an occasional article or given an occasional interview then it would probably be better to write "has written an article for..." or something like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link works here: [1]. I think briefly mentioning why RM is controversial would be a gooo idea, for the general reader to know.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the issue here. The second link kind of works - it is just terribly formatted, some obsolete html? This works better, I suggest replacing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link leads to a reprint of a article from Nasz Dziennik newspaper, it is not a publication by RM as stated now in the article.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ND and RM are related, which is why the page has the Radio Maryja banner at the top. For the letter thing - I'm having trouble figuring out what it was about. He signed some letter about academic freedom at UoW. The letter and its signatories were published in ND, which roughly does suggest that this was up their alley. But did they sponsor the letter or just reprint it? What was this about anyway?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a more general comment on the author and his reliability as a source, he's a prof at JU, so clearly "reliable". Now maybe some of his statements are "controversial" or what have you. This basically means that yes, he can be used as a source, but that we should be clear about attributing any text sourced to him, as to him. This is basically standard practice on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I see nothing that wouldn't make him reliable. If he indeed is a supporter of ND/RM, well, this is no different from somebody in US supporting the Tea Party and being highly religious. PS. The protest letter can be also found elsewhere, for example at rp.pl; it was reported in TVN. For more on this: here is another articles from right-ish POV: [2], [3]. I tried to find articles on it from the other side, including from GW, but failed. Maybe somebody else will have better luck - if we care. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that RM/ND is more controversial than the Tea Party (having read the sections on antisemitism etc. in it). He is a prof in the department of philosophy at the institute of religious studies at JU, so he is reliable with respect to religioous issues. I would be more careful when dealing with issues involving history from this guy dabbling in nationalist activism, however. It would be like a Ukrainian professor of religion at a legitimate university who happens to write in an OUN newspaper and who happens to sign a petition suporting an OUN-activist. Legitimate credentials in one field don't give someone reliability in another (even if related) one, particularly given questionable activities. Faustian (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the RM<=>Tea Party analogy is quite apt (except that one, RM, is probably past its peak, whereas the other one isn't). You can find some pretty bad stuff on the TP, depending on where you look. Same thing here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is some similarity when one looks at the fringes of the Tea Party or among some ots grassroots supporters, however the main Tea Party figures such as Ron Paul, Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann don't do things as outrageous as seen here:[4]. Also, given much Catholic criticism for RM/ND perhaps describing ND as simply a Christian press (vs. "Christian nationalist" or something like that) newspaper as currently written in this article mayu not be the most accurate description.Faustian (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bogumił Grott. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bogumił_Grott&oldid=1202477517"