Talk:Human rights in Poland

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

women

http://www.tokfm.pl/Tokfm/1,103085,15346565,Gwalciciel_bedzie_teraz_scigany_z_urzedu___To_zmiana.html#BoxSlotII3img — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.158.46.10 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

non relevant material?

These additions have nothing to do with the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. The United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers". Since you have an opinion, you must be aware that these laws are extremely embarrassing for the European Union, which has felt compelled to express its concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göndul (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you are engaged in is
WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That is just an opinion, your opinion, and nothing else. I have provided sources, while you give none to support your views. The fact is notable and well sourced, as is the embarrassment of the EU. You don't own the place. If you want to remove well sourced and notable content, the burden is on you to prove that it is inappropriate. Funny that the first editor who reversed my edit does not even bother to respond Göndul (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't over whether this text is sourced, but rather whether it has anything at all to do with the article topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of the press is an integral part of human rights. Also, attempts to control the press are not the only worrying signs. There is also the issue of the very controversial changes to the constitutional court. This is a trend towards authoritarianism that is deeply embarrassing for the EU.(theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/polands-government-carries-through-on-threat-to-constitutional-court) If you think this has nothing to do with the topic of the article, by all means, suggest another article. Göndul (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources which refer to this as a human rights issue or quit wasting other editors' time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would this (humanrightshouse.org/Articles/21393.html) satisfy you? Göndul (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When did humanrightshouse.org become a
reliable source? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It's also a
WP:SPS and not representative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It is a perfectly respectable international human rights organisation which was founded in Norway. If you think it is not reliable, prove it. Göndul (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Wednesday, the European commission will have a debate on the controversial new laws. I intend to post its conclusions. That is, if you consider the EU a reliable source, of course. Göndul (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating:
WP:RS only. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And again, it's off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Göndul, please understand that you can only cite the information which directly discuss how this or that event affects the

talk) 01:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to clarify further, please read other articles in Wikipedia on "Human rights in X-Nation-state". For example, Human rights in the United Kingdom has relevant information as to fundamental changes through a parliamentary system instigated centuries ago. It has served as a model for the development of the concept of human rights, and is reliably sourced. The same does not apply to Human rights in Russia, Human rights in Indonesia, Human rights in South Korea, et al. Each article is developed on a case by case basis, and is dependent on reliable secondary sources discussing how the enactment of law X impacted on the evolution of this-that-theother human right if deemed to be true according to sources. Nation-states emerged from a plethora of predecessor state structures that functioned as autocracies, or theocracies, or whatever kind of 'ocracy' they may have been. We don't grab a piece of information, such as the abolition of serfdom, and apply revisionist criteria because we perceive it to be parallel to other abolitions which actually lead to other legislation/were a precursor to contemporary legislation when there are no sources drawing that conclusion: we rely on what mainstream RS have to say on the subject. Wikipedia articles are not a collection of bits and pieces of information to be shoehorned into an article because contemporary concepts might make them seem to be relevant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, you will perhaps be surprised, but I tend to agree with you. Human rights is a modern concept that should not be applied anachronistically to situations in the past. For example, it would be ridiculous to mention the Inquisition in an article on human rights in Spain. The source of the problem is the History section. It should not be there at all. I just restored the part of that section that Volunteer Marek did not like, and thought he was entitled to remove. I would have no objection if the whole section was removed. Thank you for being more explicit this time. Göndul (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, here is what Lech Walesa had to say about the new laws: "This government acts against Poland, against our achievements, against freedom, against democracy. It is causing us ridicule around the world"(bigstory.ap.org/article/354fd4a25da84a40a8621e55239b792a/new-polish-government-criticized-democratic-backsliding). Now, you will probably say that AP is self-published and Lech Walesa a stooge of the European Commission. Göndul (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not the article for this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is
relevant to the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If freedom of speech belongs here, the subject has a very long tradition in Poland, it didn't start in January 2016. Non-public media are frequently owned (and controlled) by international media outlets.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, I am truly baffled by what is going on here. Reading in the media about the new laws in Poland, I wanted to check Wikipedia to learn more. I found this article and was puzzled to find nothing at all. This prompted me to make my first edit on 13 January 2016, thinking that it was a positive contribution. By a chain of events too long to explain now, this led me to read the article on RT on 16 January 2016 and to make an edit pointing to the fact that RT is also broadcast in Russian. That edit was immediately reversed by Galassi. So I went to the talk page, where I was wildly accused by Ymblanter of "aiding" Solnsta90". Then, comes a series of wonders. First, you dismissively remove my edit to this article. Not understanding your reasons, I reinstate it, to be instantly reversed by Iryna Harpy, who came out of nowhere, and even sent me a warning. Now Xx236 miraculously appears here and My Very best Wishes places a warning of discretionary sanctions on my talk page. Puzzled, I checked the user pages and history of these editors. Not a single one of you ever edited this article, but you have two points in common: you are all Eastern Europeans and have all made numerous comments on the RT talk page. I am somewhat naive, but not enough to believe this is a pure coincidence. I hope you will take the time to explain this to me. Otherwise, I will take it that I am not welcome here and, having no time for these games, I will leave you all to your internecine and unproductive feuds. Göndul (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I've struck disruptive arguments by identified SOCK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing many pages about censorship and propaganda, so not quite miraculously. I haven't been informed about this discussion by anyone and I haven't asked anyone what to think about completely new defenders of human rights in Poland. I admit that I haven't edited this biased article. I believe that the most important human rights problem in Poland is poverty of children, [1] Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Possible further improvements

I am working on this article in the context of my political science course and I am planning to rewrite the lead section by improving the first sentence, adding more general information on human rights and an outline of the themes included in the article. I want to improve the historical section by placing the information in the relevant historical context, more contemporary than the medieval one. I plan to re-name, expand and update the section “The status of women” by adding relevant and up-to-date information on reproductive rights, abortion, and domestic violence in Poland. The LGBTI rights section will be expanded significantly with contemporary information regarding the Polish constitution in relation to marriage equality, violations of LGBTI rights and overarching political background. I will use Human Rights Watch reports. --Apramada (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Poland&oldid=1199968318"