Talk:Radio Maryja

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

Bias: is it Wikipedia policy?[edit]

This article is absolutely unjust and biased. Attacks, "opinions" of Catholic Church adversaries, raising controverises. My advice, drop the text as a whole, as it makes Wikipedia an unreliable sourse of information. For example, these is no financial controversy around it, as it is supported solely by the listeners. There is no commercial broadcasting. Since no tax payers are hurt, financial aspect of this radio should be ommited as unadequate. Everything is alright. It is a legally operating broadcasting station. Calling it (any)phobic is also unjust. I can see the authors of the article in fact are christianophobic, I daresay.

Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.182.255.142 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism or introduction?[edit]

I don't understand the structure of this article. There is a section on criticism, and yet this very criticism makes the main part of the introductory paragraphs, as if the author wanted to be 100% sure the reader is straight away warned that it's a "bad thing" he's reading about. This seems biased and POV. 86.29.86.73 (talk)

Rewriting the Article[edit]

I am still in shock at the discrepancies present. Discussion seems to have been halted too. The article is highly unobjective and negative with a lot of bad quotes and falsifications as well as prime examples of information manipulation. As I have mentioned, I am not a defender or listener of the radio but I feel that it has been completely and utterly underrepresented with malicious intent by some Wikipedia users. I propose the entire article be reworked and restructured. I will begin some of my own research but I hope that this discussion will kick off once again. Thanks.--AngryFarmer 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Translation[edit]

I have just started to read this article, not being a listener of Radio Maryja but, being Polish I am fully aware of the heated debate that goes on about it. So far it has been highly unobjective but as I have seen, this has been discussed elsewhere and I will be providing some commentry where appropriate.

Under the 'Conspiracy Theories' heading we have a statement: "It was once broadcast that the Jews rule the country, that their government should be removed with violence and that Radio Maryja should take the power." I have listened to the source and being a fluent Polish speaker I must object. The statement itself may not be untrue but I believe it is a fine example of information manipulation. To clear up, the source is a recording of a listener calling in and clearly giving her opinion, something which is further highlighted by the presenter who says to literally translate: "that was one opinion". This is therefore not the official view of the station in anyway just like a TV station cannot be held responsible for the political views of those who appear on discussion shows or the like. With this in mind I strongly suggest small edit of the statement to perhaps:"A listener once called in strongly emphasising her ideas that the Jews rule the country, that their government should be removed with violence and that Radio Maryja should take the power." This would be a an objective, true statement and more in line with Wikipedias code. Thank you. AngryFarmer 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given no response I have edited the section myself. Furthermore, I have deleted the second part of the statement reffering to Radio Maryja accusing Jews for being responsible for 9/11 as this is a falsification and it was also not referenced at all and hence out of place in an 'objective' medium such as Wikipedia. Thank you.--AngryFarmer 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ksenon's sockpuppetry[edit]

Ksenon has now begun to edit as users 83.5.218.85 and 83.5.182.181 so that he doesn't get blocked again. This is against Wikipedia rules, it's sockpuppetry, and it is pathetic.--Milicz 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the editor was, your insinuations that Im pathetic break Wikipedia and, what's more, moral rules, so why dont you refrain from showing your indecency. I am not editing the article any longer as I respect Wikipedia rules, as can be witnessed in my editing history, so take your demagoguery somewhere else. Back on topic, Wikipedia is not a forum for political agendas, which you seem determined to force through, and which I can not allow, unless your determination to get me blocked comes to fruitition, reflecting your true adherence to the democratic spirit of Wikipedia. Your obvious POV is shameful and exposes Wikipedia's vulnerability. Im off- will be back tomorrow -bye. Ksenon 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the sockpuppet, and it is PATHETIC. The editing times clearly prove it. I have no political agenda yet YOU CLEARLY DO, and all you do is accuse. You never take any constructive criticism, you just delete and accuse and I'm sick of it. Take some responsibilty, take some criticism and try to include it into your version instead of deleting everything. Why don't you answer specific questions regarding the articles and your gross generalizations? Wikipedia spirit? I wish you had some.--Milicz 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relying on Nasz Dziennik and Trwam as legitimate sources[edit]

I just checked your sources Ksenon, Nasz Dziennik the often times controversial ultra-nationalistic Polish daily which also has overtones of anti-semitism [1] and which is closely tied in with Radio Maryja (Ewa Sołowiej, Rydzyk's close associate and former Radio Maryja Warsaw Burea chief)? Not a very objective source, and not one that a serious researcher or journalist would rely on. Trwam on the other hand is RUN by Rydzyk, the same guy that runs Radio Maryja! This reminds of the planted journalist in the White House press room. I didn't know about this stuff, as I said I don't have an interest in this apart from having truthful articles in Wikipedia. At least you haven't cited Szczerbiec.--Milicz 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to not quote Nasz Dziennik and Radio Maryja then we cannot quote Open Democracy (opendemocracy.net) either as the Polish reporter (Adam Szostkiewicz) who contributes there is an outspoken, unobjective critic of Father Rydzyk.--AngryFarmer 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Milicz's POV version[edit]

He tries to put extraordinary emphasis on the radio's critics, something that was already in the article in a neutral form. Also see below for some. Oh, and the hate site you add is balances on copyright infringement. Also, see below for sources. You might want to check the Polish article out to see masterly NPOV balance. Cheers Ksenon 16:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting any extra emphasis on the radio's critics. You are pushing a clear POV, I am not, I don't have an agenda as you seem to think I have. You are trying to make Radio Maryja into a victim and you are removing my attempt to balance your UNCITED point of view, Radio Maryja may be a victim but to many critics it is not. I have no idea what your claim of copyright infringement is about since those sections are cited. I did check the Polish Article, I'm surprised you would bring it up since it includes a section called Debate over Radio Maryja, "W opinii krytyków, Radio Maryja żeruje na stereotypach, na ludzkiej ignorancji, niewiedzy, oraz na kompleksach ludzi niewykształconych. Krytycy twierdzą, że Radio Maryja w skrajny sposób propaguje antysemityzm i radykalną ksenofobię oraz skrajny konserwatyzm, szerzy informacje o istnieniu rzekomych ogólnoświatowych spisków masońskich i ukrytych knowań w wielu aspektach życia społeczno-politycznego Polski." and links to a seperate article[2] that goes far further than that, or what anyone else has written in the English language version when it comes to criticism. So why don't you take a dose of your own medicine, and why don't you edit instead of delete, works a lot better. --Milicz 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To try to claim that your version is a compromise is a real insult to the word compromise. You have not tried to appease anyone, you simply delete. Try to follow wikipedia rules and stop violating 3RR.--Milicz 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am following rules (one broken 3rr, needlessly sucked into a revert war, smartened up now), and I am not deleting, as anything you add is heavily biased and hyper-emphasised as if trying to prove a particular POV. Cheers Ksenon 23:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't emphasized anything, in fact I have inluded (and fixed up) your poorly written defense of Radio Maryja. You on the other hand claim that Radio Netherlands, Polityka and the BBC are hate sites, and you delete instead of edit. Therefore you're not very convincing.--Milicz 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well if you weren't blinded by your own POV, maybe you'd have noticed that I havent omitted any of those sites you mentioned (which are well-respected, unlike the trashy and copyright-violating sites youd like the reader to be redirected to), or is that a lousy attempt at a strawman argument? Judging by your edits, youd like to direct the reader to the "right" conclusion. That is not NPOV.

I think it's pointless for me to keep trying to bilateraly negotiate anything here. Ksenon 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a POV on this matter Ksenon, unlike you. You ignore the Polish article that you brought up, and I just now realized that you're claiming the Stephen Roth site to be the trashy site, if that is the case then you should be ashamed of yourself. If it's not I apologize, but I have no idea what other cites you're referring to.--Milicz 16:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenon's undiscussed changes[edit]

If we allow such absolute swill to fill the pages of Wikipedia then God help us all. This article should be locked in its current state.--Milicz 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an unsubstantiated attack. Please lock this article before Ksenon reduces it to poorly worded Maryja propoganda again. --Milicz 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ksenon, please stop reverting the page, if you want a critics section and a counter-criticism section, fine, but all you do is delete.--Milicz 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a counter-criticism section which is far more POV then anything in the critics section, now stop reverting. Your point of view, BTW is not neutral, it is anything but. --Milicz 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There already were references to it in the article, but specifically and emphatically accusing the radio of systematic anti-semitism is smear. Ksenon 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section is about controversies surrounding the station, the controversies do exist and they are cited. I included your explanation for these controversies (secular post-communist media is to blame), but you can't just ignore the critics charges. You can add your charge that "There is a smear campaign against the radio that RN doesnt have to know about, esp. in Polityka There already were references to the controversial views of some of its listeners, not HOSTS" to the article. But you're deleting accusation that do exist. It is not our job to state who is right, the point is to show both sides if need be. --Milicz 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is slanted and hits the reader as basically focusing on dubious and dual criticism. But Im not hell-bent on pushing POV, so I will refrain from engaging in revert wars. Ksenon 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your "toned down version" includes the following non-factual statements that have your POV Ksenon:
  • "These points do not fit into the secular lines of the mainly liberal and post-communist media"

That is not fact Ksenon, that is your uncited opinion, continuing on

  • "sparking virulent attacks on the radio, its listeners and its founder, by means including falsitude and manipulation" Please show me any legitimate work that shows Maryja is being attacked by "falsitude or manipulation", just one source would be nice.
Sure, even a biased site like yours has some miniscule info on it:
http://www.ojciec-dyrektor.de/301.htm
http://www.jerzyrobertnowak.com/audycje/ataki_na_radio_maryja.htm
http://www.radiomaryja.pl/ataki-tvn.htm

Ksenon 16:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing Radio Maryja, and religous sites, but OK, why don't you use those cites in the article the same way critics are used in the article???--Milicz 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention- Radio Maryja is a subject of a heated debate in Poland[edit]

Editing an article on this issue is thus comined with the probability, that users instead to add their arguments, will try to erase the existing ones. Moa anbessa 15:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moa, how familiar are you with our policies? In addition to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view you should practically memorize {{wikipedia:No original research]]. If you violate these policies people will delete your work and no one will defend you. If you comply with these policies fewer people will delete your work, and if anyone does you will have much support. The crucial thing (referring to two other policies) is that you will be on strong ground if instead of drawing on your own personal knowledge you draw on and provide verifiable sources. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debata_o_Radiu_Maryja has a bunch of data, you might be able to get information from there in bulk, without much in the way of debate (as it already exists as sourced and linked articles). Anyways, I've added this page to my watchlist. Ronabop 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, hopefully factually cited info will no longer get deleted now.--Milicz 18:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking good faith edits?[edit]

I'm sure we can keep this article sane, provided it is well sourced. I've restored Moa's last edits, and done some grammar cleanup, and it would be good if some of the statements were better sourced. Ronabop 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read my explanations Ksenon 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm seeing the accusations of anti-semitism coming from several reliable sources, why were those removed? Ronabop 06:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lingering tendency to associate the Catholic church with anti-semitism in the generally secular and left-wing media. Besides, the views of some viewers do not reflect official policy. How can references such as "our elder Jewish borthers" used by the radio be anti-semitic? Listen first, then spew if you have to. Ksenon 12:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, this is *not* the official Catholic church station (That would be Radio Jozef, right? I had some cited text explaining that Jozef was the actual, official, Catholic station, and that Maryja was booted from the church's offices, but you removed it.).
As far as referencing 'our elder Jewish brothers', use of that term would depend on the context. The links I've found so far seem to indicate that Maryja is supporting bizarre anti-semitic notions such as Jews controlling the media, Jews controlling the banking system, Jews taking money out of the country, Jews being warned away from the WTC., etc. Ronabop 15:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article is a complete nonsense[edit]

the main feature of radio maryja is that it is antisemitic and is run by catholic church. It is written now in tha article that although it is run by the church, it is not an official church radio (!!!), and that it is not antisemitic, but its listeners are. This is a nonsense! Those jesuit censors that cut my edits should be carefully observed- they cut too much. Moa anbessa 11:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2289567.stm ... Maryja isn't part of the catholic church, though it does seem to be tightly connected to a catholic political party. Ronabop 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Maryja and antisemitism[edit]

Sources for that: http://www.or.org.pl/artykuly/acala-rm.html http://www.radiomaryja.pl.eu.org/ http://rydzyk24.e-sai.org/ I have compiled these links for Ksenon. He was erasing them from the main article. Moa anbessa 11:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More: http://www.masterpage.com.pl/outlook/catholic.html http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/poland.htm http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=media&storyID=nL23156850&imageid=&cap= http://www.diapozytyw.pl/en/site/slownik_terminow/antysemityzm/ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=412339&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y Ronabop 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"These proofs"[edit]

http://www.radiomaryja.pl/ataki-tvn.htm

It is well documented. Read what some of the leading professors in the country have to say

Well documented? That's ridiculous. All these "leading professors" are people connected with Radio Maryja. That source is completely unreliable. Authors of those articles try to prove that TVN program was prepared using some propaganda techniques (BTW Radio Maryja uses such methods non-stop) but I see no proof that there was any "fabricated material".
This fragment: "...secular lines of the mainly liberal and post-communist media..." is clearly an opinion, not everyone could agree with such statement. Generally, whole article looks like Radio Maryja propaganda, all controversies are described in just one sentence without examples and further explanations.
I have no time to work on this article now, but it's definitely not neutral. 83.23.61.102 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

background info[edit]

I cannot pretend I'm impartial, but I will try to make my best to give you some background

  • Radio Maryja is directed by Tadeusz Rydzyk CSsR (a charismatic catholic monk) with some level of blessing from the church, but the sheer amount of support the director receives from the radio listeners surely can make church hierarchs uneasy
  • There is no catholic political party in Poland, although some of the parties exhibit strong ties to catholicism (perceived by them as integral part of polishdom)
  • Quite a few of the media in Poland exhibit outright hostility towards Radio Maryja and related media and the father director himself. This meets with similar response
  • Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik and TV Trwam share the background, POV, the contributors and the audience, so they can be seen as different forms of the same medium - this is the source of Rydzyk's Empire common name. No other nation-wide media present similar POV and there is no lack of nation-wide media in Poland.
  • Calls to shut the radio down have occured, with explanations ranging from radio noise interfering with plane communication to antisemitism - this was done by groups and individuals otherwise announcing themselves as proponents of free speach and general liberty
  • Accusing the radio of nationalism is strange indeed since the radio defines itself as strongly tied to national identity and promotes national cultures as opposed to the globalised monoculture
  • The estimations of the number of listeners are uncertain, but it is believed that there are enough of them to have decided about the outcome of the last parliamentary and presidential elections in Poland (2005), which was contrary to what other media touted as the predicted results

--matusz 02:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Accusing the radio of nationalism is strange indeed'.... Uhm, so, is the radio station essentially self-defined as being nationalist, both by itself and its critics? Ronabop 07:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A hate radio"[edit]

Is there a better phrase for this? It doesn't sound "right". Elpaw 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to controversies surrounding Radio maryja, I also added citations for all of the discussed facts.--Milicz 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You basically added links to hate sites. Why not just try listening to the radio instead of spreading lies? Btw, views of listeners do not reflect the radio's policy, so it's ludicrous to accuse it of anti-semitism and other forms of extremism. And calling it a hate radio is dangerous misinformation, as youre the hater here, as your editing style shows. Ksenon 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not hate sites, those are "critics", and people have a right to know what supporters and critics of the station think.--Milicz 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The radio draws criticism, but to introduce the station as controversial right up front would require a new policy where any concept or entity that draws any criticism (99.9% of articles out there), big or small, to be labelled as such. All criticisms are included in the article. Milicz is basically trying to shift the delicate NPOV balance towards the controversial side, totally ignoring the radio's real message and focusing only on underlining the accusations as much as possible, even if they dont have to be true. Ksenon 07:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how democraticaly elected majority coalition leaders can present important information in radio if the radio can be considered hate radio? As a rule minority and otvoted grouops lousing society support may hate the proces. They will cray "whay the stupid voters not love us". As in personal live unfultfiled love can appear like hate. But the love to counism is gone. Anyway the comunism husband was wife(country) abuser. Milicz: milcz. The love is a past ilusion.

comment[edit]

Saw the request for comment. My thoughts on the article:

  • Intro is too short, doesn't cover enough.
  • Criticism section is well sourced.
  • Counter Criticism section is unsourced. Please find sources, and also make sure to make counter criticism sections a subsection of the criticism section.

Peace, --Urthogie 11:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on in Poland[edit]

http://kmdm.net/sat/metro.gazeta.jpg The new craze. Proven to be a bunch of crap, much like the stuff Milicz pushes, which is based on these types of publications. Nevertheless, they are included, though not in an "in your face" form. Peace. Ksenon 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of pushing anything, because I'm not. I did my due diligence on this, I went ahead and listened to the links, I went and read the reports, I went and checked your cites, and the facts simply do not reflect what you are saying.--Milicz 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop revert warring[edit]

Hey guys. If you continue to revert one another back and forth, and not responsibly use the talk page, I'll get it protected. Everyone, please calmly bring up your issues here before editing. Thanks.--Urthogie 11:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

This is an attempt at informal mediation in reaction to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10_Radio_Maryja. --Fasten 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenon: You mentioned Matusz's summary on the article's talk page. Were you referring to #background_info? --Fasten 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that Ksenon was referring to #background_info when he spoke of the summary, because that is all I ever saw from Matusz. --Milicz 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (by the way: I write names in bold when I address somebody, especially at the beginning of a paragraph - there is no need to follow that and write all names in bold). Do you still require mediation? --Fasten 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright :) I think we still need mediation. We currently have a stalemate, nobody is adding or removing from the article for fear of reverts,--Milicz 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I removed an entire section for being completely unsourced(commented it out). Noone seems to have gotten mad.--Urthogie 10:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep our fingers crossed.--Milicz 17:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to cross my fingers, I have wikipedia policy on my side :). The stuff needs verification to be put back.--Urthogie 18:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Ksenon doesn't contribute to the page or this talk page there doesn't seem to be any need for mediation? Is that correct? By the way: Mediation by the Mediation Cabal is informal and has no authority, I'm mainly here to give advice on policy, make you see each other's point or recommend procedures to solve a dispute. --Fasten 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Thanks for stopping by though!--Milicz 21:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep the page on my watchlist in case you need mediation later on. --Fasten 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this case. --Fasten 12:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any interest to resume mediation? --Fasten 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This case is closed. --Fasten 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Tells Polish Church to Rein in Radio Maryja[edit]

[3] Markus Schmaus 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can remove the neutrality tag now, especially with the Vatican weighing in on this now.--Milicz 19:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I suggest you to lock editing this article. Look at the history. Polish version of Radio Maryja is locked already: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Maryja Some of the people started to playing with Radio Maryja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.244.168.130 (talk • contribs) Fasten 16:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antipolonism and anticatholicism[edit]

In my opinion this article "about" Radio Maryja is very agresive and false. I listen to Radio Maryja regularly and i know that this radio is good. There is nothing about evangelisation, praying in this article. Only stereotypes about homofobia, antisemitism, fanatism and another liberal slogans. I will change this article. And I'm asking for help everybody who wants to write about the truth. 85.128.92.78 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Maryja itself is one huge satanic, anticatholic station. Evangelisation? How many people do you know that converted to the Roman Catholic Church under the influence of this radio? I know a lot that stoped going to the church, protesting against tolerating these national socialists. Barry Kent 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is stupid what are you talking about. "Huge satanic, anticatholic station" - what is the source of those terrible opinions? "National socialist"? ha ha I heard the Pope John Poul II and polish bishops. Their opinions are good for this catholic station. I know many people who listen to this station and their faith growns up every day. 85.128.92.78 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask you again: How many people do you know that converted to the Roman Catholic Church under the influence of this radio? Barry Kent 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very hard question because there are 96 % catholics in Poland. The Pope John Paul II and Polish bishops talked about deepening the faith by the Radio Maryja many times. 85.128.92.78 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA! That's a good one! The Vatican has repeatedly chastised Radio Maryja, stop listening to Radio Maryja for your facts.--Milicz 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the truth. Your mistake isn't funny. I hear the Vatican and Polish bishops carefully. You should know Polish: "Biskupi jako pasterze Kościoła wyrazili uznanie i podziękowanie za wielką pracę ewangelizacyjną prowadzoną przez Radio Maryja" - from: http://www.archidiecezja.szatko.maniak.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=12585.128.92.78 08:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4][5][6][7]Ronabop 10:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about stop listening to Radio Maryja. The Vatican wanted to regulate relations between Radio Maryja and Polish bishops. It was done in May and June 2006. Official declarations of Polish bishops - 2.V.2006 and 25.VI.2006 - in Polish. [8] - number 3 [9] - number 4 85.128.92.78 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False historical statements[edit]

Uhm, according to our auschwitz articles, the camp opened May 20, 1940, and the first gassing was in September 1941. So, it *could* be reasonably argued that Auschwitz started as a forced labor camp. Ronabop 07:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox News of Poland?[edit]

This sound like the Fox News--ah I mean Fox Noise of Poland.

Most of Fox N's commentators are extreme right wing Catholics. You might as well be back in 7th grade with mother superior yammering at you.

Gee, that sounds entertaining. Marerules 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds quite similar from an american perspective, but maybe coming from a country (Poland) with formerly highly regulated media, trying to transition into a highly unregulated media, they are still in the mindset of thinking that some media is telling them "truth", or something related to it. Add in a touch of a belief that a church "doesn't lie", and you get a very powerful media force. At least Faux News doesn't claim direct authority from god. Ronabop 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of this article is offending Rev. Rydzyk and this is against Wikipedia rules[edit]

The article on Radio Maryja should be deleted. In Poland, the minimum of requirement of social conduct is to call a priest at least "reverend" (in Polish ksiądz) or "father" (in Polish "ojciec", if he is a monk), independently whether you like or dislike him. So the usage of just "Rydzyk" is equivalent to offending him and means making politics, in particular means that the author is a militant anti-Catholic and trying to enforce his political views to the readers. So the article is apparently not neutral. For this reason alone, the article should be banned -or at least rigorously verified for reliability of sources, e.g. if they are really independent (e.g. not owned by the same media group etc.).

Well, I do at least agree that he should be referred to as Rev. Rydzyk and I'll try and catch all the references. Gzuckier 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Tadeusz Pieronek, referred to in the article, is a bishop. According to Polish rules, he should also be referred to at least as "bishop (in Polish biskup or ksiądz biskup) Tadeusz Pieronek".

This article should be deleted[edit]

1. It does not represent the neutral point of view;

2. Some sources cited are not considered trustworthy:

-"Gazeta Wyborcza" was involved in "Rywin Affair", a botched attempt to broker the media influence in the name of "a group holding the power", for which Mr. Rywin has served time in jail;

-"Polityka" is a former Communist Party newspaper, with strong leftist bias;

-The chief figures in TVN were shown to have had served the Military Intelligence Services which were disbanded only last year;

-"Wprost" has yet to correct or substantiate it's ungrounded accusations against Mr. Zbigniew Herbert, yet it had already launched a similar campaign against Mr. Rydzyk. This illustrated weekly has Communist roots.

3. I invite the editors to actually review the contents of Internet portals "naszdziennik.pl", "www.radiomaryja.pl" and bring the actual proofs of alleged antisemitism, antigermanism, xenophobia etc. instead of the current compilation of second- and third-hand opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpharck (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Its fascist point of view. --89.79.222.60 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "<<Gazeta Wyborcza>> was involved in <<Rywin Affair>>". Haha! If someone stole your handbag, does it mean YOU were involved in a theft? ;) Slamazzar 83.6.224.143 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

This Wikipedia page is in no way neutral and should be rewritten. I also fail to see many of these wild claims backed with anything credible. Fr8train Oct 17th 2007

Please be precise[edit]

I want once again to encourage the editors to be precise: (1) Szczuka is a feminist, this is important when evaluationg what she did (2) Szczuka mocked the disabled on TVN television (not on a television); (3) the TVN was not punished for employing Szczuka, as you suggest, but for letting her mock the disabled (4) the penalty for mocking a disabled was the lowest (not the highest) one in Polish history, as there was no other station so far that had to be punished for mocking a disabled. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.142.214 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "antisemitism" :
    • <ref>[http://www.michalkiewicz.pl/rdm_29-03-2006.php]. Michalkiewicz responded by calling ''Gazeta Wyborcza'' "an unusual example of the Jewish [[fifth column]] in Poland" and "a Jewish newspaper for Poles". Supporters of Radio Maryja claim that hateful or anti-Semitic statements transmitted by the station are rare and originate mostly from its listeners and not its employees<ref>[http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?nr=200409&dz=polska&id_art=00035 Sunday - Catholic Magazine<!-- Bot generated title -->]
    • [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE7D6113FF930A35756C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "LETTER FROM POLAND; Differing Treatment of Religious Slurs Raises an Old Issue"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', May 3, 2006. Accessed April 4, 2008.

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Communist Radio?[edit]

A note on the conflict of RM with communists was just removed as not encyclopedical. While being backed with direct reference to a confirmed case in the media themselves, it has been classified as "unsourced". Congratulations on neutral treatment of the subject. How long will you keep accusations of nationalism, anticommunism etc. not backed by a single source? Why does it disturb you to hear that RM criticizes nazis? It is a question only. Not a suggestion.

Eventual fork[edit]

If Radio Maryja ever tones down its public line, it is possible that the current controversies about the station would become a thing of the past. If so, then I would suggest a fork about the controversial material, so that it can be archived as an essentially historical issue. The fork could be called controversies surrounding Radio Marya and would me modeled on entries such as Controversies about Opus Dei and Controversies surrounding the Society of St. Pius X. ADM (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ShannonCB (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)just did a minor grammar change.[reply]

Removed NPOV templates[edit]

I removed NPOV template from the article; such templates need to be accompanied by an explanation on talk on what is not neutral/undue/etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is outdated[edit]

The article informs about the past, it doesn't even mention recent manifestations or split of PiS.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Cardinal Glemp isn't a Primate since 2009.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve this article. Slowly. You is my inspirations. Wizikj (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme bias[edit]

This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia that I have seen. It is obvious that the author hates this radio station. The entire article should be rewritten. First of all, the term in the lead to describe listeners of the radio Maryja is derogatory and should be removed. Many of the controversies alleged are untrue. The article only has quotes from critics, and no quotes from supporters. Ag97 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV policy does not forbid properly sourced bias. There appears to be more criticism than support for RM even in international Christian media, and the article reflects this. Besides, there is now a Supporters section and anyone can easily add relevant quotes. The article is now well equilibrated, even if the equilibrium is shifted towards criticism. Rachelizdebnik (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced claims[edit]

An editor has added claims the station is homophobic and anti-roma, referenced to a search url that does not mention the topics. A proper reference giving the page on which these claims are needed will be necessary. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Radio Maryja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Radio Maryja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radio Maryja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radio Maryja. 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) 03:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radio Maryja. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Radio Maryja. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Radio Maryja. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radio_Maryja&oldid=1211945895"