This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jarosław Kaczyński article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am uncomfortable with the use of this "Pink news" article as a source on the accusations about Kaczyński. Unlike the Times Online article that was removed recently, it is vulnerable to the charge that it comes from something that may not be a reliable source. The article also seems clearly biased against Kaczyński, and is written in a somewhat sensational way. I think Wikipedia can and should do better than this. UserVOBO ( talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliable example sources for these three might be, in my opinion:
1 - Krakow Post - which mentions the 1992 investigation into his sexuality (when Poland was free, I stress).
2 - Telegraph.
3 - Dziennik - (in Polish) a reliable paper twinned with Britain's Times.
Any thoughts? Should we get outside help to create a stable consensus? Malick78 ( talk) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we have consensus here yet. I'm leaning toward including the information - so long as it's properly sourced, it shouldn't really be a problem. But let's emphasize the "properly sourced" part. Nothing about this can be sourced to something that isn't clearly reliable (and "Pink News" would fall into that category) and it can't be there without a source, either. We have a policy called WP:BLP. UserVOBO ( talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
* "In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files" - we are quoting it here as if it was Holy Gospel, because some other magazine quoted something that as of yet no one here had read. Great!
Indeed. This page needs to be locked against IPs, I'm in support of Malick78's edit. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files which document a discussion on his sexuality. In the files, a former communist SB officer speculated on Kaczyński's sexual orientation.[19] Relations between Lech Walesa and Kaczyński have for many years been strained since Walesa told a joke about 'two brothers who arrive at a party - one with his wife and one with his "husband"'. He was alluding to Kaczyński.[20][19]"
Rzeczpospolita didn't ---> release <--- any files. Where did you get this from? As to the jokes being quoted here - get yourself a blog. This is not a tabloid. As far as the imaginary consensus is concerned? Go ahead and re-read the comments starting at the top. Doomed Soldiers ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC).
See, Malick, I believe you fail to understand that neither Wikipedia, nor this article specifically, belongs to you personally. This article is a collective effort of other editors as well. If you took the time to read through all the comments starting at the top (and I have a feeling you don't like to read comments other than your own), you would notice that throughout this discussion, many other editors voiced similar, if not identical objections as I have. One or two even called this article a "joke". Guess what, by including rumors and "jokes" in this article, you are in fact, turning it into a joke itself. What I find particularly puzzling is that you persist in trivializing, sensationalizing, an article about a living person without providing real and verifiable information. I don't know what your agenda is, but I believe Wiki can offer far more than a tabloid-like, and sub-standard quality content. Is your persistence in furthering slanderous, and libelous content here potentially illegal? Well, we might find out soon. Doomed Soldiers ( talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Chumchum7, this needs to be mediated. For the time being, the contentious content should be removed - pending resolution of this dispute. I believe that would be a fair course of action. Any objections? Doomed Soldiers ( talk) 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong objection. If you want mediation, keep the page as it is until there's a decision. You're allegations of 'slander' and 'libel' show a singular misunderstanding of the concepts involved and aren't serious objections. There's nothing illegal on this page, just the reporting of what other significant parties have said. Btw, why did Chumchum delete lots of previous sections in an edit? Was it intended? Was it archived somewhere? Malick78 ( talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong objection to the material being removed from the article, for the reason there appear to be 3-1 editors who want to keep it in, and that their reasons are in keeping with WP policy and guidelines. Note that BBC-reported speculation about Jaroslaw's heterosexual activity, which has never been edited out, is not superior to the Telegraph and Times reported speculation about Jaroslaw's homosexual activity, which keeps getting edited out. The removal is biased. Also note that there is a whole paragraph at
Lech Walesa, on his alleged collaboration with the communists (including his denials and legal procedures), which hasn't been removed for the same reason that the material shouldn't be removed here. And Malick, I don't recall removing any sections, nor would I have wanted to, are you sure your observation is accurate? Please show me the 'diff' you are talking about. And finally, my position remains that this needs mediation, while the material remains. -
Chumchum7 (
talk) 06:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Malick, if you are wondering about this edit
[1], I have no idea how that happened. Could it have been a software glitch? Please restore the material unless WP software moved it to the archive. -
Chumchum7 (
talk) 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Alleged affair discussed by tabloids: I think source is not reliable enough. A.J. ( talk) 12:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
In Poland we don't have somethning like "official opossition", that's a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.63.155 ( talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Missing some inline cites - quick fail for B-class. -- Hanyangprofessor2 ( talk) 04:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I am disappointed that there is not a SINGLE ENTY of criticism about Kaczynski. Is he without flaws now, according to wikipedia? No objective criticism anywhere to be found? 84.113.183.242 ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with more knowledge of the Polish political system find a Western equivalent (or a better way of expressing in English) for "Christian-democratic and conservative liberal Civic Platform"? At least one more sentence may be needed to clarify this "conservative liberal" phrase especially. I've worked on the final sentence in this section, trying to eliminate the way the last clause seemed to refer to Tusk, though please feel free to improve it further.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jarosław Kaczyński. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Almost the same text in the lead and in the section. Xx236 ( talk) 13:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is rude and its is a discrimination to write about someone's sexuality. It should be removed from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.135.237 ( talk) 01:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Its not rude, as Kaczynski is known from his extremely homophobic speeches. In Poland, before Kaczynski came to power, politicians, even very right-wing and Catholic, have never discussed openly somebody's sexual life. Kaczynski was the first to start abusing LGBT people in public and he even talked about some 'gay bomber' puting bombs in Warsaw. He seems to be obsessed about them. Very weird, as he himself has never been married and nobody have never seen him with any woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.152.68 ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Kaczyński owns no computer and is said to have opened his first bank account only in 2009.
It is not true. As every Polish MP he owns a tablet and tablet is type of computer. All the part about personal life should be rewrited as it's full of not true sentences.
http://s3.party.pl/newsy/jaroslaw-kaczynski-smieje-sie-z-tabletem-332529-article.jpg http://i.iplsc.com/jaroslaw-kaczynski-z-tabletem-w-sejmie/00026WVA6MOIJ7B3-C322-F4.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.239.18 ( talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
13:55, 24 December 2017 Mélencron (talk | contribs) . . (22,572 bytes) (-6) . . (rv, obvious NPOV) 12:46, 24 December 2017 Hyrdlak (talk | contribs) m . . (22,578 bytes) (+6) . . (Formally the gov't is not kaczynski's, but de facto he rules, hence, dictatorship, see: /info/en/?search=Dictatorship > Dictatorship is a form of government in which a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person (a dictator) or by) 23:52, 20 December 2017 2a00:23c4:9010:c400:fd30:3fca:c63:ce93 (talk) . . (22,925 bytes) (-2) . . (→Return to power (2015): Dictatorship?!)
Dictatorship is a form of government in which a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person (a dictator) or by a polity, and power (social and political) is exercised through various mechanisms to ensure that the entity's power remains strong. [1]
Prime Minister and President take orders from and are controlled by J. Kaczyński, who has no mandate of this kind.
Obviously, not. It was, first, Beata Szydło's and now Mateusz Morawiecki's.
In reality it is Kaczyński's government, which in itself shows that this system of government is defined by the term dictatorship. Well, it can be qualified by the adjective soft or creeping, but a dictatorship, nevertheless [2]. The opinion is shared by the mainstream mass media and observers after the unconstitutional liquidation of the tripartite division of power in Poland, which evoked the triggering of Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union on 20 December 2017. [3]
yeah dictatorship after objectively honest elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.135.227.118 ( talk) 10:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
References
There are two separate sections. Please unify them. Xx236 ( talk) 08:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
And I speculate if this Wikipedia is serious. BTW - was Towleroad reliable in 2006 regarding problems of Poland? Does Towler read Polish documents or rather copies translations of selected parts from biased anti-Kaczynski POlish sources? Xx236 ( talk) 11:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Removed statement on alleged rumors regarding JK's orientation. One reference source link is dead the other only addresses the fact that such gossip existed and/or was circulated, and that the Polish secret service (btw, which in 1992 was still controlled by former communists) commissioned such as report, stating: "It is advisable to establish if Jaroslaw Kaczynski remains in a long-term homosexual relationship and, if so, who his partner is.” However, this was never confirmed. Also, as politics go, dirty tricks and smear campaigns are the norm, so we should not include as fact statements related to rumors or hearsay, great example of this is the situation sounding the US President Barak Obama's birther claims, which at one point Donald Trump advocated. Does that make it true, would we include that in the Obama article? But, in this article is says that Lech Wałęsa alluded to JK's orientation, so it has to be true? -- E-960 ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the category "Polish people of Jewish descent" should be added: https://gloria.tv/post/CFVgasqjokJY37DzKwj6mkkra "History of the Jewish people is my history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.3.101 ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Receive me as fast as you can 202.51.88.162 ( talk) 04:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with this figure, but the section on conspiracy theories that he allegedly holds is very short, and doesn't seem to have a lot of meaningful content. There's no equivalent segment on the Polish language page for him. Is this encyclopaedic / could it be retitled to reflect his attitudes more directly. I note that he appears to be strongly against migrants. Maybe something about that could be a better title for the segment?-- ConfusedAndAfraid ( talk) 11:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jarosław Kaczyński article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am uncomfortable with the use of this "Pink news" article as a source on the accusations about Kaczyński. Unlike the Times Online article that was removed recently, it is vulnerable to the charge that it comes from something that may not be a reliable source. The article also seems clearly biased against Kaczyński, and is written in a somewhat sensational way. I think Wikipedia can and should do better than this. UserVOBO ( talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliable example sources for these three might be, in my opinion:
1 - Krakow Post - which mentions the 1992 investigation into his sexuality (when Poland was free, I stress).
2 - Telegraph.
3 - Dziennik - (in Polish) a reliable paper twinned with Britain's Times.
Any thoughts? Should we get outside help to create a stable consensus? Malick78 ( talk) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we have consensus here yet. I'm leaning toward including the information - so long as it's properly sourced, it shouldn't really be a problem. But let's emphasize the "properly sourced" part. Nothing about this can be sourced to something that isn't clearly reliable (and "Pink News" would fall into that category) and it can't be there without a source, either. We have a policy called WP:BLP. UserVOBO ( talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
* "In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files" - we are quoting it here as if it was Holy Gospel, because some other magazine quoted something that as of yet no one here had read. Great!
Indeed. This page needs to be locked against IPs, I'm in support of Malick78's edit. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"In 2006 Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita released secret service files which document a discussion on his sexuality. In the files, a former communist SB officer speculated on Kaczyński's sexual orientation.[19] Relations between Lech Walesa and Kaczyński have for many years been strained since Walesa told a joke about 'two brothers who arrive at a party - one with his wife and one with his "husband"'. He was alluding to Kaczyński.[20][19]"
Rzeczpospolita didn't ---> release <--- any files. Where did you get this from? As to the jokes being quoted here - get yourself a blog. This is not a tabloid. As far as the imaginary consensus is concerned? Go ahead and re-read the comments starting at the top. Doomed Soldiers ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC).
See, Malick, I believe you fail to understand that neither Wikipedia, nor this article specifically, belongs to you personally. This article is a collective effort of other editors as well. If you took the time to read through all the comments starting at the top (and I have a feeling you don't like to read comments other than your own), you would notice that throughout this discussion, many other editors voiced similar, if not identical objections as I have. One or two even called this article a "joke". Guess what, by including rumors and "jokes" in this article, you are in fact, turning it into a joke itself. What I find particularly puzzling is that you persist in trivializing, sensationalizing, an article about a living person without providing real and verifiable information. I don't know what your agenda is, but I believe Wiki can offer far more than a tabloid-like, and sub-standard quality content. Is your persistence in furthering slanderous, and libelous content here potentially illegal? Well, we might find out soon. Doomed Soldiers ( talk) 22:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Chumchum7, this needs to be mediated. For the time being, the contentious content should be removed - pending resolution of this dispute. I believe that would be a fair course of action. Any objections? Doomed Soldiers ( talk) 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong objection. If you want mediation, keep the page as it is until there's a decision. You're allegations of 'slander' and 'libel' show a singular misunderstanding of the concepts involved and aren't serious objections. There's nothing illegal on this page, just the reporting of what other significant parties have said. Btw, why did Chumchum delete lots of previous sections in an edit? Was it intended? Was it archived somewhere? Malick78 ( talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong objection to the material being removed from the article, for the reason there appear to be 3-1 editors who want to keep it in, and that their reasons are in keeping with WP policy and guidelines. Note that BBC-reported speculation about Jaroslaw's heterosexual activity, which has never been edited out, is not superior to the Telegraph and Times reported speculation about Jaroslaw's homosexual activity, which keeps getting edited out. The removal is biased. Also note that there is a whole paragraph at
Lech Walesa, on his alleged collaboration with the communists (including his denials and legal procedures), which hasn't been removed for the same reason that the material shouldn't be removed here. And Malick, I don't recall removing any sections, nor would I have wanted to, are you sure your observation is accurate? Please show me the 'diff' you are talking about. And finally, my position remains that this needs mediation, while the material remains. -
Chumchum7 (
talk) 06:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Malick, if you are wondering about this edit
[1], I have no idea how that happened. Could it have been a software glitch? Please restore the material unless WP software moved it to the archive. -
Chumchum7 (
talk) 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Alleged affair discussed by tabloids: I think source is not reliable enough. A.J. ( talk) 12:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
In Poland we don't have somethning like "official opossition", that's a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.63.155 ( talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Missing some inline cites - quick fail for B-class. -- Hanyangprofessor2 ( talk) 04:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I am disappointed that there is not a SINGLE ENTY of criticism about Kaczynski. Is he without flaws now, according to wikipedia? No objective criticism anywhere to be found? 84.113.183.242 ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with more knowledge of the Polish political system find a Western equivalent (or a better way of expressing in English) for "Christian-democratic and conservative liberal Civic Platform"? At least one more sentence may be needed to clarify this "conservative liberal" phrase especially. I've worked on the final sentence in this section, trying to eliminate the way the last clause seemed to refer to Tusk, though please feel free to improve it further.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jarosław Kaczyński. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Almost the same text in the lead and in the section. Xx236 ( talk) 13:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is rude and its is a discrimination to write about someone's sexuality. It should be removed from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.135.237 ( talk) 01:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Its not rude, as Kaczynski is known from his extremely homophobic speeches. In Poland, before Kaczynski came to power, politicians, even very right-wing and Catholic, have never discussed openly somebody's sexual life. Kaczynski was the first to start abusing LGBT people in public and he even talked about some 'gay bomber' puting bombs in Warsaw. He seems to be obsessed about them. Very weird, as he himself has never been married and nobody have never seen him with any woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.152.68 ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Kaczyński owns no computer and is said to have opened his first bank account only in 2009.
It is not true. As every Polish MP he owns a tablet and tablet is type of computer. All the part about personal life should be rewrited as it's full of not true sentences.
http://s3.party.pl/newsy/jaroslaw-kaczynski-smieje-sie-z-tabletem-332529-article.jpg http://i.iplsc.com/jaroslaw-kaczynski-z-tabletem-w-sejmie/00026WVA6MOIJ7B3-C322-F4.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.239.18 ( talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
13:55, 24 December 2017 Mélencron (talk | contribs) . . (22,572 bytes) (-6) . . (rv, obvious NPOV) 12:46, 24 December 2017 Hyrdlak (talk | contribs) m . . (22,578 bytes) (+6) . . (Formally the gov't is not kaczynski's, but de facto he rules, hence, dictatorship, see: /info/en/?search=Dictatorship > Dictatorship is a form of government in which a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person (a dictator) or by) 23:52, 20 December 2017 2a00:23c4:9010:c400:fd30:3fca:c63:ce93 (talk) . . (22,925 bytes) (-2) . . (→Return to power (2015): Dictatorship?!)
Dictatorship is a form of government in which a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person (a dictator) or by a polity, and power (social and political) is exercised through various mechanisms to ensure that the entity's power remains strong. [1]
Prime Minister and President take orders from and are controlled by J. Kaczyński, who has no mandate of this kind.
Obviously, not. It was, first, Beata Szydło's and now Mateusz Morawiecki's.
In reality it is Kaczyński's government, which in itself shows that this system of government is defined by the term dictatorship. Well, it can be qualified by the adjective soft or creeping, but a dictatorship, nevertheless [2]. The opinion is shared by the mainstream mass media and observers after the unconstitutional liquidation of the tripartite division of power in Poland, which evoked the triggering of Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union on 20 December 2017. [3]
yeah dictatorship after objectively honest elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.135.227.118 ( talk) 10:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
References
There are two separate sections. Please unify them. Xx236 ( talk) 08:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
And I speculate if this Wikipedia is serious. BTW - was Towleroad reliable in 2006 regarding problems of Poland? Does Towler read Polish documents or rather copies translations of selected parts from biased anti-Kaczynski POlish sources? Xx236 ( talk) 11:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Removed statement on alleged rumors regarding JK's orientation. One reference source link is dead the other only addresses the fact that such gossip existed and/or was circulated, and that the Polish secret service (btw, which in 1992 was still controlled by former communists) commissioned such as report, stating: "It is advisable to establish if Jaroslaw Kaczynski remains in a long-term homosexual relationship and, if so, who his partner is.” However, this was never confirmed. Also, as politics go, dirty tricks and smear campaigns are the norm, so we should not include as fact statements related to rumors or hearsay, great example of this is the situation sounding the US President Barak Obama's birther claims, which at one point Donald Trump advocated. Does that make it true, would we include that in the Obama article? But, in this article is says that Lech Wałęsa alluded to JK's orientation, so it has to be true? -- E-960 ( talk) 17:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the category "Polish people of Jewish descent" should be added: https://gloria.tv/post/CFVgasqjokJY37DzKwj6mkkra "History of the Jewish people is my history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.3.101 ( talk) 08:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Receive me as fast as you can 202.51.88.162 ( talk) 04:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with this figure, but the section on conspiracy theories that he allegedly holds is very short, and doesn't seem to have a lot of meaningful content. There's no equivalent segment on the Polish language page for him. Is this encyclopaedic / could it be retitled to reflect his attitudes more directly. I note that he appears to be strongly against migrants. Maybe something about that could be a better title for the segment?-- ConfusedAndAfraid ( talk) 11:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)