Talk:Polish Plumber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 62.52.34.208 2 Sources 3 Polish Plumber Ad 4 "used by opponents to the european treaty"

[edit] 62.52.34.208

Please don't vandalise this article. Your changes don't even make grammatical sense. You may wish to add an additional paragraph explaining how this might be considered propaganda, but to change the word advertisement in the first sentence is ludicrous, as it is patently an advert. --TimPope 20:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't abuse the word vandalism, for it is not vandalism according to wikipedia. A following paragraph explaining why it should be propaganda is ludicrous. Have you ever created a paragraph to whether Poland is a country? No. That doesn't belong to wikipedia. And since the tourist agency is totally unimportant, it doesn't even deserve another paragraph. There's so much propaganda out there that wikipedia mustn't be filled with any. I told you to check the article on propaganda and added a link so it can be found. If you have problems, explain why any other poster in wiki's propaganda article is propaganda while this one is not. The wiki article is a featured one by the way, so I would call it a credible source.62.52.34.208 20:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate on why this propaganda after the new sentence. Do not change the opening sentence, as "Polish Plumber is a character featured propaganda by the Polish tourism board." is a grammatically incorrect sentence. --TimPope 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not incorrect any more.62.52.34.208 21:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)´

I've explained it to you before and except for a biased denial, you couldn't offer anything. Can't you read the definition of the article on Propaganda yourself and see that the truth of my words is demonstrated? 62.52.34.208 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made no comment as to whether one might consider this as propaganda or not. All I ask is that you explain within the article why it is propaganda. Are Coke adverts propaganda? --TimPope 21:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they're propaganda. All advertisement is propaganda. That's why the wikirule says 'Wikipedia is not a propaganda mashine' and more specifically includes advertisement. It's just like the article for propaganda defines it and just like I said how it defines it

'"Propaganda shares many techniques with advertising. In fact, advertising can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product; however, the word "propaganda" more typically refers to political or nationalist uses, or promotion of a set of ideas." I cannot see your commercial product, nor it's freedom for politics or are you suggesting that "advertisement" has not a governmental background? It's for entire Poland!62.52.34.208 21:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

From WP:NOT, read the second sentence "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view."

I have therefore asked you to explain within the article why it may be considered propaganda.--TimPope 22:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Interprete the second sentence "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." Is it neutral to give so much text to a dumb propaganda when in reality the text should focus on a fear? 62.52.34.208 22:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling it propaganda without explanation is not approaching a neutral point of view is it? --TimPope 22:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is called advertisement without explanation. It is called model without explanation. It is called poster without explanation. It will be called propaganda with explanation on Talk:.--Neutrality Plumber

Talk is not part of the article. Its status as an advert, Piotr's status as a model, and being a poster are supported by the references in the external links section. --TimPope 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As the quote from Propagandaarticle unmistakenly shows, propaganda is more accurately than advertisement. Although we didn't say so, I think we agreed on neither advertisement nor propaganda but poster, so I want these revert dogs to show restraint and not play vandalism democracy, in which the POV pushers win by simply overshadowing the reasonable by misusing the 3-revert-rule. Discuss or don't delete. You act vandalistic and you know that.--Neutrality Plumber And learn how to translate. You don't translate "Oui!" (normal) with "Affirmative!" (formal) or "Oh yeaaaah"(informal,slang) but with "Yes!", so don't translate "Je t'attends" (normal) with "I await you" (formal) so why the fuck (vulgar) do you revert it?Neutrality Plumber 21:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Just a note on sources, as Neutrality Plumber mentioned in them in his last edit summary: this article is not solely based on the BBC news article , although much of it is. This story got a reasonable amount of coverage in the British and other international press. One can google for "Polish Plumber" and find much material. I have not linked all sources, but I may add a few more soon, to counter this claim. The French wikipedia article [1] is also quite interesting, but has its own problems, mostly about how de Villiers pronounced Bolestein's name, and whether he is a propagandist. --TimPope 07:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Plumber Ad

That's just genius. Talk about taking lemons and making lemonade! Good on the Poles. Rhombus 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "used by opponents to the european treaty"

Hi, I changed the introductiv sentence because I think it's not true that this phrase was an actual argument of the opponents to the treaty. There were during the referendum nationalist considerations, since the nationalist parties were against it, but there were also left-oriented parties among the opponents which had social considerations. It was actually a controverse in France since it was often written in the media that nationalism was the main argument of the opponent and all non-nationalist opponents critisized this as an attempt to discredit them. The phrase "plombier polonais" was at least as often heard from the supporters (to critisize the opponents) as from the opponents (in my opinion actually more often!). I tried however not to introduce my opinion in the article but a review, both for the form (since I don't write english so well) and the content would be a good idea. However, I sincerely think that it is not neutral to pretend that the "plombier polonais" really was an argument against the treaty (also, it was first intended as an argument against the Bolkestein proposition, not against the treaty, but the Bolkestein proposition was itself used as an argument against European Union, and then against the treaty, since it was during the same period). Polletfa (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)