Talk:Simon Mol

Simon Mol claimed to be anti-racist, while being racist himself.

It has to be stated in the article, that mister Mol hated White people. He was a pan-African Black-nationalist and anti-White racist. He consciously infected several Polish women with HIV virus, because, as he claimed - they should die for who they were. Mister Mol was unaware that Polish people are in fact not the oppressors of Africa. Western Europeans, including Germany, are the real oppressors of Black people. Portuguese, Spanish, French, English, Italian, Dutch and German people are the real oppressors of the Black nations. Slavic countries like Poland had nothing to do with Blacks on the course of history, with an exception of Polish soldiers helping the Black Haitan rebels in fighting against the French oppressor, or a few black people who claimed to have Polish roots helping the Polish guerrillas to fight against the Nazis in the Warsaw Uprising. These are facts. Now, mr. Mol was just a typical racist person. I don't feel sorry for those Polish women as well, while they just proved their promiscuity and now have HIV (or died of AIDS) because they were so stupid to have sex with a random Black guy only because he was Black. As I say - it should be stated in the article, that Mol was a pan-African activist, a Black-nationalist, and an anti-White racist. Racism is racism, no matter what race you hate. If you say racism can be only hating Blacks, and a Black person can not be a racist, then you just proved you are an ignorant racist yourself. 78.8.126.185 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, although Black racism is alive and kicking, it would be a stretch to claim he did it as part of a "race jihad". There were some claims in Polish press that Simon Mol may have had it in mind, but there was little evidence to prove it. That is why I have not included these claims in this article. You are welcome to update it if you find good proof.

BTW, this very article had been deleted from Wikipedia at least once and I had to recreate it: please protect it. Zezen (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume he knew that he is infected way before he started to have sex with these dozens of White women. An interesting fact is, that while he knew a lot of Black women living in Poland, he didn't have sex or any form of relationship with Black women since the time he got infected. He slept only with Polish women. The Polish court introduced him 13 allegations, one of them was the criminal transmission of HIV and consciously infecting 40 women or so. When he was arrested he accused the police of racism, while the police officers didn't do nothing racist against him and didnt say nothing wrong. He used to accuse EVERYBODY of racism just because someone stepped on his toe. This man was a fool and he was openly prejudiced towards White people, but totally unconscious that Poles differ alot from other Whites, historically and culturally. The media in Poland described mr. Mol quite widely, and I know he once said, that these infected women got what they deserve. Might be true, as their stupidity and promiscuity was at its peak. However, this Black racist and pan-African nationalist wasn't so innocent as the Western media pictured him. 78.8.227.126 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please thus add these wrong claims that he "was innocent" to the article, as a separate section. I analyzed his case in full (I am Polish, so it's easy for me), but I have not found "Western" news advocating these. Zezen (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Western media first said that Mol was a victim of racism in Poland without giving a reason or a proof of this "racism", and this was of course totally false, as the only racist person around was mister Mol. After Mol turned out to be actually a false political refugee, a criminal, who consciously spread his desease among Polish women, then the Western media decided that maybe he was a little bit less innocent. He was nothing but a racist trash. 78.8.187.155 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Again - should it be so, please add this interesting info to the article itself (with proper sources) and not only here, to this talk page. Zezen (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a plenty of Polish sources while the non-Polish media didn't write about it too much. Only brief descriptions of the case.

It's a fact that Mol was an anti-white racist. Calling him an anti-racist activist is a DISGRACE and a strict lie. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Political correctness in Criminal transmission of HIV prevention

A section of this article, properly sourced, etc. has been removed. Please discuss it here first. This is what it claimed, after revision and referencing:

Parallel cases in other countries

His intentional infection of local female sexual partners, attempts at denial of his illness and accusation of institutional racism, are similar to other racial minority immigrants cases. For example around the same time in Finland, the first case of criminal HIV infection was that of Steven Thomas, a Black US citizen from New York, who was convicted in 1997 in Helsinki for knowingly infecting Finnish women with HIV during 1993–1996. When in January 1997, Finnish police published Thomas' picture in newspapers, many Finnish politicians were worried about politically correct ramifications of this public health prevention act. This pattern is repeated in many countries, as evidenced by WHO studies.

If you can find statements that say 'this is a parallel case to that of Simon Mol' we can possibly use them with attribution. Statements about political correctness need to be backed by sources that mention "political correctness". Not up to us to decide what other phrases mean the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The SOURCED data is political correct enough, and if you change it, then it will be not what the sources say. Stop attempting to delete valueable information from Wikipedia mister Dougweller. I see it's not the first time as you do this thing. 78.8.201.216 (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be perfectly legitimate to debate issues of alleged "racism" and alleged "PC" in the article, but the section was clearly WP:SYN. The sources did not support the claim that racial over-sensitivity was an issue in this case, or is an issue more broadly. None of the cited texts say that. Of course if Mol played the race card to defend himself and got called on that, we can have a discussion of the issue in the article - if it is directly sourced. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Doug is right. The problematic part is the "are similar to other racial minority immigrants cases." statement, which appears to be uncited and thus a WP:OR. Unless those other sources mention him, the rest is also a SYNTH issue, particularly standing out in this article. Now, you can add this to Criminal transmission of HIV or such article, where it may be better suited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If there aren't verifiable reliable English-language sources about this, does this even belong on English Wikipedia?

Just asking. What is this article doing here? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There are. Apart from the references in the article, here are Simon's allegations of institutional racism, as published by DJH Medianet er Danmarks Journalisthøjskoles:

Finally broken - a portrait of a young poet, activist and political refugee

Moleke By Michiel Drost (Medianet)

As a young journalist critical of corrupt governments in his home country Cameroon and Ghana, Simon Mol, now 33, ended up in jail twice and was tortured. He refused to stop although he could. As a political refugee in Poland he has been fighting discrimination and for refugee rights. Now, the one-man-institution who inspires thousands is on the verge of giving up. [Archived source]

Reliability-wise - would this English language report, where "Political Correctness" is mentioned already in the title, and which only quotes police, published by a reputable Polish daily Rzeczpospolita count? I quote:

Political Correctness Kills: The Consequence of Bad Ideas Last Wednesday, Simon Mol's apartment was visited by a group of men dressed in civilian clothing. Mol initially believed them to be racist attackers, but opened the door only when he noted that they were accompanied by uniformed police officers. The police officers took him to the station, where they explained that he was accused of spreading HIV amongst women. "He was calm," noted Officer Marek Siewert, "he didn't admit anything, he said he wasn't sick and that he did not infect anyone." He also threatened to report the matter to international human rights organizations.

«The most dramatic aspect of all of this are stories about Mol forcing women to have unprotected sex with him by arguing that using a condom with a black man is a sign of racism and racist fears; that it is politically incorrect. This is coupled with the fact that for many women, having unprotected sex with a black man fulfilled two politically correct obligations: it was trendy to have sex with a black man, and it was also a sign that one was not prejudiced against blacks.

"Simon Mol always accused everybody of racism. When you didn't do what he wished, he would yell that it was because he was black. He never listened to any arguments, he would always just leave, slamming the door behind him. Everyone knew that he could make his accusations public, and everyone feared it," says a person who runs a humanitarian organization that helps refugees. "It goes without saying; he terrorized us with political correctness. And he was very charming as well."

Authors: Bertold Kittel, Maja Narbutt, Editor's Comment by Peter S Rieth Rzeczpospolita nr 7, 09-01-2007 [archived source] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So Mol mouthed off about being a victim of "racism" whenever he didn't get his own way. By all accounts, he was a congenital liar and con-man. That's what con-men do, use whatever tools they can to get their own way. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reputable sources

OK, I doxed a bit and found English language sources from: Agence France Presse (e.g. this report) Amnesty International (their 2001 report, available in French only, as the English version is gone by now). The article is updated with these, with verbatim citations. I have some more newspaper sources in store, should the claims be challenged again.

Zezen (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings with your deletion request, I have created yet another archive... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 15:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has requested a deletion. Why are you archiving this talk page off-wiki? Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article - or rather a different one on the same topic - was first created in 2007 while he was still alive. It was then deleted on the grouds that he was not notable. The deletion discussion is 7 years old. Paul B (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The template makes the date clear. We normally show old AfDs on the talk page. I'm still wondering about the reason for saving it off-Wiki. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. I noticed there was a deletion request for this very talk page this time, not the article itself. That is the reason I archived it, for my records.

2 For your information, this article and other language versions of this article about Mol have been deleted, censored, blanked, reverted etc. on PC grounds many times. See e.g. this log examples here. I omit the swear words of one angry sock who blanked it back then "(#$#%^$^ #$#%%$#% STOP TO WRITE ABOUT SIMON MOL !!! It is only promotion of racism !!!)" Zezen (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no deletion request for the "talk page". Don't be so ridiculous. Why don't you click the link where it says "the discussion" and read what it says, instead of jumping to absurd conclusions. It's your view that "political correctness" is some sort of problem. Other editors take the view that that's WP:BOLLOCKS. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

AIDS Denialism as his motive

I can see that my edits linking his case, with sourced denialist claims to AIDS denialism are reverted both here and on the AIDS Denialism case. Since I do not want to engage in revert war, I will provide scientific sources proving that his denial of AIDS due to circumcision is universal there.

Please refer to the talk page there soon. Once and if I obtain consensus there, I will revert the link deletion here, if you do not mind. Zezen (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

AIDS denialism is the view that AIDS does not exist, or is not caused by the HIV virus. It has next to nothing to do with being "in denial" about having been infected. The only connection is the fact that some infected people turn to AIDS denialism in order to avoid confronting the fact that they have a potentially deadly virus inside them. From what I can gather, Mol denied that he was infected at all. That's quite different. He did not, as far as I can tell, deny the existence of the disease or that it was caused by HIV. He was either a downright liar, or, like Typhoid Mary, he simply blocked out the truth even from himself. After all, let's not forget that he died because he refused treatment. He'd almost certainly be alive today if he was just being deceptive to other people. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

Linking to the discussion at RSN with a permalink.[1] There are both RS and WP:UNDUE problems with e-teatr. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Is speedy deletion as an attack page (yeah, I know, he is no longer living) warranted? Maybe there is some other ground for deletion here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it passes general notability. I doubt it's any much more of an attack page than other pages on peoople who are mainly notable for criminal acts. Paul B (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

This assessment is based on this version of the article, before somebody proceeds to tear it down and fix it. (I've spent four hours going over these citations, so I'm taking a break from this sort of work).

• The first citation is cited for "Simon Mol (6 November 1973 in Buea, Cameroon – 10 October 2008) was the pen name of Simon Moleke Njie, a Cameroon-born journalist, writer and anti-racist political activist." It supports "Simon Mol" and "Cameroon-born." It actually counters "Political activist."

• The second citation is cited for "In 1999 he sought political asylum in Poland; it was granted in 2000, and he moved to Warsaw, where he became a well-know anti-racist campaigner. In Poland, Mol was accused of spreading his HIV virus to as many as 40 Polish women, for which he was charged and remanded in custody." It supports "political asylum in Poland," "Warsaw," "spreading his HIV virus to" (at least 11) "Polish women," and "for which he was charged in remanded in custody." It does not support claims of him being well-known or an anti-racist campaigner.

• Attempts to access the third citation resulted in repeated redirects, no matter how many javascript programs I enabled, eventually resulting in the Gazetta saying "Page not found." Going to Archive.org a result that should be cited instead of the apparently dead link. It is cited for "However, Mol's trial was suspended due to his severe illness," which it otherwise supports when one is able to locate it. It does, however, contain a lot more information.

• The fourth citation leads to this page. Archive.org was once again necessary to find the correct link, it in no way supports the claim it's cited for: "He died from HIV-related complications on 10 October 2008." Seeing as that article was written in January of 2007, it would be rather hard for it to detail his death almost two years later.

• The fifth citation is a dead link. Once again going to archive.org, we still get a dead link. So, nothing to support the claim "Mol was born into an English-speaking family in Cameroon. His autogiography states that he worked as a journalist; was persecuted and jailed for his writing; sought political asylum in several African countries; and was granted asylum in Ghana, where he was persecuted again." In fact, there are portions of other sources claiming that Mol was never jailed for his writings in Africa. Still, the paragraph immediately after is completely unsourced.

• The sixth citation goes dead on my end. I've been able to load other pages from that site before, so once a-bloody-gain going to Archive.org I just get the index for the site, nothing about Mol. I tried checking older versions, but without any indication as to when the index might have had the information, this citation is unforgivably useless and so the material cited to it is unsourced (for the record, that material is "In June 1999 he arrived in Poland as a member of the Ghanaian PEN Club delegation to a PEN annual congress in Warsaw. Immediately, Njie applied for asylum, which was granted in September 2000. In Poland Simon Mol wrote poems, founded a small theatre called Migrator Theatre.").

• The seventh citation is thankfully already Archive.org'ed, though not directing one to the actual page. Going with the latest, it's cited for "and engaged in political campaigns for the rights of refugees, anti-racism, anti-fascism and environmental protection. His activities brought attention to presumed racial discrimination in Poland," and it supports most of that (though it makes no mention of anti-racism, anti-fascism, or environmental protection) and it could support the previous sentence regarding poetry and the Migrator Theatre (but not the rest of the material cited to the previous source).

• The eighth source (which seems to be available here) should be cited to page 131. It does support the claim about "him filing reports to Amnesty International about the alledged institutional racism."

• The ninth and tenth sources support the material they're cited for. The tenth citation is also citation #11, and it appears to support the material, though I didn't readily find that Mol's audience were formal ambassadors.

• The twelfth citation supports what it's cited for.

• The thirteenth citation cited the print option instead of the article itself, putting a damn "Page saved as" bar in front of the article when I tried to save it to actually read it. The correct address was thankfully visible in the background, and may be found here. When the correct address is used, it supports the statement it is cited for.

• The fourteenth citation supports the statement it's cited for, except the date (the date 5 Jan 2007 is when the news piece was published, not when he was detained!)

• The fifteenth citation, which is the the same source as the first citation claims that that source says "each time they wanted to use protection, he accused them of racism" -- Which is completely false, those words do not appear anywhere in the article "More victims of Simon Mol." The sixteenth citation is cited for the same material, and does support the material otherwise.

• The seventeenth citation does not support the material it is cited for, especially the numbers. It potentially supports other claims in the article.

• The eighteenth citation supports its claims.

• The ninteenth citation was determined to have been authored by a racist conspiracy theorist at WP:RSN and should be removed and not used again.

• The twentieth citation is a forum post, and so fails WP:SPS. If the article that is linked on that forum is what's truly cited here (and we assume no alteration on the forum), Mol complains about anti-Semitism, but does not explicitly call Sylvia an anti-Semite. At any rate, as Paul Barlow has brought up before, Mol isn't Semitic.

• The twenty-first citation supports the material it is cited for.

• The twenty-second citation, which is the same source as the tenth citation, supports the material it is cited for.

• The twenty-third citation (which is the same source as the fourth citation) does not support the material it is cited for, but the twenty-fourth citation (which is [the same source as the second citation) does.

• The twenty-fifth citation is two sources, the first of which and the second of which together support the portion they're cited for, though they should be seperated to prevent WP:SYNTH.

• The twenty-sixth citation does not mention refusing treatment, but otherwise supports the material it is cited for.

Many of these citations are detrimentally poor, so much so that it's unfortunately easy to assume bad-faith. Given the repeated arguing by Zezen for including Mol's accusations of Antisemitism and claims that Moll was a HIV/AIDS denialist (based on overemphasis of some points and continued refusal to understand how this site defines HIV/AIDS denialism), I cannot assume that Zezenis editing in this topic with both good-faith and competence. One or the other, yes, but not both. I've seen editors be topic banned for this much, and given Zezen's rather heavy focus on Simon Mol, I see that easily happening if things do not improve. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely fantastic work, Ian. I've removed one source which of course changes the numbers. The source you call the 14th is reporting the same information as the one you call the 17th. It is meant to back "By July 2007 fourteen of Mol's sexual partners had been identified with HIV. Several women informed Mol that they believed they had contracted HIV from him." but it's the same date, January 5th, so it can't source something that happened in July.

I've now rewritten that and done more work, eg moving a quote from Mol into the article. I note that one reference just says " "More victims of Simon Mol". "each time they wanted to use protection, he accused them of racism." with no source for the quotes. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed that the quotes only one was meant to be this source (titled "More victims of Simon Mol"), which doesn't contain that quote. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This was originally copied either from User:Dezidor/Simon Mol or from the Metapedia article. If it was copied from User:Dezidor/Simon Mol then we have the problem that not only does it not have the contributions from that draft, that started as a userfied copy of the deleted article so all of those attributions have been lost. We can add something at the header of this page if User:Zezen will tell us where he copied it from Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It was many months ago when I recreated this article. From what I can remember, I used an archived copy of the deleted Simon Mol Wikiepdia article, version unknown, using either Google cache or one of the many "Wikipedia deleted articles archive" services. I had quickly checked some sources, but some of them are out-of-date by now, as has been splendidly analyzed by Ian.thomson here

As the previous (deleted) Wikipedia version thereof is and was public source, there is no copyright problem. Zezen (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Wikipedia articles are not PD. Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. From our policy:"The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." " Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement" Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Infected up to 40?

That's what Zezen claims at List of HIV-positive people[2] using [3] and [4]. Where in the world did he get 40? Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mol letter

This is the 18th citation mentioned above. It's used to back "Before winter of 2006, rumours of Mol's infection started to spread over the internet; he explicitly denied them in a public letter". I'm not sure what winter that is, but it is dated February 2006. I can't find where it says there were rumours on the Internet. It's not a letter of course, it's a blog. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sacred sperm?

I've added this to the discussion at RSN. The source gives no context for whatever Mol said, so we don't know if he was reciting poetry or asking for his sperm to be worshipped. And I can't find where it backs "He explained his refusal to put on a condom during sexual intercourse by claiming that his sperm was "sacred"". If Zezen can't show where it does, maybe it is time for ANI? Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as not in source. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ingrained hash?

Surely that should be "harsh". But it appears that English versions do have "hash". I can't access the Mol webpage itself. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah Doug has given me the original. Thanks. Google translate give the wonderful: "In Poland, what can be said without much exaggeration, we are dealing with a submersible, stiff, terrifying resentment against the Africans." I'm guessing that "submersible" corresponds to "ingrained" and "stiff" to "harsh", so I'll change it. Paul B (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazing work from all contributors

Thank you all *very much* for your hard word on Simon Mol, especially to Ian Thomson, whom I thanked separately. I am awed by your perseverance and assuming my good faith.

As you can see most of these claims were borne by the refs.

The reasons why they were so hard to dig by now is that most of these articles, especially the English ones, were quickly removed from the agency archives, while the interested (and, granted, irate) Polish and international audience quickly Archive.org-ed them en masse, rightly expecting such censorship.

Some of the remaining claims, e.g. whom Mol met and infected, and what what exactly he claimed, published and where, were provided in some "lost" articles. (I have managed to uncover two new "doubly archived" sources since yesterady, but I will not use them here yet.)

Other examples and even the stated rationale of removal of such articles are quoted herein above by myself. I should add the inexplicably disappeared English version of the Amnesty International 2001 report thereto. (Out of social curiosity, I created an outside (b)log of such deletions over numerous language versions of Wikipedia and otherwise, detecting a visible pattern, but will not link it here.) No wonder that after such numerous reverts, removals, section blankings, disappearing sources, manual content recreations - some of these claimes, even the ones painstakingly tracked and resurrected down by me, were still wrong. If one could fix these URLs in the article itself, using the extensive list prepared by Ian.thomson - that would be great. If not, i can polish them up, although I will be a tad busy over the next couple of days.

I agree to all your edits (apart from one, where I fixed my "belief" claim to his actual actions, as cited in the article) and even to your decision on non-RS status of some of these sources. (A side note about the latter - the "racist conspiracy theorists" working in Rzeczpospolita, a major Polish daily, are investigative reporters and the avowedly conservative Polish-American comentator, previously unknown to me, whose mission statement I found here. )

I have edited a number of varied articles here, from Novartis, via Hutzuls to Ebola. While some of my edits were repeatedly reverted, I was finally Barnstarred in the end for my perseverance, and such articles have stayed put since.

Kudos to all - I admire you and your work.

Zezen (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't use blogs

The stuff about circumcision is from the director and author [5]Sylwester Latkowski's blog at [6] - various anonymous contributors and something supposedly from Mol, but we don't use personal blogs. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right about the blogs as not being RS. Unfortunately, a semi-scientific article that discused the efficacy of his circumcision for the presumed HIV protection etc. from a medical point of view, is gone from Web archives by now.

OTOH, right now I will add some new fascinating info about him, using perfect RS sources, with ISBN etc. and properly Webarchived this time, promise!

Please review them there: I love imbuing the Wikipedia spirit by standing corrected and discovering latent POV in myself thereby. Zezen (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lobbying by UNHCR because of Mol's case explicitely mentioned in a best RS publication

Before any PC-minded busybody Wikipedian hastily deletes my newest subsection about Mol's political impact, please double-check the source I gave.

I copied its content almost verbatim, using the words and claims in this Cambridge University Press book. (It took some doxing through murky web crawlers to arrive there.)

A quote thereof is copied below: Oxana Shevel (2011). Migration, Refugee Policy, and State Building in Postcommunist Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2011. ISBN 1139502336. "The limits of UNHCR's lobbying capabilities on issues that have high domestic profile are evident in the following episode. [...] The introduction of HIV testing of asylum seekers came on the heels of much-publicized trial of a Cameroonian refugee and renowned human rights activist accused of knowingly infecting dozens of Polish women with HIV." and the reference #15 given are precisely the references used in this Wiki article.

Pure gold, I should say, validating my previous links to political correctness lobbying.

It's past midnight in my time zone, so I will not post for a while. Zezen (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? How on earth do you connect this passage to "political correctness lobbying", whatever that is? Paul B (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've checked the source. Nothing in it supports your claim that there was any "lobbying by UNHCR because of Mol's case". The full passage, part of which you have left out, says

The limits of UNHCR's lobbying capabilities on issues that have high domestic profile are evident in the following episode. In December 2005, Polish authorities invited the UNHCR to participate in the process of transposition of the EU qualifications directive and the 2005 asylum procedures directive into Polish legislation. One of the proposed measures the UNHCR voiced concerns about was the system of medical screening and HIV testing of asylum seekers. This did not prevent the introduction of the system in April 2007, however. The introduction of HIV testing of asylum seekers came on the heels of much-publicized trial of a Cameroonian refugee and renowned human rights activist accused of knowingly infecting dozens of Polish women with HIV." [7]

This clearly states that the UNHCR was involved in discussions about the implementation of EU regulations from 2005, long before the Mol case. It also seems to imply that the proposed "medical screening and HIV testing of asylum seekers" predated the Mol cases, but is not entirely clear on that. So the UNHCR voiced concerns about refugee rights, which is their role. That's why they are called "United Nations High Commission for Refugees". This has nothing to do with "political correctness" in even the loosest sense of a term that was pretty-much a catch-all expression to start with. Paul B (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he is referring to editors or something else. Ah, just noticed his post to User talk:78.8.227.126 so both editors and others. His recent edits to Criminal transmission of HIV#Legal, political and social problems starting with "Some commentators have argued that political correctness may also be a contributing factor in some cases," are relevant. User:Zezen, you still don't grasp the fact that your sources need to mention political correctness, and that statement needs to be removed if they don't (and they don't). He also mentions lobbying there:"Also, lobbying and concerns were voiced by UNHCR trying to stop Poland, on the heels of his case, to introduce mandatory HIV testing of asylum seekers. These UNHCR lobbying efforts were unsuccesful and Poland introduced these tests in April 2007 nonwithstanding". That's based on an RS which says " ""The limits of UNHCR's lobbying capabilities on issues that have high domestic profile are evident in the following episode. [...] The introduction of HIV testing of asylum seekers came on the heels of much-publicized trial of a Cameroonian refugee and renowned human rights activist accused of knowingly infecting dozens of Polish women with HIV." but needs attributing to Oxana Shevel. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

central Mazovia region

"Record number of HIV virus cases were detected in the central Mazovia region and the whole Poland in January 2007. According to the media reports, one of the reasons behind it was Simon Mol." It is entirely unclear what this sentence means. It might mean that Mol personally infected these women, which the phrasing seems to imply, or it might mean that the high-profile Mol cases led to a large number of people getting HIV tests. The report itself seems to be a very short summary of a radio show on the issue. Is it possible to get more detail? Paul B (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Heads up of new sections

Dear fellow Wikipedians

As I advised, I will be too busy to reply to any of the queries re Simon Mol that may accumulate. Sorry. Feel free to edit (edit, not point-blank) it and the related entries at will during my absence, sticking to NPOV and the Wikipedia spirit, of course.

Just a heads-up: Mole's affair gets interestinger and interestinger, beyond expectations. In a couple of days, when I have some room to breathe, I plan to significantly expand his bio by the following sourced discoveries that I made since yesterday only:

1. Mol nominated to a prestigious international prize by the president of Poland, alongside Tadeusz Mazowiecki.

2. Mol milking the system by creating shill foundations and blackmailing outspoken political opponents who had to pay to his sports team (see my latest yesterdays edit about his sport career) or foundation by a court order

3. Police delaying his arrest (and thus the new infections) for months, because they were (rightly) afraid of PC pressures on them

4. Attempts at derailing the court proceedings so as to release him, fiercely resisted by the rightist minister in the then government who threatened to represent the opposing parties (the infected girls) in person

5. Media monitoring studies paid with government money and the follow-up requests for removal of sensitive reports by the organisation Mol's friends belong(ed) to. (A likely reason why they are so hard to find by now).

6. Another RS source that it was due to him that now all refugees are mandatorily tested in Poland, despite the pressures. (FYI, there seem to be only two other European countries which instituted such forced and random tests on refugees, even after their release to the local populace, as of today - another gem of knowledge).

7. Mol with his fiercely loyal African pro-multiculti friends trying to teach Poles about the Polish language, attempting at banning some words during televised public debates, using the Sapir Worf Hypothesis as an argument, against the leading local lexicologists and Black Polish MPs, who denounced it as bunkum.

8. His case is was a "turning point" in the Polish discourse on AIDS - a claim RS-ed as the reviewer of the topical thesis is a disinterested non-Polish EU Professor.

9. Mol and his leftist friends redefining Polish history and its symbols, branding their ideological opponents as institutionaly racists because of their beliefs and flags, plus secretly banning them from football pitches despite Polish law, with these mass PR campaigns and materials paid from EU funds and from slush monies of a football association, which is constantly warring with and taking to court the head of its own Ethics commission (who, the head that is, in turn was tenaciously fighting back up to taking the matter to the Supreme Court), and which (the association that is) kept paying for all these Mol & Co's antics for years, probably because they dreaded being banned from EU championships on PC grounds

There's more.

10 and 11 are so outlandish that I will not even mention here yet, before I double or triple source them, using newly discovered, hopefully also fully RS-compliant, materials.

Sounds like loads of conspiracy bunk already? Good.

If you really cannot wait until then, read this RS source for Claim 8 only, a copy-protected and hard to find PDF (non-Google webcrawlers help here), devoted mostly to the social and PR impact of Mole's affair.

(NB, I do not promise yet I will be fully substantiate all these from 1 to 11 - so I may drop working on a point or two from the above.)

Till then, your doxing Zezen (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, did I mention that:

12. His date of birth as currently stated in the article, is very likely wrong? (Yes, he lied again even about it, to obfuscate the trail)

13. He was a university lecturer at a prestigious Polish institution of higher education?

14. He was jet-setting to PoMo conferences around Europe and contributing to the resulting conference papers about, say, Italian social and racial mediascape (I am not making it up) as a paid Polish government expert on racial harmony?

15. He kept complaining of being dirt poor as a refugee in Poland?

16. He was on a district social services committee tasked with providing free accomodation to refugees, and.... yes you guessed it: he voted for a providing a flat for himself while serving as a board member?

No?

There's more. The truth will out. But these things have to wait until I find more time. Zezen (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You sound like you're on a campaign. How about we keep things a little more WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT and that will save a lot of work all round?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What are "PoMo conferences"? And how do you "secretly ban" people from football pitches???! So you don't like Mr Mo very much. Who cares? As for his being nominated for prizes, or arguing about the Polish language, Lots of campaigners argue that language affects attitudes and campaign to stop people using words that are thought to be demeaning. So what? He had opinions you disagree with. I'm sure he had opinions I disagree with too, but you seem to think it's somehow outrageous that he was allowed to express views you don't like and that some people were also allowed to agree with him. Shocker. Would the fact that he spread HIV recklessly somehow invalidate all his opinions if he's been a hard-line conservative? Jimmy Saville was a strong supporter of Margaret Thatcher. Does that somehow invalidate Thatcherism? I've no doubt that the case was a "turning point" in political debates of AIDS in Poland. I don't see anyone arguing that it wasn't. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Success! The source retrieval part of the work is done: as per hereinabove, I've had to struggle against significant link rot, even more massive than in a similar case of an Orthodox saint that I had toyed with some months ago (unchallenged since, from what I've checked now) and maybe as much of an eye-opener and entertaining as my Mastercard update. By now I can fully substantiate the yet-unlisted "south-paw" Claim 10 and only partly (alas) equally weird Claim/discovery 11. Please wait some more.

@Paul B

1. PoMo for you, meanings 2-5. See Mol's contributions e.g. here

2. Please save on the question and exclamation marks: "How can you "secretly ban" people from football pitches????!" I wrote "beliefs and flags" - registered historical symbols, more precisely. Well, you are the master: can ban although it may be illegal <grin> - Simon Mol & Co knew better, as he co-wrote this Vademecum and got paid, a fact RS-ed by now.

Legal or not, the mystical "they" did and keep doing do, with EU and UEFA money (too pressed for time to paste a link to 2001 UEFA materials, search for "FARE grants, football, UEFA, EU"), with amazing scope-creep: by now the presumed racism, pacem Mol, is quickly subsuming LBTQIXYZ issues (sorry for not the perfect link - a better one is burried somewhere in my materials).

BTW, the topic and my ferreting itself proved so interesting that I plan to publish a separete article about it in a mainstream magazine. Till then.

3. Jimmy Saville - bad example. He did not claim NOT to be raping children, luckily he did not infect anybody with highly virulent HIV (RS-ed, and traced to Case 0, Mol that is) and was not a crybaby when challenged. (Well, because he was not when alive. They public were afraid of him too, for very similar PC reasons.)

4." I don't see anyone arguing that it wasn't (notable). " See e.g. the reverts history here: claiming Mol was not notable (there are more articles). Once we are at it, please revert their the newest biased deletion, of fully RS-ed impact statement - I have no patience with these PC POV guys anymore. Zezen (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: The expected by me Mol's impact deletion there, Point 4. Can one take the deleting party to these NPOV (or like) Wikipedia higher courts on my and Wikipedia's POV's behalf? I do not know how to do it, not being a senior editor.

Zezen (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You want something reverted that was edited with the edit summary "Fixed non-standard refs. Every other entry is a two line description. This was five lines. Made a more concise summary. Removed reference for his death that was cited to a report before his death." because you think it is pov? Your edit was pretty clearly trying to make a point. If you think it violates NPOV, all you have to do is go to WP:NPOVN and start a thread, it's no more difficult than starting a thread here and very unexperienced editors do it, so I'm sure you can. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. After writing this, I noticed that I've just received another "warning": Dougweller left a message on your talk page in "September 2014". Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Criminal transmission of HIV. Doing so violates Wik... View message View changes OK, I hope smb else deals with it - for me it is time for outside work. Zezen (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I know perfectly well that PoMo is an abbreviation of Postmodernist. I've known it for at least 30 years. The term "PoMo conferences", however, is almost entirely meaningless. They were trendy in the '90s, but there are no "postmodernist" conferences these days, and there haven't been for a long long time. There are conferences on specific issues. Jimmy Saville: "he did not claim NOT to be raping children" Yes he did. Several times. The fact that he didn't infect anyone, as far as we know, is utterly irrelevant. You simply have not understood the point of the analogy, or have chosen not to. The point is that sex crimes are not arguments against the political views of the people who have committed them. You wrote, "branding their ideological opponents as institutionally racists because of their beliefs and flags, plus secretly banning them from football pitches." Grammatically, the word "them" refers to "their ideological opponents" - i.e. people, as I wrote. If you meant to say that certain symbols were banned from football pitches, I imagine they would have been racist or neo-Nazi ones, which is entirely normal. You can't ban a symbol "secretly". That's nonsensical, since it would obviously be public as soon as someone was stopped for having one. Your arguments here constantly twist entirely normal activities in such a way as to make them sound sinister, such as the nonsense about "attempts at derailing the court proceedings so as to release him". That what lawyers working for the defence in any case are supposed to do. Also, I said nothing about his being notable, but the fact that he's notable on one page, does not mean he's notable enough to be mentioned on another one. It depends on the context. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The warning was for this edit[8] adding "List of perpetrators of criminal transmission of HIV" - there is no such list, removing the markup we find [[List_of_HIV-positive_people#Criminal_transmission_of_HIV|List of perpetrators of criminal transmission of HIV]]. We can't use piping in that way & it appeared to me to be a pov edit. It had already been reverted but Zezen should not be doing this. He also added Mol's name to the names in the Criminal transmission of HIV section, although Mol was never convicted. He probably would have been, but as I pointed out to Zezen in my warning notice, we don't label people criminals {or their acts as criminal) without a conviction. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. I hope it is only our mutual misunderstanding. I meant something else, as per the link. I have explained what you have been doing (alongside another Wikipedian) in a longer warning with quotes and details. Let's not discuss it here anymore but there.

Zezen (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol and PoMO

Dear Paul B,

To lighten up this topic (which is going to become even more scary and serious after I edit in my discoveries to the article itself, which should happen soon), here are the blurbs from the PoMo conferences he was contributing to in 2006:

Please translate these snippets from the explanatory blurbs (and not papers) into plain English if they should NOT be pomo gobbledeegook.

The town is ciphered according to arithmetic.

Want more? Voila. Verbatim.

Or if the answer were not that everything is going badly, it would be that beauty is value. But if any Briton were asked how the united Kingdom was going, they would answer that being is value (“to be or not to be” has no longer been an issue). In France, it is truth that has worth, reason over the other and over things; planes, axes and coordinates (if the coordinates are right then everything is fine) are important; it is the triumph of reason, which the French revolution also celebrates; like a ballerina, the goddess of reason was placed in the cathedral of Notre-Dame.

Still not enough?

Modernity is not a clash between supposedly avant-garde movements, nor is it the outcome of progress, but a way – a way of living, of speaking and of writing: the classical way”. <...> Writing of the intellectual journey, which is never circular. and memory – research and enterprise – acquires capital, quality and value. Modernity is the way of the word. Way of logic. Way of the journey. Way of writing.

As you can see pomo, masquerading as anti-rasism actions, thrives, and is paid with our EU taxes, also in the 21c! If you do not think it's pomo, please translate so that I and a sample 15 year old student can understand it. Zezen (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What I and others have been trying to tell you is that you need sources specifically backing your claims. As editors we have no role in determining whether language is this, that or the other. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It serves as some banter (and related to Mol), a counterpoint to this otherwise very serious and tragic topic. Less relevant things are written on other Talk pages, as you know. I am not going to use them in the article itself, obviously. Apart from their levity,these provide some window into what he was doing at government's expense.

Now that I have cleaned up and arranged half of the sources, I can reveal what I am going to claim and hopefully prove soon in the article.

There's nothing Postmodern about any of this. The fact that For example, the fact that France celebrated "Reason" is an historical cliche. The second quotation is specifically about Modernity, not postmodernity. You are equating flowery, somewhat intellectually pretentious prose with "postmodernism", a common populist-intellectual error. Also "pomo, masquerading as anti-rasism" implies that the two are somehow incompatible. It is possible to be both. Indeed the relativism associated with the Franco-Nietzschean poststructualists was regularly used as a model to critique hierarchies of race. See the work of Homi Bhabha, for example. All this makes it increasingly clear that you are constructing virtually an entire "world view" around the demonising of Mol, bringing in a lot of decontextualised and marginal material to construct a story about how Mol somehow epitomises everything that's wrong with the modern world according to Zezen. Paul B (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Paul, 1. Why don't you write it in plain language then for all of us? ;)

2. More seriously, I would love to discuss these topics with you - it's a pleasure that you keep ad rem here and you treat the discussion on an intellectual level.

FYI, I studied these post-structuralist topics, Lacan, Kristeva & Co. at a university level myself too, years back - I'd be happy to refresh my knowledge from your sources.

However, we need to select an outside forum, as here let us discuss Mol's (mis)deeds, mostly. Let us schedule it after I am done with claims 1-13. Zezen (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lacan is usually categoristed as a structuralist, though he influenced poststructuralists. I would categorise his works as a complete waste of paper, but that's irrelevant. We are't discussing him, or the metits of post-anythingism. This is as irrelevant as a section criticising Mol for wearing clashing colours, or having three sugars in his coffee. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Claim 10: Simon Mol turned a sociopath after going mad already many years before his death. This alter ego on a mission planned to take down with him as many non-Africans as possible

As you know, I have waited some days before writing it. It looked so weird even after confirming it with source materials that I had to sleep two nights deciding to put it all together.

Here is what I discovered about this Claim 10, and what I can hopefully prove up to 90%, in more detail:

• Mol had bouts of self-loathing and had his morality challenged already in Ghana, due to precarious living, the crimes he had to commit to get by and a brief period of imprisonment in a local filthy and corrupt jail. It is not only my imagination: Mol wrote about it at length himself in a clandestine hackers magazine, a spiritual diary of sorts, that I discovered recently.

• When in Poland, at one point Mol went bonkers in the Warsaw refugee camp, as evidenced by his recorded delusions and the marked change of themes and style of writing

• For reason yet unknown to me at one point he decided to transcend conventional morality, basing his moral compass on Cameroonian black magic and wreak havoc on the host country, on many levels, as a warped spiritual exercise at converting himself into a West-African Übermensch, a prophetic Poet on a fateful mission of transformation of himself and the "corrupt" society

• To put these notions in practice, already in the refugee camp he made friends with some heavies, including a member of a politial organization which was officially proscribed as terrorist in Poland, some Caucasian ex-guerilla figthers who escaped wars and mayhem in their subjugated countries, some thieves and general schemers who knew the ins and outs of the Polish society and how to work around the system. He quickly became skilled at using their strenghts and weaknesses.

• Mol’s character markedly changed, he became agitated, reckless, scheming and bursting at seams with incredible amount of political chutzpah

• As a newly self-discovered sociopath, he was extremely successful in creating an elaborate mechanism of political blackmail and crying wolf for the benefit of himself and his cronies. At one he became a useful tool for some parties on the eve of Poland's entering the EU in 2004.

• Here I am taking a plunge - as this one I can barely prove yet:

He probably did not act alone. His schemes became so elaborate that 2006 he was operating at high levels, directly affecting the political milieu. Either he was intrinsically so clever at manipulating whole institutions or another skilled operator was pulling the strings. At any rate, he became great at his mavericks, or else he had his greatness thrust upon him.

I am going to insert this and other claims (see the list above) soon in Mol's article itself, point by point, with references. (I am going to completely skip Claim 11 yet, as I cannot fully substantiate it with sources).

Even if all of these bullets be untrue, they should be here. Why? These themes, memes to be exact, are discussed at length in the academic paper which I quoted before. Their political impact, buoyed by the surge of the unusually protracted moral panic, was confirmed in two other RS-es. The themes and, public use of these memes, affected the subsequent course of Polish politics for years to come, and thus warrant their insertion per se, I believe.

I am will start with editing in the least controversial and mundane bits.

But first, I am going to insert Mol's picture.

Not only for decoration or so that we may finally take a look at him. His face is a key element of two new subsections - and I will explain therein why when they are created.

And yes, I am aware of the copyright issues in Wikipedia: I believe that this particular photo, his mugshot to be exact, was released as public and open-source on purpose, which I will try to prove in the respective box in the WikiMedia Commons.

Till then. Zezen (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Zezen, was it difficult to find this information? Is this common knowledge in Poland, or has it been kept hidden from the mainstream press? Do you think you've been able to make connections no has made before with this material?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you aiming at the No Original Research claim :)?

Some of these subclaims, treated as political memes only, are analyzed in the HU academic research I linked before.

See the changed main article page. I have also created a separate draft area to limit the frequency of updates and fixes to the article.

Zezen (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

HU academic research? Political memes? Help me understand. Are you saying that the general topics are covered in the paper, but not the specific subject?__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please wait for the update of the article itself - I will insert this Hungarian university source, a dissertation from their LGBT research department, which provides for best NPOV RS, I presume. Zezen (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A single dissertation is probably not going to be an adequate source for the scope of changes you've outlined here, per WP:UNDUE. It's going to be very difficult for you to demonstrate you're taking any care to be proportionate to the prominence of the viewpoint among sources. You should probably let people evaluate the reliability of the source first, before making substantive changes. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@__ E L A Q U E A T E

OK, just for you <wink>, here it is, ahead of schedule. Mind you - it's a locked PDF, you need to crack it first to copy anything out. Zezen (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "cracking" anything. Sources have to be publicly available. If this was published, demonstrate where that happened.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

[[ping|Elaqueate}}No, it's publicly available. He just means copy and paste is impossible. Sort of impossible anyway. I have an ABBYY Finereader screen grabber that does OCR. "Mol” (Rzeczpospolita, 9 Jan 2007). The media’s use of words such as “crime”, “shocking finale” “nightmare” “time bomb” and “death” and the exaggerated number of infected women do more than just elicit strong emotional responses from the readers; they also frame the event as an exceptional case, one that is a threat to the entire population of Poland." "The only explanation that did not conform to the tropical mode of thinking was formulated by Adam Leszczynski, who suggested that Mol might have been in self-denial about his seropositivity up to his death of AIDS (Gazeta Wyborcza, 12 Oct 2008). This was a part of the aforementioned ideological battle between left- and right-wing newspapers which involved not only the ideological reasons behind the women’s infection, but also involved two radically different conceptualisations of race and its role in the case: the calls to “judge the deed, not the skin colour” (Gazeta Wyborcza, 10 Jan 2007) were put against the pleas to “introduce more restraint in the unequivocal philosophy of dialogue” (Wprost, 21 Jan 2007). The conflict escalated into a heated exchange between Leszczynski and Maja Narbutt, involving accusations of racism on one hand and ignorance on the other. Narbutt co-authored the news report from the investigation into Mol’s biography and conducted the interview which put forward the “Muslim terrorist” theory, both of which were heavily criticised by Leszczynski for conflating ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse groups into a single and unified group marked by primitive practices and an oppressive attitude to women (Gazeta Wyborcza)" I had noticed some odd figures for infected women that I though were dubious, glad to see I'm not alone. Zezen, do you realise that your section headings suggest that you find it difficult to be objective about Mol?

I was wondering about the possibility of self-denial - this isn't uncommon with life-threatening diseases.Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The paper that Zezen provided was a surprisingly interesting read. It's an essay written by a pre-Master of Arts student and is completely unusable by Wikipedia standards. It gives analysis of the Polish media's behavior during the moral scare though and is worth a read for that. I'm a little confused why Zezen has provided it, as it's a pretty withering critique of the exact sources he has provided. It makes no particular claim about Mol himself, but it covers how the newspapers emphasized "racist and misogynistic comments", treated the women victims as naive stereotypes, and that the basic facts of Mol's case weren't that different than other similar cases in Poland, beyond how it was sensationalised in the press. I'm hoping this isn't an issue with Zezen's comprehension of academic writing by reading criticism of newspapers oversensationalizing, as endorsement. This is an argument that newspapers grossly exaggerated the facts of the situation (and not that Wikipedia should now do the same).__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It also has exactly zero to do with any of the assertions made at the start of this thread.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Political impact

I note that for some reason the fact that the source used to discuss meda coverage left out " it did not have any political repercussions". I've fixed that. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - it provides for NPOV. My bad. All succh sides of the debate and opposing quotes should be given. Please continue to monitor me closely - strange as it may sound, I apprieciate it - Wikipedia is a common and joyful effort, once you assume good faith.

Zezen (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Number of women testing positive dropped

This is from the Sytuacja epidemiologiczna HIV/AIDS w Polsce - 2011 report. I can't read Polish and it's a bit big to translate mechanically - this could be because there was an actual drop in women with HIV or because fewer women asked to be tested. Does the report make clear which it was? Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a weird bit of cherry-picked statistics. It is described as a slight decrease for women, but the reasons could be innumerable. Nothing to do with the assertions made in the article. It wasn't a significant drop and there were no reasons given, so adding it to support an editor's guesswork is synth. (The report did say two-thirds of HIV+ people in Poland are unaware they have it, so I could see how a moral-panic HIV testing rush would lead to more found cases that week, but there's no evidence of a long-lasting impact.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims 1 and 9 covered by now

OK, it took some time. Enjoy my sources for Claims 1 and 9.

I am thinking of you, Paul B ;) Do challenge them, please.

Such things happen often in Poland, this backward, paranoid, post-Soviet country, where an international torture chamber was hidden from MPs and press inquiries, with in-country investigation being stonewalled since 2008, the prosutor silenced, hush hush, it never happened. Why shouldn't Poland's strategic asset, the internationally known icon Sim Mol, be equally protected? Why should his methods and sources of funding be revealed? They do come in handy even now, which is my next claim, which I will insert there tomorrow, hopefully.

In the meantime, another chitchat:

Some archive doxing for fun: Officially stated reasons for this article deletion given in 2007 and who made them

• No living biographies (Counterclaim: he is all over the news and will remain so)
• WP:NOT#NEWS. (No conterclaim yet as the first academic papers started to be written about 2010 about him)
• WP:NOTE, with these arguments:
  • You say "Simon Mol" to someone, they're liable to look at you funny. - Not true by now. Notable worldwide, large number of non-Polish hits and articles, memes created, his face instantly recognizable already in 2007 - used for political demos, etc., leading to related court cases (see the future version of main article)
  • Eistein, Lenin and Mao have numerous books written about them. Simon Mol doesn't. - Not true: two academic papers or dissertations, an in-depth psychological analysis of his poetry published already in 2006 by a PhD, but the editors did not discover it back then, alas
  • Mol's story is not going anywhere outside Poland. - Not true. It was quickly published worldwide, especially back home in African countries.
  • This person is completely non-notable, neither as writer nor as journalist, unless you're going to introduce common criminals and hustlers into Wikipedia - Not true. Major impact on Polish laws and politics and refugee PR.
• "Keep" - repeatedly pleads a very active Wikipedian, the row of decorations on his home page looking like directly taken from Baron Cohen's underwear in one of his weird "dictator" movies.
• Vote for Keep: The reasons for wanting this article deleted are politicaly motivated. - says a Wikipedian active until 2013, editing articles mostly about football and UEFA (nomen omen, as these very topics are by now starting to crop up in the 2014 version of Simon's article and will do so for a while)

Hm. PC at work?? A contentious claim, ain't it. Why should he be saying so? Let's dox the profiles and the nature of other contributions of the deleters:

• "Delete" says a bona-fide Wikipedian, very active in Polish topics until now, no POV detected whatsoever. Pass.
• "Delete" says a user who is repeatedly (self) blocked from editing Eastern European topics (read his fascinating pledge not to do it again!), on pain of a general ban for violating WP policies
• "Delete" - says a "whack a mole" banned sockpuppet who mostly made such type of unsourced POV edits deflecting the blame before being banned forever.
• "Delete" says a user who is mostly passionate about repeated his edits of this, upvotes keeping an article about Jewish Internet Defense Forces, removes published book references this with a note "removed far-right links", etc.
• The Deletes or deep reverts to the Polish version are more much more blunt and open: see examples here. I omit the swear words of one angry banned sock who blanked it back then "(#$#%^$^ #$#%%$#% STOP TO WRITE ABOUT SIMON MOL !!! It is only promotion of racism !!!)"

Result: due to the preponderancce of such negative downvotes, the article was quickly deleted in 2007, probably alongside with non-Polish English newspaper reports and political analyses published back then. (The doxed versions thereof that I was able to find had all the refs stripped bare).

Was this UEFA fan right in 2007 about politically correct, or worse, censorship here?

What do you think?

Doxing is fun. But dangerous sometimes. Enjoy the current version of Sim Mol's article, while it lasts. Zezen (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zezen's OR and POV language

"non-convincing denials".

"It is worth noting that before his arrest Mol had made no secret"

"After reporters' in-country research in Cameroon which discovered Simon's lies, also his Cameroonian friend quickly left Poland, droping a canvassing campaign for Mole's defence costs which he had started after the rapid arrest. The reporters discovered" - I'd changed 'discovered' as we can't assert this as fact but he changed it back.

"eminence gris"

"unusually public and strongly worded alert"

"Theatre abused as a political naming and shaming tool"

"the subjects in which he soon proved to have direct expertise."

This isn't exhaustive and is all from his last edit. Maybe he can convince us that they aren't all OR or pov. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the only response has been to dump the contents of 2007 Afds onto today's talk page (in order to refute them?), and allude to Polish conspiracy theories. There's more clean-up work than content in these edits.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor's habit of dumping in walls of wild and sensationalized claims so that they can be whittled down to a couple neutral facts by other editors is becoming exhausting.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zezan reverted my change of Theatre abused as a political naming and shaming tool to the possibly more neutral Theatre. Maybe he could discuss it here?__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He's now repeatedly reverting without discussion. Is he not familiar with WP:BRD? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

__ E L A Q U E A T E

You engage in disruptive editing. Your deletions, similar to the ones I listed above in nature, remove the painstakingly found sources. Instead of deleting whole sections with them, please EDIT the above. If you do not like some sources for a reason, do seek consensus here first before removing them.

Now, which Wikipedian removed Simon Mole's released picture inserted there?

Zezen (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Update: I did not removed these changes you made on purpose. Due to editing conflicts (the article is being edited out in rapid fire, amazing), I often have to copy and paste my edits to relevant sections. Some things like these may be missed.

Do reinsert these cosmetic changes now, please. Do not remove sourced claims. Zezen (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is re-inserting challenged material that should be discussed on the talk page, and that you clearly didn't have consensus to re-add. "Sourced" is not some blank check for adding NPOV material or editorialized paraphrasing. They weren't removed because they were sourced or unsourced.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that your sources require so much pain to find, might directly speak to the weight they deserve in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And if you want to restore my edits you can. You're the one who removed them. You are free to self-revert.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll add the relevant policy here, so that Zezen knows it's not a basis for edit warring in the future.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion.

Zezen needs to understand that the onus is on them to gain some consensus to include surprising or disputed content, not on others here. The editor also needs to review WP:EXCEPTIONAL as Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources especially surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Indymedia citation.

Can User:Zezen explain why this newly added text, Also he refused to wear condoms, arguing that demanding them is a sign of racist fears, is sourced to IndyMedia here? Does the editor think this is a reliable source for the information?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Doubly thank you for the warning. First: thank you for asking it here, and not removing outright, as used to be the case. Second: I did not know that Indymedia is not allowed as source.

Let us discuss it civilly here. I am open to suggestions.

Should I find another press report for source there?

On a similar note, on IndyMedia this international MediaWatch for racists incidents called for Polan'ds condemnation as an institutionally racist country etc. I put it in there. Also not allowed as source? They only publish such notes on IndyMedia, afaik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You are quoting text taken from the comment thread, not the article, and the comment you're using is only quoting Wikipedia. You are adding text someone once found on Wikipedia to Wikipedia itself. Do you see the issue?__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I do now. Thank you. I will remove it for now. I thought it was from the main body of the text. I will try another source then. (It's a quote from a Polish RP article, I just need to find the original)

Update: fixed with a verbatim quote about Mr Mol's sexual and epidemiological habits, of direct interests to many I presume for similar cases in actual life, as quoted from the police investigating his case back then.

The second one stays, I presume? Zezen (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

IndyMedia is presumably a source for the fact that a person once added a post to it, but that's not evidence of due weight at all. It's not sufficient on its own. The fact that a person once disagreed with the Polish legal system on an open content site is not encyclopaedic and should be removed. That could honestly be said for at least 50% of what you've just added. You have added more existing problems than we will have time to discuss.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. OK, I agree to the removal of the IndyMedia quote only, as you convinced me that IndyMedia is not enyclopedic. Please do so.

2. I do not understand your "More existing problems". I am only stating relevant facts, political, scientific, or otherwise, announced about Mr Mole, his methods, his business dealings by Police, Courts, Politicians and such notable sources, and then published by reputable reporters.

You have problem with truth or scientific or investigative reporters, Elaquate? Zezen (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You cited Wikipedia material to an anonymous comment in a comment thread on Indymedia that was explicitly quoting Wikipedia itself; it's a little bit early to claim an unsullied reputation for source integrity.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting on the trickiest Claim 10: "Simon Mol turned a sociopath..."

If you are curious how and why, check the latest edits.

Quoting only reputable sources, as usual.

Good night.

Zezen (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr Zuu

This is an article about Mol, not a WP:COATRACK on which to jhang a lot of waffly speculation about someone called Zuu, who is, I assume, still alive, so WP:BLP applies. Most of this is a load of vague speculation unsubstantiated rumours. Paul B (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Theatre claims

I apologise if I missed something, but exactly where does this source say "Commenting on such unauthorised changes" User:Zezen, please show me what I've missed here. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I may have missed these three words: they were from another article on the same subject and I wanted to avoid synthesizing. Will you edit it or you will censor it outright once again?

More about his theatre pieces as a administrative tool below. Zezen (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think I'm censoring please report me at WP:ANI, otherwise stop making such accusations. Removing poorly referenced material is not censoring. And how can I edit it? There's nothing in the source to back the text, and I have no reason to start with your text and try to source it, it should be the other way around. @Zezen: What you appear to be saying is that it wasn't in the source but you thought it would be nice to add it - this is misrepresentation of the source. This is against our policies and guidelines and not for the first time. You need to get your act together fast. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

About the "Secret banning of public display of legal political symbols"

I tracked down a little on this from the sources, and it's an opinionated allegation dressed up as a certainty, mostly filled with sources that don't mention Mol or that contradict what we have in the article.

A sports stadium had a list of symbols to watch out for. It probably developed the list with an NGO called Never Again, an organization promoting anti-racism in football. This organization, Never Again, also worked with Simon Mol on a separate project to once arrange an exhibition football game to raise awareness of anti-racism. That's the whole so-called "connection". That because they "admit" he was involved in the exhibition match he must have produced all other things the NGO worked on with the stadium. One editorial writer seems to have decided that Simon Mol must have been involved in the list, although no one said or proved anything like that, and both the NGO and stadium assert he wasn't part of that project. We're stating he wrote it as fact, using a source that admits we can't say he was directly involved with the list at all. We're also mentioning a "police investigation" that never implicated or mentioned Mol as being the creator of any of this, as if it confirms all the unrelated guesswork.

The whole section we have now is, top to bottom, a guilt-by-free-association conspiracy theory, with the investigation of the stadium's actions WP:SYNTHed to the fact that Mol worked on a different project. There's a reason none of the other sources mention "Simon Mol, football censor", because it is the unproven view. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol and BLP plus other

In view of your extensive reverts instead of edits I am at doubt how to handle these. I plan to give up, with PC winning with truth also here on Wikipedia.

We are talking about this edit, challenged on WP:BLP - I have not checked Mr Zuu's health status after 2010, when he was still out of Poland for good. Still it is not an article about him, but about Mr Mol's case, so I do not know how BLP applies here.

What to do here in other Wiki articles that I may edit? Is it a question of inserting the name? If we say "a fellow refugee", with links only, will it be all right?

Some rhetorical questions follow, sorry for using this oratory tool here:

Will we thus also omit mentioning about numerous witness intimidation in Mol's court case, even after he was arrested (after much previous delay as the police were cautious themselves), that is the stalking and threats to the fellow actors and traumatized girls, as reported in their separate interviews with police and with the Rzeczpospolita investigative reporters, confirmed separately to other newspapers (in case the Rzeczpospolita ones were not objective), admitting thus to the resulting underlying underlying legal, social and epidemiological problem which I believe is very encyclopedic in nature and of note in Wikipedia?

Will we not mention the intricate political network that he had established already in the refugee center, teaming up with the fellow claimants who had problems obtaining their refugee status due to their past militant political organisation, whom they freely admit to in newspaper interviews they give? (Here's another non-Polish one which I have not used yet as a ref, "Kiton Press" where Mr Z is lauded as "playing an active part in our struggle")? Organisations still listed back then as terrorist in Poland and other countries?

Mol's fixes to these "small problems" by staging a Nazi helmeted Polish refugee officer smashing a growelling dishevelled Black refugee (click here to see it with your own eyes, timestamped to 2:00, key screenshots here (Polish Nazi dressed refugee official) and here (Black refugee hit by the inherently racist Polish refugee officials) [Nazi refugee official] [slave hit by racist Polish refugee officials], no need for knowing Polish), and naming him by full name and surname around Poland, during his government-sponsored artistic theater tours, which Mol himself on his web page quotes as being "controversial"?

Will we not list the leftist pressure groups (Mol's very words, from Mol's article not quoted yet) that he tagged on to and abused, which PC shenanigans were stopped only at the deputy Prime Minister's level before and after his arrest, with the ministers Ziobro and Giertych personally stepping in, ordering the immediate publication of Mol's mugshot with epidemiological warning and calls for witness, and then even representing the girls themselves in court?

See the deleted passages in the article for detailed references from many articles that I am not making it all up.

There's more to it, which I have not mentioned yet.

Please advise.

Quotes from Mr Mol's public blog, for some philosophical background:

Quote 1: As soon as I return to Warsaw I shall file a complaint with the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, because I cannot be made a victim because of someone who failed to inform the Immigration authorities that I do not require a visa to enter Italy. Who knows, we might win a huge compensation from the authorities and use part of it to carry on the work of promoting Art Ambassadors.

Quote 2: “I used to have plans...”, [...] “In Cameroon I criticized, in Ghana I criticized, in Poland I criticize. And if I stand in front of God, I will ask him questions as well!”

[source]

(By the way, I bet there will be lots of questions asked of you, too, Mr Mol, during your anticipated conversation with God) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this is Mol's page doesn't magically make BLP issues vanish. If you accuse a living person of crimes it makes no difference if you do it on a page about Tutankhamun or Mylie Cyrus. You are of course free to object to the edits of those who have criticised you here on one of the relevant pages WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, or WP:ANI. I strongly doubt it will do you any good, but you are free to try. As so often, I am at a loss to understand why you think these quotations are somehow deeply sinister. You just use the catch-phrase PC to label views, policies and arguments you don't like, and present it all as some sort of conspiracy. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And why should we answer Zezen's questions? He seems fixated on Mol and either lacks on understanding of our policies such as WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR or doesn't care, either way he seems to at best lack competence and at worst is editing tendentiously. I don't think he's capable of editing this article objectively. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Biological terrorist

This is exactly what this person was, he committed acts of biological ethnic terrorism against white women. Please call him what he is. Purposeful spread of viruses, especially targeting people of a specific ethnicity, is terrorism. Thralleyes (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion, as those were unverified accusations and he was obviously not convinced convicted of them.. We actually have guidance on this at WP:TERRORIST which says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So that's not going to happen. Doug Weller (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Convinced, you mean convicted? And anyway, what's the difference between calling something a terrorist act and calling someone a terrorist? Boston Marathon bombing is listed as a terrorist attack, consequently its perpetrators should be listed as terrorists. "Bioterrorism is terrorism involving the intentional release or dissemination of biological agents" - that's exactly what Mol did, therefore his crimes need to be listed as a bioterrorist attack, an act of ethnic terrorism on foreign soil. If this kind of thing was done during the Yugoslav wars for example, it would doubtlessly be called terrorism. What if an Islamist radical had purposefully infected a bunch of Americans with a virus? Thralleyes (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is your opinion (that he was a terrorist and that he deliberately perpetrated bioterrorism), and we don't base our articles on opinions. We base our articles on sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS and in accordance with WP:NPOV. Since you don't have any sources, if you want to ask for other opinions go to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boston bombings article has professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that label those attacks as terrorism. This one does not. That's the difference, and finding comparable sources is the only means to apply the terrorism label to this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simon Mol. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ksp.waw.pl/?page=Structure&id=8&nid=3725

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)