Talk:Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz

Old talk

It would be interesting to learn more about major themes in works of this writer. ellol 14:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thank you.

However, I see some similarities with Alexander Gromov who used to paint future in dark colours, stating in Step to the Left, Step to the right that unability to change the course will finally lead Humankind to nearly death.. ultimate degeneration in distant future. In Soft Landing a death of Humankind occurred due to unability of democracies to adequately react to sudden disasters. Is it just a coincidence or may be some tendency? It might be, that we should extend "Eastern Bloc" section to our days................. ellol 17:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

his opinions

(forgive my english)

The part about "homophobic opinions" of Rafal Ziemkiewicz should be erased because it is simply not true. The quotation (Ziemkiewicz's essay at Interia Web Portal) at Wikiquote is out of context – you should read the whole article. And, even if you don't want to do it, think. If quotation says "But have no fear of them. [gay people]" you can infere that: 1) he isn't a homophobe because "phoby" = "fear"

• you're wrong. homophoby is not only FEAR OF gay people. it is also not tolerating them only for being gay (see definition of homophoby) Uummannaq 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2) homosexual doesn't mean gay. every gay is a homosexual, but not every homosexual is a gay. and all of Ziemkiewicz's qutations at Wikiquote are about gay people not about homosexuals. --jnst

• homosexual doesnt mean gay? its not true - check in wikipedia or oxford dictionary - for most people gay is a synonim of homosexual. not for ziemkiewicz of course, but he is far from being the most appropriate person to define what gay means.

• all gay people are homosexual people, and they socially represent homosexual people, so not tolerating and fighting gay people is not tolerating and fighting homosexual people.Uummannaq 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did erase it. The statement about his homophoby is indeed misleading, considering that - as jnst pointed out - Ziemkiewicz (quite originally, perhaps) clearly distinguished "gays" from "homosexuals", stressing the need of tolerance for the latter, while opposing the former on political grounds.

What's more, this particular issue has never been the main topic of his writing, so I can see no reason for specifically mentioning it, while, say, decommunization (the subject he wrote on much more often)is not mentioned. --Vib

• i unndid the erasment because erasing it has no ground. criticising homosexuals is a VERY IMPORTANT part of his journalistic work. he's proud of being anti-gay (he doesnt accept the existance of the term "homophoby" but it's his private opinion, has nothing to do). and quotations are quite obvious. besides, wikipedia policy is NOT erasing but adding, so if you want to point out that he's against gays not all homosexuals write on the page. Uummannaq 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Should not any such accusation be backed with appropriate citation or reference? There is NONE! Delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.63.126 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also Ziemkiewicz is a great suporter of CAPITALISIM! He nagates all forms of red economy. Therfore I think the part about Ziemkieiwcz criticising predatory capitalisim should b be rewritten.

I agree that the Ziemkiewicz quotes are taken out of context and doctored to look as something they're not. Essentially what he's saying is that he doesn't like left wing gay activists. In the rest of the article he goes on to say that he has no problem with gay people (the word "gay", being a foreign import into the Polish language has much more political connotation than it does in English. It's not a synonym for "homosexual" but more like for "gay rights activist") and that he opposes any efforts to "change" gay people and that such efforts in the past have done great harm. He also differentiates "gay activists" from "homosexuals, who are our brothers" ("blizni", in the Biblical sense). There might be some homophobia there but the quotes don't really support it. And the charge that he's a great supporter of CAPITALISIM is just funny. Of course he is. So what.radek (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to cite reliable sources and respect guidelines about writing about living persons. Criticism is fine if it is of due weight and supported by reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• there is nothing unreliable about the sources, and if there is, please tell me what it is. how come an article written by ziemkiewicz himself is an unreliable source? besides, information about his attitude towards gays is not criticism, this is just presenting his views, of which he himself is proud of and he presented and corroborated these views many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.146.176 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• this an article of his, interpreting this is problematic - see WP:SPS.
• [1] - how is this reliable and neutral? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling him "homophobic" is a silly slur and has no place in this encyclopedia article. And the phrase "expressing opinions which can be considered homophobic" is a good exapmle of WP:WEASEL. Ostap 19:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but so is associating him with the Traditional marriage movement. For one thing, "traditional marriage" is a euphemistic self-description and as such no better than "homophobia"; for another, the term "traditional marriage" is a typical American thing, so using it to describe Ziemkiewicz's position is misleading. @Piotruś: With all due respect, it's absurd to claim that an article about Ziemkiewicz can't use an essay by Ziemkiewicz due to WP:SPS. --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpreting what the author of an essay is trying to say it's not easy. I've read the essay, and its not critical of gays, but of extreme gay rights activists (on Wikipedia we would call them extreme POV pushers :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what his opinion actually is, it strikes me as absurd to say "we can't use this essay because to determine his opinion because he published it himself" (which isn't even the case here; it was published by Interia.pl). --Thorsten1 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of his opinion indeed I'd be interested in hearing more comments on the interpretation of SPS in such case. Perhaps you could present this particular case at WP:RSN? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that because I don't see anything problematic whatsoever with using someone's felietony on a popular news portal as a source for their opinion per SPS. If you do, go ahead and we'll see what happens. :) --Thorsten1 (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On African-American

With all respect to Cas Mudde, I do wonder if this is undue weight and reliable: [2]. Ziemkiewicz usually writes about Poland, sometimes about EU, rarely about US. Mudde might have picked that up because for an American, anything about US will be of more interest, but I'd rather like to see the piece were Ziemkiewicz writes about African-Americans. I'd expect it is either some misquoted off-hand remark of another example of misrepresentation (like above, were his comment about "extremist gay activists" got simplified to "gays").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find a secondary source disputing Cas's interpretation of this that's as reliable of an editor/publisher as Cas Mudde and Routledge, I won't dispute its inclusion for balance. It looks notable to me, but you could take it to the BLP noticeboard. Novickas (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking a statement about one of his works from a review is silly for an encyclopedia article. There are many reviews of his many works. We don't go gather all the good things people say in reviews and put them here, why should we gather the few negative things? Lets stay neutral and write an encyclopedia article. This article is about Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz, not Criticism of Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz's book about Adam Michnik. Lets make this an encyclopedia article, not a wp:coatrack or a blp hack job. Thanks, Ostap 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

@Ostap R, Ziemkiewicz doesn't hesitate to attack anything and anybody he doesn't like. To be sure, in a country with free speech he's entitled to do that. However, it's inevitable that such behavior provokes responses - therefore, a "criticism" section is definitely required and no violation of WP:BLP. BLP explicitly states that "Criticism [...] should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability". The fact that Ziemkiewicz attracts the attention of people like Michnik or Mudde can only add to his notability. WP:COATRACK doesn't apply, either - or are you seriously implying that the article about Ziemkiewicz was only started to create a venue for this criticism? If Ziemkiewicz gets mentioned in a book by an internationally renowned scholar like Mudde, this definitely warrants inclusion. Of course, we may insert a caveat the source isn't properly stated - but as a renowned scholar Mudde (as the book's editor, see below) certainly has the benefit of the doubt.

@Piotruś: "Mudde might have picked that up because for an American, anything about US will be of more interest" - I don't know what makes you assume that Mudde is American? He's Belgian and unlikely to be over-sensitive about American issues. Apart from that, the reference is from the Routledge handbook Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europ" that Mudde edited. He didn't write the statement himself (although he authorized it as the book's editor); instead, it was written by Rafał Pankowski of Collegium Civitas and Marcin Kornak of Never Again. "I'd rather like to see the piece were Ziemkiewicz writes about African-Americans". I'd be curious to see that, too, but as I'm saying above, considering Mudde's standing, including this info is justified even without access to the primary source. Anyway, I have an idea that Pankowski and Kornak, when they write that Ziemkiewicz "called for the deportation of Afro-Americans back to the African continent if they ever complain about discrimination in the USA" (p. 178), may be referring to Ziemkiewicz's essay in Gazeta Polska, entitled "Kunta Kinte chcieć kasy" ("Kunta Kinte want [sic] cash"). It contains the following sentence: "If someone doesn't like the fact that his great-grandfather was brought to America in chains, then Congress should really compensate him for this injustice. By funding him a free ticket to return to Somalia, Sierra Leone, Ruanda or wherever they want. Unfortunately, though, after more than half a century of intellectual terror by progressive idiots, nobody even dares to think of that". ([3], partial quote in [4].) So yes, you might argue that Mudde's book is completely misrepresenting what Ziemkiewicz actually said - after all, he was talking about "free tickets" as a "compensation", not about "deportation"... ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the organization "Nigdy Więcej" came up on RS board before and was mentioned as essentially a far-left fringe group not constituting a reliable source.radek (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus asked me to comment: I think the current article is OK with respect to BLP, except that if you are going to refer to his essays as being of a particular nature, you should link not just to the secondary source that they are considered to be of that nature, but also give a link to the actual essays. I realize they will be in Polish, but still they provide a way of verifying what he actually said. And probably everyone here but myself reads some Polish. DGG (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I expected an objection like that. However, we needn't be concerned with it here for two reasons. One, I don't know what the "RS board" is and what somebody said there. However, it doesn't really matter whether or not someone is "fringe" as long they make a verifiable statement. Two, the statement was made in a chapter co-written by at least one author at a renowned university, in a book edited by a renowned scholar and published by a renowned press - not in some fringe self-published magazine or blog. That's definitely enough to justify its inclusion per our standards. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhh... "I don't know what the "RS board" is and what somebody said there" - your ignorance of Wikipedia policies is not excuse for BLP violations. RS board is here: [5]. BLP policy is here: [6]. Normally the fact that in addition to fringe authors there's also some more mainstream authors involved could probably be an argument. But not in BLP articles where the standards are much higher.radek (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about who is "involved", but who is the relevant author. The authority of Mudde as a scholar and Routledge as a publisher is beyond dispute. Even if you could show that "Nigdy więcej" is not a reliable source (sorry, perhaps I should have said "RS" to prove my knowledge of WP policies), this is irrelevant here, because our direct source is Mudde, not "Nidgy więcej". Quite apart from that, the authors are making a statement about Ziemkiewicz that can be verified (even if it may need to be qualified somewhat regarding the deportation/"free ticket offer" discrepancy). And quite apart from all that, I don't think that someone like Ziemkiewicz, who basically makes a living out of attacking others, would expect to be handled with kid gloves, BLP or no BLP. Controversy is his bread and butter job, and we can't possibly ignore that. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten, there's no "BLP or no BLP". There is just BLP. Policy. And it needs to be respected. Ziemikiewicz makes his living writing ... science fiction actually, but occasionally political columns. The characterization that he only "makes a living out of attacking others" is YOUR own (mis)characterization of him, unsupported by reliable sources. Again, you seem to be loosing sight of the fact that Wikipedia isn't about your personal opinion and emotions but about reliable sources - and for articles on BLP standards for these are much higher.radek (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"BLP or no BLP" means that even BLP has its limitations. If someone has publicly and verifiably made a specific statement, and a reputable source refers to that statement, there's only so much you can do with BLP. "The characterization that he only "makes a living out of attacking others" is YOUR own (mis)characterization of him, unsupported by reliable sources." I didn't say "only". But I'm pretty sure that the royalties of his political articles (such as "Kunta Kinte want cash") and in particular his book on Michnik and other "progressive idiots" (not an attack of course), contribute significantly to his income. Fortunately, I don't need to support this with reliable sources here, just like you don't need to support with reliable sources that they don't. His financial situation is private. "Again, you seem to be loosing sight of the fact that Wikipedia isn't about your personal opinion and emotions but about reliable sources". No, I'm not losing sight of that fact. I didn't put any personal opinion or emotions in this article, either. I simply pointed out that a statement that was challenged because it was allegedly not backed by a reliable source, in fact is backed up by a reliable source. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I only vaguely recall this article - and I do remember it was pretty shitty, by Ziemkiewicz's usual standards (he's much better sticking to internal Polish politics) - but I believe it wasn't speaking out against "racial-ethnic minorities" but rather speaking out against Reparations for slavery.radek (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, dubious statements, particularly if they are likely WP:UNDUE, should be removed. Referenced and reliable criticism of Ziemkiewicz is fine, but there is no need to concentrate on one minor statement or claim he has made. If one disgagrees, I suggest taking this to WP:BLPN and/or requesting a WP:RFC here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotruś, I have no horse in this race at this time, but do you really feel that changing "he has opined that African-Americans voicing concerns about discrimination in the US should be deported to Africa" into "He has spoken out against [...] racial-ethnic minorities" [7] is more in line with BLP? Well, I never... --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy with that, either. How about my latest version? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Piotrus version now is quite fair. Ostap 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

lawsuit and apology

Since this is a BLP article can we get a ref for the actual apology? All that the source [8] provided by Novickas says is that Ziemikiewicz said that IF his statements were misunderstood in a particular way and IF Michnik's income and property were hurt as a result then he'd be willing to apologize. Anyone got the end result of this?radek (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems from the Gazeta that the lawsuit was settled; but you have the advantage here in terms of finding sources. Here's another one (Google translate of [9]). Polish Newsweek is not online, I think, so whether this apology was actually published there isn't clear from a Google search. If you'd like to make the phrasing more exact, fine by me. Novickas (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there isn't much more in there. Apparently Michnik sued Newsweek Poland and Ziemkiewicz demanding an official apology and 50,000 zl. The end result of it seems to be that Newsweek and Ziemkiewicz agreed to publish a "correction", essentially a carefully worded conditional apology - "if somebody misunderstood then I'm sorry for that they misunderstood..." etc. No 50,000 zl. If we're gonna include this then a mention should be made of Poland's crazy libel laws which lead to everyone suing everyone over the littlest disparagement.radek (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can say in the article that no zls. changed hands without a ref. Novickas (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a long argument at Talk:Aron Bielski, which boils down to the fact that a minor suit ending with a settlement is not notable and in fact defamatory. Personally I disagree with with this policy, but standards should be the same for everyone. Hence, the mention of the suit should be removed entirely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I see DGG was there as well as here; will wait for his opinion. Novickas (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that's why I asked him to comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the matter discussed at Aron Bielski was a dispute between individuals on a matter unconnected with his notability, and which therefore could only have been intended to disparage his general character. This is matter relevant to the political behavior of a politician, and is relevant. AB is not fundamentally a public figure, not in the same sense as a political journalist is. A suit between two journalists over the published remarks of one about the other seems relevant here. When suits are settled out of court, normally part of the settlement is that the exact terms will not be published, and this makes it very difficult to write about them. The wording of apologies is also usually a little equivocal, & a matter for negotiation between the lawyers. . It is usually impossible for us to do more than say exactly what the published statement says, except in the rare case where there is responsible independent discussion. There is no objection to translating the key sentences of a source--see WP:NOR#Translations. But at least the key Polish phrase can be given--I would advise an editor supplying his own translation here to include the original also.DGG (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged speaking against "extreme" lesbian and gay

I removed that sentence, as the only "proof" was reference to book by Cas Mudde who is very biased (left-wing) and does not provide any actual sources nor exact quotations from Ziemkiewicz in referneced book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.37.62 (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest

I came here hoping to find out why he is so (allegedly) evil that he has to be banned from uk. Come on please, someone must have proof of him calling for people to kill one another or something. But still (merely) hoping..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.198.92 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of speach, but...

Roger Scruton lost his commission appointment, Ziemkiewicz is banned in the UK, Legutko lectures in hiding at a US university. But Poles don't respect freedom of speach, the West does. Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT he was not actually banned, he cancelled his visit following calls for such. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Mit"

@2600:1700:4b50:1ff0:1086:6111:a460:912: Stop edit warring. Messaging individual editors is not the right way to handle this, the WP:CYCLE is. You should come to the talk page, not CommanderWaterford's talk page. I vehemently disagree with the comment you left there. Mit has no such deep meaning as "foundational myth". Every dictionary I looked in has it down as "myth". It is not libel to repeat what he said. It is not libel to call an anti-Semite an anti-Semite. It is not libel to call a racist a racist. Anything else is whitewashing. Please, in future, also, sign your comments with four tildes as ~~~~ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, here is my response -- if you have to look up Polish words in a dictionary, you have no basis to "vehemently disagree" with me. No matter how strongly you feel, with all due respect, not being a native speaker, you are just mistaken. I am a native Polish speaking scholar. And I also have the benefit of having watched Ziemkiewicz's interview about this book. What the book says is that the Holocaust is the foundational narrative of certain political groups from which they derive their legitimacy. That is undeniably a fact. He also says that the Holocaust is a historical fact that is undeniable and the mis-representation of his argument to stand for the accusation that the Holocause is "myth" is absurd. Put another way, Ziemkiewicz is neither racist nor an anti-semite but there are forces out there in Polish politics who are trying for quite some time to paint him this way in order to score political points. Does that clarify?

@2600:1700:4b50:1ff0:1086:6111:a460:912: We can't go off of your opinion on what "mit" means. Sources on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The preponderance of the sources overwhelmingly supports the idea that "mit" means "myth". I found the actual book, as well. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that sources must be verifiable. Assume your political enemies reported that you are Nazi. Would it be OK for me post in your official Wikipedia biography that "Brennan was reputed to be a Nazi by so and so." Of course that would be libelous -- but that is exactly what you are doing. What say you?

@2600:1700:4b50:1ff0:1086:6111:a460:912: Well, I would not edit war. I would open WP:ERs if I thought changes were warranted under Wikipedia's policies. And it would depend on their reasons for saying that, of course. If I verifiablyvwrote a book where I called the Holocaust a myth and said that Israeli children are brainwashed into becoming killing machines, then yes, it would be just fine to have that in my article, especially if I never retracted/apologized for such statements. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) So Ziemkiewicz denies that he called the Holocaust a myth. He says that would be crazy.

Bullshit, as sources [10][11] say he called Jews "ruthless" and the Holocaust "a myth". Sources describe his hate, it is the most notable thing about him. He was kicked out of the UK a couple of years ago for this.--Zofia Branicka (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@2600:1700:4b50:1ff0:1086:6111:a460:912: I'm a native polish speaker, and I've never heard of "mit" meaning what you claim it means. I've checked SJP just to make sure, thinking it might be some kind of regionalism or anachronism - but no, no mention of that either. Trasz (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt you are POish native speaker if you really do not understand that "mit Holocaustu" is not the same as "Holocaust to mit". You can find a lot of phrases with "mit" in it referring to true events. "Mit powstania warszawskiego" eg https://wyborcza.pl/10,82983,20485170,temat-dnia-gazety-wyborczej-z-kim-weteranom-powstania-warszawskiego.html " Mit Powstania z jednej strony jednoczy Polaków - mówi w 'Temacie Dnia Gazety Wyborczej' historyk dr Marcin Zaremba - ale dla współczesnego ONR rocznica Powstania Warszawskiego jest po to, by mogli się oni pokazać." Do you seriously imply this historian denied Warsaw uprising had happened? Also, he had not called "Jews ruthless". He wrote that Isreali is training their kids into being ruthless, which is not the same.

Here is another opinion from another journalist (Ziemkiewicz' colleague, but nevertheless) https://wei.org.pl/2021/blogi/panstwo/lwarzecha/o-wydaleniu-ziemkiewicz-i-bitwie-pod-azincourt/ "Nie mam zresztą żadnych wątpliwości, że to, co mogło dotrzeć do osób podejmujących decyzje, było jakimiś strzępkami, wyjętymi z kontekstu fragmentami, a nie rzetelną relacją z poglądów publicysty. Najlepszy dowód, że sformułowanie „mit Holocaustu” zostało zrozumiane jako dowód na zaprzeczanie Holocaustowi. Tak jakby użycie sformułowania „mit Powstania Styczniowego” miało być dowodem na zaprzeczanie temu z kolei faktowi historycznemu."

Moreover, Ziemkiewicz in "Czas wrzeszczących staruszków" writes about "mit SOlidarności" - does that mean he denies existence of Solidarity movement? ONly exceptionally bad-faith based reading can interpret this phrase as denial of Holocaust, especially when Ziemkiewicz clearly stated he does not ever denied Holocaust. At the very least, after accusations from one organisation there should be explanation by the author ad others, stating his clarification what Ziemkiewicz meant (ie. the sentence which I paraphrase as "Iwrote that in addition to Holocaust there is also myth of Holocaust") and criticism by others (e.g. hat Warzęcha wrote, that "it's like writing >myth of January Uprising< would be a proof of denying this historical fact" . Any other way is violation of neutrality principle 31.2.66.254 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Mit Holokaustu" is not the same as "Holocaust jest mitem". Just like in English, saying that "Holocaust is a myth" is clear Holocaust denial, whereas talking about the "Holocaust's myth" can have other meanings, see for example [12], [13]; using that (ill-advised, yes) phrase does not suffice to make one an antisemite. Let's be careful when jumping to conclusions, through there is no denying that RAZ is a right-wing publicist, and his track record on topics such as Polish-Jewish history is hardly a paragon of virtue. Anyway, we should be careful with contentious labels, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Is RAZ an antisemite? Perhaps. But to say this in wikivoice, we need to show this is what majority of sources claim, and if it is just a minority of them, we should be careful to consider whether it is indeed correct to rely on them with no qualification or attribution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The term of "Holocaust myth" or "myth of Holocaust" is used by scholars. For example see University of Bristol Professor Tim Cole's book

Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler; How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold , page 4 : I would echo Liebman and Don-Yehiya's words - who also use the term 'the Holocaust myth' in their study of Israeli Civil Religion - that 'by labelling a story a myth we do not mean it is false'. Rather, 'a myth is a story that evokes strong sentiments.The term myth of holocaust, for all its problematic connotations, is useful for distinguishing between the historical event-the Holocaust-and representation of that event-the myth of the Holocaust

• Ziemkiewicz in his book and quotes doesn't deny that Holocaust happened, but that according to him the Zionist movement created a myth around it. He states this in the interview here[14] Dowodem na negowanie Holokaustu miało być to, że napisałem, iż oprócz faktów o Holokauście istnieje też mit Holokaustu celowo budowany przez środowiska syjonistycznne.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Translate the entire quote, from the book, how it should be translated according to you in English. At least two sentences. Then ping the native speakers here and let's come up with a consensus translation of the quote. Okay? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

„Kto nigdy nie wykorzystał nietrzeźwej”

I might be missing something, but how is Twitter not a reliable source for things published on Twitter? There’s now been two edits removing a paragraph about Ziemkiewicz’s tweet claiming that very tweet isn’t a reliable source. Trasz (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What you are missing is the rules about biographies of living persons. You can't prove that the twitter account belongs to him, and even if you could you aren't allowed to do your own analysis of it or express your own opinion about it. I removed the paragraph as an administrative action and if it goes back in I'll have to choose between protecting the article and blocking someone. I'd prefer to not have to do either. Zero^talk 13:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See also WP:TWITTER and WP:Twitter-EL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. So, would that paragraph - perhaps slightly redacted to make it bit more... encyclopedic - be ok with a different source, eg a newspaper article? Trasz (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trasz: I'll answer for Piotrus. Yes, it certainly would be, but keep in mind WP:BLP concerns. The previous version had several problems, with stating disputed facts without adequately mentioning the dispute. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitic???

ad. "In 2020, he published Cham niezbuntowany, an antisemitic book meant to instigate hatred of Jews.[3][4] The anti-racist watchdog Open Republic Association [pl] said that the book contained examples of criminal hate speech, such as when it describes Israeli children as being molded into "killing machines" and calls the Holocaust a "myth".[5][6][7]" Are these statements in line with Wikipedia rules? All the footnotes related to them point to some NGO's complaints, with no information as to whether there was a court verdict (and what, if any), or to a biased newspaper article that didn't referred to the sources. In other words, there is no confirmation that the book in question is anti-semitic in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Flamenco108 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Book is no antisemitic; accusation were based on clickbait titles. For example, in Polish there is often figure of speech 'myth of something'. For example "mit powstania warszawskiego" (see https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mit+powstania+warszawskiego%22&client=firefox-b-e&sxsrf=AOaemvLMhfqpgWcn6SPYIX0CsWLAuopuRA%3A1633375224197&ei=-FNbYf7GC8Ggjgb7_rLoBA&ved=0ahUKEwj-opfwvLHzAhVBkMMKHXu_DE0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22mit+powstania+warszawskiego%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANKBAhBGAFQzCpY7jJgnzVoAXAAeACAAagBiAGzApIBAzAuMpgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz) - often used to describe a particular discourse talking about an event. No one sane thinks that when Polish journalists or writers write "mit powstania warszawskiego" it means they deny Warsaw Uprising. SImilarly he used "mit Holocaustu" to mean a particular way of talking about and describing the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.40.30 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no other basis for accusing Ziemkiewicz for Holocaust denial except for the phrase "mit Holocaustu". Posting that the book was antisemitic as a fact is libelous. Wikipedia might at most say that some opinions (WHO?) considered the book as antisemitic, while noting also other had different opinions : https://rmx.news/article/polish-conservative-writer-on-his-deportation-from-the-uk-british-and-international-law-was-violated/ or https://www.polskieradio24.pl/130/6802/Artykul/2558988,Obalam-wstretne-stereotypy-dotyczace-Polski-Ziemkiewicz-o-ksiazce-Cham-niezbuntowany

"Oni nie przeczytali tej książki. Jeżeli ktoś miał czas zapoznać się z tym apelem, to mógł zobaczyć, że był on w oczywisty sposób idiotyczny. Napisałem o tym, że zbudowano wokół Holokaustu mit. Oni to zinterpretowali, że zaprzeczam temu, iż taki fakt historyczny miał miejsce. To ewidentny idiotyzm. Jeżeli powiem, na przykład, że tworzy się mit Powstania Warszawskiego czy mit Żołnierzy Wyklętych, to znaczy to, że mówię, że nie było Powstania Warszawskiego i nie było Żołnierzy Wyklętych? Te oskarżenia nie ostałyby się w żadnym sądzie" in other link ZIemkiewicz says he never denied Holocaust: https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/ziemkiewicz-chce-przeprosin-zapowiada-walke-w-sadzie-zostalem-opluty-6691721679030912a "Nie ma żadnego mojego zdania, żadnej mojej wypowiedzi, w której zaprzeczałbym Holokaustowi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.2.66.254 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length here; you don’t have any new arguments, apart from claims from certain Ziemkiewicz’s friend, also a… “right wing publicist”, shall we say.

Also, Ziemkiewicz claims about an alleged libel is just another bullshit; he does that regularly and nothing ever comes from it.

Btw, you’ve just violated 3RR. Can you revert your changes? Trasz (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

read my answers above. I;ve noticed that you simply ignored all arguments and instead forced the opinion of one side as a fact, which clearly violates WP:Neutrality. I've changed the page into more neutral sounding. As a side note, calling someone "right-wing nut" clearly shows you have an axe to grid; plus I have serious doubts you really a native POlish speaker if in such an obvious case you can claim with straight face that you think "mit Holocaustu" (or "mit Powstania warszawskiego", or "mit Solidarności") means that person using this phrase denies Holocaust (or Powstanie Warszawskie, or existence of SOlidarność). Anyways, your opinion on ZIemkiewicz or his friends notwithstanding, see the current version and state what in your opinion is unacceptable and how do you think it should be corrected. Surely previous version was unacceptable because it violates WP:NPOV, especially: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."" and "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject" and "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.". Saying that "an antisemitic book [b]meant[/b] to instigate hatred of Jews" (especially "meant") without clearly attributing that opinion to a particular organisation(s)is surely against all of those principles. 31.2.66.254 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Quote - Trasz Oct.18/21 - ..Ziemkiewicz’s friend, also a right wing nut. [15] Trasz WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Please promptly strike or remove the "nut" word from your above commentary. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Whops, sorry, thanks for the heads-up. Trasz (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the mythology language

Has there been any consistent mention of a non-denier "Holocaust myth" prior to Ziemkiewicz's book? Has there been any consistent mention of a "Warsaw Uprising myth" prior to Ziemkiewicz's book? Has there been any consistent mention of a "Solidarność myth" prior to Ziemkiewicz's book? In each case, do those talking about the "myth" make it clear that they are not setting out to deny the historical reality of the subject of the "myth" descriptor, particularly where it is the Holocaust that is being discussed?

I'll also draw attention to the story of Norman Finkelstein and his 2000 book The Holocaust Industry. If that book can be widely considered as lending itself to anti-Semitism despite Finkelstein's aim being to criticise what he believes to be the exploitation of the memory of the Holocaust, can it be seen why similar concerns have arisen in relation to Ziemkiewicz's book (assuming, of course, that he is genuine in saying that he accepts the historical reality of the Holocaust and merely used an ambiguous linguistic construction when criticising what he believes to be an exaggerated narrative propagated by political Zionists)?--Dvaderv2 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This issue really requires scholarly analysis, as in, some scholars need to analyze his writings. Finkelstein's book has been subject to a number of scholarly studies, reviews and polemics. I don't think Ziemkiewicz has received similar attention, but there is a bit in Polish: [16], [17], [18],[19], [20]. It's rather fragmentary. Frankly, this would make for a good master of dissertation thesis. Maybe we will get one, plus some more articles or even a book one day. But for now almost all we have are news media polemics, most of them quite partisan... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have already posted results of google search, so I don't know why you ignoring it. For "mit Solidarności": (only books) https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22mit+solidarno%C5%9Bci%22 including phrase from book by Ziemkiewicz, where he writes about destruction of Solidarity myth. Mit powstania warszawskiego (again books.google) https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mit+powstania+warszawskiego%22&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AOaemvKbvKW2asJ-MAqWgoLScFngGviFkg%3A1638625798593&ei=BnKrYYDOI8-k3AOnnp6ADw&oq=%22mit+powstania+warszawskiego%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...93586.96807.0.97024.23.19.0.0.0.0.321.2316.0j8j3j1.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..17.0.0....0.rvur4DOwdVY - so it's clear that phrase "myth of something" in Polish does not denote "something is not true" even in writings of Ziemkiewicz. 37.249.149.177 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)