Talk:Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz

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

message: Since this is a BLP article can we get a ref for the actual apology? All that the source  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)
replies: text: 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 ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Well I see DGG was there as well as here; will wait for his opinion. Novickas (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed that's why I asked him to comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  lawsuit and apology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged speaking against "extreme" lesbian and gay 

message: 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)
thread_title: Latest

message: 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)
replies: text: AFAICT he was not actually banned, he cancelled his visit following calls for such. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom of speach, but... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Zerotalk 13:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

text: See also WP:TWITTER and WP:Twitter-EL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I'll answer for . 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)
thread_title:  „Kto nigdy nie wykorzystał nietrzeźwej” 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: , , ,, . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the mythology language