Talk:Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Old talk[edit]

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[edit]

(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)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)