Talk:Dariusz Ratajczak

Notability

I'm not sure how notable a guy can be when most of his notability comes from a redlinked book. Even given the rest, if the book isn't notable enough to be here it's a strong indication it's author isn't either. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was posted about an hour ago, so no article on book, yet. The guy have his PL article, his activities there covered by BBC News and his trial was described as the first serious case of Holocaust denial in the Poland. In my view he is notable enough, especially knowing that his works are used in wikipedia articles. Readers should know about his claims credibility, M.K. (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, then. I'll go remove the notability tag. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then M.K. (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He is notable: 1) publications 2) news coverage and 3) political involvement with LPR party.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He obviously isn't notable outside Poland. This isn't a Polish Wikipedia. 1) publications of dubious quality, only in Polish. 2) Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. 3) being an alleged candidate during several days isn't involvement. There are millions such people around the world. Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

weasel wording

"author appears to agree with Holocaust deniers who claim that for technical reasons it was not possible to kill millions of people in the Nazi gas chambers". To say something appears to agree with something is not NPOV. In whoose opinion. This needs attribution in addition to citation. Does the subject actualy say the samething as the deniers?--Doc^g 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The source of such claim was present at the end of sentence. I also added additional attribution to the claim now. Hope this will solve the problem. M.K. (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It does, thanks. Sometimes it is easy to forget that sourcing and attribution are not identical. Facts need sourced, judgements need attributed and sourced.--Doc^g 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks for heads up. Take care, M.K. (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

League of Polish Families extreme right party

League of Polish Families is/was extreme right party as noted in academic source: Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe By Cas Mudde 2005 p.159 - The League of Polish Families (Liga Polskich Rodzin, LPR), which incorporates the All-Polish Youth (MW, see below) as its youth wing, is currently the main extreme right political party active on the parliamentary level. It was formed shortly before the September 2001 parliamentary election... Therefore I see no reason to remove this information, as was did [1]. M.K. (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do explain how you can justify keeping removal here and removing the very same claim by the same ref from here/here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have problems with different articles, list those grievances on proper talk pages. From now on, any future unrelated remarks presented here will be ignored by my. M.K. (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• M.K. - this is an article about Dariusz Ratajczak. It isn't an article about LPR. You are vandalising this article.
• extreme right isn't a serious description of a party. It's a denunciacion, after which 60 years ago many people in Lithuania died or were imprisoned in Gulag camps. Some people keep to denounce, even if comrade Stalin is dead.Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• The LPR is a leftist party, opposing privatisation and demanding state welfare.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1999 trial

The article claims he was found guilty in December 1999, but this news story says he was acquitted in December 1999. Did he have two separate trials in the same month, or is there some other explanation for the discrepancy? Road Wizard (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now flagged the Konrad Kwiet source that supports the "guilty" claim with {{Verify credibility}} as an interim measure until the situation is resolved. It may be worth noting that the Cas Mudde source only says it was found that Ratajczak broke the law, not that he was found guilty. The Mudde source could therefore support either the acquittal or guilty claims. Road Wizard (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ratajczak isn't a denier any more

Such statement has been removed from the article. Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

right-wing activist

right-wing is here an invective rather than information. We don't know anything about DR views in anything except of the Holocaust. In leftist propaganda right-wing means Nazi means very bad and left-wing means very good. I don't accept any propaganda here, so I believe that the right-wing should be removed or replaced by more precise words.Xx236 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream liberal press"

It should be said that the titles mentioned in the article, especially one of them, namely "Gazeta Wyborcza" is as kosher as the Knesset in therms not only of ownership, but redaction also (and frankly, theres hardly any mainstreem title owned by Gentiles, as we know, given the Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone cases, to name just a few of the clique) and it is also extremely leftist (as the leader Aaron Szechter a.k.a. Adam Michnik comes from a judeo-communist ,as he himself put it, family, his brother e.g. was an infamous butcher-judge in the stalinist era). Having this said, it now becomes obvious that the article is scandalously biased. Moreover, it should be emphasized that Dr. Ratajczak mereley dismissed the numbers of deceased in KL Auschwitz, which as he fairly pointed out, were officially reduced from over 4 mln to less than 1 mln in the early '90's and never in a million years did he approve the view that the holocaust had not taken place. It should be also mentioned, that Dr. Ratajczak is by many (especially those on the right, or aware politically) considered a Martyr. Long live the memory of him!

Phrases like “judeo-communist family” hint that wikipedia is not the right place for you. I kindly advise you to limit your efforts to Polish Metapedia. Thank you.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You're either an ........, or your reading capabilities are very limited. Read again, and don't put my words out of CONTEXT, "judeo-communist family", AS HE HIMSELF PUT IT. It's documented. I find your remarks very offensive, and frankly, I think the supposedly free encyclopedia, that wikipedia poses to be, should be free of such officious, self-ordained censors like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

German Nazi not Nazi

It is time to start writing "German Nazi" when we talk about Hitler's army. A Nazi can be anyone from any country and here we talk about German crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)