Talk:Antoni Macierewicz

Removed plagiarism

Removed the majority of recent edits by [Special:Contributions/212.76.37.180|212.76.37.180] as this was a complete word-to-word copy of this recent article (entitled Of questionable intelligence) from The Economist (27 Feb 2007 edition). Deuar 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe

.

I couldn't review all the book, but the chapter about Poland is certainly not RS. It is mixing all kind of extremists without rational discussion of agenda of different groups. I strongly dislike this guy, nevertheless, I have never encountered any Anti-Semitic statement of him. I would be very surprised.

Eon 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This book is not a reliable source : the chapter about Poland is written by Marcin Kornak an Rafał Pankowski, who are leftist activists [1] [2].

Furthermore, authors don't bring any quotation proving Macierewicz has "anti-semitic" views.

I think we should write without any bias at all. Puark (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just a personal opinion. Until you do not have any WP:RS critical reviews of this book published by major publishing house (Routledge), your personal opinion about this book frankly does not matter at all. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A left-wing extremist author is not a reliable source. Provide a precise source (quotes, etc.) proving Glos can be considered as "anti-Semitic". Puark (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it other way, you still do not have any RS to prove your point. Anyway, please refrain from incivil edit summaries like this one [3] in future content disputes. M0RD00R (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As previously said, you have to prove that a left-wing extremist author is a neutral source. Puark (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You did it again [4]. It is the last warning. M0RD00R (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained may edit on the talk page. Once again, you have to provide a precise source asserting Macierewicz's anti-Semitsm. Puark (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean the source you keep deleting? M0RD00R (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You make this article less and less neutral. Last time you added "apparently anti-Semitic weekly Glos". Today, you simply add "anti-Semitic weekly Glos". However, you still not provided any precise quote of Macierewicz asserting he should be considered as "anti-Semitic". Puark (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is anti-Semitic publications of Glos. If it publishes antisemtic articles calling for expulsion of the Jews from Israel, or ranting about vile Jews seeking to dominate the world, sorry to say, but this is anti-Semitic publication. Regarding book by major publishing house (Routledge) you keep removing, again, it is way more reliable, than your opinion who is extremist or who isn't. Once again I ask you to present reliable sources to prove your point or stop disruption and incivility. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is out of question to present an analysis which comes from "Otwarta Rzeczpospolita" website (which is not an academic source) or "Nigdy Wiecej" activists as the divine truth. The best way is to attribute theses opinions, as recommended here. Furthermore, even though I didn't examinad Macierewicz' publication carefully, it should be precised that he denies to be anti-Semitic[5]. Puark (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Otwarta Rzeczpospolita" article is a chapter from published book. So nothing wrong with that. And I see no problem with attribution. If it is attribution that you want, when attribute statements, but do not delete referenced information.M0RD00R (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

To label a whole section as "False claims" just because a politician is criticized is hardly neutral and to declare the reports of international newspapers as "conspiracy theories" is such a blatant example of political propaganda, it just leaves me speechless. The criticism is based on reliable sources and needs to be mentioned.

While active in the Movement for Reconstruction of Poland the party's poll ratings dropped from 16 percent in June 1996 to 8 percent in November 1996. This was blamed to the party's "radical wing, represented by Antoni Macierewicz and Zygmunt Wrodzak" who were accused of "creating a negative party image with anti-Semitic undertones".

In 2006 Macierewicz published a list of member s of the WSI (military intelligence service), which included dozens of current and former agents, some active in highly sensitive places like Afghanistan. The Polish ambassadors to Austria, China, Kuwait and Turkey were recalled to Warsaw. At least ten of the names, including the military attaché in Moscow, were fiercely contested.

Rafał Pankowski describes Macierewicz as "well known for his divisive, radical style of politics, which is rooted in the nationalist identity discourse of Radio Maryja." In a radio interview in 2002 Macierewicz said, in response to a caller’s question, that he had read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which he called "very interesting", and, though he acknowledged the debate about the pamphlet’s authenticity, his "experience shows that there are such groups in Jewish circles." The Anti-Defamation League has called on the Polish government to revoke his appointment as minister of defense because of these allegations.

80.136.67.21 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, following discussion of your conduct on the administrators' noticeboard, I had hoped you would stop posting personal attacks. Secondly, Wikipedia has a very strict policy in connection with how we write about living people. Your proposal seems less than neutral to me. Please remember that Wikipedia describes disputes. We do not engage in disputes! A neutral characterization based on reliable sources is needed. ReliableBen (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the false claims made by Pankowski, etc. have already been discussed extensively on Wikipedia. This issue was resolved in 2008! ReliableBen (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"False claims" and "conspiracy theories" is the most biased way to describe criticism I can imagine. "Wikipedia describes disputes" - exactly, so why do you delete quotes of reliable sources like The Guardian? And why do you cite Mr. Macierewicz' spokesman instead? You are certainly not trying to create a neutral article. But maybe you could explain why you regard the Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Guardian, The economist or The Jewish Chronicle as unreliable, especially compared to a former employee of Macierewicz. 80.136.67.21 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I ask that you assume good faith while interacting with Wikipedia editors, including myself. Please remember that neutral point of view is reached by balancing the bias in sources used. You should NOT exclude sources that do not conform to your point of view, which is what you propose doing. ReliableBen (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"exclude sources that do not conform to your point of view,"- this is exactly what you are doing. And while I did not delete anything in favour of Mr.M. (including his spokespersons statement) you just removed any kind of criticism or declared it to be "conspiracy theories" (any source for that claim?). This discussion is absurd.

His appointment has caused international attention (e.g. New York Times, Nov 13, 2015 [6]) and protests by the Anti Defamation League (an information you prefer to conceal) and the only "critical" section rather praises him. Absurd. 80.136.67.21 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia prides itself on fostering a respectful environment for all editors. Please assume good faith. We are all here to improve Wikipedia! The tone of all articles on Wikipedia should be impartial. Articles should never endorse nor reject a particular point of view. In your proposed changes, you completely ignored the Jewish leaders of Poland. It is widely known and referenced that the Jewish leaders of Poland support Macierewicz. You also fail to mention Macierewicz's stance regarding the false claims made by Pankowski, etc. A neutral characterization based on reliable sources is required. ReliableBen (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@ReliableBen: That's why you leave it as "Controversy", as this person had put, before. From there, you include the claims from the one side, and the support he received from other Jews. You include both sides, and label it "Controversy", just like with every other article. You don't decide for yourself that it's a "false claim". Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol, looks like User:ReliableBen has decided the matter for himself. It's a false claim to him, therefore, it's a false claim. Lol.

I'd like to point out that this man, Antoni, is a Christian Nationalist, which is well-known for it's anti-Semitism, after the views of Martin Luther. Many modern KKK are Christian Nationalists, and are denounced as not being "true Christians" by most Christians, for their hatred. The Christian National Union that he adheres to is a part of the Christian right and social conservatives – making it more likely that they really are anti-Semetic. Plus, the label "nationalism" often comes with the disdain for "others". And, one of the sources is the Jerusalem Post – a very reliable source. Sounds like Reliable Ben is unreliable. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is absurd and defamatory to draw parallels between the modern KKK and Macierewicz. ZChN (Christian National Union) does not exist. Macierewicz is the Deputy Leader of PiS (Law and Justice), a party whose ideology is social and national conservatism. To the best of my knowledge, there are no reliable sources that indicate PiS's ideology as Christian nationalism. I used the term "false claims" as per the 2008 consensus. Sounds like Knowledgebattle lacks the knowledge to know that editors should not introduce incorrect information or add defamatory content to Wikipedia. ReliableBen (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgebattle certainly know that User talk:ReliableBen just made a manipulative statement, when you said, "ZChN does not exist." By simply saying, "does not exist", it leaves out the fact that it did, and that the political ideology still lingers. Racism didn't die in the US after the slaves were freed; the ZChN ideology doesn't die just because the party has all but disbanded. The party that many of them went on to, Polska Jest Najważniejsza, is in fact nationalist, as the name, itself, makes clear. And from there, Polska Razem. Being Rightist conservatives, it's no wonder he just made the same kind of comment that one would expect from Donald Trump: "Everyone must realise how big a mistake it was to attempt to relocate groups of Muslim immigrants in Poland." When Christians bomb something or attack someone, no Christians assert that anyone should kick the Christians out of the country, or that it's a mistake to let Christians live in their country. The man is anti-Semetic (in regard toward both Jews and Muslims). He's making that very clear. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 10:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Antoni Macierewicz w Yad Vashem.jpg (discussion)
• Spotkanie Ministra Antoniego Macierewicza z Prezydentem USA Barackiem Obamą.jpg (discussion)
• Szczyt NATO - konferencja prasowa ministra A. Macierewcza.jpg (discussion)
• Wizyta ministra Macierewicza we Francji.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Światowe Dni Młodzieży - 28488312452.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)