Talk:Dariusz Ratajczak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Dariusz Ratajczak is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions! |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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?--Docg 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.--Docg 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
