Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Icewhiz (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 19 May 2018 (→Blogs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jewish history Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gontarczyk

This article relies heavily on a publication by Piotr Gontarczyk. Trouble is, the publication received very unfavourable reviews. Most reviewers aggree that the factography is mostly ok, but the interpretation of the facts is seriously biased. To name but a few of such reviews:

• Jacek Walicki (Łódź University, Historical Faculty; Tygiel Kultury, 2002 nr 1/3, pp. 180-184): The author could not (or did not want to) present the Przytyk affair objectively, The book cannot be called a scientific publication, careful reading reveals that the authors' intention was to present a mythologised image of history to an untrained reader, and his book is not a reliable scientific publication it claims it is, Gontarczyk is trying to convince the reader that the Jews were a foreign object, a closed society, whose basic aim was to harm Poles and Poland, mostly through economic means, but also through its ideology.

Original in Polish:
Autor nie potrafił – lub nie chciał – wywiązać się z tak trudnego i delikatnego zadania, jakim jest obiektywne przedstawienie wydarzeń w Przytyku w marcu 1936 r. Pomińmy już kwestię, iż omawiana pozycja jest bardziej wydawnictwem źródłowym, niż monografią. Uważna jej lektura pozostawia u czytelnika przekonanie, że jest to publikacja mająca dać niewprawnemu odbiorcy pewien ideologizowany obraz dziejów, a nie rzetelna praca naukowa, za jaka się podaje. Gontarczyk dąży per fas et nefas do wpojenia czytelnikowi przekonania, iż Żydzi stanowili obce, zamknięte społeczeństwo, którego jednym z podstawowych celów było działanie na szkodę Polski i Polaków – przede wszystkim drogą wyzysku ekonomicznego, ale także narzucania swej ideologii. (pp. 232–233, Poeticbent talk )

• Jolanta Żyndul (Gazeta Wyborcza, 2001-03-07, nr 74, p 1; ): Even the title itself suggests the author's thesis, that there was no pogrom at all, Presenting the historical background Gontarczyk omitted all the facts that did not fit his thesis of "Polish-Jewish conflict".
• Jerzy Tomaszewski (Przegląd Historyczny, 2001, nr 2, pp. 259-261: A very weird book indeed., One of the weak points (...) is that the author relied almost exclusively on Polish legal and administrative documentation. The reason is the lamentable fact, that Polish historians generally do not speak Jewish languages. While this might be an objective obstacle, it is hard to understand why didn't the author even mention that Jewish relations do exist, or that he did not use an English language monograph (available in Warsaw's libraries). Instead he summarily dismissed all foreign publications, along with previous Polish ones, as propaganda. Jewish and American publications he dismissed as based almost exclusively on pre-war Jewish press and books published in Communist times. This opinion is wrong and irrational, and proves insufficient knowledge of foreign publications on the topic.

Original in Polish:
Bardzo to osobliwa książka. Fragmenty posiadające walory naukowe przeplatają się z rozważaniami dość dziwnymi, które mogą wprawdzie denerwować niejednego czytelnika i skłaniać nawet do zakwestionowania solidności autora, we mnie wywołują natomiast rozbawienie. Uderza zwłaszcza kontrast między niektórymi szumnymi deklaracjami i tezami, a odbiegającą od nich praktyką.
Słabością bazy źródłowej jest uwzględnienie (poza prasą) niemal wyłącznie polskiej dokumentacji administracyjnej oraz sądowej. Przyczyną tego jest pożałowania godna, niemal powszechna wśród polskich historyków, którzy wkraczają na teren dziejów Żydów polskich, nieznajomość języków żydowskich. Jeśli jednak uznać to można za przyczynę obiektywną, to trudniej zrozumieć, dlaczego autor nie wspomniał nawet, że takie relacje istnieją, ani też nie wykorzystał publikacji w języku angielskim (dostępnej w Warszawie), gdzie są obszernie cytowane. Ograniczył się jedynie do sumarycznego potępienia i odrzucenia wszystkich dawniejszych publikacji polskich jako powierzchownych lub propagandowych oraz opracowań żydowskich i amerykańskich, jako opartych „niemal wyłącznie na doniesieniach przedwojennych gazet żydowskich i pracach powstałych w PRL” (s. 19). Niezależnie od tego, że owa generalna ocena jest błędna i świadczy o niedostatecznej znajomości historiografii zagranicznej, tak aprioryczny stosunek do literatury nie wydaje się racjonalny z punktu widzenia metodologicznego. (pp. 259–260, Poeticbent talk )

Any ideas what could be done about it? @Piotrus and Poeticbent:? //Halibutt 10:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To make it clear, all reviewers underline that Gontarczyk presents facts accurately, they have a problem with the way he interprets them. And there is a high probability that some of those interpretations are presented as facts in our article. //Halibutt 10:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• The article is very poorly written, and it sucks. Fixing it would take days of grueling effort. Even worse than that, understanding the cause does not actually guarantee a cure. Poeticbent talk 15:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Blogs

I have removed highly pov, and factually inaccurate, information sourced to a political blog per WP:BLOGS. This is an event that is widely covered in high quality English language academic texts - which is the sourcing standard we should stick to.Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I note that even a Haaretz article isn't that confident about this event being a pogrom and does point out this is a more of an riot due to economic rivalry--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The distinction being that the atttacks on the Jews in Przytyk was "Anti-Semitism was behind the series of events that led to the violence, but the violence itself was spontaneous, rather than a planned attack." Pogroms are planned, anti-Jewish riots not.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we move the article to Przytyk Riot then ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The COMMONNAME is Pogrom, and the Haaertz journalist is using "may" on a technicality - which is not an obvious one as anti-Jewish violence against Jewish stalls and shops was organized in advance. In any event COMMONNAME is the driving factor.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"anti-Jewish violence against Jewish stalls and shops was organized in advance" do you have a source for this claim?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Polish violent boycott is well described. Please refrain from introducing low quality sourcing (cherry picked) into the article - a newspaper (and all the more a primary newspaper acccount in Polish) is not a spurce we should be using. Gontarczyk throughly discredited book should not be used as source.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a source, please discuss it on Misplaced Pages RSN, please note that Misplaced Pages is also based on reliable newspapers and there is no rule against using them.Are you stating that Haaretz is not a reliable source?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Each reviewer indicates that Gontarczyk presents events accurately, they have a puzzle with the way he renders them. Gontarczyk is a reliable source.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

While reviewers have not challenged the factual accuracy of what Gontarczyk presents - they have questioned his omissions of facts as well as his highly questionable interpretation. This is not a discussion for RSN - we have higher quality English sources which we should prefer per NOENG. The current state of the article, presenting the Polish far right's narrative in Misplaced Pages's voice - and contrary to any serious RS, is shameful.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

As explained, this event will be widely covered in Polish sources, as it happened in Poland.Neverthless even Israeli sources, who can hardly be presented as "Polish far-right" don't press too strongly on claims of pogrom happening and seem to softly agree on economic rivalry as part of the reason for the events.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

All reliable references can and should be used. Historian Gontarczyk and Chodakiewicz are as reliable as others. Icewhiz please add “according to” but do not remove sourced information because you don't like it.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No lack of English sources of equal or higher quality = clear policy grounds for exclusion of Polish sources per NOENG. All the more so given the PRIMARY and FRINGE/BIASED nature of some of them.Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Piotr Gontarczyk dedicated four years to researching these events. His writing is much more reliable than any other English language source. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Jacek Walicki (Łódź University, Historical Faculty; Tygiel Kultury, 2002 nr 1/3, pp. 180-184): The author could not (or did not want to) present the Przytyk affair objectively, The book cannot be called a scientific publication, careful reading reveals that the authors' intention was to present a mythologised image of history to an untrained reader, and his book is not a reliable scientific publication it claims it is, Gontarczyk is trying to convince the reader that the Jews were a foreign object, a closed society, whose basic aim was to harm Poles and Poland, mostly through economic means, but also through its ideology.

No - a book by a radio personality described as a "not a reliable scientific publication" (and elsewhere in a similar fashion) - is not a RS, nor should such BIASED material be used in Misplaced Pages. NOENG would also have us precluding it - as we have better English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Stub-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles