Misplaced Pages

Talk:Przytyk pogrom

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Halibutt (talk | contribs) at 10:39, 14 November 2017 (Gontarczyk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:39, 14 November 2017 by Halibutt (talk | contribs) (Gontarczyk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconJewish history Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPoland Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis 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.
  • 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.

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)
Categories: