Talk:Przytyk pogrom

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)

Your translation, o Poeticbent, is wrong and tendentious. Instead of:

"The book cannot be called a scientific publication"

it should read:

"Let's skip the point that the item in question is more of a source publication than a monograph."

Bows,

Zezen (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2020 (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[1]--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 Wikipedia RSN, please note that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. NOENG would also have us precluding it - as we have better English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, every credible source should be used. Historian Gontarczyk is reliable and trustworthy. Criticism of another person that disagrees with Gontarczyk does not automatically exclude Gontarczyk as a source.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrong translation. See my comment to Poeticbent above. Zezen (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Przytyk pogrom in culture and politics

Let us add this section.

See e.g. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-life-in-europe-before-the-holocaust

how it is (wrongly) described there: heavy POV and wrong facts.

Zezen (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Moring

I'm not sure from the context whether moring in the article is a typo of morning or moving. ϢereSpielChequers 16:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

80% Jews? 90%? When?

"In the interwar period Przytyk was an urban settlement with 2302 inhabitants in 1930, of whom 1852 were Jewish (80 percent of the total population)."

When? Constant, over 21 years? 3 paragraphs further down in the article, it's 90% in 1936:

"Jewish merchants of Przytyk, a town with a 90% Jewish majority,..." Arminden (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

English please

"In the interbellum period, an annual kazimierzowski fair took place at Przytyk."

Word not understandable to any non-Polish user. I guess it refers to the 1488 privilege given by King Casimir IV Jagiellon to Przystyk to hold fairs and markets. Not every user of this page studies the Przystyk page in detail, and even if they did, it's not certain that that's what is meant by kazimierzowski. Arminden (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Polish source: reliability, neutrality?

There has been a "neutrality of this article is disputed" tag, ignored since 20 May 2018. Icewhiz, who has set it, wrote in his edit summary, but w/o starting a discussion here on the talk-page as required:

"Large sections of the article use "Pogrom? Zajścia polsko-żydowskie w Przytyku 9 marca 1936 r. Mity, fakty, dokumenty. Pruszków: Rachocki" unattributed - a text rejected by several academic reviewers as scientifically unsound, promoting a mythologised image of history, and justifying anti-Jewish violence as a form of national defense."

This must be addressed and a decision taken: Icewhiz & others must support the claim that the "text [was] rejected by several academic reviewers". If the source is unreliable, it must be removed along with the material based on it. If it is RS, this must be supported by authoritative sources. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: I see Icewhiz has been banned. This does in no way make his remark superfluous. The tag must be dealt with, and thoroughly - one way or another. Arminden (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@E-960, IZAK, MyMoloboaccount, Piotrus, and Onceinawhile: I'm pinging you in because I see you've been active on related pages and this tag has been ignored for over 3 years and would probably remain so for as long again. If you're not interested, maybe you know who else to bring in. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's me, one step at a time: I see the issue has been addressed on this talk-page under "Gontarczyk" (first section here), and in some detail, but has been - well, ignored. Arminden (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: Is the 'Rachocki' source still used? If not, what's the current explanation for this article being tagged with NPOV problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I've arrived here by chance, I don't know much about the topic, I just noticed some problems and set a discussiin in motion. I hope others will take it from here. Arminden (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no basis for that Tag to remain there anymore, but the article nevertheless requires care. I began to fix it little by little, starting with your “clarification request” marks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, do go ahead and look for yourself. Anyway,'Rachocki' seems to be part of the "Pogrom?" (Gontarczyk) source, it never was a stand-alone one. And yes, Gontarczyk still is the backbone of the article. A main problem of the article is that most of the sources are in Polish, and editors didn't even bother to Google-translate the titles (I took care of a couple, but won't go any further), so it's not possible to easily understand the arguments and contribute if you're not Polish. Arminden (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Gontarczyk is a reliable historian. Of course it would be good to update refs to English, but for such topics, often English sources don't exist. Anyway, while the article needs various fixes (it's start/C-class at best), I don't think the NPOV tag needs to remain. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)