Talk:Antoni Gawryłkiewicz

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antoni Gawryłkiewicz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003095234/http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_1.pdf to http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003095234/http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_1.pdf to http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003095234/http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_1.pdf to http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Beaten by the underground
Per this - "Suspected of hiding Jews, Antoni was apprehended by a Polish underground unit, and sustained severe beatings for refusing to disclose the presence of the hidden Jews. As a result, he remained bedridden for days, recovering from his wounds." - in their own voice. Gawryłkiewicz was suspected (correctly) and then beaten severely.Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, correcting a reference url + adding the second URL - without changing the text, is hardly "Polonohobic".Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

First, Yad Vashem is not a neutral source, given their history of supporting Jewish and Israeli point of views, especially their ties to the Israeli government. Secondly, you are attempting to pass off something “suspected” as fact. Third, your source makes zero claim to what you attempt to convey. It’s classic Polonophobia you’re attempting to emit. -2600:1001:B103:45C9:A42E:822:E927:758C (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yad Vashem is independent. I quoted the source - it clearly say he was beaten, not that this is suspected. Gawryłkiewicz's suspected role in hiding Jews led to his beating.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim is contradicted by other sources.  Volunteer Marek   19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Self published sources are generally not used on wikipedia, and are specifically prohibited per WP:BLPSPS.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * These aren't self published sources. They're also not "Catholic" sources, so there goes that excuse.  Volunteer Marek   20:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And deleting (partially) Mark Paul (still linked and mentioned in some of the refs) while retaining references which seem to be copied from his document is not OK. VM - have you verified each of the citations you restored? I shall note that a letter to the editor or self published works (including a SPS by a SPLC designated far right activist) by other authors are not usable for BLPs either.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The refs are not copied from his document, rather vice versa.
 * Are you dropping the objection that these are "self published sources"?  Volunteer Marek   20:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you verified them? Yes / no please.
 * Chodakiewicz in the biblo is self published. The testimony by Shulman is clearly BLPPRIMARY and can not be used (all the more so unattributed). Radziłowski is generally undue, but a letter to the editor of a paper (Zgoda) is not an acceptable source for fact - it can at most be used attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which source are you inquiring about specifically? Chodakiewicz is not being used, it's just mentioned. There's nothing that would make Radzilowski "generally undue" (what does that even mean? you don't like it? Well, sorry) And you fail to bring up the main source which is the GW article.  Volunteer Marek   21:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again - a letter to the editor of Zgoda is not an appropriate source. You also may not use or link to SPS sources - e.g. Chodakiewicz in this case. A testimony of someone else (Shulman) clearly can not be used without attribution. You have restored some rather serious content on a BLP (stating he sigmed a false stmt) - which had better be verified. As for the GW article (again - did you actually read it?), this is a film director vs. a respected historical institute - at best this should he attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again - Chodakiewicz is NOT being used as a source. But there's nothing which says he cannot be linked to (as in "also discussed in..."), seeing as he is a professional historian. As is Radzilowski. We can definitely attribute Shulman.
 * And yes, I've read the GW article. Thanks for FINALLY explaining which source you were referring to, rather than being vague and unclear. And no, it's not "film director vs. whoever". It's the subject of this article. It is attributed. To the person who said it. The subject of this article.  Volunteer Marek   21:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If the subject of the article has said, on record, conflicting stmts - then we should refer to both and mention the conflict - not prefer one over the other. Self published material may not be present or linked on a BLP article. Radzilowski was not a professional historian in 1996 (he got his doctorate a few years later) - and regardless this is a letter to the editor of a niche newspaper.Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the subject of the article has not said conflicting statements. The subject of the article said one thing, Eliach another. And we do present "both" versions already. That's the point.
 * There's nothing anywhere i can see which says we cannot link to SPS (by a historian). We just can't use it as a source. Which we don't.
 * You got a point about Radzilowski, but it's only one of three sources here, and there's later works by him which may be relevant.  Volunteer Marek   22:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The testimony about the beating to Yad Vashem was by the subject. Eliach confirmed the subject had saved her family, but he testified as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The testimony about the beating to Yad Vashem was by the subject." - it was? Can you provide a source to that effect? Because none of the sources in the article, nor the one you provided above state that. And one or more sources actually contradict that claim.  Volunteer Marek   05:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz's 'The Last Rising in the Eastern Borderlands: The Ejszyszki Epilogue in its Historical Context' is not self-published. Well, the English version - a fragment of his work - is available at, and so it can be said it is published by Polish American Congress. Not an academic outlet, but the author is an academic. Anyway, that site claims this English text is only a summary/introduction to his Polish book (https://books.google.co.kr/books/about/Ejszyszki.htm) published by pl:Fronda (wydawnictwo) (see a bit more at pl:Fronda (czasopismo)). Minor, but reliable publisher. So it's hard to say his work is self-published. Anyway, Chodakiewicz cites the 2000 journalism piece by pl:Anna Ferens from Gazeta Wyborcza: it is available online but paywalled at (it is also reprinted in a book, snippet view of course). TBH I doubt we can really make progress in this discussion without accessing that article. Some other, still online coverage of him: this discusses how he was attacked by the Lithuanian collaborators. On another note, I'll note we don't seem to have a source, other than Chodakiewicz, for the accusation he was beated by Polish underground. So if someone things Chodawkiewicz is unreliable and should be removed (not that I agree), then this entire section should go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The beating is clearly covered at - Yad Vashem featured story - Suspected of hiding Jews, Antoni was apprehended by a Polish underground unit, and sustained severe beatings for refusing to disclose the presence of the hidden Jews. As a result, he remained bedridden for days, recovering from his wounds. - a link an IP has been trying to keep out - diff). The WP:COATRACK content in "the deposition" section has no place here. As for Chodakiewicz - a file hosted at http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org is a WP:SPS, and regardless is not an academic publisher. Whether the English summary matches the Polish book published by Fronda is an open question - however regardless - the Polish book is not published academically. Using Chodakiewicz - whose "work represents the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of history writing" and who is "perhaps the first historian in postcommunist period who consistently casts Polish-Jewish relations in terms of conflict and uses conflict as an explanation and justification of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland" - is highly questionable (and definitely without balancing mainstream sources) even when he is academically published. Non-academic works by Chodakiewicz (numerous blog posts and tracts at various corners of the internet) are not remotely a WP:RS - Chodakiewicz is a far-right activist, whose questionable views and writings (on Jews, LGBTs, "white genocide", etc.) have been profiled extensively by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Hope not Hate. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The beating is clearly covered at " - yes, but what you claimed was, quote: "The testimony about the beating to Yad Vashem was by the subject". This isn't testimony by the subject. Please provide a source which either claims that the testimony about the beating was made by Gawrylkiewicz or which contains this supposed testimony by Gawrylkiewicz. It would be very strange if such a source or testimony existed, since he said something completely different according to other sources.  Volunteer Marek   08:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your dislike of Chodakiewicz is your personal opinion. I am not his biggest fan, but he is reliable. Take it to WP:RS if you wish. I am fine with removing this section anyway, as the account is very likely wrong. Even more so, my research on Eliach suggests she is a very biased source and she should not be cited as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No - it is not my personal opinion - his writing is covered by WP:RS on historiography. The coverage by the SPLC is not my personal opinion. We generally do not use non-academic tracts and blogs written by individuals who are designated by the SPLC. Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Take this to WP:RSN. (Through the last time you tried - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_239 - there was no consensus for not using him). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, regarding . YV is generally a reliable source, but in this case it seems rather problematic, as it is an extraordinary claim. I can't trace the source of it as it is not dated (IA suggests this YV page went live this year). Chodawiewicz disputed this in 2003. Gawryłkiewicz himself in 2000 doesn't mention it (or at least, the essay-interview does not). If we could at least attribute this claim to someone, even Eliach. But YV page is anonymous. It is a bit strange that when the subject himself talks about abuse from Lithuanian collaborators, even gives a specific date (1948) we have this claim of abuse by another party, with no year. I'll note that the 2000 interview does have him mentioning that he was often interrogated by the Germans ("Antoni: - Od 1942 do 44 były ze cztery takie grubsze naloty. Bo tak zwyczajnie, to przejeżdżając, co rusz Niemcy weszli: - Żydów nie ma? Nie ma. "). Again, he doesn't mention anything about problems with the Polish underground beyond some vague generalities. You'd think he would mention he was beaten by them if it happened. All in all, it seems like another fabrication by Eliach, alongside of her claims that Polish underground was more interested in attacking Jews than Germans (as cited in the 2000 article: "głównym zadaniem Armii Krajowej było zabijanie Żydów"). Anyway, the claim of the beating is challenged by Chodakiewicz in his book based on the same logic (that if it happened he would have mentioned it in the interview). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I was able to obtain the text of the 2000 article. In this essay, there are indeed several cited cases where Gawryłkiewicz seems surprised at some of Eliach's claims that the journalist asked him about. At one point Eliach claims that her parents witnessed a murder of a Polish family hdding Jews by the AK, but Antoni is surprised - he says there were rumors that he heard about, but he is pretty certains that her parents were hidden in the house at that time and finds it strange they could have witnessed the events themselves ("jak to mogli widzieć rodzice Yaffy? - zastanawia się głęboko. - Przecież oni bez przerwy byli w Korkucianach. Ja dobrze pamiętam, że nigdzie nie odchodzili."). Then the journalist recounts another of her stories about how she and her family had to spend a week in the basement, because the house was visited by the AK partisans who were 'partying' and spewing antisemitic slogans, to which Antoni replies that, first, the isolation between the basement and the surface was too thick for anyone to hear anything from the other side, and anyway, there was no such visit. "Antoni zniecierpliwiony: - Przecież już mówiłem, że 70 cm ziemi dobrze tłumiło każdy głos. W ogóle nie pamiętam takiego momentu, żeby przez kilka dni Żydzi nie mogli wyjść ze schronu."). Later, he confirms that his father and brother were killed, but he gives the date 1948 ("20 września 1948 r. przyszli do naszego domu Litwini. Mnie nie było. Matkę, dwie siostry i pięcioletniego brata zamknęli w komórce. Ojca i 22-letniego brata zabili w mieszkaniu. Później chodziła gadka, że w ten sposób rozprawili się z "ojcem żydowskiego opiekuna"."), which seems different from the account here which implies this happened during the war. Nowhere in the story do I see the account of him being beaten by Poles, through he does note that after the war he was afraid 'of everyone' for his efforts to save the Jews ("Wróciłem do swojego domu i nie wróciłem. Bo krążyły pogłoski, że teraz rozliczą się z tymi, co ukrywali Żydów. Kto się będzie rozliczał? Różnie mówili. Nie było spokoju, żeby zajmować się gospodarką."). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Przewodnik Katolicki implies this happened in wartime (while they were hiding the Sorenson's - who departed after the liberation). The seems to be a difference in the identity of the people who beat Antoni during the war, between Przewodnik Katolicki and Yad Vashem, and Yad Vashem does not tell of his brother and father being shot. Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that YV omits such major item is a good indication that this particular entry on its webpage is poor research. Btw, AC even mention this tragedy of his in his speech in YV: "W Yad Vashem Antoni powiedział: - Nie wiem, czy wszyscy wiedzą, że przez te wspólne przeżycia straciłem dwie najbliższe osoby z rodziny. Ale widocznie tak musiało być. Życzę zdrowia wszystkim Żydom w Izraelu i na świecie." It is sad how now YV page is misrepresenting what happened. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)