Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

About not removing reliably sourced
Well, for one, I don't think David Margolick's review belongs here, he's a well-read author/editor, but he's not qualified to pass judgment on the topic. His ruminations that Gross is off the mark and that "positing instead that perhaps "through their own state-of-the-art anti-Semitism, the Germans emboldened many Poles to act upon what they had always felt " are wholly inappropriate. He has no credentials to make such accusations, nor would I expect his review provided a scholarly basis for his alternate view of Poles. —PētersV (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions about his qualifications and the appropriateness of his review of the book in a major newspaper (and hence an eminently reliable source) are not how we judge inclusion in an article. And it's certainly as reliable and "appropriate" and "qualified" as the self-published ruminations of a practically unknown "institute" the views of which are somehow included in the discussion of the book. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You should not enter non-neutral quotes you like to the articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet you have no problem with the self published, non-neutral quotes from an obscure "institute", as long as you agree with them. Boodlesthecat Meow? 07:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I have agreed with Malik that we don't need quotes from it - as long as we have no quotes from emotional newspaper reviews. This article has been stable for weeks, until you restored the controversial reviews. Please stop.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yuo are misrepresenting Malik's comments. He was removing the criticism of Rosenbaum because it made no sense to have it in after Rosenbaum's review was removed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had achieved a level of stability here. What happened? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently Boody now wants to remove every mention of the Piast Institute... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, your incessant self-serving distortions are degenerating into bald-faced lies. In your own Aug 19 edit summary you said "we don't need PIAST institute criticism - nor the emotional quotes from newspapers PIAST addresses; please don't turn this article into quotefarm, it has been stable w/out quotes for weeks)" Today you violated this agreement by restoring the Piast quotes. I strongly urge you to immediately cease your incessant misrepresntations of my and other editors activities here, particular with your own actions currently under scrutiny. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And for some reason, you were not content to leave it the way it was, right? I said we don't need the newspaper reviews and reviews of them, but PIAST review of the book is useful - it is an academic level book review. Your removal of it is unacceptable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't you add back the Piast Institute quotes, Piotrus, which led Boodlesthecat to put back the quotes from the newspaper reviews? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Piotrus did unilaterally add back the Piast quote (which despite his proclamation to the contrary, is a self-published, highly partisan unreliable source (a "symposium" which doesn;t even list the particpants, date of the symposium, etc? An "academic level book review" from an institute which accuses noted writers in major publications of having views that are "heavy with hyperbole and prejudices, to which no serious and responsible student of the issues would subscribe.") And Piotrus, again, your own words from Aug 19 were "we don't need PIAST institute criticism - nor the emotional quotes from newspapers PIAST addresses" It's one thing to misrepresent the words of other editors, but to misrepresent your own words, which are right there on the page, seems a bit odd. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Malik, I added quotes about the book, but not about the reviews. I object to complete censorship of the PIAST Institute - other than Boody's words of dislike, it seems a reasonably neutral think-tank. As a compromise, I will prepare a version without any quotes, just paraphrasing its criticism. Do note that even with quotations from reviews not present, the fact of existence of the favorable newspaper reviews - with links to the reviews themselves - was present in my version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are going to put in self published quotes from the entirely non-relaibel Piast, then we should restore the quotes from major newspapers that you removed--on the grounds not that they were not reliable (since they are eminently reliable) but on your own personal objection WP:IDONTLIKEIT that they were "emotional. I will oppose restoring Piast unless we include the truly reliable commentary on the book from major publications that you, Piotrus, censored--especially since Piast's whole complaint is about those very reviews.. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter how long you call PIAST unreliable, you will not make it so. Why won't you take it to WP:RSN so we can get a proper community ruling on its reliability? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you grounds for excluding discussions of the book from notable authors printed in major publications? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't present cherry-picked quotes from newspaper reviews in encyclopedic articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. You could remove 99.9% of the quotes in Wikipedia articles based on that vague, ambiguous reason. that's why we have policies and guidelines. These are representative quotes from notable authors in major publications about a book which is the subject of this article. Your reasoning sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Give a valid reason that pertains to Wiki guidelines, not your own predilections. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with Grabski?
Why Grabski's review isn't mentioned in the article?Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link the review? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You cannot edit a direct quote
Jacurek please stop your silly reverts. The text is a direct quote - you cannot change the words that are directly quoted. This is dishonest reporting. Please STOP. Bobanni (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, it this situation yes i can, it is not a direct quote --Jacurek (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologes--Jacurek (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Machcewicz' article
The article http://tygodnik2003-2007.onet.pl/1547,1462029,0,559916,dzial.html desserves to be quoted. Machcewicz is somewhere between JT Gross and his radical critics. Machcewicz is competent, the majority of foreigners aren't. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt
In her Publisher's Weekly review, Lipstadt concluded:
 * After reading Fear, the next time I hear someone say the Poles were as bad as the Germans, I will probably still challenge that charge—after all the damage wrought by the Germans cannot be compared to what the Poles did—but my challenge will be far less forceful. I may even keep silent.

In her blog post two years later, she added:
 * I may have overstated the case a bit, in condemning Poland as a "nation" in this review.

That doesn't mean she retracts her earlier statement that "Gross builds a meticulous case." Or that "Even Polish historians have either ignored or tried to justify this anti-Semitism."

In any event, I removed the second part of the sentence in the Wikipedia article, as there's no reason to include her opinion about Polish historians. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Gross forgot about mentioning the two main reasons of the postwar antisemitism in Poland
Mister Gross forgot about mentioning the two main reasons of the postwar antisemitism in Poland. The first of the main reasons of the Polish antisemitism were the postwar Jewish relations with the communists whom the Poles seen as the second occupants next to the nazis, while the Jews seen them as saviors and collaborated with them very tightly (a mass-murderer and persecutor of Poles, Jozef Rozanski, is a perfect example here). The second reason is the Arab-Israeli war, where Polish people harshly condemned Israel, claiming that Jews didn't learn nothing from what the Germans did to them, and they do the exact same thing to the Palestinian nation. Poles were disgusted by this, therefore many Poles started to see the Jews as imperialists, backstabbers and hipocrites. That's basically the root of antisemitism in Poland, that you will never hear on a history lesson. Antisemitism didn't exist in Poland until the 20th century. Jews in Poland had basically more privileges than ethnic Poles (you can read about it in many histroical sources), that's why Jewish people called Poland "the new promised land" and "the Jewish haven". Polish antisemitism started with the Soviet occupation and identifying the Jews with the communist occupants (so called Zydokomuna - you can also read about it). That's the heart of the matter. 87.205.250.55 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the xenophobic hypocritical rants of random IP-addresses does not live up to the criteria for those. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I know. But please note, that in Poland there was a huge controversy about Gross's statements and many historians gave very reasonable arguments. What's more, the German and Israeli pressure to ban the exhumations of Jedwabne victims is very intriguing. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what is proposed here. Please can we try to reframe discussion in terms of what we want to change in the article? This is not a forum for general chit-chat around the subject of the article.
 * It sounds like maybe there is interest in the "Reception" section here. If so, please say clearly what you want to change but please also be aware that the section is already more than half of the article, which either suggests a degree of bloat or that the rest of the article is underdeveloped. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.166.169 (talk)

This article misses a very important quotation
famous polish female writer and catholic activist an well known Polish anti-jewish activist Zofia Kossak-Szczucka facing Geram atrocities against the Polish Jewry proclaimed - Jews are no friends to us whatsoever but our Christian duty is to help them to save them at any possible cost, and with that proclamation she was a founding member of ŻEGOTA an underground organisation for helping Jews. Every member of that organisation facet instant execution by Germans if bought. Why Gross omits such a prominent antisemite dedication to saving Jews? Is it unpalatable as it is real historical fact? shemyaza [against all] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.166.169 (talk • contribs)


 * The problem here, and the reason why I have previously removed this comment as off topic before, is that it says nothing at all about what you want us to change in the article. This is not a general forum for discussing the book. If you have a problem with the book you need to go and discuss that elsewhere.
 * If you have a problem with how we are covering this book then that is something to discuss here. Please take a moment to understand the difference before replying. Now think carefully, what exactly do you expect us to change in the article? Bear in mind that it is not for us to berate the author if he missed something that you think is important. If reliable sources have criticised this perceived omission then tell us about those sources and maybe we can include it in the "Reception" section. If it is just something that you feel strongly about personally without any reliable coverage then that just isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a social network to vent opinions on. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that we have an article on Zofia Kossak-Szczucka which does already cover this matter that you seem to think that we are hiding. Oddly enough we cover it in the article where it is relevant, not here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

this is a very tightly policed subject, the censorship is almost instantaneous. how on earth quoting a person and organisation mentioned, not very favourably in the book is off topic? how on earth asking question, that this book is posing, and trying to answer it, is off topic? why a book written by a sociologist without working historical skills (this fact was proven beyond any doubts by prof M. Chodakiewicz) is a sacred cow here. This book is full of bias and purposeful deception, it has a thesis and over the dead bodies it will be defended as a conclusion. thatt mean that it is not a book it is a gospel and that should be indicated at least here. It is an encyclopaedic entry and talk about this entry so in the section talk we should be allowed to "talk" not "to prise". shemyaza [against all] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.166.169 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A few things:
 * Please add new comments at the bottom not the top.
 * Please sign your comments (At the end of the comment press the signature button.)
 * Please read my comments above this one. They will explain why you are not getting anywhere.
 * It is not censorship to keep this Talk page on-topic and tidy. It would be censorship if I tried to stop you having your say on a forum where it is relevant and nobody is doing that.
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz. 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/20110718022718/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86847.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86847.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718022728/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86375.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86375.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514044138/http://www.ejpress.org/article/23109 to http://www.ejpress.org/article/23109

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) 01:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Reception - United States

 * David Margolick, a US editor and legal affairs reporter. He quotes alleged "Nazi accounts of Judenjagd". Strange because Grabowski uses mostly Polish post-war accounts. The Nazis introduced a terror system to prevent any help, why to punish the alleged eager collaborators? A "lega;" reporter doesn't comment Communist terror system's impact on investigations.
 * Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, American writer, professor, political activist, his opinion is rejected by Adam Michnik
 * Thane Rosenbaum, an American novelist, essayist, and law professor. No trace of knowledge of history and no legal doubts.
 * Deborah E. Lipstadt, an American historian
 * David Engel (historian), an American historian and Professor of Holocaust and Judaic Studies
 * The Piast Institute - error 404


 * Why the United States opinions only? Not even one Israeli or European.

Here comes one Israeli: https://networks.h-net.org/node/3180/reviews/6294/sznaider-gross-fear-anti-semitism-poland-after-auschwitz-essay
 * All individual writers prize the book, ignoring its deficiencies.
 * There is a review by T.R. Weeks, unavailable to me.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Anita J. Prazmowska is a British historian and her review has been published in England, so why Poland? The review - Error 404. Is the same review https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/627 ? Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Anita J. Prazmowska left Poland in 1968, which doesn't make her neutral. She writes however "It is therefore puzzling that nowhere in the book's footnotes, endnotes, bibliography or index has he acknowledged any of the historians who have attacked him in the past and with whom he is clearly conducting a polemic throughout the pages of this book."
 * The gathering in a church in 2008 is unproportionally described here, one or two lines would be enough. Almost nothing about the book, "strong overtones of antisemitism" according to Haaretz. Did the reporter participate in the meeting? Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Piast is (or was) a very small local Michigan organization - the annual budget was a couple hundreds K - I removed it as UNDUE - if they couldn't get it published off their website. Anita J. Prazmowska is describing the reaction inside Poland. There is a divide here between Poland and the rest of the world (perhaps a better title than "United States") - inside Poland the book provoked some Public debate on the Polish role, while outside of Poland the reception was mostly positive AFAICT. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The result of my work is obvious - The Piast Institute has perished. I don't exxpect any revision of anti-Polish opinions. They are - like always - academic, reliable and neutral.Xx236 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

the ageing priest made a mistake
Is an error made by the ageing priest notable? This page is about the book.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)