Talk:Jan T. Gross/Archive 1

[unnamed thread]
I recommend this page be temporarily locked or otherwise restricted -- someone persists in adding attacks on Gross in Polish to the bottom of the article. The one most recently deleted read "Jan Tomasz Gross's books are examples of intellectual pathology." Xtff 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism
Several quotes constitute anti-Polonism and should NOT be allowed in Mr. Gross' biography. They lend nothing to the facts of his life. Several quotes were cherry-picked from his books and are being used to defame Poles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.10.41 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Criminal Charges
Can someone provide a link to Gross' response to the possibility of Polish criminal prosecution of him for his book, Fear, Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, in the Rzeczpospolita article of January 11 2008? Dr. Dan (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this "possible criminal prosecution" was a minor press fact and not notable for his bio. I'd suggest to remove it. --Lysytalk 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Books
The Jan T. Gross section is far from complete. -- Wlod 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Still is far from complete. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

--- This entire entry needs combining with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tomasz_Gross and cleaning up. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.69.201 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

undermines Poland's self-image as the heroic and the principle martyr of the war
It's nothing new. The Communist state did this job since 1944, killing, imprisoning, censoring and spying. It's very sad that Jan T. Gross quotes a faked diary written by Władysław Machejek. Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Commonly held Polish self-image as the Martyr Nation is as loaded - and as historically inaccurate - as some Jewish circles taking sole ownership of the Holocaust. History is far more complicated than rhetoric - current or past - and Wikipedia community needs to be careful about referencing and rational discussion. Prof. Gross has thrown a live grenade into an emotionally charged field and the current [Jan '08] discussion following the publication in Poland of "Strach" ("Fear") and editing of this entry as well as all related entries needs to be carried out in a level-headed fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.69.201 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Much Improvement
The current state of the article is a great improvement over it's earlier unencyclopedic, "over the top" style, infomation, and format. Kudos to those responsible for this change. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory vs. POV
A question to the editor who has attempted to put the veracity of Gross', Neighbors, into the realm of "theory". Assuming you have actually read the book, what part of it seems "theoretical" to you? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly simple, if your read the book - obviously you did not. The theory is that the Jedwabne massacre has been done by the local population, without a direct German guidance and with the minimal instigation. It will remain unproven theory, because the witnesses testimonies from Jedwabne contradict it. Gross puts them in doubt, using only these parts of the testimonies, which serve his theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.189.238 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your deletion of the external links
Krzyzowiec, please explain why you had to delete all three external links with the explanation ""even as the country was being liberated by the Red Army."- Red Army didn't "liberate" Poland.". Even if one of the articles said something you dissagree with that is not enough motive to remove it, let alone to remove all three.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right Stor stark7, the links should stay for a balanced opinion. Of course Red Army did not liberate Poland the way most Poles would like them to do and Soviets became the new oppressors of the Polish State but this is irrelevant to the above reviews of Gross's book "Fear".--Jacurek (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Krzyzowiec, why do you think that whole Washington Post article is a propaganda ?!?--Jacurek (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial
The fact that Gross may be controversial in Poland, does not make this American professor "controversial" in the rest of the world, and WP is an international project. Since it is his book, Neighbors, that seems to be the bone of contention, I left the description alone (it's in the second paragraph) concerning the book. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I was just about to write the same, when I noticed your earlier comment. --Lysytalk 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that an average American reader, unfamiliar with Polish history, who most likely has even trouble locating Warsaw on the map will receive "Fear" with any level of controversy at all? The book is about Poland, about Polish Jews, about Polish anti-Semitism and if Poles feel that Gross is controversial why you guys keep arguing with them that he is not? The fact that Jan T. Gross is controversial in Poland makes him a controversial figure in Polish public life also for millions of Poles living abroad.--Jacurek (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but English Wikipedia is not exclusively about Poland, Polish Jews, Polish anti-Semitism, etc., either. The debate here concerns the lead sentence. The article does not deny his "controversiality" in Poland, it's all there, no objections. And please, don't under estimate the average American reader...who most likely has even trouble (sic) locating Warsaw on the map..., I suspect the average American reader (reading WP) would take offense, as I do, by such a chauvinistic remark. Mel Brooks' movie, To Be or Not to Be , comes to mind with Anna Bronski's quote, "He is world famous, in Poland". Just substitute "controversial" for "famous", and you might understand the objection to placing controversial in the lead of this article. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He is making allegations that all Polish people are Anti-Semetic,based on the actions of some. I could say the same about America and Africans that reside in the US referring of course to the KKK, which is unfair grouping and is what he is doing, which unfortunatly is impossible to elude since everyone has some bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtics08 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am stunned by these comments - if something ain t controversial in USA it ain t important fact to know? And because this media is in english it means this is centered around USA? If someone have not noticed, english is quite a common language and an interlingua for a lot of people. So if we follow your reasining also the subjects that are controversy in USA should not be explained as controversial in wikipedia... What a stupidity... (and yes, I do make spelling mistakes - i am not an englishspeaking person, and still I read wikipedia in english!) (A reader from Finland, 8.5.2008, 13:08)

Polish / Jewish / American ?
When we are saying that someone is "American" does it mean that he was born in America or that he holds a U.S. passport ? What does it mean if someone is Kurdish or Chechen ? Is Gross Polish, Jewish or American ? I think he is Jewish, born in Poland and US citizen. --Lysytalk 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He has a Jewish father but a Polish mother. Tymek (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does having a Jewish father make anyone Jewish ? --Lysytalk 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know and frankly, I do not care. Tymek (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it in another way then: what is the difference between a German living in Poland and a Pole of German origin ? --Lysytalk 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me? I am a Pole of Romanian origin, which means that I am not a Romanian living in Poland. Tymek (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tymek, I am not asking You specifically :-) This is a discussion page of the article and there's been some controversy as to if Gross is American, Polish or Jewish. I'm trying to sort that out. --Lysytalk 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This dialogue opens an interesting series of issues and questions. In the United States the vast majority of immigrants have chosen to downplay their former ethnicities and have become "Americans". An exception of course are refugees who often came as a result of necessity beyond economic reasons, and planned to return to their place of origin when the situation allowed for this to happen. Solzhenitsyn would be a good example of this, and thousands of other people to be sure. The assimilation of nationalities by marriage into the American melting pot further diluted this need for many to pean their origins, and so the Polish-Italian, or Irish-German individual tended to ignore these nationality issues even more so as time went on. And the person claiming to have English, French, Dutch, Portugese, Scotch-Irish, and Cherokee heritage was even more inclined to claim "American" nationality. Many non-English speaking immigrants often went to great lengths to forget the "Old Country" in the "New World" and anglicized or shortened their names and made strong efforts to erase their ties to the past. It may be of special interest to the two editors who found this issue engaging enough to debate it, that the Polish immigrant population who settled in certain locations (the biggest being Chicago), often quickly lost their identity as Poles, and their children lost their ability to speak Polish. In Chicago, a lack of unity and bickering amongst the various factions of the Polish community prevented this significant number of the city's population from attaining the political prominence it could have otherwise done. Since the Second WW with a significant influx of people who immigrated out of political necessity rather than as a result of a previous economic need to do so, there was definitely a resurgence of ethnic awareness in some quarters. Efforts by Irish nationals with ties to the IRA attempting to raise support and money also caused a resurgence of ethnic pride in that group which was always "simmering" until St.Patrick's Day when everybody, even former slaves, became "Irish" for a day. The dramatic increase of the Hispanic population in the last quarter of a century has also affected the ethnicity and nationality dynamic in the U.S. Regarding the Jewish situation, this is complicated by the fact that after the creation of the State of Israel many Jews emphacized their ancestral origins as Jewish rather than religious, and the stopping points (of various countries) during the Diaspora to be just that. A good friend of mine, an Israeli, has discussed this issue with me (over plenty of degtine) many times. Whereas if I argued that Spinoza was a Dutch-Jew, he would correct me with, "no he was a Jew who was born and lived in Amsterdam, whose family formerly lived in Portugal or Spain, and somewhere else before that. Interesting to say the least. Now let's look at Roman Polanski. It's easy to say he's a Polish Jew. Last name Polanski, grew up and went to school in Poland, etc. But the fact of the matter is Polanski was born in France, his actual last name was Liebling (pretty German sounding), his mother was Russian, and he has spent a large part of his life abroad, and has accomplished most of his work abroad too. Does spending his youth in Poland clinch the argument and negate all of the other facts? Or does his father's roots supercede his mother's? Maybe you have an opinion. Tying this together to the Gross article, I'm interested why the insistence of bringing in his "Polish-Jewish heritage" into the first sentence of the lead, when it clearly violates WP:MOS. MOS frowns on bringing "ethnicity" into the lead sentence unless it is relevant to his notability. Are we trying to "box him into a tidy little corner" and putting his works under some umbrella of "he's of Jewish descent, therefore we must consider his work from that perspective"? And as for being controversial, is he controversial at Yale? Or anywhere else other than Poland? Slowly but surely this article is becoming a stalking ground for more POV than fact. Let's keep it short and sweet and to the point. And encyclopedic. And neutral. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dr. Dan, that was an interesting post. Anyway, I am refraining from editing the J.T. Gross article, as I simply cannot stand this individual, and my opinion would influence my edits. As for Poles in Chicago, believe me - they did not lose their identity, even in the 4th generation. They lost the language, this is a fact. But not identity. However, this is a completely different subject. Gross is not regarded controversial in USA because hardly anyone there has any idea of postwar Polish reality. Therefore, whatever he writes is accepted, and Gross loves to skip certain facts or circumstances only to prove his preconceived point. Despite having Polish mother, he regards himself a Jew, yesterday I saw his meeting with inhabitants of Kielce and he clearly stated "among us (i.e. Jews) there are also rascals". Tymek (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your honesty regarding your feelings towards Gross. Moving along, if you lived in Chicago, you would have to agree that the million plus "Poles" (now largely of mixed ethnicity) have virtually no ties to their Ojczyzna other than blabbering about pierogi or kielbasa here and there when intoxicated. I'm not talking about recent visa "lottery winners" from Poland who left "dla chleba, Panie, dla chleba". Dr. Dan (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the Poles in Chicago, I think that on average they are much more nationalistic than the Poles in Poland. It's interesting to compare the results of the recent elections to Sejm. Most of the Poles from Chicago voted for PiS (while most of the Poles from Britain voted for PO). --Lysytalk 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the melting pot, does a person holding a US and a British passport automatically become "an American" only ? Or does each Chechen become automatically a Russian ? The question of ethnicity/nationality is a very blurred one as many nations (and people) define it differently. E.g. Gross thinks he is Jewish but many Jews would think he is not. On the other hand Polanski may have been born in France but still he thinks he is Polish. I agree that it is a good topic to discuss over vodka, though. --Lysytalk 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The drinks were consumed talking about Spinoza. Most Americans do not hold U.S. and British passports, and the entire nationality/ethnicity issue in the United States has a uniqueness that is not found in most other places in the world. Certainly different than in Chechnya and Russia. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the yesterday's public debate in Kielce Gross said: "I'm Polish and Jewish. And I come from America". So being Polish and Jewish seems to be important to him and he clearly associates himself with both nations. --Lysytalk 07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The alleged million of Poles in Chicago, even though this number is exaggerated, have as many (or as few) ties with Poland, as thousands of Chicago's Lithuanians, Vietnamese or Italians. And those who still keep ties with their homeland are much more right-wing and nationalistic than Poles living in Warsaw or Krakow. Anyway, we are deviating from the subject. IMHO Gross considers himself Jewish, he is kind like Barack Obama, who emphasizes his being black, at the same time trying to hide his mother's race. Tymek (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The more than a million Chicagoans of Polish ancestry (supposedly the highest concentration in the world after Warsaw), have little or no ties with Poland or the Polish language. Nor do they vote in the Polish elections. Nor did most of them come from Warsaw or Cracow. Sure there are small groups of more recent immigrants who are involved in these matters, but I was referring to the large pre-WWI immigration of people. You know, the ones who were exploited in the steel mills and stockyards. As far as the comparison of Obama and Gross, what were you drinking? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but who has time for this type of discussions? There are facts: born in Poland, both his parents were Polish citizens, migrated to the US, American today. What do you need more than: Polish born American?

Why the questionable historical methods of the Professor Gross and his lack of historical training are not so widely discussed on this page? Antisemitism in Poland is an everyday fact - we should not use sensationalism to out root it. Unless our main aim would be to sell books. --213.10.189.238 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By Jewish law he is not Jewish because his mother was not Jewish,even so his father was only part Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtics08 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Uniformed members of the German police, German mayor as well as agents of Gestapo
If you read the IPN report you may read there the testimonies of the witnesses from the Jedwabne massacre. The witnesses clearly say about uniformed members of the German police, German mayor as well as agents of Gestapo. Why should we omit this now? These are the only testimonies that we have today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.189.238 (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Different witnesses give different, often contradicting testimonies. Some claimed there were uniformed Germans at the scene, some others denied this. Yet it did not make it into the IPN's conclusions. If IPN had no doubts about the Gestapo presence, they would surely state it. I think you are confusing the extensive description of IPN's investigation with their conclusions. --Lysytalk 00:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Witnesses are not at all places at the same time. The IPN report is inconclusive - I hope we may agree on that. The report does not discredit any of the witnesses. Their testimonies are valid document of what has happened in Jedwabne. We are touching here the core of J.T.Gross method. --213.10.189.238 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, this should not be an excuse for us to perform any original research for IPN here. We should not be attributing to their conclusions anything that was not there. --Lysytalk 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but Wikipedia information should not misinform. Another sentence is needed then about the German instigation and supervision of the massacre. It does not make the murderers clean or less guilty in any way if they collaborated with the Nazis, but it importantly changes the perspective.

By the way: somebody who thinks, that at the time in Poland, an event of this scale could be staged without German authorities acceptance if not direction, is not less than a fool. --213.10.189.238 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, anonymous editor, in that case you'd have to agree that a lot of fools have edited the Ypatingasis burys article and made comments to the contrary on its talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people don't realize that if the Poles did not cooperate they would be shot along with their family, it was really a do or die situation                  Celtics08 May 7, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtics08 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Balance
I came to this page because I needed a quick fact about Gross. I am shocked by the content. Gross is a highly-regarded historian who write things that some Poles do not want to hear. Fair enough. I can understand a section about the Polish criticism of his work (and, by the way, Poland is a nation that deserved positive marks for coming to terms with its anti-Semitic past since the Soviet Union fell, especially compared with the Ukraine). However - and this is my point - the page iw way out of balance. It needs a major discussion of the content and impact of Gross' work and the degree to which it is held in high and olmost universal esteem. It it had that, it could also have rom for a small section on criticism within Poland. Fan613 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

Gross is a highly-regarded historian doesn't imply much, a highly-regarded can write a good or a bad book. universal esteem - maybe in sciences is such thing acceptable, but not in historiography.

Neutrality and Balance - two last books by Gross aren't neutral nor balanced, why should they be discussed in neutral and balanced way? Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it acceptable to quote a fabrication as "source" in the USA? J.T. Gross quotes in "Strach" the alleged "Ogien diary", a text written by Communist activist Władysław Machejek. I'm not able to check if the same "document" is quoted in the English version.Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * About the "diary" http://books.google.pl/books?id=YqezH8JUD_cC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=dziennik+ognia+machejek&source=bl&ots=itU9boW7WC&sig=lJC0oHFpcy7pu5iUkDUSX1nngyM&hl=pl&ei=7QJATfGeDsX2sga3zsTYBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=dzienniki&f=false, page 72.Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles about the unpublished book: "Dr Gontarczyk: Gross manipulates the numbers, pass over facts and distorts..." Gross speculates about the picture: http://www.niezalezna.pl/artykul/gross_manipuluje_zdjeciem_z_treblinki/43932/1 There are no sources proving that the picture shows criminals. Noone knows who is the author, who are the people, where the picture was taken, if the people with guns are soldiers or policemen. Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC) When did Gross write for the last time an academic text? How long a historian can be regarded as a historian if he publishes angry popular texts?Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.rp.pl/artykul/599769_Semka--Biedny-Polak-patrzy-na-Grossa.html
 * http://www.rp.pl/artykul/592972.html Gross sam nazwał swoją książkę esejem, a nie pracą naukową "Gross himself describes his book as an essay, not an academic work"
 * http://www.bibula.com/?p=30248 Dr Gontarczyk: Gross manipuluje liczbami, przemilcza niewygodne dla siebie fakty i wypacza historię
 * http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,8900420,_Zlote_zniwa__Grossa__Przeorany_patriotyzm_czy_manipulacja_.htmlXx236 (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Gross anti-Polish?
In his books and publications, Gross never mentioned that the Jews collaborated with the nazis as the Ghetto Police. He never mentioned that after the WWII, the Jews collaborated with the communist occupants, murdering thousands of Poles. He never mentioned that the root of Polish "antisemitism" is anti-Zionism, the condemnation of the Israeli actions in Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz#Gross_forgot_about_mentioning_the_two_main_reasons_of_the_postwar_antisemitism_in_Poland

I assure you, it should be all mentioned in the article, as this is the main criticism. 87.205.250.55 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The opinions of some random IP-adress does not constitute an RS, and you have not provided any other sources for your claims. As such your critique remains quite irrelevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The statements mentioned above (including the content of hyperlink) are the most common Polish contarguments to theories by Gross. How come they are not included n the article in the section "controversies"? In Poland, Gross is considered antipolish by many. This should be mentioned, as Wikipedia should not omit anything. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the link about reliable sources I provided in my reply above. Follow the links in there to the other basic policies of sourcing in Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jan T. Gross. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan T. Gross. 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/20131001092242/http://bucerius.haifa.ac.il/gross.html to http://bucerius.haifa.ac.il/gross.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114125013/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/ftp/pdf/jedwabne_postanowienie.pdf to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/ftp/pdf/jedwabne_postanowienie.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) 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jan T. Gross. 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/20110718022728/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86375.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86375.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718022718/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86847.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/86847.html

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) 18:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jan T. Gross. 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/20080128090143/http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34265,4854594.html to http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34265,4854594.html

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) 16:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Historian or sociologist ?
What is his primary occupation ? --Lysytalk 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a sociologist, also studied physics at the Warsaw University. Dunno why some people insist on calling him a historian. Writing a few books of dubious quality does not make one a historian Tymek (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think historian is a person researching history. What does he teach in Princeton and in what department ? --Lysytalk 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I am also a historian, as well as bunches of my friends. As for Princeton, look here Tymek (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this answers the question. The link you provided says: Professor of History. --Lysytalk 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to your question depends on your definition of a historian. Normally, a person is a historian if he has acquired an academic grade in the scientific discipline of history; a bachelor or master grade in history entitles someone to call himself a 'historian'. In some countries, even history students that have not yet acquired that grade are called 'historians'.
 * Jan T. Gross has not studied history, nor acquired an academic grade in history like bachelor or master or PhD. He was - according to his own vitae, the source of which I will include here at the end - a student of physics and sociology. In 1975, Gross acquired a PhD in sociology, a grade that entitles him to do sociological scientific research. He has no PhD in history. Gross was appointed as a sociologist at Yale until 1984, as a political scientist at Emory until 1992, then as a political scientist at NY University until 2003. So when he wrote 'Neighbors', he was not educated nor working nor scientifically acknowledged as a historian. If I remember well - but I would have to check - in the first printed editions of 'Neighbors' (in Polish, 2000 and English, 2001) Gross did not present himself as a historian, but as a sociologist.
 * Since Gross was widely criticized for sloppy historical research in 'Neighbors', the fact that he was indeed not a historian in a formal sense became a vulnerability. We all know that the person Jan T. Gross became well-known because of 'Neighbors', and also the center of heated debates, in which the 'he is not even a historian' argument played a role. It is remarkable, or maybe not-so-remarkable, that in 2003, Gross was appointed as 'professor of history' at Princeton. I can't tell you whether there are any other 'professors of history' in the US or abroad who a) never studied history, b) did not acquire any scientific grade in history, and c) never completed a PhD in history. Maybe Gross is the only one. You'd have to ask Princeton why they appointed him as a professor of history.
 * So if any professor of history meets your definition of a 'historian', then Gross is a historian. But a rather unusual one.
 * What is curious, or maybe not so curious, is that in every reprint of 'Neigbors' after 2003 (and many other books like 'Fear' etc.) Gross is prominently presented as a historian, even on the front book cover. 'Neighbors' (2001), new edition, front: "The work of a master historian" (Gross was not a historian when he wrote it). 'Fear' (2006), front: "An essay in historical interpretation" and back flap, first line: "a terrific piece of historical scholarship". Bio: "Gross teaches history at Princeton".
 * It is a fact that any university can appoint anyone as a 'professor', including a 'professor of history'. Rochester University once awarded Freddy Heineken (of beer fame) with a doctorate honoris causa. Such actions inflate the value and meaning of scientific grades and titles. But hey.
 * Gross's vitae at Princeton is here: Mcouzijn (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Batory Foundation
In regard to this revert and edit summary - the Stefan Batory Foundation is quite notable (partly why it has a Wikipedia article). While I understand that westerners may not have heard of it, it's actually one of the most active and well recognized think tanks in Eastern and Central Europe, with, at least in the past, a who's-who of democratic activists, notable personalities and prominent academics. Likewise Aleksander Smolar is notable - this being English Wikipedia, nobody's gotten around to creating an article on him (though there is one for his brother, Eugeniusz Smolar) See Aleksander Smolar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pl.wiki link. It describes Smolar as "columnist, political activist, and president" of the foundation. It looks like the press was quoting him as a pundit, i.e. he's not an expert on Poland during WW2 or the Holocaust. It still strikes me as undue, given that it's a BLP. Experts on these two topics would be more relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being the president of this foundation makes him notable by itself. He was also part of the democratic opposition (though before 1967 member of the communist party, out of which he was kicked out), member of KOR and other organizations, one of those forced to emigrate out of Poland during the anti-semitic campaign in 1968, an advisor to several Polish prime ministers (Mazowiecki, Suchocka), leader of post-Solidarity left wing political parties (Unia Wolnosci, Unia Demokratyczna), vice president of Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen and recipient of numerous Polish and non-Polish awards. If nothing else, this quote from him illustrates that - contra some editors pushing POV here - it's not just "far-right" or "nationalists" that are deeply critical of Gross' statements.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This BLP of a scholar with a very high h-index and mostly favorable reviews in peer reviewed publications is filled with cherrypicked criticism from rather POVish media orgs, to the point of a gross POV issue. While we are still mentioning the opinion of the Polish gvmt on history (and until recently this think tank person) - an actual holocaust historian quoted by a widely repeated AP piece was removed - "The claim that Poles killed more Jews than Germans could be really right – and this is shocking news for the traditional thinking about Polish heroism during the war" as well as the widespread concerns over the Polish gvmt actions against an esteemed scholar.... While certainly, due to the extremeness of the response, the Polish gvmt deserves a mention (generally gvmt views on history and historians would not), the opinion of a holocaust historian is clearly more DUE than the particulars of the opinion of the gvmt.Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will futher note that removing well sourced and widely disseminated positive reception of Gross, while packing the article with quotes favorable to the Polish gvmt (which on the international stage has faced a dim reception indeed for these actions - censorship allegations and the like) - is a BLP issue, and quite a serious one.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I still find the restored material to be undue. We learn that a pundit (Smolar) finds the article "disgusting", but so what? Was the statement factually incorrect? That's why commentary by an expert on Polish military operations during WW2 and / or the Holocaust - somebody who looked into this topic - is preferable. Otherwise, it's more or less an attack on Gross, which we should be careful about, especially in BLPs. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Smolar isn't just a "pundit". He's a former democratic activist, recipient of numerous awards and medals and head of prestigious institutes. Yes, he didn't get a doctorate - because he was arrested during his studies and kicked out of the country by the communists for being Jewish. Can't really hold that against him. Describing him as just a "pundit" is unfair and POV. And like I said, his statement clearly illustrates that the POV being pushed by Icewhiz - that it's only "Polish govt" (sic) or "right wing nationalists" that have a problem with Gross - is just plain false. I hope to write an article on Smolar on English wikipedia and would appreciate it if others refrained from removing his statement from this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And if I'm not mistaken Smolar's statement was made in an organized "debated" with Gross, during which another "definetly not "Polish govt right wing nationalist"", Anna Binkot (who very strongly supported Gross during the original Neighbors controversy) also criticized him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

POV slant of article, and alleged BLP violations
Lets, see - Our article is supposed to be WP:BALASP - covering this BLP per the balance of coverage in sources - which have been mainly favorable with a notable regional exception. The response of a BLP to serious allegations or criticisms against them is required per policy and common decency.Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Academic reviews of Chodakiewicz's much criticized work as well as our BLP's response, were reverted. Oddly, it would seem that a NGO president calling our BLP subject's work disgusting - is "A criticism of academic work is not a BLP issue as long as its sourced" - yet when our BLP subject makes an attributed statement or even when we insert peer reviewed material it is a BLP issue.
 * 2) reversion of anti-semitic attacks against our BLP, noted in an academic source - it is unclear how this is "cherrypicked" - this being quite clearly present in the source.
 * 3) reversion/restoration - Gross's explanations of his estimate are for some reason "cherrypicked" and undue (seems quite DUE given this caused such a stir in Poland), as is the opinion of a Holocaust scholar on the estimate (both published in an international widely spread setting - Politico and AP, as well as subsequent coverage of Gross's estimate in a an academically published book) - yet the Stefan Batory Foundation president's opinion of this being "disgusting" published by a radio station - is DUE.
 * 4) reversion of Polish legislation inspired/targetting our BLP subject - a connection covered amply in RSes with this moniker ""Lex Gross" (as evident in even a simple google-news BEFORE), as well as without this particular term.
 * This isn't an article about Chodakiewicz and including cherry picked quotes to attack him just because he's critical of Gross is indeed a BLP vio. Let's just note that Chodakiewicz was critical rather than going to all this effort to smear him.
 * And Smolar's response to Gross was not "published by a radio station". That's just the source which reported his statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Gross's statements on Chodakiewicz were not "cherry picked" - this was a verbatim copy of what appeared in the 2009 SPLC report on Chodakiewicz, and in 2017 coverage of Chodakiewicz (and probably elsewhere as well) - this was clearly the summary both Newsweek and the SPLC thought appropriate regarding Gross's views on Chodakiewicz. Academic reviews of this much criticized publication were not "cherry picked" either. If we include Chodakiewicz's criticism here, criticism which was not well received academically to say the least, we should make this clear - something that secondary sources covering the Jedwabne debate make clear.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems the "Lex Gross" angle is also mentioned by academics, e.g. Karolina Wigura - Karolina Wigura wrote in a recent article that the law was drafted as if to shut up a single person: the historian Jan T. Gross, who broke the silence that had formed around the story of the Jedwabne massacre—in which the town’s Jews were killed on the streets and in their homes or rounded up and burned in a barn—and stubbornly defends his thesis that the Poles “actually killed more Jews than Germans during the war.” As Gross has said himself, though, the government did not need the new law to harass him, and it makes more sense to see the legislation as the Law and Justice party’s way of playing to its own far-right nationalist constituency. In doing so, the government has only exposed its provincialism and insecurity. .Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Smolar and Chodakiewicz
I removed both; preserving here by providing this link. Smolar's is nothing but an attack; again, it's not clear if Gross's statement was factually incorrect. We can tell that Smolar was outraged by the article, but not every reaction belongs in a bio.

Chodakiewicz's views appear to be questionable; see for example: (scroll up one page), where Chodakiewicz's reaction to Gross is described as a "vicious personal attack". His neutrality is generally questionable. We should expect better in a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Chodakiewicz thing has already been discussed. There's lots of controversy here with all sides accusing the other side of "launching vicious attacks". Michilic's neutrality has also been questioned. The question is not whether Chodakiewicz is "neutral" but whether he's notable, which he is. So his opinion should certainly be included, provided it's properly attributed. You can take it to WP:RSN if you'd like.
 * I've also explained the reasons for why Smolar should be included and why he's notable.
 * These are both well sourced, so this is not BLP issue - this is just the standard phenomenon of some people disagreeing with some other people. Note that both Chodakiewicz and Smolar (two very very different people ideologically and in terms of political background) are not actually discussing ("attacking") Gross, but rather directly comment on his work. Which makes it a legitimate criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The "two sides" are unequal. One side has been covered by the SPLC, and is barely cited in an academic setting. The other side consists of most of the mainstream scholars in the field. Including Chodakiewicz, without context, Gross's response, and crticism from others - is an UNDUE and POV problem, as well as possibly promoting a FRINGE view. Chodakiewicz is not a RS/n issue (though using him in many contexts possibly would be) - in this particular case it is a NPOV/n issue. Aleksander Smolar - is simply UNDUE. He has no particular experience in the matter - I'll note that for some reason VM is insisting on removing a Holocaust scholar who agrees with Gross.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with VM.GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As inserting, and redacting, material in this manner leads to a highly biased POV (well away from the manner the subject is covered in international media and scholarship) as well as UNDUE emphasis to fringe/extremist views - I've opened a BLP/n thread requesting input.
 * Provide link there, would you? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS
The onus to achieve consensus is on the editors who wish to retain disputed content. The BLPN discussion is here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. As an aside, the notability of the person offering an opinion is not material to whether their views are included. This is the matter of WP:DUE. I.e. many notable people have opinions, but not all of them belong in a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the notability of the person offering an opinion is not material to whether their views are included. - if this is indeed true then there's a ton of "opinions" which need to be removed from this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Norman Davies
"Norman Davies describes Neighbors as "deeply unfair to Poles".[16]". Actually Davies refers to Strach e.g. Fear, not to Neighbors, as it can be presumed from the title of Davies' article (Strach to nie analiza, lecz publicystyka). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.208.12 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans
Please explain where the Germns were killed. I believe that the number describes only Poland. But Polish troops fought against Germans and Italians around Europe and Africa. It's difficult to estimate the number of Germans killed by Polish bomber sqadrons. The number includes Germans killed by Jews. Not enough for Gross? Xx236 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Poles murdering more Jews than Germans
Icewhiz is keen on pushing and reverting an edit regarding the erroneous claim by Gross himself that Poles allegedly killed more Jews than Germans. His revert is about Jacek Leociak who agrees with Gross' statement. Any legitimate scholar, historian, etc. knows fully well that such a claim is historically revisionist, ludicrous, and even Polonophobic and that that Poles certainly did not kill more Jews than Germans. Bear in mind that Nazi Germany killed a total of 6,000,000+ Jews during The Holocaust. To claim Poles somehow surpassed this figure is just outright absurd, derisive, and preposterous. Where are the bodies? Graves? Documents? Testimonies. No academic or intellectual ever would agree on this. Ever. Furthermore, his only citation is a link to the Times of Israel, which is not even a legitimate source. 185.41.130.3 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:RS, quoting a historian - Jacek Leociak who works in the field (and has been in this article for a while). Besides that - you've misunderstood the quote - Poles killed more Jews (100,000-200,000 per Gross) than Poles killed Germans (at most 30,000 per Gross). Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You should know that Times of Israel is not a source and that claiming that Poles killed more Jews than Germans amounts to historical revisionism and even Holocaust denial, since it's simply not true. I urge you to find an actual citation supporting your claim, which I guarantee you will not. An article from Times of Israel is no source, especially one that is from neutral point of view since its speaks from a pro-Israeli/Jewish bias. If you make a claim, it is up to you to support it verifiable sources and citations, not articles from dubious websites. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Time of Israel is generally regarded as a pretty good source, and there is little reason to believe it is biased. Leociak is well published in the field, and works at the Polish Center for Holocaust Research. However, you are mistaken in saying this is ToI, as this is actually by Associated Press. The AP wire was reprinted by a number of different outlets - with attribution to AP. The ToI website has the advantage of being non-paywalled - unlike Haaretz which printed this as well (this also ran in National Post - and probably a few other outlets) + in English. Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Gross compares military losses of Germans to civilian losses of Jews, which is obviously flawed comparison.It would more valid if he compared German military losses with losses among Jewish military partisans killed in clashes with Polish undergound. The civilian German losses in Poland are estimated by Germans btw between 400,000 to 2 million(but the last number was conjured by former Nazis).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do admit that I did misread the original comment thinking it said that Poles killed more Jews THAN Germans killed Jews, it is still absolutely erroneous to claim that Poles killed more Jews than they did to German combatants. No legitimate intellectual, scholar, etc. (those in academia) would ever agree with such a statement. The numbers of exact figures are difficult to determine but they definitely do not amount to Poles killing more Jews than Germans, and CERTAINLY not the figure of 100,000-200,000. Icewhiz should back up his statement with a legitimate source, be it an academic journal, first-hand accounts, secondary sources, etc. Not online newspapers that speak from an Israeli/Jewish POV. Thank you. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not my statement - it is Gross's statement - the subject of this article. Other historians have agreed with Gross - and have received wide international coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "it is Gross's statement " Actually Gross stated later that this isn't his statement :) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, if "other historians" agreed with Gross, then please post the sources. Sources are included in the forms of academic journals, secondary sources, and first-hand accounts. Not online newspapers that speak from a one-sided bias. Also, Leociak is merely one individual, so where did you get the notion that it's "many historians"? Furthermore if it recieved international coverage like you claim, than surely you can show an actual source rather than an online newspaper piece. Again, I apologize for originally misreading the statement, however it still is simply untrue, and quite frankly reeks of distant Polonophobia. The claim alone that "Poles killed 100,000-200,000 Jews" is outright fallacious and can be considered a form of Holocaust denial in itself. Let's not be dicey here. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The main critics
The main critics of Gross’ “Fear” have been removed yet again. Gone. and why?GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please present mainstream criticism published in peer-reviewed publications, not partisan opponents writing from the fringes: "a Polish-American academic with a long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism" (SPLC). --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion of notable historians, not “partisan opponents”. How are you going to finally remove the “neutrality” tag if you keep censoring the article? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the opinion of two individuals who are on the extreme edge of this debate, and that wasn't published in a peer reviewed setting. Fear, as well as the debate within Polish society on Fear, has been covered in a SECONDARY manner in academic peer reviewed journals - in English - which we prefer per WP:NOENG. We do not need non-English opinion pieces by partisan sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples of such coverage (of the debate itself, so being a secondary source for the debate and not a primary account of a partisan to the debate) - Silence, Screen, and Spectacle: Rethinking Social Memory in the Age of Information, Berghahn, page 200, European Cultural Memory Post-89, page 136, Rodopi.Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also - Törnquist-Plewa, Barbara. "Rhetoric and the cultural trauma: An analysis of Jan T Gross’ book Fear. Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz." Memory Studies 7.2 (2014): 161-175. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.se.pl/wiadomosci/polityka/jednostronnosc-grossa-aa-UncJ-pS7x-XePb.html Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please present mainstream criticism published in peer-reviewed publications - critics of Gross should be peer-reviewed but Gross' opinons shouldn't?Xx236 (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Leociak is an expert in literary science. His arithmetics may be very bad. The more one is distant from historiography, the more he is RS here.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Work starts in 2001
He has published a number of books before 2001.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a short paragraph on earlier work. It's pretty widely cited - e.g. his first book has over 240 citations per scholar. If I get my hands on some reviews / assessments I might write up more. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP violation
This statement was added by under "controversies": "In 2011 Gross stated that he "doesn't care" if the Jewish civilian losses in Poland by Poles were 100,000 or 200,000 because it is "high enough", however he stated that several tens of thousands is "easy to justify""

In context, it reads differently: after giving his mission statement as a historian - "to convey... the truth about that historical time... [to] write about matters that have been missing from the historiography until now", and denying that he writes in order to "shock" Poles ("I'm a historian. I wanted to contribute [to] the [knowledge] of Polish-Jewish relations, which is lacking. As far as I can tell, people are interested"), he is asked the following: "Q: In the first draft of the book you wrote that Poles killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Jews. You eventually changed it to several tens of thousands. Why? A: I believe this sort of numerical description of the Holocaust is the wrong way to go about it; I [only] write these numbers because I know my readers expect them. In reality it's all the same whether I write it was one or two hundred thousand, or tens of thousands - both are significant. The first version appeared at an early stage when I sent the book to [other] experts for assessment; I believe this number fits better, but "several dozens [of thousands]" is easier to justify."

Molobo's trimmed and cherry-picked quote depicts Gross as an apathetic, amateurish hack. In full and in context, it's clear neither is true.

François Robere (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is in Polish not English and you mistranslated it severely as a non-native speaker. It certainly isn't the fragment "Właściwie jest mi wszystko jedno, czy napiszę, że to było 100, 200 tysięcy czy kilkadziesiąt tysięcy. Jedno i drugie oznacza dużo." which can be translated "I don't really care if I write that it was 100,000-200,000 tens of thousands. One and the same means a lot". If you feel your fragment is better, feel free to discuss, I don't have particular strong opinion on how it is included, as long as his different estimates and the fact that he doesn't care for numericall accuracy is included.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "One and the same means a lot" is barely readable, not to say idiomatic.
 * Does the source say anything about his "accuracy" or about a "controversy" surrounding it, or is it your addition? François Robere (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FR, your initial objection was that this was "OR", which is absurd, since it's straight from the source. Now, your objection is... I'm actually not clear on that exactly. You claim that "in context it reads differently". I'm not sure how since this is a full response. It seems you didn't even bother reading/understanding the source before reverting, and then you glanced at it once your initial "OR" objection was thrown out. Please stop removing this as it's clearly important and pertinent as it illustrates the authors' views. There's nothing "out of context" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. A "cherry pick" is OR when it is meant to convey something else than intended by the source, as is the case here. This is presented here as a "controversy" about Gross's "accuracy", but the source isn't concerned with either. What's more, the full quote places the statement not in the context of accuracy, but of significance and literary approach, so again OR or SYNTH meant to smear a BLP. François Robere (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The text is clearly being used out of context. Furthermore, as we have a multitude of English-language interviews with this American scholar on this very issue, by sources of a higher or equal quality to the source under question, per WP:NOENG we should avoid the non-English language source as we have better or equal English language sources available. Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Molobo took Gross's quote about historical significance, literary style and (to a lesser extent) literary process, and re-purposed it for something entirely different, and now you're completing the ploy by explicitly claiming the two are "thematically related". This is WP:SYNTH par excellence, and if I had done anything that even vaguely resembled it you'd be all over this board by yesterday. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But that is not true at all. The idea that Gross' quote was about "literary style" or "literary process" is some strange OR of yours. The source emphasizes the same quote as we do (so it's not SYNTH) and it's related to the rest of the paragraph/section so it's clearly DUE. Also I'm getting lost in whether I'm replying to Icewhiz or FR here since they have a tendency to reply for each other, in each other's place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And the context is? Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Gross' accuracy
Gross is an ethical writer, who wants to reeducate Polish people, to make them feel responsible for the Holocaust. Gross isn't a historian, he isn't interested in facts. He quotes contradictory accounts (in Neighbours). He wrote a book using an unidentified picture (Golden Harvest). He accepts uncritically Jewish accounts, because the Jews are victims, but doesn't care about other victims. He has never studied the number of Jewish victims of Poles. If you know better please quote his research, not ''I don't care but 200,000 or tens of thousands". Quoting details described by Gross is unprofessional, wishful thinking.

Controversies - 1600 of Jedwabne victims
Gross quoted 1600 in "Neighbours". He didn't care about the number, he repeated it after one unreliable source. No reliable source supports any number bigger than 1000. Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Gross as Freud
"the root of hostility to Muslim refugees in East European countries generally and Poland specifically is connected to the failure to come to terms with their role in the Holocaust and specifically complicity with the Nazis". Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the Freud reference here, but this expert opinion on the matter. If you want the full piece was published originally here - (and without a paywall/registration-wall - ). Gross's expert assessment has been cited (and often quoted) several times, in an academic context, since 2015 - google scholar. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Psychoanalysis isn't an area of Gross' expertize. Let's hope some day Gross explains sexual problems of Polish people with their alleged Holocaust responsibility. Do the Poles dream about ladders? I don't.
 * More seriously - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't quote President Trump's opinions about pasta (it probably doesn') and Gross' opinions about psychology. Barbara Engelking is a psychologist. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a scholar trained in sociology, Gross is quite qualified to make such assessments. Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What was the subject of his Ph.D.? Did he study Psychoanalytic sociology? What is your source?

Bartosz Wielinski
Regarding these changes: François Robere (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Please review the first part for readability, typos and style.
 * 2) Who is Bartosz Wielinski?

Gross, cavalier statistician
In a 2011 interview involving his book Golden Harvest, Gross said: "It's all the same whether I write that the Poles murdered a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, or several tens of thousands [of Jews]. Either [number] means many.  The first variant, that the Poles murdered between 100 and 200 thousand Jews, appeared at an early stage, when I sent the book to specialists, requesting their critiques. In my opinion, that number [originally appearing in the text] is the better fit, but several tens [of thousands] can easily be justified."

The above is faithfully rendered into English from Gross' interview and illustrates his cavalier approach to the use of statistics in at least some of his writings. This quotation is very much germane to the "Jan T. Gross" and "Golden Harvest" articles. It should be restored to both. Nihil novi (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for "cavalier" - or strike. Many historians and sociologists aren't really interested in the hard numbers which are often of marginal importance in relation to the wider social phenomena. As for restoring this source - we have several interviews by Gross in higher (or equal) quality English media - including on Golden Harvest. Per WP:NOENG - "However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". Icewhiz (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If an author does not care for accurate numbers, he should not volunteer numbers under false color of accuracy. Nihil novi (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Many historians and sociologists aren't really interested in the hard numbers" - thank you for your support, Icewhiz. So you admit they misuse the numbers as clubs to educate dumb Polacks? Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is more that popular audiences have a fixation with numbers. However what really matters is the historical process and result. For most ancient war (e.g. Greco-Persian Wars), incidentally, most periodic (ancient history writers) estimates are in science fiction range (e.g. x10 or x100 of what's reasonable) and modern estimates have huge margins of error (e.g. x10 margin of error) - however the numbers are tangential to most of the historical record. Tens of thousands (on the high side) or 100,000-200,000 - is the same thing (you only go to "hundreds of thousands" if you are estimating over 200,000 - as for 100,000 the plural hundreds is incorrect). Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that when challenged on the numbers he's quoted, he quickly backed off. I have no idea what Greco-Persian wars have to do with anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was a challenge? I thought it was a question about his editorial process. François Robere (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jan T. Gross' peers, when he consulted them in 2011 before publishing Golden Harvest, evidently thought his number of "100,000–200,000" Jews allegedly killed by Poles during World War II to be excessive, so by his admission in the above interview, he reduced his estimate.
 * Jan Grabowski, in his Hunt for the Jews, also published in 2011, favored the "200,000" number but may not have consulted peers.
 * Each author expressed uncertainties about his high original number, in their separate (Gross, 2011; Grabowski, 2018) interviews with publications in Poland, which were apparently more difficult to convince than publications outside Poland that Poles had killed up to 100,000–200,000 Jews in Poland during World War II.
 * As Gross remarked to his interviewer, readers expect to see a number. In the absence of hard data, what is a historian to do?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Jedwabne population is known, there were not 1600 Jews there. But who cares about real victms, let's use them to club the Poles.Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on that above. See my comments there. François Robere (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have started my discussion above. Why do tyou find your discussion better than mine? Mathematics is cruel.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL. François Robere (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewzhiz rejects science "It is more that popular audiences have a fixation with numbers. However what really matters is the historical process and result."


 * How do you describe historical processes ignoring numbers? Using colors or poetry? Isn't the 6 million important regarding the Holocaust?
 * Gross and Grabowski invented their numbers, not their oppponents who contested obviously false extimates. Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate weight to Polish government view
to to blanket revert various balancing additions. Events in 1968-9 had text matched to the source - the Guardian - which is a fairly mainline source. The Polish government view while perhaps meriting a mention here - should not be given WP:UNDUE weight - they were mainly covered due to to the drastic measures taken. We definitely do not need to mention multiple statements by different Polish officials. As may be seen in the AP piece - Gross's statement has some support for historians (the AP is citing is Jacek Leociak). The Polish government moves - to investigate a historian for his statements on history - was met with fairly resounding criticism worldwide - as may be seen in the AP article and in any mainstream coverage of this issue - and should we mention in our article the position of the Polish government, we should mention the even wider criticism.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jacek Leociak is not a historian, he is a historian of literature.Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a blanket revert. Hence, the detailed edit summaries, as well as the fact that I retained some of your useful edits. So drop the rhetorical tricks. The Guardian piece is both an opinion piece and very outdated, from 2001, before the book was subject to scholarly scrutiny (nevermind the fact that the editorial includes a ton of errors and false obnoxious opinions). As far as the "Polish government view" (sic), it's a short response, which is relevant and is not UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a book review, and definitely sufficient to source that Gross himself emigrated from Poland in 1969 to escape the vicious anti-Semitic campaigns orchestrated by the government. per the Guardian. As for the Polish government view on Gross's "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" statement - if we include said criticism - we should per WP:BALASP include the rather harsh criticism of this government intervention that appears in just about any piece on the subject (in English at least).Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not sufficient. It's outdated, written in a hysterical opinion style and factually incorrect. The people who left Poland in 68/69 did not "flee" or "escape" or even choose to leave. In most cases they were FORCED to leave. As to the adjective "vicious" I actually roughly agree with that characterization (although the word suggests violence which wasn't the case - it was all very bureaucratic), however it's not exactly encyclopedic in this context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many sources use escaped (as does the Guardian), however if you agree this was "forced" - you should update the article accordingly as at present we make it sound as if he emigrated of his own volition and not as a result of government repression.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The book review is sufficient to source the fact that Gross was fleeing; the intense, anti-Jewish campaigns of that moment in Polish history are well-documented.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Gross was arrested as a komandos, a member of a poliitical group. He started to study Jewish history only later, in the USA. Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Caption
Hello the longer caption shows that he was invited by the notable Collège de France and MOS:CAPLENGTH does not forbid longer captions. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've restored that detail. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Controversy
It is usually the norm that BLPs do not have a controversy section. The contents of the section read like state-sponsored harrassment to me, and I will take a look at the sources to see how they characterize the episode. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Good. I'd suggest changing the name of that section to "Views", for starters. A cursory glance suggests that this section is based on media reports. Upgrading it to academic sources would be a good idea, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2023
Change misspelled “Princteon” to “Princeton” in “Teaching” section 192.166.202.50 (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  Heart  (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)