Talk:Jan T. Gross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Judaism Portal Jan T. Gross is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

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)

Contents 1 Books 2 Theory vs. POV 3 undermines Poland's self-image as the heroic and the principle martyr of the war 4 Anti-Polonism 5 Controversial 6 Possible Criminal Charges 7 Polish / Jewish / American ? 8 Historian or sociologist ? 9 Much Improvement 10 Uniformed members of the German police, German mayor as well as agents of Gestapo 11 Please explain your deletion of the external links 12 Neutrality and Balance

[edit] Books

The Jan T. Gross#Books 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Lysy^talk 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)

[edit] 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. --Lysy^talk 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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). --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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)

[edit] Historian or sociologist ?

What is his primary occupation ? --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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 [1] Tymek (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think this answers the question. The link you provided says: Professor of History. --Lysy^talk 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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)

[edit] Please explain your deletion of the external links

Krzyzowiec, please explain why you had to delete all three external links[2] 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)

[edit] 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)