Talk:Stefan Michnik

Arrest, internment and execution of "anti-Nazi" resistance fighters"

Is it seriously proposed that Michnik persecuted people specifically because they were "anti-Nazi" (apart from and other than their being anti-communist)?

Since Michnik, as a Jew and a Communist, had obvious anti-Nazi credentials himself, that makes little logical sense.

If the reference to anti-Nazis is to stay, I think that passage requires re-wording/explanation.

Grant | Talk 12:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it seriously proposed that Michnik persecuted people specifically because they were "anti-Nazi" (apart from and other than their being anti-communist)? - but I don't see it being proposed anywhere in the present article text that this was the motivation. Rather, the text simply clarifies that some of the people persecuted by Stefan Michnik were former anti-Nazi fighters. And that is noteworthy and useful. Volunteer Marek  13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you would agree that Michnik persecuted them because be was a communist and they were anti-communist? My point is that the present wording makes it appear as though people were persecuted because they were anti-Nazi and/or he was some kind of pro-Nazi/crypto-Nazi, when nothing could be further from the case. Grant | Talk 07:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant info describes an appointed judge in the service of a criminal organization (by international standards) sentencing Polish Army officers who fought Adolf Hitler. Is there a difference? Poeticbent talk 17:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is a difference! The issue is motivation. If someone commits a crime for "motive X", it doesn't mean they also committed it for "motive Y".

If it really is true that Michnik specifically targeted individuals because they were anti-Nazi (as distinct from anti-communists), I believe that Wikipedia's rules require a reference. I agree that such material is noteworthy, but it should be discussed in a separate sentence.

Grant | Talk 02:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I assume that there are no longer any objections to my original change? Grant | Talk 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because you didn't address the original objection. The text does not say that "specifically targeted individuals because they were anti-Nazi", it says "he was formally implicated by Poland in the arrest, internment and staged execution of a number of Polish anti-Nazi and anti-Communist resistance fighters" which is exactly true. You're confusing *to infer*, which is what you're doing, and *to imply* which is NOT what the text is doing. Volunteer Marek  05:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, to say that Michnik's judicial victims were only anti-communist (period) would be an outright lie. First and formost, they were the officers of a democratic Poland perceived by Stalinists (like him) as obstacles to a takeover. Poeticbent talk 05:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Marek and Poeticbent, the discussion above seems to have become detached from the root of the issue.

While I have some very broad, general knowledge of this period of European history, I knew nothing about Michnik specifically before reading this article and so I found the passage in question unclear and ambiguous. I think it will be even more so for readers with less knowledge.

The passage in question says: "After the collapse of communism[,] he was formally implicated by Poland in the arrest, internment and staged execution of a number of Polish anti-Nazi and anti-Communist resistance fighters".

I am still unclear whether:

1. Michnik's victims were primarily "anti-Communist" and only incidentally "anti-Nazi";
2. his victims were always both;
3. some of his victims were both, while others were simply "anti-Communist";
4. he persecuted people for some reason not related to their status as "anti-Nazi" or "anti-Communist";
5. some other explanation; or;
6. no-one really knows for sure.

Whatever the case may be, I think the article needs to be more specific. Grant | Talk 09:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

For all the well known individuals, it's pretty much #2. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Marek, if the article simply reflects #2, it reads – to me at the very least and I suspect many others – as though Michnik deliberately targeted individuals because they were both "anti-Nazi" and "anti-communist".

If we have a source stating categorically that he, for some unique reason, only and specifically targeted individuals who were in both camps then I will respect that and crawl back into the woodwork.

For the moment, however, I believe that I think #1 better fits both the facts and the logic of the situation. Grant | Talk 08:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, how it reads to you is subjective. You're inferring what it does not imply. To me, and I suspect many others, it does not read that way at all. If you can propose a different wording which doesn't try to omit the "anti-Nazi" part - which is important and significant - then please do.

You can believe it's #1 but that's your business. If you look at the bios of the actual victims it's pretty clear they were both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain the the issue in yet another way. I don't doubt that most of his victims were "anti-Nazi". My issue is nuance: the question of Michnik's precise intentions in committing his crimes.

I think you would agree that a Communist, especially one with a Jewish background, would not ever persecute an individual because and on the basis that they were anti-Nazi? Unless there is evidence that Michnik was part of a extremely rare (if not non-existent) category such as: "Polish Nazi agents who successfully posed as Jews", "Polish Jews who were pro-Nazi" etc.

Anyway, this is what I propose: "After the collapse of communism[,] he was formally implicated by Poland in the arrest, internment and staged execution of a number of Polish anti-Communist resistance fighters, who had also, in many cases also fought the Nazis." Grant | Talk 12:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Without a source, we can't really speculate on his "precise intention", we're not mind readers. Unless somewhere he said "this and this is why I did what I did" and you can find a secondary source which brings it up and analyzes, we don't conduct the original research.

I understand what you're trying to do - clear up the fact that the primary reason for the executions was the individuals' "anti-Communism" - but the proposed wording is just very awkward. I think the reason for the executions itself is clear from the context. Nonetheless, it is very note worthy that these guys were also dedicated anti-Nazis and that this fact did *not matter at all* in how Michnik treated them. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stefan Michnik. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai/pl/18/4656

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:BLP

Hi

I have edited this article slightly to adjust some of the wording and description of this living individual, in line with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and living persons, following a report on the BLP noticeboard. fish&karate 15:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Nasz Dziennik and a book by Jerzy Robert Nowak are not remotely acceptable sources in this topic area, and particularly not for a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Place of Death

While "At least that's what he says his brother" may be source, this is not what his brother said, but what he wrote in his necrologue - i.e. the first source - the one which is being questioned as containing incorrect death place. And others locate his death place in Sweden for ex: onet write that "Stefan Michnik zmarł 27 lipca w Szwecji." meaning: Stefan Michnik died on July 27 in Sweden.

Unless Gettysburg teleported to Sweden, it's more probable to assume that Michnik died in Göteborg(polish/swedish) i.e. Gothenburg where he lived, and the Gettysburg is malapropism. Alas there are no definitive sources for it, so I think that we should wait a bit (as Polish wiki also did).Wiedzosław (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)