Jump to content

Talk:Adam Michnik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Mr. Adam Michnik was a member of PZPR (the Communist party). This (not alone) important fact i find missing here.

Adam Michnik was NEVER a PZPR member. He was at odds with the communist establishment already during his high school years. Wlod (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the former version was extremely biased. It was more suitable for "conspiracy theories about Adam Michnik" than for a general article him. I also removed external links since they are either irrelevant or show opinions of his extreme critics. The information about decision process in Gazeta Wyborcza is irrelevant (even if true) because as a private company, they can organize themselves as they like. Poszwa 12:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is consensus (it seems) that the information about decision-making processes in Gazeta Wyborcza is true.

The remaining question is whether or not it is relevant.

The fact that GW is a private company does not make the fact irrelevant - many private organisations exist as cooperatives, some have open elections or other transparent decision-making processes.

IMHO, the context of GW being a big symbol of the struggle for democracy and against dictatorship is an argument in favour of having the fact stated.

---

1. Is Michink really one of the richest persons in Poland? I wouldn't think so. Is there any evidence for it? He gave up his shares in GW. 2. "Also, while the title Gazeta Wyborcza refers to democratic elections, the organisation Gazeta Wyborcza does not itself function democratically nor transparently." - this sentence is a biased oppinion against Michnik and it doesn't refer to any facts. First, the title of GW refers just to elections, not to democracy. Second, what does it mean that it doesn't "function democratically"? Should there be political elections or should the readers or jurnalists vote? Third, the same goes for alleged lack of transparency. What is intransparent about GW? BTW, it is a publicly held company and it adhers to the code of corporate governance. My suggestion is either to point to some facts, or delete this sentence.

-

There are some readers who put their consiracy theories and hatred into this article. I'm not sure that the problem of the grant from NED is also true but definitly there are people who accuse Adam Michnik of benefiting from the grant. I removed the info about being rich (he is not "one of the richest persons in Poland") and about the organization of Gazeta Wyborcza which is curiosal. Poszwa 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Picture

[edit]

User:Roo72 is deleting the other picture of Michnik in his younger years (late 1980's). What is the reason for that? IMHO it's better to have two pictures than one, isn't it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:55, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree if it was another picture of *just* Michnik and indeed it was a pic of him in his "younger" days but it's only from 1989 (15 years ag) and it's a pic of him and Jaruselski, I see no point of including Jaruzelski's picture here.--Roo72 04:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But what's wrong with it? There's plenty of pics that show more than one man here on wiki and I find it highly plausible to add them. They are part of what I find the most interesting in wikipedia - the possibility of jumping from one article to another. I believe it should stay - the more pics the better. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
It's hardly representative of who Michnik is and what he has done in his life - a better picture I belief would be one from late seventies or perhaps from mid-eighties, something more Solidarity related. Anyway, I promise not to remove that pic until I find something better :) BTW I'm in the process of translating the Polish Wiki article, I'll let you know when I'm done with it so you can have a look at it before it gets posted. Cheers. --Roo72 11:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get your idea of a representative picture. It definitely is a pic representing his role during the Round Table talks and slightly afterwards, since he was one of mediators between the "government" and the "opposition". Of course, a perfect set of pics would be: a) Michnik beaten by ZOMO b) Michnik at the printing press in some private flat c) Michnik thinking of an article d) Michnik stirring up discussion between the leftists and rightists e) Michnik being subject of conspiracy theories. However, I doubt we'd find such pics anywhere :) [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:34, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
No point to argue with Roo72 - knowing his moderations in polish wiki, i can state that he is leftie. He will not think of any sensible sentence, just deleting unwanted texts and materials. 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Michnik's original name

[edit]

It is doubtful if Adam Michnik's original name was Aaron Szechter. In Poland it was general among Communists of Jewish origin that children were named after the mother if she—unlike the father—had a Polish name. (See Józef Światło, who's original name was Izaak Fleischfarb and his wife's name was Justyna Światło.[1]) Otherwise, this page—the marked part—is a good example (and a good parody) of the myths among many Poles about the Jewish descent of Polish notorieties.
I suggest removing it from the article until there will be authentic sources to support it.

  1. ^ According to the citated article. However, it is also not obvious if the sources of this data are relevant.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.38.97.68 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I added the following to the external links: From Solidarity to Democracy by Matthew Kaminski, Wall Street Journal, 7 November 2009 (Vol. CCLIV, Iss. 110, pg. A15)


YOU ARE ACTUALLY WRONG - the practice of changing surnames and the lore that Poles had aggregated around this practice has very rational roots. The origins of Jewish surnames date to the German and Austrian administrative reforms, when Germanic surnames were ad hoc created, by non Jewish clarks. Mostly they were derogatory nicknames like Rotschwanz or Hosenduft. The first one translates to red tail -literally red prick, the second pants' smell. No wonder people try to change them. The second wave of changing surnames came with the practice of assimilation on part of progressive Jews to polonise themselves as others did for example German born goyim family Anschutz changed to Anczyc. Third wave was basicaly a communist-stalinist practice to hide the non-Polish origings of the communist party members while they were converting Poles to the ideas of USSR. there was even attested special cell in the Instistute of Marksism in Moscow that was devoted to finding fitting surnames for the Jewish communist cadres. The fourth wave of changes came after the II WW when Jewish comrades from USSR came to ocupied by soviets Poland and the had to pretend to be non-Jewish as happened with a torturer Jozef Różanski originaly Goldberg, and so on the fifth wave of surname changes came in between 1956 and 1968 when the remnants of Jewish communist-stalinists decided to stay and fight for power within Poland rather than be expelled by Gomulka's party. these people include now active family of Komars former Kossoy a GRU assasin later a general in Polish communist army. So as you can see about five waves of changing surnames across nearly one hundred years just about a generation per a version of surname, quite a tradition. now judge for yourselves wether Poles are schizophrenic, or maybe the Jewish surname owners are psychotic?

shemyaza against all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.169.116 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Michnik's origin

[edit]

The article states: "Michnik's parents were of Jewish and non-Jewish descent, respectively." However, according to the Polish Wikipedia, both of his parents were of Jewish descent. See pl: Ozjasz Szechter and pl: Helena Michnik. Tsf (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusingly presented in some sources. Good sources required to clarify it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European of the Year?

[edit]

The beginning of the article links to the Europeans of the Year award established by European Voice magazine in 2001, while the awards and disctintions section says he received Europe’s Man of the Year (1989) – prize awarded by the magazine La Vie. European Voice's website doesn't list him as a winner of European of the Year, so I suppose it's only the La Vie's award that he's received? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.41.227 (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A falsification of history

[edit]

The article reads:

Workers' Defence Committee (KOR), ... was one of the best known opposition organizations of the 1970s.

That "one of" expression is a bit tricky but quite transparent fasification of history. Not only that KOR was the best known opposition organizations of the 1970s but it also the only opposition in those years that counted, that really was opposing the communist regime in any meaningful way. It monopolized the whole intellect of the opposition, it was the only serious publisher and dissiminator of uncensenzored (read: underground) information, ... The other organizations were an the best no more than a benign gesture, and in the worst case they were but a (Polish) Ministry of Internal Affairs provocations aimed at splitting the opposition and stearing it toward the nationalistic direction, and away from the anti-communist direction (this was so in effect, despite the demagogy of the leaders of these other organizations) . In particular the Chief Printer of one of those benign organizations years later stated clearly that his operation was nothing compared to the KOR's operation. The activities of those peripheral (marginal) activists were occasionally, on a silly (fortunately) scale, terroristic (like a half cooked attempt at blowing up a communist inspired sculpture). They were hurting (not helping) the anti-communist cause. No wonder that the communist regime, so harsh on KOR and its supporters, was so easy and soft on the other cases, which were actually helping regime. Wlod (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which time?

[edit]

The article states:

he was imprisoned, first, after the 1968 March Events

It was certainly not the first time. Adam Michnik and Seweryn Blumsztajn were imprisoned for political reasons a couple years earlier, for smuggling from West (from France) to PRL (communist Poland) literature which was not permitted in Poland at the time.

It seems to me that the information about the Michnik + Szlajfer (both University of Warsaw students at the time, in 1966+early 1967) versus The University of Warsaw case (story) is also either inaccurate or certainly incomplete. There was a "university court" case against them in 1967, which they lost, hence both were expelled from the university. The trial was a result of their (and other komandosów) participation in a discussion in 1966 at an open communist party meeting, after philosopher's Leszek Kołakowski's lecture on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "The Polish October", 1956).

In general this article seems to be influenced by people who have no sympathy toward Michnik (to put it mildly). Anyway, it includes here and there some garbage. Wlod (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wlod, I've had this one on my personal to-do list for a few weeks now as an IPI World Press Freedom Hero, but I really don't know much about its subject and keep putting it off. You seem to know much more--would you like to collaborate on an overhaul of this sometime? Just let me know... Khazar (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

b-class

[edit]

failed due to insufficient inline citations. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Adam 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adam 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Father's name

[edit]

Can please anyone explain why Adam father's name is Schehter and his brother Stefan father's name is Samuel Rosenbusch /Wikipedia/? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.177.2.232 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

[edit]

Hello. I have a dispute with the family section, and the since 1989 section. For the family section, Stefan Michnik has been accused of what has been stated here. He has not been tried in a neutral court, nor has there been mention here of the numerous other military judges that were passing sentences at that time. This mention of Stefan is purely a political statement against Adam, using the wildest hyberbolic language.

This line from the Since 1989 section "He has taken various positions of support for the former Communist secret police officers, against the Catholic Church and against various post-Communist opposition parties." is both out of context (relative to the Catholic Church) and outright lies (support for Communism in some way shape or form). Adam Michnik spent 6 total years in communist prisons, so to imply that he is for communism in some way shape or form is ridiculous. His support of lustration, mentioned in the Controversies section at the end of this Wikipedia article, explains his post communist position, and is the reason why outright lies such as this line from the Since 1989 section are propagated by those not agreeing with his views on lustration. Vikingal (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero citations under 'controversies'

[edit]

The controversies section is poor.

It cites no sources and yet claims to describe the feelings of a majority of the Polish population toward Michnik. 'his detractors argue...', 'was interpreted by those strongly attached to Catholicism', 'alienated a large section of the population'.

Without citations it's just conjecture. SouthEaling77 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now citations, but do we have anything in English? "In Gazeta Wyborcza he used his personal influence to protect General Wojciech Jaruzelski and General Czesław Kiszczak from being prosecuted for various crimes". This is very strong statement. Is it something known for a fact to be claimed in WP voice? My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Michnik&oldid=1209041446"