Talk:Hugh S. Gibson

Large amount of original research

I suspect written by one of Gibson's family members/descendants. A reminder: Wikipedia:No original research. So "debunking" a reliable source (such as Carole Fink's work) by conducting one's own reearch into letter written by Gibson violates wikipedia policy. See: WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the author(s) of that source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." Faustian ([[User talk:F austian|talk]]) 13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfounded Assertions

The author of the recently deleted material is in fact a historian currently working on the body of Hugh Gibson's letters and reports from Poland. The resulting manuscript is being prepared for publication at this time. This in-depth and thorough research shows that the recently inserted assertions attributed to Pease and Fink are not representative of Gibson's views or actions concerning Jewish issues. Rather, they are unsubstantiated accusations. The use of quotes taken out of context and chosen only for their content, is in itself against the established principles of historical and contextual criticism.

If one looks at the whole picture of Gibson's words and actions from Poland, he cannot in any way be termed an anti-Semite. He may, however, quite justifiably be termed an anti-Zionist, if only in consideration of his views that strident Zionist accusations could backlash against all Polish Jews and was distracting from the attempts to make equal rights available to all citizens of Poland, Jewish or not. The Zionist faction and Gibson differed, however, in their assessment of what would ultimately be in the best interests of the Jewish population of Poland. Gibson's indignation against them was motivated, not by any anti-Semitic prejudice (as his letters clearly show) but precisely by his fears that their agitation in the American press could prompt further unrest in Poland at a time when war, changing borders, famine, unemployment, disease, and universal uncertainty about the future defined the Polish condition. Gibson saw that the problem was not with the Polish leadership, but with a large unruly and sometimes hostile population that was then out of work and suffering from severe food shortages. Within a short time after their meeting with him in Paris, the Zionist leaders themselves did indeed express full and official -confidence in Gibson.

Gibson was at times accused of being pro-Polish and anti-Jewish. But, on the basis of documentary evidence, he could only be described as pro-Polish to the extent that he held that a strong Polish State should be established as soon as possible - 1) in order to ensure the security of its own citizens, Jews included and 2) in order to ensure geopolitical stability in Central Europe. Such a publicly asserted position in no way justified describing him as an anti-Semite.

Judging from his reports and letters, then, one thing appears obvious: Gibson was NOT holding the Jews responsible for their own misfortunes, as Fink suggests. He was however attempting to identify situations (some of the beyond the control of the Jews themselves) that were likely to spark outbursts of anti-Jewish violence. Anti-Semitism was obviously a social constant at the time but the actual spark, in Gibson's view, did not appear to result from religious agitation, but from specific and circumstantial political, military and economic tensions.

To maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as a valuable tool of good information, it is imperative to differentiate between fact and opinion. Indeed the claim that "Gibson was an anti-Semitism" cannot legitimately be stated as an established FACT but only a (highly debatable) OPINION. That Fink and Pease hold such opinions is undeniably a FACT, and the historical reasons for that particular fact do not reside in Gibson, but in the wider context. It should therefore be presented as such in the new section of the article into which these quotes have recently been inserted.

Just to make the point a bit more clearly, Fink's interpretation of Gibson's 2 June 1919 report (assuming this is indeed the source to which she is referring) cannot be presented as fact. When confronted with easily identifiable documents currently available, her assertions may strike one as tendentious and even passionately polemical. This is also the case with statements attributed to Pease. The assertions that Gibson felt “revulsion” at the sight of orthodox Jews is frivolous and undocumented. even it should prove true, that would not suffice to prove that he was an anti-Semite. One may sympathize with these authors' generous desire to defend minorities and to discredit those who oppress them, but in this case, they appear to have chosen the wrong target.

Admittedly, Wikipedia may not be the proper place for a debate on such issues. It does, however, appear fair enough to evoke the FACT that such accusations have indeed been made and that these two authors have indeed published such views. Other authors, including Professor Piotr Wandycz (who is abusively, though perhaps unintentionally identified as one of the editors of the book containing Pease’s allegations), do NOT accredit these accusations. And while we do not approve of any such views, we may as well bring them into the open, and refute them in print in our own good time. Lonternough (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Once your work is published in a reliable peer-reviewed source, information from it should of course be included in this article. But not until then. Looking forward to see your work published. Also - it seems that based on what you say, Gibson may not have been an anti-Semite but he was anti-Zionist and he was (according to works cited in the article) personally repulsed buy Orthodox traditional Jews. But he thought that Jews who assimilated into Polish society and whose primary loyalty was to the Polish state, were okay.Faustian (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As a historian dealing with the immediate aftermath of WWI in Poland, I find this discussion highly interesting and a keen analysis of Hugh Gibson's position on anti-semitic violence in Poland 1919 f. overdue. I am grateful to both commentators for their input! I agree that it would be too easy to call Gibson an anti-Semite just because he takes a cautious view on the often overstated relations of - themselves undisputed - acts of anti-semitic violence in Poland after WWI. On the other hand, it must be very carefully observed inhowfar his sympathies for the nascent Polish state makes him an impartial observer. I think that this ambivalence is reflected now in the article. As my predecessor, I would be very grateful to learn more about the forthcoming publication on Hugh Gibson. (cortomaltese1887) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortomaltese1887 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)