Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 10 September 2008

See also

Do we have any guidelines as to the intended purpose of the "See also" section ? I believe the links in the "See also" should be to other articles containing additional information about the content of the current article, and maybe present the topic in a wider or a narrower context. "See also" however is not the correct place to put links to other articles only because they belong to the same category. That's what the categories are for. --Lysy 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"See also" section has a much narrower scope than a category, if it links to closely related topics I see no problem with it. M0RD00R (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:SEEALSO. I agree that number of links should be minimized.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "closely related topics" is still very arbitrary and some editors use it to promote their political or other agendas. Maybe it would be a good practice to provide a short description/explanation of why a link is closely related to the article ? Then it would be apparent if there indeed is a close relation to the article's subject, or whether it is purely one of the "another article on ..." type of link, in which case a category would be appropriate but not the "See also" section. --Lysy 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

Considering that more Poles than Jews died there, and it was not a dedicated pogroms but simply civilians of various ethnicities suffering during chaos, I suggest renaming this article to Lwów unrest.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand that logic. It was a well documented pogrom against Jews. The fact that it occurred in a larger context where there were more deaths does not negate that fact. Polish officers were shot by the Sovetes during world War 2. Many more Russians died in World War 2 than did Poles. Does that negate the discrete character and historical significance of Katyn? Boodlesthecat 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Katyn was a purposeful event. In Przyszowice massacre, Soviets killed a Holocaust survivor, not because they were targeting them, but because they were massacring the village. Nobody planned a pogrom in Lwów, and Jews were not target because they were Jews but because all peaceful civilians were targeted by rampaging criminals and drunken soldiers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No according to multiple reliable sources it was a purposeful massacre of Jews because they were Jews. Your unique view runs counter to pretty much all scholarly sources on the subject. Your constant harping on the "more Poles than Jews died there" meme, lifted from the fringe views of sociologist (no historian) Piotrowski that run counter to a substantial number of scholarly sources (as well as your fringe POV multiple characterizations of this murderous pogrom as a "riot"--counter to the overwhelming common usage)is not much of a basis to propose a renaming, but feel free to try. Boodlesthecat 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• If "Lwow Unrest" is a topic in its own right, give it an article. "Lwow pogrom" quite obviously is a discrete academic topic and should have an article of its own. Basically, whatever sources use - we should follow. Malick78 (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerated reports

In the article two reports are stated which different casualty counts. I get it that the higher number is challenged but does that make it exaggerated? Scafloc (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, which I fixed. I think the point someone was trying to make was that some newspaper reports at the time had much higher figures, which were later modified downward. This notion of "exaggerated" figures has made it into a number of articles that cover this, far beyong the actual importance of the misstated news reports of 1919. I wont speculate at this point on why some editors want to emphasize this "exaggeration". Boodlesthecat 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Who participated in the pogrom?

The sources seem pretty clear: Mączyński cites some numbers and documents for that. In terms of ethnic background, primarily Ukrainian criminals (~1000) were arrested, as well as some Poles (~100s) and even Jewish criminal elements (he gives the breakdown as 60%, 30%, 10% in the high (1600 arrested) estimate). Mączyński notes that Majority of the Polish forces tried to stop the pogrom, but some joined in, including 18 officers as well as few dozen of Polish soldiers (who were later, as Morgenhau confirms, arrested and sentenced as well). With that, I believe the article will not be neutral until we recognize that 1) it was not only Poles (or just Polish army!) who perpetrated the pogrom and 2) we stop stressing the participation of Polish officers (many more tried to stop it, not aided it, many more professional groups were better represented in the thousands arrested). Please note that I don't object to mentioning of the officer participation (and subsequent arrest), but it does not belong in lead. This was not a pogrom orchestrated by Polish army and officers, as some try to suggest; it was a general riot, pillage and robbery that occurred in the aftermath of an urban battle, before order could have been reestablished, targeting all defenseless civilians, and carried out primarily by the criminal elements.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a source (singular) not the sources (plural). And it is not neutral source, because Mączyński himself participated in Lemberg events. And when come to more neutral sources, Morgenthau commission for example, the blame is put on Polish soldiers, and not on "primarily on the criminal elements". M0RD00R (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding breakdown of people tried after the pogrom. It is good just for that, it shows who was tried, not who participated in pogrom. It is two different things. David Engel is quite clear on unwillingness of Polish public to face the trials of Polish officers and soldiers. Morgenthau Report also stressed unwillingness of the Polish side to trial Polish soldiers guilty of atrocities against the Jews. M0RD00R (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Many sources cited (including Hagen) stress the criminal participation, and all mention Polish soldiers only (at best) as part of the participants. Here's another ref: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"In Lemberg, Lida, Wilno, and Minsk the excesses were committed by the soldiers who were capturing the cities and not by the civilian population." Morgenthau Report. M0RD00R (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"The situation was further complicated by the presence of some 15,000 uniformed deserters and numerous criminals released by the Ukrainians from local jails, who were ready to join in any disorder particularly if, as in the case of wholesale pillage, they might profit thereby. Upon the final departure of the Ukrainians, these disreputable elements plundered to the extent of many millions of crowns the dwellings and stores in the Jewish quarter, and did not hesitate to murder when they met with resistance." Morgenthau Report (on Lemberg pogrom).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Criminals Further complicated already bad situation. No one is denying their participation. But criminal element was not the primal cause of the pogrom. Morgenthau is quite clear on that. M0RD00R (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lwów (?) pogrom

Shouldn't this article be at "Lemberg Pogrom"? For example, google books has:

• 47 English hits for "Lemberg pogrom"
• 1 English hit for "Lwów pogrom" (though 19 for "lwow pogrom")
• 7 English hits for "Lvov pogrom"

Google scholar has 6-2 (+ 2)-1. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Lviv pogrom, for the record, is not popular (0 hits). Considering the city was part of German-speaking Austro-Hungary, popularity of Lemberg is not that surprising.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the pogrom is not up to us. It should follow the majority of reliable sources. We should create pages with the names used by minority reliable sources, with redirects to the main article which uses the mainstream name. In any event, the name should be determined by the most notable views from the most reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you think the page should be moved to "Lemberg pogrom (1918)" then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I abstain on that; both names seem relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who knows a bit about Poland, I would never have associated the name "Lemberg" with Lviv/Lwow. Also, in 1918, had it already stopped being called Lemberg? When did the name change? Perhaps it is most appropriate to use the official name it had at the time? Malick78 (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User Deacon of Pndapetzim has raised an important issue. The question is - what country did this beautiful city belong to in November of 1918 and what name should be used in the article. According to the international law, it was not part of Poland, neither part of Ukraine, as borders in this part of Europe were not officially recognized until 1921. Therefore, names Lwow and Lviv should be excluded and IMO the best solution is to rename the article to the Lemberg Pogrom. Tymek (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And should this solution be applied to all articles that concern this city during Austrian rule?. M0RD00R (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag drama

What's up guys? What's the deal with that whole tag drama thing. We were discussing things, article was being expanded step by step, and BANG! here comes the TAG . And BANG! here comes more tag drama "omg MY TAG was removed!". What's the deal? Can't we discuss thing calmly without spreading the drama through the whole project?. Talk page didn't exhaust itself yet. Many serious issues about this article needs to be resolved. Let's try to discuss it, maybe some uninvolved editors should be invited to join this discussion? M0RD00R (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained things above. To sum it up: the most numerous force behind the pogrom were criminals, many of whom were Ukrainian. To center the blame on Polish soldiers is highly biased, and it ignores the role played by the majority who obeyed orders and tried to stop the rioting (and succeeded after two days, arresting thousands of criminals and mutinous soldiers).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources however have a different approach. The quotes are provided and quite clearly they put a blame on Polish troops. Criminal factor also played some role, and it is reflected in the article. M0RD00R (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on continuing discussion over content dispute, where it clearly does not belong ?M0RD00R (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, your argument is based simply on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than reliable sources. It is akin to someone trying to censor the fact that the My Lai Massacre was carried out by american troops by using the argument that the majority of American troops weren't carrying out massacres. If you have reliable sources contradicting the overwhelming scholarly consensus that this pogrom was launched by Polish troops, then supply them. As I've explained to you in other contexts, your views simply do not take precedence over the consensus of scholarly reliable sources. Boodlesthecat 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Subtelny also blames it on the Poles. Ostap 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting reliably sourced material from background and elsewhere

Please stop deleting this reliably sourced background material from the "Background" section. Discuss your concerns on the talk page. Boodlesthecat 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has any explanation been provided for the removal of sourced material? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The two edit summaries for the removal stated "irrelevant info" and "irrelevant and non-neutral content." I requested an explanation on the talk page, since the material is well sourced, is clearly background information added to the "Background" section, and supporting quotes were provided in the footnotes. No response to the request for an explanation on the talk page, just a blind reversion without discussion. Boodlesthecat 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call bogus edit summaries removing a ref - link provided fails at verification can't find anything in the ref supporting this doubius fragment an explanation that would justify arbitrary removal of referenced information. This behaviour is getting more and more disruptive. First it was attempted to push untrue information by revert warring ("more Poles dies than Jews"), now referenced info suddenly "fails verification". I hope disruptive "verification" will cease. Just in case David Engel page 36: "During the first days of Polish-Ukrainian armed clashes, the Polish quarter was defended by only a handful of local students and young people. Gradually, others, mostly criminals who had been released either by Austrian rulers before the abandoned the town or by the Ukrainian authorities thereafter, came to volunteer. Because at the time Polish forces needed every available able-bodied man, these felons were not turned away. instead they were given uniforms and arms, and they played an important role in the battle. however, whenever such soldiers could plunder for their own gain, they did: they were the bandits who attacked Jewish stores in the Polish quarter" M0RD00R (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the typical obfuscations by the sociologist Piotrowksi, whose views--culled from selective cherry picked quotations--have zero academic support, the consensus of serious historians is that these pogroms were carried out by Poles as they gained control of various territories, including, clearly, Lwow. Boodlesthecat 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons above, and in edit summaries. To repeat myself: 1) excessive detail about banging on the doors and opening them with grenades is not needed and 2) poorly sourced and hardly neutral para about alleged "wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918" does not belong here - perhaps we need to create an article about that, akin to pogroms in Ukraine, but discussions of other pogroms in former Russian Empire is too detailed for this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of your edit summaries were misleading as is shown above. I've off-wikied part about "wave of anti-Jewish pogroms" to discuss it further on talk and to try find consensus here. It is an important aspect of the article, and should be discussed in detail on talk. M0RD00R (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support creating an article about anti-Jewish violence in Eastern Europe (1918-1921), which is a notable issue and should cover that subject. We can move this para there, and work on expanding the article (some content from pogroms in Ukraine, controversies of the Polish-Soviet War, anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, Morgenthau Report and likely other articles would be useful for it, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A) Why do you object to this particular detail--the article is about the Lwow pogrom, in which hundreds of Jews were murdered or injured. Why is describing how these murders were carried out "too much detail" for an encyclopedia?, and B) what is un-neutral about noting the wave of anti-Jewish pogroms--it is a historical fact fully supported by numerous scholarly sources. The Lwow pogrom was part of a wave of anti-Jewish massacres that broke out in Poland upon independence. Your objections seem more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than objections based on any Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies. Boodlesthecat 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A) There is such a thing as too much detail, and in particular, too much not-neutral detail. Dubious eyewitness reports fall right into that category. I strongly suggest creating a wikiquote article, where we can add various primary sources like quotes. B) I object to the not neutral way of phrasing. Just like earlier we had issues with undue stress on Polish officers, the way this para was phrases implied that the wave of pogroms was a result of Poles gaining independence (where in fact it was a result of the general breakdown of law and order across EE after WWI). As I wrote above, this complex issues should be discussed in a separate article, and once this is done, we should be able to work out a neutral para to be added to all articles about individual instances of violence that occurred in that time and place (EE 1918-1921).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The basic facts are simple. Poles killed scores of Jews because they were Jews. If you have a reliable source indicating "a result of the general breakdown of law and order across EE after WWI" then feel free to add it. That information does not make stating the well sourced fact that Poles killed scores of Jews in Lwow and in the same period hundreds elsewhere "non-neutral." A fact is a fact. Boodlesthecat 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess what intro by Boodles is supposed to show that Lemberg pogrom is not one-off odd event. It is no secret that Polish take over of contested territories was often accompanied by anti-Jewish violence (Pinsk massacre, pogroms and military massacres in Lida, Minsk, Vilna, etc). This period of Jewish Polish history was marked by the wave of violence against Jews, and this article should reflect that, the question is how, and in what detail. And we should try to find a consensus on these questions here on talk page instead of revert warring. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the very phrase "wave of pogroms in Poland" is misleading. From Piotrowski: of all the "Polish" towns in which the 1918-19 "pogroms" occurred, only Kielce and Częstochowa lay within Polish borders. Lwów was still a part of Austrian Galicia, and Gutman and Krakowski's "long list of towns in Eastern Poland (where) pogroms and riots were carried out" belonged to tsarist Russia. The Polish population in all of these, except for Lwów and Wilno, was relatively small.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this argument does not hold water. Maybe De jure Lemberg, Pinsk, Lida, Vilna, Minsk was not a part Poland during the anti-Jewish pogroms, but de facto Poland was in control of these territories when massacres have happened. M0RD00R (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? We should look at it case by case; do you have a list of those alleged wave pogroms? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Morgenthau Report is a good start. M0RD00R (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the typical obfuscations by the sociologist Piotrowksi, whose views--culled from selective cherry picked quotations--have zero academic support, the consensus of serious historians is that these pogroms were carried out by Poles as they gained control of various territories, including, clearly, Lwow. Boodlesthecat 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Modras. Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 . 1-2 thousand Jews killed by:Poles in this period.

Ezra Mendelsohn. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars.: “During the first decade of the new Poland, both the state and its people displayed a hostility toward the Jewish population which found expression in systematic discrimination and widespread anti-semitic violence.”

YIVO. “The founding of the new republic in 1918 had been accompanied by a wave of pogroms in Lwow, Pinsk, Vilna and other localities.”

David Vital. A People Apart. “Cracow, Kielce, Lida, Lwow, Lublin, Pinsk, and Vilna were the scenes of major eruptions of violence.”

RJ Crampton . Eastern Europe in the twentieth century “ There were pogroms in Lwow, Pinsk, Vilnius, and other Polish cities”

J Bendersky. The “”Jewish Threat” Morgenthau described in detail the "eight principal excesses" that had occurred in Poland, including the well-publicized events in Lemberg, Pinsk, Vilna, and Minsk.

Celia Stopnicka Heller On the Edge of Destruction: "The declaration of Polish independence from Russia, Germany, and Austria in November 1918 was followed by anti-Jewish violence in many cities, towns, and villages." Boodlesthecat 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the first background paragraph can be shortened to "A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów." This would keep only the most relevant background as related to this specific event. Ostap 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a bare minimum of what we should include. It would be pretty silly to have a "background" section and to censor reliably sourced relevant background. Boodlesthecat 00:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you would support the compromise version above? Ostap 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see input from non-involved editors. The disputed paragraph is this:

A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. In response, the Jewish National Council in Krakow organized a self defense group made up of Jewish former army officers; a few days later, the city's military commander, Boleslaw Roja, ordered the Polish military to surround the Jewish defense group's headquarters to be surrounded, it's leaders arrested, and the members of the self defense groups to be disarmed. These actions were accompanied a a series of stories in the local and national Polish press alleging a Jewish military plot, along with stories of weapons caches being discovered in synagogues; Jewish protests against the allegations were ignored and dismissed. These actions against the Jewish defense groups and the press campaign have been described as serving as a tacit approval of violence against Jews. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów.

I haven't seen a convincing argument that there is any problem with that paragraph. It is useful, and reliably sourced background, briefly delineating the spread of the Polish violence against Jews in the weeks before the Lwow killings, beginning with the events in Warsaw, which set the tone for subsequent events (disarming of Jewish militias, spreading libels about Jews to justify the attacks, etc). Boodlesthecat 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrowski refutes the claims (110 pogroms? where is that data from??). And IDONTLIKE estabilished and well-reviewed Piotrowski's work and thus ignore it is not a good argument, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"During the month of November 1918, there were pogroms and other forms of violence in about 110 towns and settlements. The most horrible ones took place in Lwow, Brzesk, Chrzanow, and Przemysl. " Pawel Korzec. Polish-Jewish Relations during World War I. In: Herbert Arthur Strauss Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39.] Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Page 1029-1032. (p. 1032)

Where does Piotrowksi refute the claims of 110 pogroms? You've been attributing a lot of prescient things to Piotroski that don't seem to be there in the ref. Boodlesthecat 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just read the paragraphs under the one I linked above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you guys have so many sources, perhaps there is at least one which would list these 110 pogroms. Or, say, half of them, with places and dates. BTW, Boodlesthecat, there is no place called Brzesk in Poland. Tymek (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you contesting that Brest-Litovsk was a part of Second Polish Republic? Well it is common knowledge I'd guess. M0RD00R (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between Brzesk and Brest Litovsk. Ability to read is common knowledge I'd guess. Tymek (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly civility is no common knowledge, but we are used to that. Ability to read combined with understanding what others are saying might be rewarding. Bzresk is an English name of this city used in historical context . Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't under whose jurisdiction these towns were under. The article is about the Lwow pogrom, in which scores of Jews were murdered. The sources all indicated that the murderers were Poles. Likewise for the murders of Jews committed by Poles in the other towns. They are still Polish massacres of Jews, regardless of the jurisdiction. Boodlesthecat 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And the sources that don't indicate that (ex. they finger Ukrainian criminals) are ignored... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority of sources put a blame on Polish troops, this can be easily proven. Activities of criminals also should (and are) mentioned, but they should not be given an undue weight. M0RD00R (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring reliably sourced material in background section

Since there seems to be no serious objection to the reliably sourced passage for the background section, I will restore it today. The above discussion has veered into a discussion of place names, which is not directly relevant to the passage. This is an encyclopedia discussing a serious, but not well known event in which scores of Jews were murdered and hundreds more brutalized simply because they were Jews. These attempts to remove well sourced basic facts about this massacre, and it's immediate context, are baffling to me. Piotrus had indicated that "Piotrowski refutes the claims", but I dont see where, and no one has indicated where. Piotroeski was also a source for another claim regarding Polish casualties which also failed verification. I will add some of the additional sources from above as appropriate to the passage. Boodlesthecat 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you are ignoring all the serious objections, I am afraid that's not a way to go.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we arguing over the name of the article again? The name of the pogrom is not up to us. It should follow the majority of reliable sources. We should create pages with the names used by minority reliable sources, with redirects to the main article which uses the mainstream name. In any event, the name should be determined by the most notable views from the most reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The name is one of the issues discussed. See my recent posts above for the other issues of contention (primarily - undue weight/bias/lack of neutrality with regards to some issues like background, reason for the pogrom, participants, etc.).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not deface article with tags OK? Lwow pogrom or pogrom in Lwow is probably most common name in modern academic literature for this event. Attempts to minimize the role of Polish troops also failed to be supported by references. Even Davis calls it military massacre. M0RD00R (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, how you call on Davies now, yet you object to mentioning his (and Piotrowski's and others) views when they dispute whether this even even deserves to be classified as pogrom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So Davis calles this "military massacre", and not a pogrom. This indeed can mentioned in the article, but what weight does his opinion have, when overwhelming majority of the academic sources calls it a pogrom? M0RD00R (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodles let's give 48 hours or even more to present more arguments on talk, there is no need to rush things. So far I still have a hope that this can be resolved on talk in discussion based on references, and not personal opinions. M0RD00R (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Boodlesthecat 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Czesław Mączyński as WP:RS

How is he a reliable source? Please explain. His bias is obvious. Hi actively participated in said events. M0RD00R (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And it is noted in the text. He seems much more reliable than some Joseph Tenenbaum, a militia leader, and no less reliable than information cited from the Jewish Relief Committee, all of whom have quite evident biases.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But Maczynski is quoted throughout the article without attribution of his bias, this seems problematic to me. M0RD00R (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In several places he is quoted as an additional ref for facts already estabilished by other sources. If there are any specific places he is claimed without such attribution, feel free to point them out here or correct them yourself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is he "much more reliable than some Joseph Tenenbaum."? Boodlesthecat 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that a high ranking officer and amateur historian is more reliable than a random witness. Granted, of course - no primary source is highly reliable, and thus I completely agree that references to him (and any other primary source) should be clearly labeled as such.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not a "random witness;" he was a leader of the Jewish militia whose book on the pogrom, Der Lemberger Judenpogrom, was published in 1919 (one of a number of published works he produced) and who is cited by a number of secondary sources (e,g,. here as a reliable documentary source. So please, if you have no information on a source, it's best to look into it rather than skew a discussion where we are weighing sources with personal speculations about "random witnesses." Boodlesthecat 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there are two issues. First, NOR: we need to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources have to be used literally, we cannot use them to build our own arguments or draw our own conclusions. It would be better to use secondary sources - historians for example. Second issue is the degree of notability. I think you guys are using the word "reliable" in the colloquial sense, but that is not the issue in Misplaced Pages - we assume all viws have some bias and NPOV explicitly demands that we include even sources we consider biased. What is important is that the view be notable. Manority and minority views ought to be included, it is only clearly fringe views that should be excluded from the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

generalizations

I reverted one edit that changed "false accusations" to "generalizations" because it reflected poor English style. The sentence refers to "most Jews" which by definition is a generalization; to add the word generalization is redundant. The question is whether the source provided claims that this particular generalization is true or false. Remember, it does not matter whether the accusation realy is true or false; Misplaced Pages is not concerned with truth. Nor is logic an issue, as the edit summary suggsted. The question is, what does the source cited say? I am following our policy WP:AGF and assuming that whoever added the sentence and the citation is accurately representing the point of view of the author cited. Can anyone provide evidence that this author did not claim that the accusations were false? This is an empircal issue, not a logical one: what does this source actually claim? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A good point. The sentence lists three refs, one of them () is in Polish, and agrees that only a part of the Jews worked with the Ukrainians.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing "pogrom" to "riot" please

The scholarly-accepted term for this episode was "pogrom." It was not a "riot." The majority scholarly view was that scores of Jews were murdered because they were Jews, and the scholarly view is that the excuses for these cold blooded murders are fabricated. It is insensitive POV pushing to keep slipping these change in, and it is less than honest to keep making such a serious change to the article without discussion. If you think it's worth discussing, and if you think there are valid arguments for making this change, than discuss it, openly. Boodlesthecat 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian criminals

Majority academic sources does not mention them at all. More importantly "blame the Ukrainians" is considered to be an attempt by Polish side to shift the blame from real perpetrators. Only one sources in the article puts the blame on Ukrainian side, and that is Maczynski. To put Maczynski views violates WP:UNDUE. "mainly Ukrainians", based on sole ref is even more outrageous violation of WP:NPOV. M0RD00R (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)