Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vague reference to a scholar

During the first year of Soviet domination, a Ukrainian scholar puts the number of refugees to Romania at 7,000, but this number could easily have been much higher. What is his name? The article will be better if you add this source. Ştefan44 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă Massacre

I fully agree with the proposal made by Biruitorul at Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania#Additional source: this article should be renamed "Fântâna Albă Massacre". For that's what it was, so let's call it that way. Turgidson 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will also register my support for such a move. Not only because yes, that's what it was, but also because all the Romanian sources linked to in the article use the word "massacre". Be warned though, any move like this is likely to be veeeeeeery controversial.....neutrality police and all.....K. Lásztocska 03:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree with the move. Odessa, Iaşi, Dorohoi, Ip, Treznea were not "incidents" either... Mentatus 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with "Fântâna Albă Massacre".

However, since when a killing becomes a mass killing, a massacre? This figure here seems large enough, but is there any boundary to say - 9 people killed is not massacre, 10 people killed is? If we decide to use an estabilished terminology we can choose the predominant usage from secondary sources. In our case, the references point again to "massacre". But I can imagine a situation when the current usage does not give a clear choice of words, being several concurrent alternatives and when the number is small enough to be controversial. Daizus 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it Stalin who said "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million people is statistics"? Mentatus 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dahn 11:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Masacrul de la Fântâna Alba", "Masacrul din Fântâna Alba"--fairly obvious. :) Mentatus, yes, that was Sztalin, probably the most chilling but most perceptive thing he ever said. Daizus, you do raise an important point, but I think trying to define number limits for what defines a massacre could put us on a very dangerous and slippery path. Better to just use the name as it is in common parlance in Romanian--after all, the Boston Massacre killed I think 4 people, but we don't fight about changing that name, because that's what it's always been called. K. Lásztocska 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's the most chilling (and best known) quote from Uncle Joe. Probably the next best known quote is "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?". At Fântâna Albă, they only had wooden crosses -- a poor defense against machine-gun fire. So both Tătuca Stalin's famous dictums applied here, in some fashion... Turgidson 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The pope quote is actually sort of funny, in a sick and twisted way. :) Have we got consensus on renaming yet? :) K. Lásztocska 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why it shouldn't be called a "massacre":

1. It wasn't ethnically-motivated, so it can't be compared with the anti-jewish pogroms, the massacres in transylvania or the massacre that followed the khotin insurrection.
2. Those people were doing something illegal and were aware of it. They didn't just stay in their homes when they were killed (unlike the above massacres).
3. They were directly warned (i don't know the english for "a soma") that they'll be shot if they don't stop, but they consciously decided to continue.(unlike the above massacres, were the warnings, if they existed, were indirect and aimed at a more general group -i.e. jews)
4. Soviet border guards had serious reasons to believe that the group charging at them was armed (previously armed groups had breached the frontier)

Anonimu 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, massacres don't necessarily have to be ethnically motivated, and even if they were doing something illegal and knew it, they still all died...K. Lásztocska 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Justifying the cold-blooded massacre of peaceful, unarmed civilians by armed troops on the spurious grounds that those poor peasants were doing something "illegal" and were "charging" at the border guards is grotesque. I don't know about all the subtleties of wikipedia etiquette, but in my book at least, such speech is beyond the pale. Could we please refrain from rationalizing mass murder on these talk pages? Thank you. Turgidson 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those soviet soldiers should be blamed for not being clairvoyants and using general logic, and ultimately for doing their duty as border guards. and BTW, peaceful civilians stop when they're told they'd be shot if they don't.Anonimu 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The peasants were desperate, of course they didn't behave like proper peaceful civilians at a Russian tea party. Even if the Soviet soldiers were not 100% in the wrong (talk about debatable, BTW), they still killed hundreds of people, therefore it was a massacre. K. Lásztocska 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much the individual soldiers were at fault for shooting unarmed civilians -- after all, they were presumably following orders, though it's debatable whether that's an excuse for commiting atrocities (see, eg, Nuremberg Trials). But the orders (judging from the whole setup of the massacre, as made clear in the article) must have come from on high in the hierarchy of NKVD border troops. Be that as it may, sorry if I repeat myself, but I find this sort of speech fawningly approving mass murder of innocent civilians (irrespective of who they were, what their circumstances were, or what was their nationality, creed, race, or beliefs) appaling in the extreme. Turgidson 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If those unarmed civilians would have stayed at their homes / on their side of the border this would have never happened. period.Anonimu 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Jews had remained in Israel, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened, either. Biruitorul 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

again your ultra-nationalist view according to which everything is ethnically motivated. But Jews were hounded out of Israel. (of course this doesn't justify their attacks on the palestianians). On the other hand, the people who participated in this incident were told to go back to their homes.Anonimu 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with "ultra-nationalism". You're still justifying the killing of innocent civilians. Let's ask another question: would the US Navy have been justified in shooting passengers on the SS St. Louis if it had tried to dock in Florida? What if they had escaped on lifeboats? Should they still have been shot? Biruitorul 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If there would have been a suspicion that the group was armed, they would have been justified to shoot them, after warning them of course...Anonimu 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything could be suspicious, but neither group actually was. Biruitorul 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet border guards had serious reasons to believe they were.Anonimu 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

200 corpses beg to differ. Biruitorul 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say something like that, you beat me to it. :) Anonimu, that is outrageous, offensive and absurd. K. Lásztocska 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Said in the true spirit of the NKVD: people should simply stay home and do what the Communist party tells them to do, huh? You know, mon cher, if that had been the case, we would never had had computers (a "bourgeois" invention, to be sure: see John von Neumann and Alan Turing), or the internet (see Tim Berners-Lee), or wikipedia (see Jimmy Wales). In other words, if the world had stayed true to the spirit of Josef Stalin that you apparently so revere (and that's your privilege, go for it), we would not have had this kind of conversation, would we? Rather, we'd each be cowering in our rooms, afraid the NKVD or one of its successor agencies (or ofshoots) would come down, knocking at the door at 3am in the morning. By the way, do you know how many millions of unarmed civilians simply stayed at home, only to be taken away to those charming Gulag camps, never to return? In fact, as the article says, many more in those villages in Bukovina on April 1, 1941 (66 years ago!) perished that way -- that is, by simply staying home, only to be dragged to forced labor and almost certain death somewhere in the frozen tundras of Siberia. Perhaps, ultimately, those poor souls who were gunned down by the NKVD border guards at Fântâna Albă were the lucky ones: at least, their death came fast and furious. Requiescat in pace. Turgidson 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that. romanian user here seem to be able to read minds... and then you ask why i don't trust romanian authors... BTW, were talking about the incident, not what happened afterwards (and anyway things didn't happen the way you present them)Anonimu 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lux æterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in æternum, quia pius es. Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis. (I love Latin. Who says it's a dead language??) K. Lásztocska 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, the 228 Incident did kill 10,000-20,000 people. But that's what history has come to call it. Fântâna Albă, on the other hand, is always called a massacre. Biruitorul 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Roamataa 09:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the generation born in 2000 will be the first not affected by ceausescu's nationalism...Anonimu 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Ceauşescu, or nationalism. Rather, it has all to do with basic humanity, and respect for human life—and the historical record. Moreover, things did happen the way I presented them—a good deal of those who stayed home (and thus were not massacred at the border crossing) were later picked up by the NKVD and shipped to the Gulag. In fact, I think this point should be more forcefully made in the article — those peasants were not irrationally attempting to cross the border into Romania; rather, they were trying to escape harsh conditions and even persecution. This has happened countless times through history—people fleeing from harm's way, going to another region or another country when conditions become unbearable back home (a romanticized view of the process can be seen in The Sound of Music). But only extremely rarely do masses of people attempting to cross a border get massacred at the border point (I'm not talking about individuals, that of course has happened often, eg, at the Berlin Wall) — in fact, I cannot think on any other example through history, though probably there must be a few (mercifully, just a very few). But this is more reason (not less) to improve the article, and call it what it was, instead of whitewashing what happened, by blandly calling it an "incident" (not to say, rationalizing and excusing the massacre, like some are trying to do here). Turgidson 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. --Roamataa 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It has pretty much to do with nationalism. If an important part of that group wouldn't have been of romanian (or moldavian) ethnicity, and if soldiers wouldn't have been of soviet/russian/ukrianians ethnicity, you wouldn't care about it. No they didn't. Trupele de securitate sovietice aveau dreptul sa aresteze pe civilii care incercau sa submineze administratia sau pe cei care incercasera sa face ceva ilegal, cum ar fi trecerea ilegala a frontierei - un principiu in penal este ca tentativa se pedepseste.... When you're told you'll be shot if you move from your home region, the decision to depart is not traditional, is irresponsible... Incident is the only NPOV title here. if the shooting would have been uncalled for we could call it a massacre... but it wasn't.Anonimu 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, speak English. This is the English Wikipedia, and I am not Romanian so if you all start speaking Romanian then you completely shut me out of the discussion, which isn't really fair, is it? Also, it shoots down your theory that it "has pretty much to do with nationalism." I'm not a Romanian nationalist. I haven't got one single drop of Romanian blood (at least none that I know about), so why do I still want to call this "incident" a massacre? Because that's what it was. I don't care what nationality or political party they belonged to, they were innocent civilians and they were all killed. "Incident" is absurd. K. Lásztocska 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing interesting in that fragment. Your presence here is a result of a branch stacking... so your nationality is not relevant. They weren't so innocent, they were trying to do something illegal after all.Anonimu 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "branch stacking"? I am here because Biruitorul suggested that I might like to contribute to the discussion, and when I clicked on the link I decided that yes, I did have something to say and thought it was an important issue. Please assume good faith. Are you saying that since they were violating an unjust law (they were just trying to go home after all, that's an ordinary human feeling) it was justified that 200 of them were slaughtered in cold blood? Don't make me vomit. K. Lásztocska 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's branch stacking... you were sent here just because you opinions about a general subject(Soviets and Communism) and the willingness to support Biru's point. Their home was north of the Soviet - Romanian border. And there's no indication of a cold blooded attack. The soldiers just defended the border. You should leave these discussion if you can't bear it. Wiki shouldn't affect your health (there's an essay somewhere on wiki that say that)Anonimu 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not SENT here, I came here of my own free will. I could just as easily have looked at Biru's link and decided to ignore it. Oh, and I'm not his "groupie." As for my opinions about the Soviet Union and Communism, given my own nationality and the history of my country, that's not entirely surprising. K. Lásztocska 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. You could have, but you didn't. Yeah, right. So you admit that you're not objective. Anonimu 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, like you're so objective? You with the big communist symbol on your user page...K. Lásztocska 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm objective enough. More objective that most of the users on this page anyway.Anonimu 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your subjective opinion, not objective truth. :) K. Lásztocska 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is revolting. Turgidson 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically all soldiers except those from the Evil Empire defend the border against people trying to come in illegally (but even then never shooting unarmed civilians, except possibly in self-defense), or against invading armies (in which case all bets are off, of course). Those NKVD border guards that you so adore where shooting people trying to escape the "socialist paradise". Is that nuance too hard to grasp? And, the fact that they had orders to shoot unarmed civilians does not absolve them from legal responsibility. Ask those soldiers who shot dead Chris Gueffroy when he tried to jump the Berlin Wall to freedom. Turgidson 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, legally they were trying to illegally breach the frontier, just as drug smugglers do. And, as i already said, they had serious reasons to believe that the group was armed. so they didn't know they were shooting unarmed civilians... some of whom probably were armed.Anonimu 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting argument: comparing those poor peasants to drug smugglers is something so low, that I will not stoop to responding to. And just because someone may try to do something "illegal", like crossing from one side to the other of one's ancestral land, in search of a better life, is no reason for shooting that person on the spot, like a dog. Anyone who thinks that way is a stranger to me. But I see there is no point in prolonging this pointless discussion. I cannot, and will not attempt to find common ground with someone who holds such utterly despicable opinions. Have a good day. Turgidson 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they were poor? maybe they were some kulaks and that's why they wanted to run away from their homes. "Ancestral land" it's so a romantic concept. And like most romantic concept, it's not a real thing. They weren't shot on the spot, like a dog. They were warned and told to go to their homes, they didn't want to listen. it's night over hereAnonimu 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you've dug a very deep hole for yourself. Biruitorul 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(Just re-indenting) According to the "it's not a massacre" logic so far, Stalin could have saved the expense of transporting to Siberia, working to death, and burying tens of millions of Eastern Europeans and Russians--if they had only decided to stay home and behave.
     Bukovina was never part of Russia, there was no Soviet "reclaiming" of land Russia "lost"--this was plain and simple occupied territory. That gives specific humanitarian rights to the protected occupied populace. You can't just go shooting them. Even if (as alleged here) they don't listen. They did not attack the Soviets.
     Moreover, these were not Soviet troops firing on civilians who they thought were armed. That's an out and out lie. These were NKVD secret police whose actions were organized with forethought and the intent to kill unarmed civilians. The word is "pre-meditated."
     Finally, this whole angle on ethnic/poor/etc. is totally inappropriate and totally immaterial. They could have been little green Martians carrying white flags to announce their peaceful intentions.
     This pre-meditated killing by non-military forces of unarmed civilians protected under the laws of occupation can only be called a massacre. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pēters, good to see you back. Point taken about calling them "poor" peasants -- of course that's immaterial, I was just trying to appeal to some vestigial human sentiment there, but I obviously failed (they were just kulaks, so put them all to death as was done in the Holodomor, blah, blah, blah). But since I'm still learning about the legal aspects of all this, could you please expand on the relevant conventions that cover unarmed civilians protected under the laws of occupation? It seems to me that that goes without saying (at least to anyone not from planet Mars :)), but it's always good to have explicit laws to refer to. Also, it would be good to know whether the Soviet Union, circa 1940-41 had subscribed to such laws, and if so, when and where, and who signed those accords. A readily available (and quotable) reference on wiki would be good to have, just in case it's needed. Thanks. Turgidson 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had not officially ratified the Hague Conventions--the Nazis used this as their excuse for not observing its terms for the treatment of prisoners of war when it came to their Soviet captives. However, representatives of the Soviet Union did testify in post-war trials that the Soviet Union did subscribe to the terms of the Hague Conventions (and had laws regarding such). Whether as the legal successor to the Russian Empire (which was a signatory) or through professing adherence to its terms, the Soviet Union would have been in a position to be bound by these terms of the Hague Convention IV (18 October 1907):

• Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
• Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

On April 23, 1954, the Soviet Union did ratify the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (International Humanitarian Law) with reservations. Nearly a decade later, this ref [1] is from 1963, it appears however that no Soviet laws had been passed in support of the Geneva Conventions. (It might be a while before I get to the library to access the article on JSTOR.)
     Regarding the post-war Soviet testimony about specific Soviet laws supporting the Hague Conventions, that likely needs to be taken with a grain of salt until someone can find them. (And even then, what's on paper and what was Soviet reality are two different things, it's an inspiring and noble Constitution they had.)
    In any event, the Soviets were quite aware of what the rules were and clearly had no compunctions about violating them. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now it comes back to me -- I knew about the Nazis' abominabe treatment of Soviet POW's (including horrible medical experiments and torture), using the excuse that the USSR had not ratified the Hague Conventions. Totally inhuman, and abhorrent. But that, as you say, is in no way, shape, or form an excuse for the Soviets to have disregarded those conventions in such blatant fashion in other instances -- and, at any rate, the Fântâna Albă massacre occured way before the invasion of the USSR, in June 1941. (On a tangent, how about the Katyn massacre, from 1940? How can anyone try and justify that?? By the way, has anyone ever accepted responsibility for it, and/or have there been any reparations or formal apology ever been made? I vaguely remember there were some words mumbled at some point, but was that even remotely enough?)

JSTOR article: thanks, I downloaded it. If you have trouble getting it (or any other article), please let me know, and I'll see what I can do, as long as it does not mess us with copyright laws.

Finally, one more legal question: how about individual responsibility in such cases? As I mentioned at some point above, German courts tried, and in some cases found guilty, individual border guards who shot dead people trying to jump the Berlin Wall. The standard "I was just following orders" excuse held some water (sigh...), but not too much. I'm not sure how good an analogy this is -- after all, this was adjudicated according to internal German laws -- but maybe it gives a glimpse into how the international community views such egregious breaches of conduct. Has anyone been writing about those long-ago breaches of the Hague Conventions, or is it all down the memory hole? Turgidson 04:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On individual acts I cannot claim expertise. However, considering Stalin ordered his officers to shoot anyone caught retreating on Eastern European front I would venture that in this case it probably goes all the way back to the top as one could claim they themselves would have been killed if they did not follow orders. So in terms of the NKVD, I would theorize it would likely be the command structure held responsible, not the individuals--that is, until we can find some specific sources (whichever way they point).

     Copy of JSTOR article would be good. I have access to print at the public library, but it's so totally not convenient these days. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like being bold...K. Lásztocska 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Crap, never mind, it wouldn't let me move the page...K. Lásztocska 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for your boldness! It was worth a try. Now, what's the next step? Can we count votes, and decide democratically? Or do we have to go through a more elaborate procedure? Either way is fine with me, but I say, let's get it done, sooner than later, while the discussion is still fresh, and before people go about doing other things. Turgidson 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, to heck with democracy. :) I say we just ask an admin--I know a friendly (albeit Hungarian) one who will probably be receptive to our concerns. K. Lásztocska 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! From my limited experience at wiki, Hungarians seem like a rather friendly bunch, so why not? Turgidson 00:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a move; hopefully one of these strategies will pay off. Biruitorul 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place to register support? I believe a good factual case has been made. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we just have to wait a little till an admin decides what to do, and if he decides against moving, we'll take it from there. Biruitorul 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the name change that includes adding the word like a "massacre" to a title can be done bypassing WP:RM. That said, let me state my view. Judging from the article only, I would have to read the academic sources to be able to judge generally, what took place was indeed horrific. There is no doubt about that and the article conveys all the information to the reader.

That said, I have always object against using strong terms in the titles, be it "occupation", "invasion", "murder" or "massacre" preferring words like "incident", "war", "siege", etc. Again I am speaking of the titles only. It does not preclude the usage of the referenced term in the article's text but the general rule of thumb to avoid strong terms in titles would relieve us from spilling a lot of bad blood. So, I don't understand the urge. Put a well referenced account of this horrific event but it is references and neutrality of the account is what makes the reader convinced and replacing the incident by a massacre in the title would not make a viewer any more convinced than the good article itself. --Irpen 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: I actually noticed your general position on the subject earlier today, at Talk:Khatyn massacre#Requested move (there is a link to that talk page from this article). So let me commend you for holding a principled, consistent position, and for expressing your sympathy with the victims (unlike the only contrary opinion here, which I will not even try to describe, it's so alien to me). Now, having said that, permit me to disagree with your point of view, also on principled grounds. First (though this is not exactly the subject here), I am in 100% agreement to call the Katyn massacre the Katyn massacre: there is absolutely no way to call that monstrosity except that. So, if you are to exclude Katyn, then basically I agree, nothing else can be called a massacre, and so your position is completely coherent. But if you accept that Khatyn was a massacre (like almost everyone does, including wikipedia), then it becomes a question of scale, circumstances, usage, referencdes in the literature, etc. There have been many examples adduced to that effect in this discussion, including the Boston Massacre of 1770, in which about 4 people were killed (are you going to contest that title?) All in all, I think the circumstances, the usage, and the literature on the subject argue for the move -- and so do a large majority of editors who looked at this article. Is there anything that one could say, or any evidence that one could try to produce, that would make you change your mind, at least partially? Turgidson 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I now realize there are two distinct pages: Katyn massacre and Khatyn massacre, and that you referred to Khatyn, not Katyn. Since I do not mean to put words in your mouth, then let me ask: how about the Katyn massacre? Do you find that legitimate usage? Turgidson 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the usage legitimate, which means in the article's body. I objecto to massacre titles, be it Katyn, Khatyn or Khotin events even though those all can be called massacres and are called such in the article's text. Just keep titles free from such terms. Let the reader form the opinion about the subject of the article based on encyclopedic presentation supported by references. The reader will likely find this much more credible if he is not forced to prejudge this by the title itself. The titles should be non-committal and the text and the references should make a convincing case. Partly, because writing articles is more difficult than moving them, we get so many users just eager to create (or move) the articles in the invasion/massacre/occupation names. Another reason why this takes place is that some want to make sure the case they want to build is as strong as there can be. However, slamming such terms into the titles actually alarms the reader and makes one more suspect that, you know, this is one of those Wikipedia article that make it a good starting point but an unreliable reference. --Irpen 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The title must reflect an existing reality. You have renamed the article, it is your burden of proof to show the scholarship or at least the public perception indeed suggests we should entitle this article "Fântâna Albă incident" and not "Fântâna Albă massacre". Lacking such support, you should have started a poll for this move. You should be thankful that some editors actually invest energy in explaining and working towards consensus instead of reverting your move after some brief and dismissive comments.

As for your choice of words, it's a whitewashing one. Killing civilians is not an incident. If you want a change of words, I give you one: "Fântâna Albă mass killings" (there are hundreds of victims!). Sooner or later, someone will, obviously, suggest "massacre". Daizus 09:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daizus. Irpen, believe me, I understand your concern and think it's a quite valid opinion, but in my opinion calling this an "incident" is just whitewashing and watering down a terribly tragic event, which is just as bad as sensationalizing it would be. I'm big on finding the right balance between too much and not enough. Also remember: history is rarely "NPOV". :) K. Lásztocska 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. While, Irpen, I see your point, I don't think we should avoid calling a spade a spade, especially when historiography does the same. Our purpose is not to make people feel good, but to convey a sense of what happened, which was very ugly (to say the least). Plus, it verges on OR to call it an incident: you've shown no sources that call it that. Biruitorul 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian sources prove that it was a massacre, not an incident. History is not always neutral. Thank you for your consideration. NCurse _work 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please never ever move articles in the midst of discussion. This kind of forcing the content one way or the other is highly inflammatory.

Moving the article without a discussion is even more inflammatory. A drop of decency, given the consensus we have achieved here, should make you revert yourself. Daizus 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and only now I've seen your comments from your edits. Have you followed WP:RM? No. Then why your move should stay? Give me one single reason. Daizus 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now back to the issues raised above. Calling the article in a way that avoids the strong terms in the title in no way whitewashes anything as long as the content which shows what actually happened is not weaselized.

If Massacre is renamed to some term that makes it look "justified", like "execution" or "border enforcement", yes, this would have been whitawashing. The word "Incident" is the least judgmental. Such term makes no judgment on what actually happened and is not aimed at prejudicing the reader towards any POV. The reader see the facts, sees that they are referenced and can slearly understand that what to place was the mass killing of armless civilians who tried to cross the border by the armed military personell. This is exactly what happened and the article says so. No need for another precedent of the strong terms in the title where they can be avoided without any POV implications (replacing Massacre by "execution" would have had the POV implications, but this was not done). Otherwise, we promote unhealthy trends of endless discussions of this sort and Khotin massacre of Ukrainians by the Romanian army may very well be next. Keep strong terms within the text, where they can be referenced, and out of the titles. --Irpen 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have the verbs like "kill" and nouns like "dead". "Incidental" is quite judgemental as it chooses the ignore a reality. Please accept the consensus and stop being disruptive. Thank you. Daizus 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Incidental" is not "accidental". It makes no judgment. If we start promoting strong terms in the titles, we are opening a can of worms and a fruitful field for trolling and overall waste of time all over talk pages. Khotin was also a massacre without question. The article says so in the text all right. However, its name does not include such a term and it should not if we want to keep flames low. --Irpen 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Killing a human being is murder in most cases and most legislations. Murder is not just an incident and claiming it's just an incident is a judgement (cynical, biased and trying to cover an own stained past, etc.) and a strong POV.

Look, I don't care what you believe. You have there some sources claiming it's a massacre, you have a consensus of editors against you. You have nothing but an own interpretation of a mass killing and own vision upon how to avoid naming things. Accept it and step back. Rhetoric doesn't help a case, really. Daizus 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore your personal remarls and will only post on the topic.

There is nothing personal. I'm signaling your POV-pushing and original research, i.e. acting against Wikipedia policies. Daizus 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This event does not have an established English name and it can't as it is relatively obscure event in the part of the world which is relatively obscure as well. In such cases, the articles are titled by descriptive names which should be as neutral as possible

The event has a name in other languages, as such the English name can be retrieved by direct translation. "Massacre" is descriptive. The best NPOV description of the event is IMO "mass killing" (do you disagree? if so, why?) and not "incident". As WP:NC tells us to be concise, "massacre" kicks in. "Incident" is vague, whitewashing, POV-ish (you have yet to tell me what's the problem with "massacre"; who claims it wasn't a massacre - i.e. mass killing - out there?) Daizus 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, stop claiming there is a consensus here. Three editors supporting one name and two editors opposing it is nothing but a consensus. --Irpen 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, Biruitorul, K. Lásztocska, Mentatus, Daizus, Dahn, Pēters J. Vecrumba, Roamataa and NCurse agreed so far in this talk page to call it a massacre. That is not "three" but 9 users. Irpen and Anonimu disagreed. That is, as you say, only 2 users. 81% votes is a consensus, don't you think? Daizus 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the discussion is advertised in, say, a Russia portal, the headcount would likely change. Also, it is not clear that all who you listed as supporters would actually support the move. If you insist, start the poll and list the WP:RM request. I really see this persistence with inserting strong terms into names very unhelpful. But I do hope that everyone supporting this article's move will support the Khotin massacre name as well. Because I really believe in AGF and consider all my opponents here as highly principled users. --Irpen 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, I wonder why all the Russians would oppose such a move? For the record, I for one STRONGLY support the move, and I'm pretty sure everyone else listed does too. And I really don't see anything wrong with strong terms in article titles: this was an event that demands to be described in strong terms! History is often a terrible thing, and to water it down in the name of "neutrality" is an insult to the memory of the victims. K. Lásztocska 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop invoking emotional arguments. No one is insulting anyone by keeping the justified usage of strong terms referenced, that can only be done within the article's text. I did not attempt to suppress any of the referenced information from the article. I consistently opposed the strong terminology in all titles, not just this one. I never attempted to drag the massacre onto the title of the Khotin article despite there is no doubt that massacre there took place as well. --Irpen 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also believe in WP:AGF but at the same time I cannot stop wondering why haven't you followed WP:RM and now you send me to do it, why do you ask me to do a poll while you haven't, why do you ask me to follow all the Wiki policies you ignored? You created a situation, why should others work so hard to fix it? If you ask me to believe in WP:AGF why don't you revert yourself facing our opposition and follow all the procedures you invoked

As for Russian portal, that is a very bizarre argument which leads me (if true) to very saddening conclusions.

The supporters I've mentioned made their option very clear either by saying "it should be named massacre" or by saying "I agree" under the replies of others. Which of those positions was unclear to you? Daizus 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When I moved the article, I simply restored the original name. Such a move does not require the WP:RM. It is the move, not the reversal, that should be voted. Start the poll if you insist. --Irpen 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO WP:RM addresses controversial moves, no matter what was the title of the article when it was created. You may had not realized when you first moved it is a controversy, but certainly you realize now and also you noticed the strong opposition (and the consensus which was built). That's why I think an editor acting truly in good-faith would restore the content according to the apparent majority ("least evil" if you wish) and initiates the procedures he sees fit for the situation (if any, and not simply concedes). Editors should be concerned the article to reflect the relative consensus reached in talk-pages, don't you agree? Daizus 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems both me and K. Lásztocska started a WP:RM at the same time :) Daizus 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Romanian sources

Came across this on an Ukrainian page: "In the winter and spring of 1941, Soviet troops have opened fire on many groups of locals trying to cross the border into Romania. When a 3000 to 5000-strong march of civilians gathered momentum in the small city of Storojinet on March 26, 1941, they overthrew the Soviet administration. It was fired upon by NKVD from an well-organized ambush on April 1, 1941 near Fântâna-Albă, a few kilometres from the Romanian border, killing around a thousand unarmed civilians, men, women, children and eldery alike. Only 300 were killed "on the spot", the others, injured, were chased through woods and fields, caught, tied to horses and draged to already digged spots where if still alive were given the last shots. (for more, see: Fântâna-Albă massacre)." [2] —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This web-site is a mere copy of the Wikipedia article. Not an external source. --Irpen 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that as re-reading. One of the reasons "let's check Google for #'s of occurrences of X" no longer works as it becomes self-referential. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.homelandsecurity.com, putting in April 1, 1941: "April 1, 1941 - Ukraine, Moldova, And Romania
Fintina Alba Massacre
Thousands of people in northern Bukovina were heading towards the Romanian frontier. They were fired on not far from Fintina Alba village. Hundreds of people--especially women, children, and old people--were killed. Most of those who survived were tortured and deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Irpen and I are already here, I would agree that we don't want the reader to think "another one of 'those' articles." The reasons for "massacre" in the title (assuming we eventually get there) should be succinctly spelt out (elderly, women, children, killing initial survivors, etc.) in the introduction.

    Speaking of which, the introductory paragraph reads like it was only an "incident" as it does not even mention anyone was killed. That is wholly inadequate as it engenders exactly the reaction Irpen fears. ("Massacre? What massacre? Another one of those...") —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă is part of the curriculum for PhD studies in History and Law in Moldova, as set at the National Council for Accreditation and Attestation. It is referred there as "Tragedia de la Fîntîna Albă". Isn't "tragedy" much more consonant with "massacre" than with "incident"? And, do Moldovan (official) sources count as Romanian for the purpose of this article, or as non-Romanian? Turgidson 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. It shall be noted that canvass did occur, although I believe that the result would have been the same without it. Still, this discussion shall be deemed void if any straw poll or RFC confirms that canvass did ultimately influence the result. Last, I call on users to please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--Húsönd 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă incident → Fântâna Albă massacre — "massacre" is, in addition to being a much more accurate description of what happened than "incident", is what this event is called in common parlance in Romanian and in every source we have found. K. Lásztocska 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Strong support, per everything I have stated in the discussion. K. Lásztocska 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support, per K. Lásztocska's arguments. And also because "mass killing" is "massacre" no matter how people feel about heavy words. Daizus 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support, per Daizus and Turgidson, "incident" is non-descript to the point that it white-washes this butchery of life. While hundreds were killed initially, the final death toll was far higher as survivors were tied to horses and dragged to their deaths, shot, etc. in the most brutal way possible. One could argue "massacre" is too kind a word. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support, per nomination, previous comments, and everything I have stated in the discussion. It was a (cold-blooded) massacre, so let's call it what it was. Turgidson 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support: backed up by historiography and precedent, along with a weak opposing argument. Biruitorul 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support: per my previous comments. Wikipedia should not whitewash such events and should not apply double standards (all the massacres are described as massacres, not as "incidents"). Mentatus 07:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support: per all of the above. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per all above. Name it with the right name. - Darwinek 09:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong support: As all said above. It was a massacre, not just a small incident. --Roamataa 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, We need to use accurate descriptions in Wikipedia.--MariusM 08:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, per everything said here. Dahn 10:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, name it with the right name.. Arie Inbar 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per arguments presented. A duck is a duck, not a flying object...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per nom, I feel euphemisms like calling this a mere "incident" insults the memory of the victims. Also, the mentioned Romanian sources use the word "massacre", so it seems to be the most common usage. – Alensha ^talk 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Support per nom, etc. "incident" is a dead-obvious sanitising euphamism István 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. "Massacre" seems established in usage, and euphemisms of this kind are harmful. Todor→Bozhinov 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
17. Support per K. Lásztocska. Appleseed (Talk) 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
18. Strong support: Because otherwise would be whitewashing. Icar 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong support: This is simply a matter of writing English or using other languages.
20. Strong support: An incident is when my neighbor backs into my car. Massacre is the referenced term. Prester John 05:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe Webster dictionary defines Incident as

1 : something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance 2 a : an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience : HAPPENING b : an accompanying minor occurrence or condition : CONCOMITANT 3 : an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters <a serious border incident> synonym see OCCURRENCE

The same dictionary defines massacre as: 1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty 2 : a cruel or wanton murder

If you want to express your ideas in English and use the definition of words as indicated in dictionaries, the murder of people is not an incident, is not an accident, is not an occurrence. The only correct word is massacre.

This has nothing to do with the personal views of the author. Even if a massacre could be justified it is still a massacre, even if it is unintentional it is still a massacre. I have difficulties in understanding why anybody would consider that the term "massacre" is a "point of viow loaded term. English dictionaries defining the word (quoted above) do not imply this in any way.

The entire dispute is silly. If the question was phrased correctly it would be: Should En;Wiklpedia pe written in English or in some other language. If the answer is that we use English, we are talking about a massacre.

The note stating that the issue is controversial is false and should be removed. Afil 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Afil 's comment. It's a point that several of us (including myself) were implicitly making (as in, "let's call a spade a spade"), but his eloquent and well-reasoned explanation makes one of the core arguments for the move much more explicit and understandable. Turgidson 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The event was

1: "dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance" (that's the cession of Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union).

2: "an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience", being part of the general trend of fleeing northern bukovina, as presented in the article.

3: "an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters"...since it had gave consequences, ~45 people died However the shooting was not "under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty" (just Soviet border guards protecting frontier from a possibly armed group, shooting only after they warned the group to stop and it refused)Anonimu 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Care to give a reference for this last assertion? The eyewitness testimony of Gheorghe Mihailiuc (who was there, and survived the massacre) does not say anything about any of the villagers being armed, or any warning being given by the NKVD border guards. In fact, he says explicitly that the soldiers were waiting with their "fingers on the trigger", and started shooting out of the blue, from ambush positions. He also calls it a "massacre" and a "slaughter". Is anyone disputing the veracity of Gheorghe Mihailiuc's testimony? (By the way, this witness is still alive, in the Ukraine, from what I understand.) Turgidson 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. See the link to the Jurnalul National article. Since JN is a reliable and a well established source in wikipedia, i'll chose to trust them, not some guy who suffers from the national disease of romanians - clairvoyance Anonimu 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Who's the one being "clairvoyant" here? Gheorghe Mihailiuc, who was actually there, or you, who are making wild guesses and unsupportable assertions probably based primarily on your allegiance to the Soviet Union? I suspect that, like most of us, you were not yet even a glint in your father's eye yet when this MASSACRE took place. Why are we supposed to believe you over Mr. Mihailiuc? K. Lásztocska 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For Mihailiuc to have seen the fingers of the soviets on the triggers he should have had either a sniper or a telescopes. Since in those times both were military items, this implies that the group had military capability.Wild guesses and unsupportable assertions such as?Anonimu 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was the one to add the link to the Jurnalul Naṭional article, see here, titled "Masacrul din Fantana Alba", which translates to "The Fântâna Albă massacre" (surprise, surprise!). So thanks for pointing out that that article comes from JN, which "is a reliable and a well established source in wikipedia" which should be trusted. I'm all for trusting them, and calling the article exactly the way their reporter, Lavinia Betea, did. As for the callous comments about the testimony of a survivor of the massacre, I will not deign them with a response. Let Gheorghe Mihailiuc's eyewitness account stand by itself, for others to judge. Turgidson 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead makes it pretty clear that the events are referred in the romanian media as "massacre", and JN can be used to source that. This doesn't mean that's the right and the NPOV name for them. As long as his claims of "massacre" are attributed i have nothing against them.Anonimu 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous and unsupportable statements like "the shooting was not under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." How atrocious do things have to be in your mind before we can call them what they were? And please, sir, explain why the descriptive word "massacre" is a POV term. I guess we should rename Srebrenica massacre to "Srebrenica incident" as well? After all, we have to be neutral. Maybe Mladić genuinely thought that those Bosniak civilians were going to try and hurt him. I guess Srebrenica is justified too?!?! Oh, and "Holocaust" is a pretty POV word too, let's change that to "concentration camp incident." And the Rape of Nanking--gosh, that's sensational! How about "Nanking incident." I could go on, but you won't care anyway. K. Lásztocska 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is so unsupportable go away. You shouldn't have come here in the first place. Sorry, but at Srebrenica, at Nanking and during the Holocaust people were taken from their houses or from the streets and were killed just because their ethnicity. At Fantana Alba border guards were at their posts on the frontier when a group of people charged at them, ignoring their warnings.Anonimu 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww, now you want me to "go away". And why should I not have come here? Am I too dangerous? :) I wasn't even talking about WHY those other massacres happened, I was reacting to your (and Irpen's) frequent assertion that "massacre" is a "POV term." No, it's a DESCRIPTIVE term, it just isn't afraid to pull its punches. K. Lásztocska 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you acknowledged your bias against one of the parts based mostly on your ethnic background. And because you're here just to make smb a favor. Sorry, but the differences are evident. the killing in srebrenica or nanking were cruel and atrocious, not thje case of the fantana alba incident.Anonimu 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, I am still here because I think this is an important issue, and as for my anti-communism, is having my country devasted by it not a legitimate reason to dislike/distrust it? Also please stop telling me that I have no free will outside of what Biruitorul tells me to do. I am not his puppet. K. Lásztocska 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No you're still here because you want to support your idol. It's not a legitimate reason to deem all events in which soviets took part in such terms. Yeah, but Biruitorul told you to come here, so in this matter you don't. No, you're a groupie.Anonimu 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First, please comment on content, not on other users. Second, these charges are totally false and offensive. I merely pointed out this link. I am no Svengali, your fantasies notwithstanding. Biruitorul 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just because Biru always replies before I get a chance to, does not make him my puppetmaster, Svengali or whatever. If you accuse me of being his groupie one more time, I will report you to an admin for personal attacks. Biru is my wiki-friend, not my idol, not my secret lover, not my manipulator, not whatever lascivious fantasies are going through your mind. K. Lásztocska 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What does calling you whenever he needs help in imposing a nationalist POV in subjects involving soviets make him? So you consider that by calling you a groupie i offend you? Hey, it's nothing wrong in you being a groupie, but you should have refrained from coming here with your idol-imposed prejudgments. And if you don't want people to notice you're a groupie you should be more discrete.Anonimu 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I AM NOT A GROUPIE. When you graduate from elementary school maybe you'll have learned to understand simple statements like that. I dare you to produce one piece of solid evidence that my opinions are unduly influenced by Biruitorul. K. Lásztocska 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you accidentally added a "NOT" in your first phrase. Cause it should read "I AM A GROUPIE". How about Buiruitorul telling you to come here, directly informing you about his POV. It sound like an order to me.Anonimu 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, free citizens in free countries don't give each other orders. Suggestions yes, which was what his message was. And no, I typed my message quite correctly. K. Lásztocska 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "unsupportable" doesn't mean "nesuportabil", though they sound similar. But even if it did, telling people to go away doesn't improve your side's argument. Biruitorul 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Webster must be wrong then. Does telling people to come here improve yours?Anonimu 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I was wrong. I stand corrected. Yes, evidently it does, because I'm winning. Biruitorul 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Legitimately winning, I might add. There has been no foul play involved here. K. Lásztocska 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

None at all. We're clean as a whistle. Biruitorul 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fraud is very clean.Anonimu 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I defy you to prove fraud. Biruitorul 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

NGOs and the right wing opposition called the referendum for the constitution a fraud because ballot boxes were taken through the neighborhoods to allow more people to vote. You did the same thing, so ...19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude....this is Wikipedia, not a national election. K. Lásztocska 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't dude me... i'm not your fan-club-mate.Anonimu 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, don't you want to join The K. Lastochka Fan Club, dude? It's the hottest ticket on Wiki, dude! K. Lásztocska 20:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu: Let me quote the words said by Joseph Welch at the Army-McCarthy Hearings, on June 9, 1954:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Turgidson 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose the usage of strong terms in the titles without need. Strong terms should be kept out of the article's titles whenever possible, unless the widely established name in the English historiography suggests otherwise. Strong terms can and should be used in the article's text if their usage is referenced but this is precisely why (our ability to reference them in the text) they should be kept to the article's body and not to the titles. In the absence of the widely established English name, a descriptive name should be used which is as neutral as possible. The well-referenced in article usage is much more convincing to the reader than the alarming titles which may likely make one think that this is "one of those" article. --Irpen 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Irpen and WP:NPOV. The term "massacre" is a POV loaded english term and with the absence of an overwhelmingly WP:COMMONNAME English usage, there is no reason to use such a POV oriented term. 205.157.110.11 08:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment about the common name: you're right that there is no common name for it in English, but in Romanian it is always called a massacre. And this is about Romanian history....K. Lásztocska 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - consider usage precedents of Wounded Knee incident and Wounded Knee massacre (two separate events) one can clearly see the Fântâna Albă event is most accurately described as a massacre. István 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - we have to avoid POV terms in the titles. Lets the fact speak for themselves. Obviously no objection to use the word massacre in the body of the article Alex Bakharev 00:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   OK, I defy you to move Orangeburg massacre (3 killed) to "Orangeburg incident", and Boston Massacre, Greensboro massacre and Jonesboro massacre (5 killed in each) to ""Boston incident", "Greensboro incident" and "Jonesboro incident". And, for that matter, The Holocaust as a title is heavily POV in a sense, so do try moving that as well. Biruitorul 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - I still don't understand why it's not acceptable to use the word "massacre" in the title if it's perfectly OK in the main text. I agree that the facts should speak for themselves, but in this case, one of the FACTS is that this was a massacre. History does not come tied up in neat little NPOV packages (although how much nicer it would be if it did!), sometimes terrible things happen and it is hardly an NPOV violation to call a spade a spade--in fact, IMHO, it is more of a violation to call things by misleadingly mild names. K. Lásztocska 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC) PS--uh-oh, Biru, let's not invoke Godwin's Law, it only weakens our position...though I do agree. :) K. Lásztocska

4. Oppose - per WP:POINT and WP:NPOV.--Kuban Cossack 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   Not to sound like a broken record, but will you move Orangeburg massacre (3 killed) to "Orangeburg incident", and Boston Massacre, Greensboro massacre and Jonesboro massacre (5 killed in each) to ""Boston incident", "Greensboro incident" and "Jonesboro incident"? If not, why not? Biruitorul 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose - per being "an avowed Communist who says the victims got what they deserved"[3] (remember this is not a vote) Anonimu 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   It's not a vote, and that's not a very persuasive argument for not moving, either. Biruitorul 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

   ?!?

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Canvassing warning

Unfortunately, the integrity of this vote has been affected by the high scale canvassing campaign run by User:Biruitorul. I don't know how many votes he canvassed off-wiki, but his campaigning on-wiki has been hectic and wide-scale. See: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

Therefore, the mere headcount should be discounted and rather the arguments of the sides should be taken into account. On the side note, I hope User:Biruitorul will stop this spoiling activity. --Irpen 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing not limited to English Wikipedia: [10]Anonimu 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A last, desperate attempt to derail the process. Biruitorul 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just another proof that the reliability of this survey may have been altered. I didn't even mention that the contributions to wiki of one of the supporters consist only in adding interwiki links.Anonimu 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Biru, you forgot to canvass me. ;-) István 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, István! Irpen: I don't think it affects the validity of the vote, particularly as the bulk of these individuals had already expressed their opinions on this matter and may simply not have been aware that a vote was going on, and because they are all respected Wikipedians. However, I agree to cease and desist. Biruitorul 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! Biru, they're on to us! The Transylvanian Cabal has been exposed! István--wanna join? :) K. Lásztocska 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: Let's start from the assumption that people are capable of free will, and not simple automatons, shall we? Turgidson 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. The matter at hand is that if one campaigns to bring voters (of free will without doubt) that one knows to likely share his POV, this spoils the fairness of the vote. In political elections, this is called the campaigning to increase the turnout of one's base. All I am saying that since this happened, the headcount should be discounted and, instead, the arguments should be given more weight. --Irpen 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's your personal interpretation of how the vote is proceeding. An alternative interpretation would be that you don't like the results of the vote, and so you are trying to invalidate it, by picking on Biruitorul. No fair. As for the arguments, what arguments? You only made one argument, whereas the people supporting the move have made a baker's dozen arguments -- and not just that, added new info to the article, added references (which, as pointed out many times, almost always use the same word, "massacre", with "tragedy" used in the Moldovan History & Law PhD curriculum), and kept bringing new info to this talk pages. So let's not misrepresent the dynamics of this process, shall we? Turgidson 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What "personal interpretation"? Diffs are facts. I merely showed that the headcount may be affected by canvassing and provided the diffs for that. I am not picking on anyone. I made my case, others made their's. But than, on top of it we see the "Se votează" campaign run by one side. I am merely making a note of it rather than try to "pick on" anyone. --Irpen 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always been perplexed by these sorts of accusations of canvassing. I've heard them from multiple Wikipedians on multiple occasions, and 99% of the time it's in reaction to a simple "your thoughts and input would be appreciated here." If just notifying one's fellow editors of a discussion they might be interested in and might have something to contribute to is somehow against the rules, then why do we even have noticeboards and user talk pages? There was no coercion to vote one way or the other, no instruction or even suggestion, it was simply notification, which people (yes, having free will) are free to ignore, vote for, or vote against. K. Lásztocska 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note 8 out of the 15 voters arguing "pro massacre" so far have already expressed their opinion on this talk page. You have ignored their opinion then, you're insulting their opinion now. Daizus 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your evidence, with just a bit of WP:AGF and attention, you could have found out one of the messages was not a call of vote but a call of discussion (being posted at the end of March, before this RM even existed!) while some of the messages calling to vote where addressed to users who already expressed their opinion in this talk page. Therefore, your assessment is inaccurate and your conclusions are betraying your true colors. Have you at least checked the user page of your sole supporter in this poll: "This IP address, 205.157.110.11, is registered to Office Depot and is shared by multiple users."? Daizus 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True colors, huh? What are those? And please start a separate section to discuss my colors. I don't mind. To the contrary, I would read your assessment of my true colors with a great degree of interest. --Irpen 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the majority view and promote a POV. You want a name for it? POV-pusher. Happy now? Daizus 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This poll is being affected by a hectic canvassing campaign, see below. If you are here because someone "asked you to vote", please do realize that the mere headcount is not what matters most in the moving polls and be sure to read the discussion and supply your vote with an explanation. Thanks, --Irpen 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If the editors voting have a demonstrated participation and competence in Eastern European articles and discussions, I would think these would be included. If you feel there are editors to make a competent case opposite to the direction the poll is tending, I at least would not object to their participating in the poll and discussion. I would, however, expect a more substantive justification than "massacre" sounds like a POV word. At this point, a strong case would need to be made that the word "massacre" does not factually apply. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Point is not just this is a "POV-word" but a POV-word which did not happen to become an established name for the event in English-language historiography. Now, may I ask you to keep you arguments within the proper sections below specifically allocated for that? --Irpen 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You have brought no source, there's no English-language historiography except your WP:OR. And since you're disrupting this poll with your inapropriate comments and understanding, I think editors are entitled to reply to your harmful comments. Daizus 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't bring a source that proves this name is not established in English language historiography. Citing absence of something is impossible. If you want to prove me wrong, you should cite the English-language sources that use this term. It is that simple. --Irpen 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the straw men. I've said there's no English language historiography. You're attempting to create an English terminology out of nothing, hence you're guilty of WP:OR. We're attempting to translate one. Please bring sources from other languages to support your view. You have no source at all. Daizus 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be helpful for respondents to indicate why in particular they support the move, that is, is there a particular aspect in their minds which conjures the term "massacre." We need to document the consensus/bases of exactly why "strong" wording is appropriate so that if/when the move is done, we do not have someone come in 3 months from now and start reverting. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an OR attempting to show that the term "qualifies". What editors need to show is the usage of the term in English historiography as an established name for the event. --Irpen 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation is not WP:OR. Invention it is. Now please read the sources and see where each sides stands. Daizus 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it was Irpen himself who insisted that a poll was necessary before any page-moving resumed. [11] But now that the poll is turning out against him, he tries to discredit it. Very cynical, sir, very cynical. At least I won't be suffering from any irony deficiency any time soon. K. Lásztocska 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true - a bit like the Algerian legislative election, 1991. Also, let me reiterate that I never told anyone how to vote, but was merely providing information. There may have been a subtle hint at how people should vote (à la Citizen Change), but there was no pressure (not that I have the power to apply pressure, anyway). Remember, voting is compulsory in Australia and Belgium: if the government reminds people to vote there, it's not encouraging them to vote for a particular party, but just to vote, right? Biruitorul 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Personal attacks stop here. Discuss article content, not other editors. Please. Khoikhoi 02:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal to inform users both interested in a given matter and neutral about a vote to ensure wider voter sample. Otherwise votes are dominated by small group of highly involved editors and are less likely to produce a true consensus. As long as the person asking for the vote doesn't ask request a specific vote for yes or no, it is only commendable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All I got was an e-mail asking me to look at this page and vote. Nobody asked me to vote one way or another, and I read everything here and voted. To object to the idea that one could ask people to look at the issue is pathetic -- the "Russian History WikiProject" increasingly covers most everything most of us are concerned with; maybe those not agreeing with Irpen should start a WikiProject called "Victims of Russian History"? I think it pretty funny that Irpen, who objected to candy-coating or whatever he called it re a pic and a lie but asked me to double what went to the Baltic board, always tries to dilute so-called strong wording when Soviets/Russians are the perpetrators -- but that's another matter, I suppose! --Pēteris Cedriņš 13:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully some here got the warning and knowing they used up the PA quota (as per Khoi's message above, will stop leaving offensive entries). This are getting more interesting as far as canvassing is concerned. In addition to 6 or 7 people being canvassed via talk pages, the entry above indicates that the canvassing continued over the email and an unknown number of users came here because of such campaigning. This certainly warrants a complete discard of the falsified numbers as I can surely bring plenty of opposers if I start emailing as well. I stopped contributing to this discussion disgusted by trollish attacks above, hoping that closing admin will pay attention anyway.

But let's now return to the crux of the matter. Do I understand correctly that the promoters of massacring the article name yet have to produce any evidence that this term is established in English-language terminology? Please answer the question and stay on topic. Thanks, --Irpen 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Political decision

II think is would be worth developing in this article some of the political aspects connected with the decision to shoot the mass of people attempting to cross the border. From what I understand by reading the references (such as Lavinia Betea's and Ion Popescu's articles), this decision was not made of the spur of the moment by some low-level border guards, but it was based on recommendations from the political leadership of the Cernăuţi region, which included generals Gheorghii Jukov and I. Galanin, as well as the well-known communist activist, Vasile Luca. The speech given by the latter on March 26, 1941, in the neaby village of Storojineţ seems to have played a non-negligible role in shaping the decision of the villagers to attempt the border crossing a few days later. Furthermore, it is asserted that Gheorghii Jukov is the one who transmitted from on high order to fire, either at Fântâna-Albă, or another of the massacres that occured in nearby around the same time:

La aproape o lună de la „cele mai democratice alegeri din lume”, reprezentantii acestei puteri au dat ordin să se tragă în românii din mai multe sate ale fostului judet Cernăuti, care încercau să se strecoare, pe Lunca-Hertei, în România. La numai două luni si jumătate de la ele au fost masacrati, la Fântâna-Albă, romănii de pe Valea Siretului, fără ca „reprezentantul” lor în forul legislativ suprem al URSS, Gheorghii Jukov, să încerce a-i salva. Ba, dimpotrivă, se crede că prin el Stalin a dat ordin să se tragă în cei ce-si părâsiseră velrele si avutul pentni a-si găsi salvare în România , iar Vasile Luca si-a arătat fata reală în timpul demonstratiei de la Storojinet din 26 martie 1941 numindu-si alegătorii „spioni, dusmani si diversionisti”. Apoi, la cinci luni si jumălate de la „triumful democratiei socialiste în Bucovina de Nord” mii de „dusmani ai poporului” au fost mânati la moarte sigură în Kazahstan si Siberia.

I put some of this info already in the article on Luca. Anyone can help establish a timeline and chain of command in terms of how those orders to shoot (and the politics surrounding them) took place, with a view of including the relevant info in this article? Thanks. Turgidson 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

If this event were not mentioned in English-language historiography, would it cease to exist on English Wikipedia? The lack of English-language attention to Eastern Europe requires the use of Eastern European sources. Editors translate them all the time to provide material. Irpen's POV reasoning regarding English-language historiography is:

(a) only Romanian sources use "massacre,"

(b) it has not been widely written about in English as a "massacre,"

therefore (c) "massacre" is a (primarily Romanian) POV term.

This argument is disingenuous if the event hasn't really been written about in English. Unless Irpen has been searching in different places than the rest of us, I do not believe there is is a "critical mass" of English-language historiography. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no concurrent usage in other sources I don't think there's any problem. Unless there will be several terms in different languages then we can debate how to translate it better in the spirit of NPOV. So far we have only one alternative in sources, so it's no conflict. Daizus 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A clarification to the above "reasoning":

(a) Romanian sources call it a "massacre",

(b) It has not been widely written about in English, period;,

(c) Therefore "massacre" is a POV term.

Uh, whatever. Irpen, unless you can provide us with some evidence that this event was not a massacre, your reasoning does not hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. K. Lásztocska 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

An eyewitness account

While we're debating the fine points of how to call the killings at Fântâna Albă some 66 years ago, let me add to the discussion, if I may, the eyewitness testimony of one of the very few survivors: Gheorghe Mihailiuc (born in 1925, now a retired high-school teacher). Here is an excerpt from his book, "Dincolo de cuvintele rostite" (Beyond spoken words), published by Vivacitas, in Hlyboka (2004):

La 1 aprilie 1941, câteva mii de români, chemaţi de dorul libertăţii, au pornit paşii spre Fântâna Albă, la frontieră. Dar pentru mulţi acest drum a fost fără întoarcere. Eram şi eu, împreună cu fratele mai mare, printre ei. Am fost martor ocular şi am văzut cum s-au desfăşurat lucrurile. A fost un adevărat masacru, un genocid. Varniţa mi-a rămas în amintire ca un simbol al barbariei. În memorie s-au întipărit episoade de o rară cruzime, crâmpeie ce mă urmăresc cu înfiorare toată viaţa.

Ucigaşii au aşteptat cu degetul pe trăgaci până când mulţimea a ieşit la luminiş. Era o acalmie prevestitoare de rele. Paşii greoi îi purtau pe oameni spre un sfârşit fatal. Tricolorul din faţa coloanei flutura mândru, demonstrând dragostea de neam şi ţară a românilor bucovineni. Deodată liniştea a fost spartă de groaznicul glas al armelor. Zgomotul morţii s-a răspândit hăt departe peste codri. Cineva din mulţime a strigat: „La pământ!” Şuvoiul neîntrerupt de foc ne ţinea culcaţi, cu respiraţia curmată. În acea stare de încremenire un bărbat din primele rânduri a strigat peste puterile sale: „Înainte, fraţilor, ei nu vor cuteza să ne omoare!”. Dar chiar atunci a început măcelul. {..} Soldaţii trăgeau fără întrerupere, cu precădere în grupurile compacte de oameni.

A fuller excerpt can be found at 1 aprilie – 64 de ani de la masacrul românilor la Fântâna Albă, Varniţa, o tristă amintire, already quoted in the article. As you can see, Gheorghe Mihailiuc, who was there at Fântâna Albă 66 years ago, calls it a "massacre", a "genocide", and a "slaughter". Anyone wants to tell Gheorghe Mihailiuc to his face that, no, it was not a massacre, just a mere incident? Turgidson 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to call anything into doubt, but if one of our good Romanian friends here could translate this into English for the benefit of the wider Wiki community, it would be great--I can only get about one out of every ten words. :) K. Lásztocska 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is a quick try -- nothing fancy, just the basic idea:

On April 1, 1941, a few thousand Romanians, heeding the call of liberty, set foot towards Fântâna Albă, at the border. But for a lot of them, this was a road of no return. I was also there, with my older brother. I was an eyewitness, and I saw what happened. It was a real massacre, a genocide. Varniţa stays in mind as a symbol of barbarism. Seared into memory are episodes of rare viciousness, fragments that have haunted and terrified me all my life.

The killers were waiting with fingers on the trigger as the crowd reached the clearing. {..} Heavy steps were taking people towards a fatal end. {..} All of a sudden, the horrible sound of guns broke out. The din of death covered the woods. Someone in the crowd shouted: "Hit the ground!" The uninterrupted fire was keeping us on the ground, without breathing. A man in front shouted: "Forward, brothers, they will not dare kill us!" But right then the slaughter started. {..} It was real hell, from earth to sky. In front of me, a young man, with flag in hand, fell in a pool of blood. {..} I lost track of my brother. The whole clearing was full of people falling like leaves in the Fall. I still had twenty paces to reach the woods. {..} The soldiers were shooting without respite, especially into compact groups of people. I started to run though the forest. {..} Some women were crying over a mother who was dying, holding her 2-year old son at her bloody chest. {..} At last, with a few others, I arrived in Camenca. Some great-hearted people, Ukrainians, gave us shelter and food. Thanks to them, we survived. Ukrainians, like Romanians, were dreaming of freedom.

If you need more, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. Turgidson 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good, thanks. K. Lásztocska 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is Fântâna Alba

Instead of discussing if is was an incident or massacre, would it not be better to get the basic facts right. If you follow the link at the beginning of the article Bila Krynytsya you will find out that the place is located several hundred of meters SOUTH of the Ukrainian-Romanian border. As Ukraine is in the north, it would imply that the locality is in Romania (which is on the southern part of the border. Is this also a problem of controversy and should we also vote on it? Or simply correct the error? Afil 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an error on the Bila Krynytsya page, introduced in the latest edit, which purported to make a phrase simpler, but introduced instead what I view as an error. I reverted that edit -- please do correct it if you think it's needed. Turgidson 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Review by Piotrus

I thought that since this topics receives so much attention, I'd do a small peer review (incidentally, a formal WP:PR would not hurt). Some notes: 1) article lacks inline citations, particulary any supporting 'massacre' or 'incident' names 2) "a large number of people were killed" - WP:WEASEL - what is a 'large number'? 10? 100? 10000? 3) there is some uncencyclopedic, possibly poved language used: "met with better luck", "A gripping account of the events".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points all. Couple of them have been addressed by K. Lastochka and myself in the meantime. As for lack of inline citations, yes, that's clear; but, if I may say, that's how we inherited the article a few days ago. I've been concentrating on adding a whole bunch of references, analyzing them, adding relevant info in the text, and I've just started adding (only one so far) inlines. I know this is a rather bland excuse, but most of the energy has been devoted arguing on the talk page this point of how to call the article (which seems rather obvious to me, pity that so much energy needs to be spent on it), and defending the honor and memory of those massacred (the fact that one needs to do that here at wiki almost defies comprehension). So I plead for some patience till we all get a chance to kick the article into better shape. Resolving favorably the naming issue should go a long way towards creating a more serene atmosphere, one conducive to creating a better article. In the meantime, thanks for the constructive comments - they help. Turgidson 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Implications and realities

I have a real problem with people arguing against the word "massacre" not on the basis of any kinds of facts regarding what happened, but solely because they think it's an "alarmist"/"POV"/"strong" word.

• Is anyone disputing that these were civilians?
• Is anyone disputing that hundreds were instantly killed?
• Is anyone disputing many hundreds more were killed following the initial shooting: intentionally, and in ways which tortured the victims before death?

Actually there are no data to support killing of "many hundreds following the initial shooting", except maybe the dubious testimonies of "eye-witnesses", whose lack of credibility i proved somewhere above. And the intentional killing of some agitators afterwards doesn't equate "massacre".Anonimu 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's not about what happened, it's about the word?"

• Is anyone arguing that the word implies anything that is not factually substantiated?

Yes, it implies cruelty and atrocity, things that have nothing to do with this incident.Anonimu 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's OK to use it in the article, just not in the title?"

I'm sorry, but this is a pattern of manufactured controversy that seems to rear its ugly head any time something unflattering is said about the former Soviet Union, and God forbid it appears in an article title.

I would have titled this "Intellectual dishonesty" but then I would be attacked for being a Russophobic ethno-Balto-nationalist-supremiscist pushing my POV that the Soviets were nasty instead of noble and how dare I insult the integrity of those who argue for the word "incident" or the memory of those who valiantly liberated Europe from Nazism. Or am I missing something here? Oh, yes, forgot being called "pro-Nazi."

The USSR is dead. There are far more honorable and productive ways to defend and promote Slavic pride than arguing for titles which whitewash Soviet atrocity. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So now i'm trying to defend and promote Slavic pride?Anonimu 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just a Communist; the others (except maybe the IP) are Slavs. The only difference between you defending this massacre and a Nazi defending Kristallnacht is that the latter would be ignored or banned, while your equally vile opinions are tolerated. Biruitorul 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pēters: very well said! While I got you here, could I please ask you take a look at the following article by N.S. Lebedeva, "The Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) and Sovietization of the territories annexed in 1939–1941"? I am trying to come up with some quotation for the number of the number of refugees to Romania during the first year of Soviet administration (the article mentions a Ukrainian scholar putting the number at 7000, but I agree, this needs to be verified). Lebedeva's article has some good background, but I could not extract a precise figure from there. Another potentially useful source for putting things into legal context is here:

135. In 1940, the Romanian Government acceded to the Soviet demand for the secession of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and a Soviet-German agreement for the Umsiedlung of 137,116 ethnic Germans there was concluded, under unpublicized terms. 5 September 1940, negotiations began in June 1940. Figures from Deutsche Umsiedlungs-Treuhand Gesellschaft (German Resettlement Trust) report of 1943; cited in "Exchange of minorities", Part II, op. cit., p. 664. It is assumed that this agreement also included an option clause. The option provisions of the Soviet-Romanian Agreement are unclear, but it seems that Romanians in those territories did not have the option to emigrate to Romania. According to Schechtmann, op. cit., the agreement did not include an option clause; however, "The exchange of minorities", Part II, op. cit., cites 112,000 persons born or with domicile in the ceded territories as returning there from Romania under the agreement. Only ethnic Germans moved out under option provisions by virtue of Germany's involvement as a deus ex machina, without Romania's participation, and the Soviet Union shouldered the cost of compensation for properties left behind.

In other words, the ethnic Germans from Bukovina were permitted to leave (with compensation for property left behind!), whereas the ethnic Romanians were not (in fact, they were mercilessly shot down if they tried). How come? Turgidson 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Germans were legally leaving Bukovina, unlike people ignoring soviet border guards' warnings.Anonimu 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Crime is crime, and murder is murder, whether committed in the name of a State or by private individuals. States are the biggest criminals of all - they murder, steal, rape, burn, conspire, etc. with unique impunity. Just because they hold a monopoly on crime, though, does not make them moral actors. People have a right to go home, and when a State murders them while doing so - "orders" to the contrary notwithstanding, it deserves the strongest condemnation. Biruitorul 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that their home was north of the border.Anonimu 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that the State murdered them and made use of its monopoly on crime to justify it. Biruitorul 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

From an anarchist POV, every death in the "civilized" world can be attributed to the state.Anonimu 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but a lot of them can. As Albert Jay Nock observed in 1939, "Many now believe that with the rise of the 'totalitarian' State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will." Biruitorul 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Except dying of old age or dying due to unpredictable genetic diseases, i can't think any other manner of dying that can't be potentially blamed on the state. BTW, what's ur time zone?Anonimu 23:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither can I. GMT+3, Madagascar. Yours? Biruitorul 00:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You must have been very quick last night... Anonimu 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too glaringly ironic to wish everybody a Happy Easter right about now? K. Lásztocska 00:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kellemes Húsvéti Ünnepeket. (I hope I got it right!) — Turgidson 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right...but can you pronounce it? :) Neat site btw, köszönöm for the link. K. Lásztocska 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not; all I remember from Hungarian is something like "isztenem, isztenem" -- the next door lady kept saying that when she was not happy, but I (as a kid) thought it was very funny! And you're welcome about the link -- it would be good to have something similar on wiki, with pronunciations, wikilinks, the works. But tomorrow is another day. Turgidson 02:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"istenem, istenem" = "my God, my God!" Poor lady, she must have been having a rough time. You have an interesting idea there, is there some sort of wiki-language thing amidst all the sister projects? K. Lásztocska 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, she would just drop pots and pans, and say that! I'll look into the wiki-language thing. Turgidson 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of beaten to the punch here. Istenem, istenem! — Turgidson 18:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Marching column?

Ive reinstated these edits [12] for the following reasons:

1. Heading - even some of the few who support "incident" in the title of the article (I am not one of them) do not object to using "massacre" in the body. This is the "massacre" due to which this article exists - the alternative is vague and does not effectively direct a casual reader.

Readers should judge by themselves, we shouldn't impose a pov (unlike biuruitorul on some user talk pages)Anonimu 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are the one imposing an inaccurate POV.K. Lásztocska 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, i don't impose any POV... incident doesn't imply nothing... unlike "massacre"Anonimu 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Implying "nothing" implies that this was an insignificant event, which is incorrect and POV. K. Lásztocska 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Impliying nothing is what a NPOV should do. If you can't accept that, i don't understand why you're still contributing to wiki..Anonimu 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre" vs "incident" in the title is being discussed. Use of "massacre" in the body has been accepted. That the event is a massacre is not POV but the dictionary definition of the event. Criteria here for "massacre" exceeds that for Peterloo massacre, Wounded Knee massacre (which contrasts with the separate Wounded Knee incident), Jonesboro massacre, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Istvan (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

No, it hasn't acquired consensus. No, the dictionary definition implies cruelty and atrocity, as mentioned above. But this is not the case here. So, you're just imposing a false pov on the reader without advanced knowledge of english. Anonimu 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This really takes the cake. Anonimu, why not establish a new category: "cruelty-free mass killings" or "nonatrocious executions of unarmed civilians" and just see how that flies with the wiki community.István 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The first would be a good category for every major battle in history. The second would apply to most death penalties in the world. (but not here, since this was not an execution)Anonimu 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't always bother to take Anonimu's ramblings to their logical conclusion, but I thank you for doing just that and exposing their utter vacuity. Biruitorul 06:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Another breath of fresh air from Istvan--ahh, sweet reason in the prison of idiocy! :-) K. Lásztocska 13:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a personal attack?Anonimu 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, just a descriptive statement. K. Lásztocska 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has been all along a clear consensus (near-unanimity, in fact -- everyone else agrees on this) that this was a massacre, and it's perfectly acceptable (and many of us have been arguing, imperative) to call it as such in the body of the article. The only debate is about the title of the article. So please stop wasting everyone's time by bringing over and over, ad nauseam, the same tired old point. As for the English language, let me just point out that the word English is capitalized by anyone who uses English with any kind of precision. — Turgidson 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Where? ?!? I don't.Anonimu 21:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it's time to learn English better, maybe then you'll understand the difference between an incident and a massacre. István raises a good point: if it is acceptable to call it a massacre in the body of the article, why not the title? That's just inconsistency. K. Lásztocska 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I know enough english. Just that i don't like capitalization. You should have seen me writing in romanian... i've never said it's acceptable to use massacre in the body. I didn't quite understand Irpen's position: use this wrong word to mention that's how the event is called in the romanian media, or use it to refer to the event?Anonimu 23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the wrong word. It's the most accurate word. I can keep this up all week, if you actually enjoy repeating the same things over and over. K. Lásztocska 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you could. This attitude explains how could Biru influence you so easily...Anonimu 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorul has no "influence" whatsoever over me. If he did, I'd be an Eastern Orthodox monarchist who abhorred silly ideas like Székely autonomy. :) K. Lásztocska 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Marching Column? Why the martial imagery? 2000 civilians "walk" as a group minus evidence to the contrary. Its incredulous (and misleading and inaccurate) to invoke quasi-military status to these civilians of every station in life.

See MW, none of the words has an implicit military pov. I would have preferred "charging", but... Anonimu 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask any man, woman or child you meet on the street what comes to mind when you say the words "marching column" or "charging" and they will say soldiers, battlefield, war. Maybe your English just needs work, I dunno, but to say that "marching column" has no military connotations is ridiculous.K. Lásztocska 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's OR. Websters shows no connotation.Anonimu 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not OR, that's common and proper use of the English language--which is my native language, incidentally. I think I know a bit more about the ins and outs of English than you do--no offence meant of course. K. Lásztocska 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Does "when saint go marching" refer to military? Anonimu 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a New Orleans Jazz standard and in this context a complete non-sequiter. István 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Edit summary - the reverter used the v-word quite disingenuously in this instance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Istvan (talk • contribs) 14:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

You made a change that's still discussed on the talk page... since you ain't a newbie, ignoring the discussion equates vandalismAnonimu 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, when consensus has been reached a long time ago except for one POV-pushing holdout, it's a bit different than if he had just, say, randomly moved the article from its original title to an incorrect and misleading one.K. Lásztocska 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

there was a consensus to use the NPOVish "incident" for the events until the day when Biru called its supporters here to push his POV. Anonimu 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus among what, three people? I'm astonished that you still assume this is all some sort of Biruitorul-Cabal conspiracy. István was not "recruited". The Poles were not "recruited." And contrary to your assumption, I was not "recruited" either, Biru just called my attention to an interesting issue which I could just as well have ignored. A month ago, I was quite busy in real life, and I would have ignored it then. (But then again, I suppose in the Communist mind, anyone with a differing opinion must be part of some terrible counterrevolutionary/Trotskyist/bourgeois nationalist conspiracy, isn't that right?) K. Lásztocska 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you and most people who agree with Biru invited here by biru or by people invited by biru? yes. I think the conclusion is obvious. BTW, the last part of your messages is a personal attack according to wiki policies, and moreover shows your ignorance.Anonimu 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Anon, My count (excluding you, me and IP votes) is 18 to 3 for using "massacre" which is not even close. Weighing rational arguments, the ayes have it even more clearly. Yep I aint a newbie, and have learned to only use the v-word when people are making mischief and not for arguing a point with which I don't agree. I would invite you to do the same.István 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's only a survey, not a vote, thus it's non binding. Ignoring an ongoing discussion is vandalism. And let's not be so euphemistic.Anonimu 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, you have no right whatsoever to lecture me about personal attacks, since you have been attacking me, Biru and now István for as long as this debate is ongoing. If you don't want to be euphemistic, I commend that! Let's stop calling this massacre by the euphemistic term of "incident" then. As for the "ongoing discussion", it's more like "everybody vs. you." It could be argued that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. K. Lásztocska 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No i didn't. But you used "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" = personal attack. Massacre implies a pov: cruelty and atrocity in killing. so it's inaccurate. No, it's Biruitoru vs me. Just that i don't need to call others to support my agenda. If trying to respect wiki's npov policy is disrupting, then i'm guilty.Anonimu 21:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And you attempted to dismiss and discredit my views because (a) I'm Hungarian and (b) because I'm friends with Biru. Those are also "affiliations." When are you ever going to get over this paranoia that everyone who disagrees with you is Biruitorul's servant? K. Lásztocska 21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No, i've just reiterated your claim that you hate soviet because you're hungarian and, since they did nasty things to hungary, that's something natural. Sorry, but your so-called friendship with biru may affect your judgment. Except you, nobody's biru's servant. they're people invited here by biruitorul just because their previously expressed anti-soviet bias.Anonimu 23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even want to know what you mean by "so-called friendship"--good lord, just what kinds of sick fantasies are going through your head? And if you call me his servant, groupie or anything else ONE more time, I WILL report you to an admin. K. Lásztocska 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, Anonimu, please comment on content instead of creating various fantasies about users. Your accusations are entirely false - not even worth answering, even. Biruitorul 23:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're the sick ones. I've just quoted Lastochka. And context is important, since most people supporitng your POV were invited here by you.Anonimu 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You weren't quoting me when you called me a groupie, that's for sure. K. Lásztocska 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I quoted you calling biru a "friend".Anonimu 11:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Istvan: Good catch, that "marching column" terminology is indeed inappropriate, and I commend you for your thoughtful edit. The thing flew by me before, but now that you mention it, yes, it does have a military connotation in English, as in "marching in cadence", which is not at all what the sources say. For example, the Jurnalul Naţional article (which someone thinks is the most reliable source for this story), says:

S-au adunat circa 2.500-3.000 de oameni. In fruntea coloanei i-au pus pe purtatorii praporilor si crucilor bisericilor din satele lor. Cu aceste simboluri ale credintei lor religioase pe care regimul sovietic voia s-o inlocuiasca cu cea comunista, romanii voiau sa treaca in tara. Iesiti in fata lor, cativa ofiteri tineri veniti din sediul NKVD au incercat sa-i lamureasca ca granitele nu pot fi trecute dupa voia lor. Au incercat chiar sa-i convinga sa se intoarca la casele lor. Dupa o convorbire telefonica in care a primit ordinele cuvenite de la superiorii lor, seful local al NKVD a iesit in fata lor. "Da, oameni buni, ce, va tine cineva cu forta? Daca doriti sa plecati, plecati, asta e treaba voastra!". Iar naivii tarani romani au izbucnit in urale de multumire pentru invoirea capatata indreptandu-se spre Fântâna Albă, punctul de frontiera cu Romania.

which roughly translates to:

About 2,500-3,000 people gathered. In front of the column they put those carrying (church) banners and crosses from the respective villages. {..} Some NKVD officers tried to convince them to go back home. After a phone conversation with superiors, the local NKVD commander came in front of the villagers and told them: "Yes, good people, is anyone keeping you here by force? If you want to leave, that's your business". And the naive Romanian peasants broke into hurrahs for the permission granted, and they left for Fantana Alba, the border point with Romania.

So I think the word "column" in this context just means they walked only a few abreast, with the people with banners and crosses in front. It's the way such villagers would walk to, say, a wedding, or a baptism, or a funeral -- nothing to do with soldiers marching in cadence in a column! That we even have to debate such a rather obvious point defies credulity... — Turgidson 17:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its hard to imagine any group of 2000 civilians of all ages maintaining any type of "formation" for more than 100 meters.István 18:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard, but possible19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That was weak. Biruitorul 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

One more overlooked aspect; Soviet border guards fired automatic weapons on civilians 3 km (!) from the "frontier" - not at the border, well to the North of it. Clearly, this was not a case of some sleepy Sargeant Schultz-type guard, dozing by the customs-house stove, suddenly startled by wild-eyed cross-wielding maniacs, who panicked and fired off a few rounds in terrorized self-defense. This was a case where Soviet border guards fired automatic weapons at unarmed civilians well away from the border. It was a deliberate mass-killing. To call it anything but a massacre is Newspeak, not English. István 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the source mentions "3 km". Moreover, the trustworthy "Jurnalul National" explicitly mentions that the group reached the border. Of course that's not the case. This breaks the validity of your entire argument. The border guards were not panicked, because they warned the group that they'll shoot if the group doesn't stop.Anonimu 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, István. In fact, I think this whole aspect of a setup needs to be emphasized and explained more in the article -- right now, this is not explained in enough detail, but comes out quite clearly when one puts together what's in the sources. My eyes glazed over the part about the 3km distance from the frontier (sigh...), but now that you point it out, this sounds very relevant. Another thing that I tried to draw attention above is that the order to shoot came from on high, and that the peasants were told to go ahead by the NKVD commander in Hliboca, after he received a phone call from his superiors. Several sources talk about the ambush positions of the border guards. Also several talk about machine gun fire ("foc de mitralieră"), which again is suggestive of fixed, prepared positions (not just some trigger-happy, startled border guards, as you say). The "fingers on the trigger" expression of an eyewitness, even if not taken ad literam, is also supporting evidence of an ambush. At any rate, yes, it was deliberate mass-killing. Turgidson 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the border guards warned the group before they started to shoot voids the declaration of the guy in Hliboka. Of course soviets had fixed guns. This was a border with an ally of Nazi Germany. Unless those several sources are written by Soviet soldiers participating in the event, they have no value. We don't write articles based on mind reading. At most we can mention that Mr. X believed it was an ambush. And anyway, how could they warn the group if they wanted to ambush it?Anonimu 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent point István, not sure how we managed to overlook that. István, köszönöm nagyon szépen a segitségét és a értelemet. Nagyon kedves öntől. :) (és bocsánatat kérek, ha még rosszul beszelék magyarul...)K. Lásztocska 13:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

szívesen! xl8: thanks for the help, that was thoughtful, and sorry that I still speak Hungarian poorly.../you're welcome) - best stick to English here - you'd be surprised how even benign foreign niceties can blow up in the hands of some hülyegyerek - ahem - chandelier; and btw your Hungarian is coming along noticeably well. István 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is going on and on and on. OK, Anonimu, since you ask, let me give yet another quote (from a survivor of the massacre), from one of the sources listed (Monitorul de Neamţ);

Pînă la rîul Siret erau 5 km, iar pînă la graniţă mai erau vreo 4 km. Noi, copiii, eram gata să intrăm în rîndurile lor, dar, fiind flămînzi, ne-am continuat drumul spre casă. Aşa că i-am urmărit cu gîndul şi inima, urîndu-le să ajungă cu bine în ţara mult iubită, România. Dar vai, că nu era să se întîmple aşa! Oamenii au ajuns după-amiază în satul Fîntîna Albă, localitate lipovenească. Unii au agăţat pe beţe prosoape albe ca semn de pace. Deodată s-a dezlănţuit foc puternic de mitraliere care „băteau“ cruciş şi aşa a început masacrul. Atunci mulţi dintre oameni au fost seceraţi de gloanţele duşmane, căzînd însîngeraţi la pămînt, iar mulţi care au încercat să fugă în pădurea care era aproape s-au ales cu cîte un glonte în umăr sau picior. Grănicerii îi vînau călare, unii din ei au fost ucişi cu săbii, iar cei vii au fost duşi pe cale fără de întoarcere. Cei căzuţi au fost aruncaţi în gropi comune, chiar dacă unii erau încă vii şi se zvîrcoleau. Iar alţii au fost aduşi noaptea, cu maşini, şi iar îngropaţi în cimitirul evreiesc din Hliboca.

I don't know if this needs translation -- it's even more vivid than the otehr ones: border guards machine-gunning refugees; other border guards on horses, going though the column of refugees and cutting them to pieces; survivors being dragged kicking and screaming to common graves, etc. If this is not enough for you, just keep asking, and I'll keep providing more quotes, till hopefully you'll see fit to let the dead rest in peace, and us doing something productive, like creating new content for wikipedia, instead of responding to your endless repetitions on the same theme. Turgidson 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note he is not a "survivor" of the events. He says that he was in a place 5 km from Siret and 4 km from the border, but he, being a hungry child, chose not to join the group, who was going to the border. So he didn't witnessed the events, just heard doubtful stories, and the 4 km to the border is the place where he has seen the marching column, not where the shooting happened. These being said, the source has no reliability.Anonimu 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are disgusting me. K. Lásztocska 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Lásztocska -- this is indeed embarassing. Even in the time of communists I never heard such a callous disregard for human life, such glorification of cold-blooded murder, such delight in human misery. I really hope you won't get the wrong impression about Romanians in general -- I really feel bad about these comments we've been hearing, and the depths they've been plumbing. This blast from the Stalinist past looks like a bad dream to me. I hope the powers-that-be will rseolve the situation at some point, and not prolong the agony. But, look at the silver lining: it just goes to show how wise the countries of Eastern Europe were to get rid of Communism in 1989. Turgidson 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're disgusted when you're prooved wrong? Good... that shows your level of objectivity Anonimu 11:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I made up my mind about Romanians long ago, and decided I like them. :) What I can't stand is communists, particularly Stalinists, and this is only reinforcing it. Like you I can't wait until this particular war ends. K. Lásztocska 02:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we've seen this mindset often enough to know it transcends nationalities (though there is a special place for for those who would betray their own people). Excellent quote from today's Guardian here [13] regarding internet trolls: "Never wrestle with a pig,[...]You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." István 03:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One more (from "Masacrul de la Fântâna Alba" on Noi, Nu site):

În acea zi de trista amintire, grupuri mari de oameni din satele Patrautii-de-Sus, Patrautii-de-Jos, Cupca, Corcesti, Suceveni, în frunte cu un drapel tricolor si altul alb, cu prapuri bisericesti, au format o coloana de circa 2.500 – 3.000 de persoane si s-au îndreptat spre frontiera sovieto-româna. În poiana Varnita, la vreo trei kilometri de hotarul cu România, oamenii au fost întâmpinati cu focul tras din mitraliere. Potrivit datelor comunicate de autoritatile sovietice, în timpul tentativei de a forta trecerea granitei, au fost ucise 20 de persoane, inclusiv femei si copii. Conform listelor alcatuite ulterior, numai din sase sate bucovinene (nu dispunem de informatii pentru celelalte localitati) au murit la Fântâna-Alba 44 de oameni (17 din Patrautii-de-Jos, 12 din Trestiana, câte 5 din Cupca si Suceveni, 3 din Patrautii-de-Sus, 2 din Opriseni). Martorii macelului vorbesc despre o cifra de circa 200 de morti. Vezi: Stefan Purici. Represiunile sovietice... – P. 255-258; Vasile Ilica. Fântana Alba: O marturie de sânge (istorie, amintiri, marturii). - Oradea: Editura Imprimeriei de Vest, 1999. – 320 pag.

Here is a rough translation of the relevant sentences: At Varnita clearing, at about 3 km from the border with Romania, the people were met with machine gun fire. The Soviet authorities acknowledged 20 killed, including women and children [no doubt, "enemies of the people", they got what was coming to them, eh?]. But in fact, 44 victims were positively identified later on, and eyewitnesses mention about 200 killed. Two refereces are given: books by Stefan Purici and Vasile Ilica. Turgidson 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

the reliability of JN surpasses that of any of thoseAnonimu 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you were to bother actually reading the JN article, you'll see that they also use historian Vasile Ilica's book as an important source. Let me quote from the Lavinia Betea's JN article, if you have trouble clicking on the link:

"MARTURIE DE SANGE"

Drama bucovinenilor pacaliti de sovietici cu cereri de repatriere a fost consemnata de putine surse locale. Istoricul Vasile Ilica este unul dintre cei care au scris, pe furis, cereri pentru romanii care voiau sa revina in tara. Elev de liceu in acea vreme, seara venea in satul natal iar dimineata devreme se intorcea in internatul de la Storojinet ca sa nu fie banuit de autoritati. In anul 1999 el a publicat, in Romania, cartea "Fantana alba. O marturie de sange". Aceasta contine numeroase marturii cutremuratoare despre suferintele si umilintele romanilor din teritoriile cedate in vara anului 1940 Uniunii Sovietice de catre Guvernul roman.

The title translates into English roughly as "Fântâna Albă. Witness to Blood". Definitely not "Witness to an Incident". And, once again, the JN article is titled "Masacrul din Fantana Alba", which definitely translates into English (you know, with capital E), as "The Fântâna Albă massacre". Enough already? Turgidson 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but since they're a serious journal, they didn't use that biased source exclusively. BTW, how much reliability can a guy who wrote only one book in his life have?Anonimu 11:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Endgame

Now that both sides seem to be running out of steam, what's the procedure for getting an admin to take a decision and either move the page or not? I haven't really been involved in such a situation before, so maybe someone could explain what happens next. Biruitorul 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, I think we re-list it on RM (NCurse deleted the entry after he moved the page, not knowing it would get moved back) and then just ask an admin (or perhaps multiple ones). One thing I thought of, if the admin(s) does decide to move the page, he/she should also protect it to stave off any more move-warring. K. Lásztocska 21:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've requested the move again. Biruitorul 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try asking NCurse again... K. Lásztocska 00:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe this is controversial enough that we should list it on the administrators' noticeboard, or wherever? K. Lásztocska 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, the discussion runs for 5 days. Its been up on the boards since 4 April and is due for decision on 9 April. I would suggest either NCurse or Bogdan do the honours, but will leave it to Biru to make any request. István 03:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I double-listed it. Today is 9 April, no? Agreed, Biru, you get to make the request (even though I'm sure that will only be more "evidence" that I'm your secret slave.)K. Lásztocska 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since NCurse tried to move it before, let's ask him do it for real this time. Thank you, István, but you or I or whoever gets to make the request first can do so - the important thing is that the page gets moved! Biruitorul 06:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your country, your call István 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, NCurse has been notified. Biruitorul 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that an admin has already opposed the move.Anonimu 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to please everybody involved in this case, I've asked an other admin (someone who hasn't been involved in this situation) to move the page so I cannot be blamed for being unneutral. Anyway, I'll watch closely this page. Thank you for being so patient to reach consensus. NCurse _work 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you failed to read the first lines of the survey. It explicitly says it is not a vote.Anonimu 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you all have noticed the move--actually I was expecting it to tell me that only an admin could do it, like last time, but this time it let me. Anyway, I only attempted it because of this. "you don't need to air it here", "talk it over", etc. Feel free to clamor for my head on a platter. K. Lásztocska 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Victory!

Well done, and I thank you and others who have been such a help during this process. It's unfortunate we've had to discuss this since March 30, but at least we got the job done. I dedicate this post to the vistims of the Fântâna Albă massacre, and, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, I invite my merry band of anti-Communists to Soviet occupation of Romania, for there is much work to be finished there as well... Biruitorul 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...*sigh*...I like your optimism, but it's just going to get moved back as soon as Anonimu shows up again. *grumble*....K. Lásztocska 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

These forced moves are plain silly and extremely inappropriate. Wait for the discussion and the poll to complete and be closed properly. --Irpen 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is called shifting the goalposts. First you demand a poll, then when the vote goes against you you complain that I invited people to the discussion, then you ask that their votes be discarded, and so on. Enough. We've been through over five days of debate, the "move" side carried the debate, your side lost, so let's move on. And if you don't want to move on, we won't either - this issue isn't going away. For the record, I've invited two more users to comment. The horror! The horror! Biruitorul 05:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it listed at RM in the first place? And yes, the last time I checked, it's a vote and articles with 50% support for move usually get moved, cases like this with 80% for move are almost always moved.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How many of those were canvassed and whether the canvassing of this scale invalidates the vote is up to an impartial admin to decide. --Irpen 04:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And this was not a vote anyway.Anonimu

Thanks for the historical perspective, Piotrus -- this is the very first time I participate in a move discussion, so it helps to have some sense how the process is supposed to work. But then, why does Irpen call it a "forced move", "plain silly", and "extremely inappropriate"? As for all that "canvassing" talk, this sounds contrived to me, and kind of diversionary. It has been debated ad nauseam, time to move on to something more productive than these endless rehashings. Just a thought... Turgidson 04:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

X

I've just noted that an admin ignored all rational and semantic arguments and decided to move the page based only on a n altered survey (hey, i know another important scientific thing that was decided by vote, so it's not that unusual). I could talk with the admin who opposed the move, but have it your way. Cause we all know

“ Wikipedia does not create reality ” — Biruitorul

.Anonimu 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would pose that both rational and semantic arguments support the move far more than they support leaving this described as an "incident." Hopefully more energy can go into the article now. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And your opinion has nothing to do with the fact that the baltic republics were under soviet rule in 1947-1991, i supposeAnonimu 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think anyone whose country has been treated badly by Communist regimes cannot be trusted, I suggest you go try to round up some supporters in Madagascar. Most Europeans have a negative opinion of Stalinism and Soviet Communism--golly gee, I wonder why! K. Lásztocska 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But an encyclopedia should not be influenced by personal opinions.Anonimu 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Same applies to you, mister. K. Lásztocska 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why i only use rational and legal arguments in my disputes.Anonimu 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If that nonsense is what you want to believe, go ahead. K. Lásztocska 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. As my userbox "This user refutes post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda" has been interpreted as everything from POV to Russophobic to pro-Nazi, per your question, I've gone back to update it to read:

"This user refutes post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda through rigorous application of fact."

My Baltic motivations don't require me to lie, to misrepresent and misconstrue facts, or to make milktoast out of atrocity. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that.Anonimu 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, Anonimu, I'm not an admin. :) K. Lásztocska 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not the one who moved it, so i wasn't talking about youAnonimu 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad. It's been moved so many times I'm losing count.K. Lásztocska 13:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

Two editors are doing everything they can to disrupt this process. There has been wikilawyering, "goalpost-moving", personal attacks, and general nastiness all over this page for well over a week. For an interesting perspective on this type of issue, I refer you here for a discussion on what to do when complete consensus has not been achieved. At one point it mentions a supermajority, which is often defined (in parliaments etc.) as a two-thirds majority. What have we got here, twenty against two? K. Lásztocska 13:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually is 4:1, but if the votes resulting from canvassing would be nullified, we'd have more like 1:1.Anonimu 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I admit it. You have unmasked a vast conspiracy. We are all counter-revolutionary Trotskyist terrorists acting on direct orders from the Transylvania Brigade, the most subversive branch of the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (S.C.R.E.W.). For a long time now we have been engaged in bourgeois-nationalist undermining of the class struggle with our anti-Stalinist agitation, and must thus be called enemies of the people. This conspiracy is widespread and sabotage is everywhere. I'm sure there's a cell in Kolyma waiting for us, isn't there? K. Lásztocska 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

huh? i knew i shouldn't expect a rational answer from you...Anonimu 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was sarcasm, genius. K. Lásztocska 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL! For Anonimu's edification, let me quote from President Ronald Reagan Evil Empire speech [14]:

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: "He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might. He increased strength . . . But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary . . . "

— Turgidson 15:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Location

Funny, as a few are trying to move the goalposts, others are (US) dancing in the end zone / (EU) running round the pitch with the tricot pulled over their head: makes for quite a visual. In any case, please indulge a moment to focus back to the article and the references - Where did the massacre start? One source said 3 km from the border, which is quite significant - yet this was disputed (from under the bridge). Unfortunately my Romanian is nonfunctional, could someone familiar with the area and the language please reference the correct location, perhaps even screenshoot it from Google Earth, showing the border, Fântâna Albă village, the location of the Varniţa glade, and the relative scale - I hope there is enough resolution on that spot. This would be very helpful to a reader. István 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt find Varnita, but here's the link 47°58′33″N 25°53′15″E. And here's a topographical map of the region some 40 years later: [15]. --Anonimu 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the terain there, but I did search the location on Google Earth, and put in the coordinates I got from there at Bila Krynytsya. The village looks to be at just under 1km from the border, as the crow flies (due South). But that appears in the middle of cultivated land. The dark green forest is to the West and North West, and there are several roads cutting through it. Tentatively (and I'd need to go back and read the sources very carefully to be more sure), I'd say the villagers were coming from around Hlyboka, that is, from the NNE -- not straight down, but in a bit of a curve, cutting through the big forest above Fântâna Albă (there are several roads though it, visible on the map). If that's the case (and this interpretation seems to match the eyewitness accounts, which all talk about a forest near Fântâna Albă), the encounter with the NKVD border guards would have indeed occurred a few kilometers up from the border (3 km seems just about right). I'll look more into it, but how does this sound as a starting point for narrowing down the location of the massacre? Turgidson 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy that you claimed to be a survivor says the group reached fantana alba in the evening. Why would they go back 2 km? Why haven't the soviet troops shot them here, and waited for them to move some 2 km back? And in 60 years terrain changes. If you'd look at the soviet topographic maps of the 80s, you'd see the forest abruptly ends at the soviet-romanian border(not a natural frontier in this region).Anonimu 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my inability to comment directly on the source, but the above argument (18:47) mistakenly assumes that the 2,000+ traveled in one compact group. I would imagine a group of 2,000+ would spread out and any organisation disintegrate meter by meter, especially one containing young, fit singles as well as families and elderly, with various amounts of baggage - they would probably be strung out (especially since we are likely not talking about a wide superhighway). In any case it does not indicate that the first shots could not have been fired 3km from the border, as the eyewitness said. I take the eyewitness account as true, absent more compelling evidence to the contrary. István 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention a compact group. However, all sources talk apout people with romanian flags/white flags/icons leading the group. And the ukrainian newspaper "Час" of 22 june 2001 mentions people with clubs who threatened the ones who wanted to leave the group. There's JN, much more reliable. I'm still to see the romanian who doubts the credibility of this newspaper.Anonimu 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian speakers and perhaps even those familiar with the area should resolve the issue. The question is important, and it would make for a very good graphic illustration. István 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another sketch of the area, with various geographical info, plus alternate spellings that may help locate relevant documents. I think Hlyboka is the yellow blob straight above and a bit to the right, and the road I'm conjecturing is the one that starts straight West, and then curves back South and a bit East, passing through the forest on the way to the border, on the West side of Fântâna Albă (the straight route would have been due South, passing Fântâna Albă on the East, but that does not go through the forest). Turgidson 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this is OR.Anonimu 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What a deep insight! Yout powers of deductions are truly stupendous -- not! Of course this narrow bit represents my own conclusions; as I said, it's my best guess and my own conjecture, based on available data, on where the location of Varnita glade is, and what the route from Hliboca to Fântâna Albă the villagers took. I added what I could glean here on the talk page (where educated guesses and related links are admitted, far as I know), for anyone who wants to take a look and see if the location can be tracked down with reliable sources, as Istvan asked for. Certainly, I would not put this in the main article, unless I can find a reliable source to back it up. Any other questions? Turgidson 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, this is a talk page, not the mainpage; this is the place for conjecture, opinion (be happy they aren't a crime) and deduction - anything to arrive at truth. The focus (which we are about to loose again) now is "where were the people first fired upon". Unfortunately only Romanian sources exist (so far) thus this must be answered by Romanian speakers, i.e. does "În poiana Varniţa, la circa 3 km de graniţa română" mean "in the Varnita glade, about 3km from the Romanian border"? Where then is the poiana Varniţa? Biru, can you ask on the Romanian wiki if someone could find this on the map? István 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You wanted something helpful for the reader. That means you wanted something that would eventually get in the article. And i've just noted that this discussion is OR, and ultimately futile.Anonimu 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. I'll make an enquiry. Biruitorul 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the vote did succeed, so let me repeat my thanks to those who participated (and no, their votes were not invalid simply because they were informed about the poll). Moving forward, a lot of improvements remain to be made to the article. I note Anonimu recently made some changes - someone should see if those are legitimate. More importantly, and this is not meant as a personal attack, but I truly believe we'll be much more productive if we simply ignore avowed Communists who say the victims got what they deserved, and raise totally bogus objections, and claim everything they don't like is either OR or POV. Biruitorul 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you know to read romanian... probably i was wrong. So mr Holodeny, you claim that words like "i think" "conjecturing" "i would say" don't imply OR?Anonimu 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "I truly believe we'll be much more productive if we simply ignore avowed Communists who say the victims got what they deserved", and I'll stick to that premise on this page. Biruitorul 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's better like that. Else you could insult another nation and then you'll have to think about some excuses again...Anonimu 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Biruitorul 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't event keep your word... blah...Anonimu 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility reminder

Once again, I'd like to remind all users involved in the present discussions on this page that civility is compulsory on Wikipedia. Please respect each other and avoid resorting to personal attacks, sarcasm and snideness. Incivility is ugly and unproductive. Comment on content, not on users. Thank you. Húsönd 21:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Deportations of Romanian population from Bukovina

This subject is not quite the object of this article, but it very much provides some of the necessary background -- part of the reason those peasants were desperate enough to risk being shot down at the border were precisely the depradations on civilian population that had occured in the period just preceding (as the article explains, but more precise data should be helpful, I think). Furthermore, it provides the postcript: many of those peasants not killed at the border (or, those that simply stayed home) were soon after deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan, to an uncertain fate. Here is a quote from Rest România, pertianing to this subject:

Conform ordinelor NKVD, zeci de mii de familii de români au fost deportate în Siberia în timpul acestei perioade, cu 12.191 de oameni deportaţi la data de 2 august 1940 (la mai puţin de o luna după ocupaţie), şi alte 2.057 de persoane deportate în Siberia în decembrie 1940, împreuna cu familiile lor. Cea mai mare acţiune a avut loc pe data de 13 iunie 1941, când aproximativ 13.000 de oameni au fost expulzate în Siberia şi Kazakhstan. Pana la convenţia repatrierii de la 15 aprilie 1941, trupele NKVD au ucis sute de ţărani români din nordul Bucovinei când încercau să scape de autorităţile sovietice spre România, şi au culminat pe 1 aprilie cu masacrul de la Fântâna Alba. {..} În iulie 1941, noul guvern militar roman a numărat cel puţin 36.000 de persoane dispărute, fără evreii ucişi în Holocaust. După război guvernul sovietic a deportat sau ucis aproximativ 41.000 de români.

Any thoughts on how to present this information? Also, anyone knows of a more scholarly source than this one, providing the same kind of precise data? Thanks. Turgidson 05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

article tagged

A group of users, the same ones who were spreading incivilities at this page, now without explanation remove the referenced fact from the article and taking turns in reverts considering the 3RR somehow as a "quota". I am not to play this game. As per the refusal to discuss and fierce revert warring, the article is tagged. Rag removal will be promptly reported. Hopefully, the tag will force the discussion that people are trying to sidetrack by revert warring. --Irpen 07:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, Irpen, I don't know what you're talking about: I gave you each time detailed explanations why I was reverting your changes (as much as could fit in that field), and I only reverted twice (my third edit was an addition of an external link -- you know, I also add content, not just tags and such). As I said, I think I researched this question pretty well, including adding the reference to the Jurnalul National article that we are arguing about (btw, have you read the article?). And I find that, though I think the JN article is a very good reference, it's not the only one -- one needs to make a synthesis. In situation at hand -- whether villagers were warned by the NKVD border troops before being mowed down in that glade, or whether they were shot down out of the blue -- I tend to go with the preponderence of evidence, including several eyewitness reports, saying that the Soviet troops shot without warning. BTW, if you read what I wrote somewhere abovem there was a warning given by some NKVD commander in Hliboca, before the villagers set on foot to the border, but soon after, the same commander gave them the green light, after talking on the phone with his superior (curious, eh?) Again, this comes from multiple sources -- it may be that the JN article conflated things, and put the warning (that you and Anonimu make such a big deal of -- ultimately, does it matter if one shouts a stop order before mowing down a column of civilians?) When someone started this revert sequence (and I'm not sure who it was, and I don't care to track things down, I'm not here to play such games), maybe you should have given some benefit of the doubt to people who actually have researched this article carefully and know what they're talking about, perhaps? And, instead of reverts, perhaps tried to present both point of view, in a balanced way, instead of slapping POV tags, and making accusations left and right? Oh, and I just love that bit about "promptly reporting". Brings back memories. Turgidson 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You could see this coming, even one or two days ago. We are here to find the truth from several sources - our two special challenges are 1. There are many versions, and 2. The are in Romanian language. Defending a single Cherrypicked line from a single account against all contrary evidence is disingenuous - and tagging the article is in this context, though not unexpected, just a cheap 3RR tweak. Irpen, you have contributed much to wiki and have earned some respect - had this been tagged by your tovarish under the bridge I would remove it straightaway. (perhaps you would like to "promptly report" such a statement? send round the big black car?) But I will state my agreement with anyone who does remove it. We are, once again, loosing focus from progressing towards the true story, and this tagging and reverting is a distraction. Those on Romanian Wiki are kindly requested to bring in some help to overcome the language barrier and resolve the different versions as reported in different sources. Biru, Turgidson, does the Romanian article help us here any? Who here can speak Romanian well enough to read the sources? István 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this tagging is so typical and utterly predictable at this point, and Irpen uses the term "cherry-picked" himself to accuse others of selecting only facts which support their "biased" POV. One could produce a grove full of cherry trees and to Irpen they would still be individually picked POV cherries. Fine. Please, Irpen, produce your own "cherry-picked" sources that indicate just as conclusively that these were combatants who were killed, that the Soviet troops were protecting themselves, or whatever it is you would like to postulate as your account of what happened. Tagging with nothing but your accusation that you don't like the facts presented is little more than vindictive vandalism. Tagging with nothing but your misplaced (though consistent) mission to insure atrocities are titled with milktoast is nothing but obstructively promoting your POV. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My response to Khoi who threatened to block me for "discussing the editor, not content", above[16]: I was discussing content, or more precisely, the lack of content in postulating this article is biased. This is a pattern of behavior in numerous articles discussing the Soviet legacy, that is, uncomplimentary to Soviets = POV. If this means I cannot dispute the actions or contentions of a particular editor, or observe that their actions and contentions fit a particular pattern, please state that here specifically. I will be glad to take this up with a committee of admins if you like. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

After just visualising your cherry orchard, its ironic that Chekhov is todays Mainpage FA.István 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Istvan: It's not an easy story to unravel, believe me. I've read almost every single line that I could find on this, mostly in Romanian, but also a bit in English (I understand both languages very well, no problem with that). I think that, with a bit of patience and good will, one can present a more coherent and better sourced picture of the events -- but don't expect perfection here, the literature is still scarce, and it's hard to reconstruct a completely detailed picture after all these years when the story has been suppressed. Actually, I have a concrete proposal for anyone who'd really want to help here: try to locate the books:

• Vasile Ilica. Fântana Alba: O marturie de sânge (istorie, amintiri, marturii). - Oradea: Editura Imprimeriei de Vest, 1999.
• Vasile Ilica, "Martiri şi mărturii din nordul Bucovinei (Fântâna-Albă-Suceveni-Lunca-Crasna-Ijeşti...)", Oradea, 2003
• Stefan Purici. Represiunile sovietice... – p. 255-258

We mention the 2003 book by Ilica, but I also saw the 1999 book mentioned. From what I understand, Ilica is a scholar (a historian, in fact), and I think at least some of these reports from JN, etc are based on his books. See also here for an annoucement of his 2003 book being presented in Chernivtsi (Cernăuţi) on April 30, 2004 by the Romania consulate there. Unfortunately, I don't have these books with me, though I could try to locate them. But maybe someone else has easier access, perhaps directly from Imprimeria de Vest, in Oradea? Turgidson 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, ignoring Vecrumba's uncivil diatribe, I will respond to the rest. We clearly have a respectable source which mentions the civilians being warned to stop. Now, I think shooting civilians by the army is unacceptable with or without warning but the fact should not be suppressed just for no reason. If other sources contradict on this account, we may well mention so in the article. This would be "adding information" and information is good. Unmotivated deletion of the referenced data is "removing of information" and suppressing information is bad. I hope this silly war over this minor, although notable detail, can stop. Let's just restore the info and move on add more, if necessary, and move on. --Irpen 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The warning by the NKVD to the civilians at Hliboca is uncontroversially accepted. The subsequent NKVD phone call and retraction of that warning (also at Hliboca) are also in the record - just as prominently as the warning. Can you throw some light on those? What is especially interesting is whether the first shots fired on the civilians was North of FA or not, as some references imply. Also BTW, pecking around I found that FA is a religious centre for the "old believers" sect(?) of the Russian Orthodox church - does that play any role at all here? István 13:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Istvan: Just to the last point you ask about: Yes, FA is an important center of an "old belivers" sect of the Russian Orthodox -- they are referred to as "lipoveni" in Romanian, and as Lipovans in English. I was a bit surprised to find that out -- I always thought of them living more to the South, eg, in the Danube Delta, but yes, that is the case. I put a pic of one the churches there in Bila Krynytsya, but this angle could certainly be developed in the two articles I just linked. Now, returning to the events of April 1941: I saw a mention that Lipovans helped carry the dead from the massacre to their graves, in horse drawn carts. Not sure whether this is worth adding, but I think this may give a human touch, and add to the poignancy of the events described. By the way, in one of the testimonials I translated in this talk page, an eyewitness (Gheorghe Mihailiuc) talks about a group of survivors of the massacre being sheltered by Ukrainian villagers. Here is again my (rough) translation: "At last, with a few others, I arrived in Camenca. Some great-hearted people, Ukrainians, gave us shelter and food. Thanks to them, we survived. Ukrainians, like Romanians, were dreaming of freedom." This may also be worth mentioning in an "Aftermath" section, which I think may be useful to have. Turgidson 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And here is a map showing the Lipovan migration (from Russia towards Romania) in the 17th century, with FA marked down as an important destination. Turgidson 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on - why should we ignore Vecrumba? He makes some very solid points. They're laced with bitterness, of course, but one has a right to be bitter when one's tauta came at most a generation from being wiped out by Russification policies. Places like Yamalia and Karelia, now overwhelmingly Slavic, loomed as avatars of their future. Biruitorul 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being emotional about this. "Bitterness" is wasted energy. All I have requested in any of these types of articles is substantiated, attributed sources. In the end, facts speak for themselves.

     The appropriate description would be "frustration" that once again we have degenerated into article tagging and the rat-hole discussion that follows.

     And why "frustrated?" Because I (I assume I can still specifically talk about myself as editor) can no longer regard tagging as a constructive means of focusing discussion over content when there is a pattern (numerous editors and articles) of POV-tagging anything interpreted as portraying Soviet actions in a less than favorable light.

     I do not see threats to "report" anyone who removes their content-dispute tag as a constructive furthering of open discussion and dialog. I apologize if Irpen believes that, in response to his threat [17], that I have unfairly (and "uncivilly" [18]) lumped him into that Soviets were bad guys-denial camp. I sincerely welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You ignore the reason why the article was tagged in the first place: Because one of the editors decided to remove a perfectly sourced fragment (with one of the most reliable romanian newspapers, widely used as a reference in romania-related articles on wiki) because it presented some facts that contradicted his/her POV.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A2nt%C3%A2na_Alb%C4%83_massacre&diff=121770574&oldid=121743365Anonimu 17:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue has spilled into a couple of related pages, Bukovina and Chernivtsi Oblast, where Anonimu keeps reverting other editors, insisting that the villagers attempt to cross into Romania that day was "illegal". This, despite the fact that movements of civilians trapped behind during a conflict was (and is) allowed under various treaties (not to say, elementary humanity), and, moreover, was allowed explicitly by the commander of the NKVD troops in Hliboca, just prior to the villagers proceeding to the border point (nobody is disputing that documented fact, as far as I know). There is, then, an apparent attempt at justifying the deliberate murder of scores of civilians under the mantra "they were doing something illegal, so they got what they deserved". Unless we can put to rest such deplorable arguments, I do not see a good way to proceed with the development of this (or related) articles. Anyone got an idea what to do? Thank you. Turgidson 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: there was no conflict between Romania and USSR in april 1941, and there was no repatriation convention for non-ethinc Germans of Bukovina. Humanity has nothing to do with legality. The commander in Hliboka said (translation of quote from JN): "Who keeps you here by force? if you want to go, go, but it's your business"... sorry but this is more like "you can go, but i guarantee you nothing" than "you are allowed to cross the border". If the reader decides that they deserved it because they were doing smth illegal, it's his choice. We don't need to hide facts.Anonimu 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, How on earth do you understand "Who keeps you here by force? if you want to go, go, but it's your business" as anything other than a release? Obviously it was the NKVD who kept them there by force (by shooting automatic weapons at them). Sources say 3km from the border, which raises some very interesting and important questions. The sources are possibly in conflict and its up to serious editors to sort them out - not trolls, and at this point you have proven yourself a complete troll, to assert their will by disruptive ad-hominem and accusation. István 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "complete troll" an ad-hominem?Anonimu 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It often is, thank you for pointing that out. I apologise if it came across in a meanspirited way, I meant it in an objective way.István 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, but in certain cases it can also be a simple statement of fact. K. Lásztocska 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean something like "groupie"?Anonimu 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Q.E.D. István 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, just wondering, are you quite aware of all the, shall we say, connotations that the word "groupie" has in English? K. Lásztocska 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

translations needed?

I don't have enough time to spend on this article, espetially I do not edit WP regularly, but sporadically, since WP is far from my dayly priorities. However, if all you need are translations from Romanian or Russian sourses (e.g. for outside readers to compare), just copy the passages, or just the links to my talk page. I will then upload translations either to this talk page or to your talk page (which one you'll indicate). Dispite this seeming too much work, in fact trasnlating a page takes less time than writting and soursing 2 sentences in the article. :Dc76 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Dc76. Let me think some more about this, but here's a quick thought: how about those 2-3 books by Ilica and Purici that I mentioned above? Would you have access to any of them, and, if so, could you post a translation of the relevant passage(s)? Appreciate. Turgidson 14:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurnalul national

Jurnalul Naţional, one of the few romanian newspaper that really comply with WP:RS says at [19]:

• "Ajunsi la granita au fost somati de graniceri. "Nu au voie sa traga intr-o adunare mai mare de 20 de oameni", i-a linistit unul dintre purtatorii de prapori cu alt zvon raspandit printre ei dinainte. Nici la ordinul de tragere nu s-au speriat convinsi ca e doar o somatie.Dar granicerii au tras in plin"

that could be roughly translated as:

• "Reaching the border, they were warned to stop by the border guards. <<They aren't allowed to shoot in a group larger than 20 people>>, one of the religious flag bearers reassured them with another rumor. They didn't scare not even when the order to open fire came, certain that was another warning. But the border guards began to shoot."

My question:

• What part of "At the border they were warned by the Soviet troops to stop. After the group ignored the warning, the border guards began to shoot." is "just the tendentious POV interpretation" of the text quoted above?

Of course, the official policy of Antonescu's Romania surely approved something like "In the Varniţa glade, about 3 km from the Romanian frontier, they were met by machine-gun fire.", but this encyclopedia is suppossed to present facts based on reliable sources. Anonimu 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) At no point in history did Romania belong to Antonescu. (2) What do Antonescu's policies from the 1940s have to do with anything regarding WP? Let's not use non sequiturs to make a point. (3) What is tendentious (and the point has been repeatedly been made within this talk page) is the attempt to justify cold-blooded murder by NKVD border guards of unarmed, peaceful civilians—such whitewashing of mass murder has no place at WP, I think. Turgidson 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu: You must stop calling legitimate editors (those who actually add content to wikipedia, instead of merely slapping tags and engaging in revert wars), "vandals". This is a personal attack, see WP:NPA. — Turgidson 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing sourced statements is vandalism, no matter who does it. You could have written all wikipedia by yourself, if you remove sourced statements, you're a vandal.Anonimu 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One more time, Anonimu: do not call editors who add (sourced) content to WP "vandals"; do not replace a precise term such as NKVD by a vaguer term, such as "Soviet"; do not delete 3 sentences from the lead without any reason whatsoever; and finally, do not do all that while leaving a misleading edit summary. Turgidson 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Explaination: while the rest of people are sometimes right, but mostly wrong, Anonimu is always right! :Dc76 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dc76, I've seen Anonimu making such claims before. I don't know what to make of it (I'm not a psychologist), but, frankly, I don't really care. What I do care, though, is the pattern of disruptive edit wars that this user engages in, ad nauseam, and the pattern of vituperative personal attacks he constantly launches against almost any editor who crosses his path. I've noticed this going on for more than 7 months now. Isn't this long enough? Turgidson 19:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When the time comes to do something formal about it, please let me know. From what I have seen regarding Anonimu's behaviour, you can fully count on my support. Digwuren 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Monstrous Coalition is closing the ranks :)))))Anonimu 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Guess why. István 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a normal thing for someone who refuses to accept compromises ;)Anonimu 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Turgidson, a dosen other editors (Biruitorul, Lasztochka, ...) have complained about the same. I am not so familiar how to do about it - that's the place for an admin to step in. Personally, I've had enough proof that he is just distrupting other editors. I would support a formal action, but it has to be initiated and run by someone who knows the procedures better than me. To make things easier to follow, let's look at his contributions to WP: Anonimu (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), and identify below his distruptions:Dc76 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Unblock the page. --Ursul pacalit de vulpe 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I added the picture

File:Fantana alba 4 s.jpg

People commemorating the Fântâna Albă massacre

--Ursul |  Chat  14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)