Talk:Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom

More specific citations

I don't think any of this is particularly wrong, but I do think a lot of this is undercited. For example, when we say "The Romanians complied grudgingly," that is definitely a subjective (if essentially accurate) statement and should be attributed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we need clear and specific citations. Also, I added POV-check tag especially for formulations like this:

"The disagreement between Antonescu and the Iron Guard about the robbery of the Jews was not about the robbery itself, but about the method, and the final destination of the stolen property. " this seems unbalanced at least. If it was a clear quote from a book with a reference it would be other story but like this it looks like this is the opinion of WIkipedia. -- AdrianTM 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, some of it was plain wrong

I re-read, and there were some problems, which I'll try to fix. For example, "inspired by Nazi Germany" was quite wrong: the anti-Semitic movements in Romania long predated Nazi Germany. - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And the more I go into it: it's a bit of a mess. The general picture is correct; things are not in chronological order, which makes it tough; not all of the relevant "players" are mentioned; there's a lot of work to do here. - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I am amazed at how many spelling errors and convoluted sentences I can write. I guess that's what happens when you don't have time to reread your translation...

2. What isn't in chronological order?

3. Who are the missing "players"?

4. The anti-Semitic movements in Romania are, indeed, very old, but the campaign the article mentions was inspired, in part, by the Nazis. okedem 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Happens to us all, especially when translating.

2. I dealt with at least a couple of these already in my edit, but (for example) Codreanu's death is parenthetically mentioned after the rise of the Antonescu/Iron Guard gov't; the post-WWI treaties are mentioned after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

3. Hitler's and Carol I's efforts at playing off the Iron Guard against others goes back several years and are probably more relevant than some of the background we give here. I'd probably mention Octavian Goga's brief premiership (the only previous regime with an explicitly anti-Semitic policy) and Nicolae Iorga's assassination.

4. Certainly the campaign was inspired by Nazi legislation and ideology, but still we should also make clear the native Romanian roots of what occurred.

It's tired, I'm late (I just noticed what I just typed; it speaks for itself, so I'll leave it); I'll try to get back to this another time. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina

The Romanians complied grudgingly, with great resentment among all social classes, especially concerning giving rights to the Jewish population. The new territories, especially Bessarabia and Bukovina, included large numbers of Jewish people, whose presence stood out, because their clothing, customs, and language were different from those common in Romania.

I don't think the "clothing, customs, and language" were the most important issues brought up during the debate. The Hungarians and Ukrainians have different clothing, customs and languages, too. Also, it was not due to their religion either, because there was no resentment against the Muslim population of Dobruja at the time.

From what I know, the main issue was that the Jewish population was that they were seen as "recent immigrants" who did not belonged in there, as most of them came to Bessarabia and Bukovina during the 19th century. bogdan 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons

I noticed that an old New York Times article talked about the attacks as being against "Jews and Masons". This article is mentioning them a few times, but there is no figure on the victims. Were there any freemasons killed or wounded during it? bogdan 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

POV-check

The editors refuse to provide specific references and almost everything reads as written by very biased editors, for example: "The disagreement between Antonescu and the Iron Guard about the robbery of the Jews was not about the robbery itself, but about the method, and the final destination of the stolen property." Is this that Wikipedia has already established and I'm not aware of it? -- AdrianTM 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are specific references, you're just refusing to acknowledge them. They are clearly specified under "Notes and references". They are the book "History of the Holocaust" by Jean Ancel (go read the parts talking about the holocaust in Romania), and Radu Ioanid's "Pogromul de la Bucureşti" (and I don't think it gets any more specific than that). The article is based on these sources, and also backed by "The report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania", listed in the External Links. If there were a dozen sources, I'd understand the request to clarify which source says what, but in this case there's no such problem. There's no requirement for linking refs to the article body via the footnote mechanism (I could just link every single word to these refs, but that wouldn't be very useful, would it?). I'm removing your "citation needed" tags. They are completely unwarranted here, and won't be tolerated. Unless you can come up with policy requiring inline footnote links, don't re-add them.

Your neutrality claim is strange to me, though your usage of a phrase like "Jewish propaganda" fits it. okedem 21:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like that claim that "Antonescu held that the robbery should be done gradually" fully referenced, otherwise it does look like propaganda (in this case Jewish). I also don't appreciate that you send me to read books in Hebrew to verify claims: (Hebrew) Jean Ancel,History of the Holocaust, Yad VaShem, 2002... at least editors should have the common sense and say which part is taken from which source... that's the basic common sense to do in this kind of article. Your claim that in general all is referenced is silly, if you don't start to provide references I will start to remove unreferenced material that looks biassed -- Wikipedia policy is on my side on this matter, you can't claim "all article is referenced" just like that. -- AdrianTM 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this again. There no policy demanding articles use the footnote mechanism for references. Listing references in the bottom of the aricle is perfectly acceptable, especially when there's only a small number. The article fuses the different sources. If you can't be bothered to read books, I really can't help you there. Why don't you read the Commission's report? It's in Romanian.

I don't like your claims of propaganda, and they are not in good faith.

Removing any material from this article, despite the fact its sources are well listed, will be considered vandalism, and I will see to it that you are treated accordingly. okedem 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of bad faith see what's Wikipedia's policy regading factual claims. In this case there's a clear claim that "Antonescu held that the robbery should be done gradually" which is pretty amazing. I don't deny that might be true, but I'd like to see a clear reference where Antonescu said or implied such thing, otherwise it does look like propaganda and that anyone can attest to it (not only I who apparently I've become suspect of bad faith for wanting to have an article fully referenced) Also, which source claims that, is it a balanced source? If you don't clearly reference which source claims what it's very difficult to see follow that especially that many people don't know Romanian or Hebrew. -- AdrianTM 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Try asking in the talk page, and discussing things calmly, instead of using phrases like "Jewish propaganda", which should not be uttered by any honorable person. okedem 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm discussing very calmly. It does sound like propaganda to me, doesn't it sound to you? Why shouldn't I say things as they appear to be? I checked the "The report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania" and I couldn't find such reference to that issue. I don't doubt that Antonescu was a bad person and he wanted to kill Jews at some point, but I could not find any reference that his problems with the Legionnaires was that he wanted to steal in a more organized manner. -- AdrianTM 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I say this again. The article doesn't use dozens of sources. The references are listed, for anyone to see. You want everything to be annotated with footnotes, and I repeat myself - there's no such requirement in Wikipedia. Listing the sources is enough.okedem 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked for specific quotes, I don't see them and couldn't find in sources that I could read. Why do you refuse to provide soruce for some specific claims? -- AdrianTM 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't know Hebrew or Romanian can easily read the Commission's report, as there's an English version. I believe the assertions about Antonescu are from there, but I'll have to check that. okedem 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said I couldn't find such thing. -- 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the entire article is a factual claim, and if you want to use footnotes, we'll have to place them after every few words, and they'll all direct the (very much annoyed, now) reader to the very same sources. There's no point to that. okedem 22:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saing is that you can't declare "whole article is referenced in footnotes" I've seen nowhere such thing. Why do you refuse to reference clear claims, especially if you know the language of those soruces, I couldn't find the reference in the ones I could read -- AdrianTM 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is simple. All the assertions in the article are backed by the references. That's all that's needed. Starting to link every sentence to a ref will only end up making the article look ridicules. I never claim it's referenced in footnotes. I specifically said that I didn't use footnotes because it's unnecessary. I'll try to find some quotes for you, but that's completely out of goodwill, as the article completely conforms to Wikipedia policy.

I don't know why the article looks like propaganda to you. Because it says bad things about Antonescu? Or the Legionnaires? Well, they were very bad people. Deal with it. Don't yell propaganda at things you don't like, or that don't fit your world view. okedem 04:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• "I'll try to find some quotes for you, but that's completely out of goodwill"

Thanks. -- AdrianTM 04:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• "I don't know why the article looks like propaganda to you. Because it says bad things about Antonescu?".

No, because it claims silly things, for example: "The disagreement between Antonescu and the Iron Guard about the robbery of the Jews was not about the robbery itself, but about the method, and the final destination of the stolen property. Antonescu held that the robbery should be done gradually, through an orderly process of passing anti-Semitic laws." I'm pretty convinced that the problem between Antonescu and Iron Guard was a power strugle, not a disagreement about how to rob the Jews as it reads to me now. That sounds only as a POV raised at rank of "historical truth" (without the needed quote from Antonescu by the way...) -- AdrianTM 04:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Come now. Of course it was a struggle of powers. Read the text more carefully. It says that their disagreement about the Jews was how to rob them. Not that their (only) disagreement was about how to rob the Jews, and that's it. Do you see it now? It says nothing here about other disagreements, only explains their (small) difference of opinions regarding one issue - how to rob the Jews. okedem 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, I haven't found in any source that "Antonescu held that the robbery should be done gradually". He might have had some opinions about how to deposes Jews legally, however, there's a difference between "holding that the robbery should be done gradually" and proposing/supporting laws unfavorable to Jews. That sounds like POV or at least unbalanced to my ears (I do understand that that's the view of people targeted by such laws, but that doesn't mean he said or even thought that) and it should be clearly referenced anyway... -- AdrianTM 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article says that, it's because a source says that. The article contains no original research, and no drawing conclusions. There's no requirement for every little detail to have the page number. As you find that sentence so objectionable, I'll try and find the specific ref for it.

Did you really read all the files of the commission? It's very long... Oh, what do you know - A simple search for the word "gradually" in one of the files, as I'm writing this reply, got me the ref:

"As the Legion grew rich by taking possession of most Jewish property, Marshal Antonescu and his supporters began to perceive the Legion as a threat. The Marshal agreed that Jews should lose their property, yet he did not agree with the means and pace of expropriation. Neither did he agree with the fact that an organization and individuals, rather than the Romanian state and Romanian people, benefited from these actions. This conflict demonstrates that the confrontation between the Legion and Antonescu was not a confrontation between a gross, violent antisemitism and a compassionate, humane attitude, or between a savage form of nationalism and a form of “opportunistic” antisemitism. Rather, the Legionnaires wanted everything, and they wanted it immediately; Antonescu, while sharing the same goal, intended to achieve it gradually, using different methods. The Marshal stated this clearly in an address to Legion-appointed ministers: “Do you really think that we can replace all Yids immediately? Government challenges are addressed one by one, like in a game of chess.”21 By early January 1941, Antonescu was convinced that the Legion’s actions no longer served the interests of Romanian nationalism and that the Legion had become an instrument of extortion for its own members."

(from the "Full Report in English", "Ch.5 - The Holocaust in Romania", p. 5).

Satisfied? okedem 11:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Very satisfied. Why not use more NPOVish variant of the commission: "The Marshal agreed that Jews should lose their property, yet he did not agree with the means and pace of expropriation." instead of "Antonescu held that the robbery should be done gradually"? And of course, quote that accordingly? -- AdrianTM 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not more NPOV, it's just longer. "Losing their property" is just a longer way of saying "robbery". There's no point in a quote, unless it's by Antonescu himself, and not just the source's researchers. I say again - the article is well referenced, and there's no reason to start footnoting everything - it'll look horrible.okedem 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think is different if I say that for example I consider that you should lose your propriety as opposite to saying I consider that you should be robbed. It's a matter of POV vs NPOV usage of words. Besides that's what is used in the source, it's preferable to use that even if you don't quote directly. -- AdrianTM 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I do think inline references are needed. For example this case is a clear example why that is needed, the source uses other exprimation then the actual writing. -- AdrianTM 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Antonescu didn't mean the Jews should lose their property through bad luck in business. They all meant robbery. No point in using weasel words here. See: "As the Legion grew rich by taking possession of most Jewish property, Marshal Antonescu and his supporters began to perceive the Legion as a threat. The Marshal agreed that Jews should lose their property, yet he did not agree with the means and pace of expropriation.". "expropriation" is robbery, nothing less. okedem 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to defend Antonescu and his intentions and his proposed means of expropriations, however I don't understand why a NPOV form of the report has to be dropped and POVish terms be preferred instead? -- AdrianTM 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Inline refs - I say again, this whole article is one huge factual claim. To start using inline refs would be absurd, as we'd need hundreds of them, and they all lead to the same few sources. Look through other articles, and you'll see they don't list page numbers. Citing styles for academic research also don't list page numbers (see [1], or [2], for instance). There's no reason for this article to be different. okedem 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual claims should be references, this is the best example, the source use different language then the article text, you can't send people to read all the books listed in reference list to check a quote or claim. That's my opinon, I will look more in WP to see if I can find anything regarding this issue. -- AdrianTM 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About your "Neutrality" and "Unbalanced" claims. Explain why you think it's unbalanced, specifically, you need to show that the article is giving undue weight to a fringe opinion, or that it's ignoring an important minority opinion. Also, you need to back that up with sources. Otherwise, how, exactly, do you think anyone can handle this tag? Make your case here, don't litter the article with tags. okedem 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like other opinions, that's the meaning of POV-check tag from what I understand. And that's why those tags should stay up for a while to give a chance to gather other opinions. -- AdrianTM 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'll notice, both these tags refer the reader to the talk page ("Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.", "Please see the discussion on the talk page."), but there's nothing here about that. If you don't list specific, backed up claims, no one can address them, and we won't be able to remove the tags. What's your grounds for placing them? Do you think the article is untrue? Do you think the sources are lying? Are there other respectable source who disagree? Make a case. okedem 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"but there's nothing here about that" -- do you think this discussion is nothing? Let's see what other people have to say about misquoting sources to promote POV like: "Antonescu held that the robbery should be done gradually", and what other people beside you and me think about in-line quoting in cases of factual claims, OK? Should they be clear referenced or just say "read the books listed in reference list"? Why not wait to see other opinions on these matters? (you consider them non-issues, that's perfecty fine, I don't, let's wait and see other opinions). -- AdrianTM 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no misquoting, because there was no quoting. "expropriation" is robbery, and that's what the article says. How is this POV? Are you claiming he didn't want to take the Jews' property? But the source agrees with me, and I'm not obligated to use the exact same words. Are you saying the article is lying? Are there factual errors here? Or is the language not to your liking? If so, make suggestions. Nothing is perfect, and I'm sure the article could benefit from some better wording, where needed.

I've read wiki policy, and am well versed in it. There's absolutely no requirement for inline refs, nor is there any point in that when the article only lists 3 sources. If there were 50 sources, I'd see your point, but considering there are only three (and they overlap, meaning some claims are listed in two or three), there's no point in that. You keep using the phrase "factual claims", but the whole article is a factual claim, from the first word to the last, and right after the last word - you have the refs.

This discussion has nothing to do with NPOV or balancing. You've made no real claims, no real suggestions. You only wanted me to give you some specific ref, after you said you failed to find a source for that (though I sent you to read the Commission's report on the subject, and it's right there). okedem 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaming the system

Yeap, the article and the discussion is a prime example. "I've read wiki policy, and am well versed in it." - I'm sure you did. --Laur2ro | Talk 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any actual claims or suggestions, or are you here just to amuse us with humoristic pages? okedem 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tag

AdrianTM, you have not raised any specific concerns regarding this, you haven't even tried to start a discussion here (making the tag seem kinda... wrong, since it says: "Please see the discussion on the talk page."). The only discussion we had was about using inline refs, nothing else. You have not explained the "unbalanced" claim at all.

As I said, I'd be glad to discuss the issue, but you don't give me anything specific, don't give any sources, nothing. How long do you want this tag to stay? It's been here for more than a week. Set a time - another week? Two weeks? If you don't back up your claims, we won't get anywhere. okedem 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained my position in the discussion above. You don't agree with my point, I don't agree with yours. Why can't you wait for a third, fourth opinion? (it's not about amount of time, it's about more opinions)

The point is that in your source it doesn't say anything Antonescu agreeing to robbery, for me the sentences: "Marshal agreed that Jews should lose their property" and "The disagreement between Antonescu and the Iron Guard about the robbery of the Jews" are not equivalent. It's not clear which Jews, what propriety and in which condition Antonescu wanted to take their propriety away from them. Is it about Jews that didn't have legal status in Romania? Did he want to use the law? (then it's not "robbery" it's called "expropriation", robbery in the context of law it's a highly POVish expression). It also looks to me like a process of intention or thought crime, what does any source know about what Antonescu intended? Why don't you come with an example of legislation promoted by Antonescu instead of accusing him of "intending" robbery. This issue is not clear to me, but your source doesn't support that sentence even if your POV puts an equal sign between "robbery" and "expropriation". Another issue, is your source unbiased? Moreover, as it's presented in text it seems like that was the only problem that Antonescu had with the Legionnaires which again seems a little bit ridiculous. So as you see I have multiple issues with that paragraph, again I don't want to promote any variant over yours, I want more opinions about the issue. -- AdrianTM 05:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Losing their property" obviously means that it would be taken from them. expropriation, when applied only to a specific group of people, is obviously robbery. Even if a law lets you do something, that doesn't make it right. Stalin did a lot of things according to law - doesn't mean he was a murderer. He just wrote the law to fit his views and goals.okedem 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a POV, doesn't it? -- AdrianTM 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is, that if Stalin bothered to write the appropriate laws, we can't say he's responsible for the murder of millions? Even if you write a law allowing you to do something, it's still a crime. Taking away property from a specific group is robbery. okedem 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should document facts, not qualify facts. -- AdrianTM 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is talking about thought. It's a documented disagreement they had, not what each side thought secretly. okedem 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It does talk about Antonescu opinions: "Antonescu held", if it doesn't quote him clearly (and in the context) or provide the law he supported it is just that: a guess about his opinions. -- AdrianTM 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, it seems your understanding of English is lacking. "Held" means (among others) that this was his stated position. If the source says so, that's good enough for me. Here's a nice to quote for that: "Antonescu, while sharing the same goal, intended to achieve it gradually, using different methods. The Marshal stated this clearly in an address to Legion-appointed ministers: “Do you really think that we can replace all Yids immediately? Government challenges are addressed one by one, like in a game of chess.”" ([3], p. 5). okedem 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand very well. Again, the source might not be quite unbiased, why not quote him directly? Other people and sources doesn't have to live up to the standard of NPOV of Wikipedia, if it's the same source that makes racist type of judgements "Romanian people scapegoated Jews" then it's pretty clear to me that's a biased source -- AdrianTM 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"it's presented in text it seems like that was the only problem that Antonescu had with the Legionnaires" - I'm sorry, but I've explained this above. You did not read correctly. Happens. If you think the current phrasing leave room for misunderstandings, suggest another.okedem 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would if I had a clear quote of what Antonescu said, not a guess about what opinions he held. -- AdrianTM 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely failed to respond to what I wrote. okedem 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's how I interpret that you interpret that in other way... who is to say who is right, let's wait for other opinions... that's the purpose of the tag. And as I said I would suggest another wording if I had clear quote from Antonescu, till then I consider all that just POV pushing -- AdrianTM 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ask him yourself, will you? Not everything requires direct quotes, nor is it appropriate. It is actually OR, which is forbidden here. We report on what the source says.

Again, of course, you don't bother answering. You claimed "it's presented in text it seems like that was the only problem that Antonescu had with the Legionnaires" - this is only because it misunderstand the sentence, regardless of you agreeing with the statement or not. okedem 14:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have other issues besides this one? okedem 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I will read the text again, for now I am just tackling the blatant POVish expressions. And I still want inline quotes not a general "it's in references". -- AdrianTM 12:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get an inline refs for every little detail, or the article will looks horrible. okedem 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a interesting defence of not using inline references. How about providing the references where they were requested? -- AdrianTM 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inline refs are not required, and would look ridicules here. I have provided refs where requested. okedem 14:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Romanian people were traumatized and frustrated by giving up these areas without a war, and many scapegoated the Jews.", "it uses racist generalizations" - I don't think you know what racism means. Is there a Romanian race? I don't think so.

It's perfectly alright to generalize when talking about a people, a nation. I'm sure Romanian-Jews felt this way too about the whole Bessarabia issue. Of course, if I say "Many Romanians...", you'll argue that's it's a "weasel word". You cannot avoid using generalizations, they are necessary for language.

"Many" is not a weasel word, and if you don't agree to it, I will simply remove it, returning the sentence to its original state, before you removed it.

The Jews were scapegoated - "Confronted with an extremely serious crisis and doubting their regime could survive, Romanian government officials turned the Jews into a political “lighting rod,” channeling popular discontent toward the minority. Notable in this report is the reaction of the Romanian press, whose rage was directed more toward Jews than the Soviets, the real aggressors. Given that the Romanian press was censored in 1940, the government must have played a role in this bias. A typical form of anticipatory scapegoating was to let Jewish leaders know that the Romanian authorities might launch acts of repression against the Jews." (ch. 3), "to channel support toward a primitive and rigid social disposition fed by ethnocentric and racist ideas. The facile activation of such attitudes, through antisemitic slogans derived from the strategy of “scapegoating,” incited irrationality and divided people." (ch. 4). okedem 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you see that saying that "Romanian scapegoated Jews" or "Romanian felt..." is a generalization that's similar to saying "Jews attacked Romanians"? As for (some) Jews attacking Romanians there are enough documents including writings of Jewish historians. Now if you take the fact that some Jews attacked Romanians and Romanian soldiers and say that you can't generalize saying that "Jews attacked Romanians" I would agree with you but at the same time you can't say "Romanians scapegoated Jews": Did you conduct a poll? How many scapegoated Jews? 90%, 60%, 40%? what about the rest? And what about the real case of Jews attacking Romanians, maybe the people who "scapegoated Jews" were thinking about those cases, how do you know they held a false view of events? The source says that there were other people who attacked Romanians soldiers: Ukrainians, Russians and Communists including some Romanians too, however using your own reasoning this is about majority, I don't think the majority of people who attacked Romanian soldiers were Romanian and your source no matter how biased it is doesn't claim that either. Basically, if we can't generalize about Jews then we can't generalize about Romanians either (or the other way round). You could claim that legionnaires accused Jews of attacking Romanian army (if you have a reference of their program and propaganda) but notice that's better from two points of view: 1. it reduces the generalization from Romanian people to an organization that has a clear program (so supposedly people inside the organization agreed with that program) and 2. it doesn't qualify that as "scapegoating" which is a POV not matter how you turn it. -- AdrianTM 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets separate this to two points: first, "The Romanian people were traumatized and frustrated by giving up these areas without a war" - I don't see your problem with this, it's accurate and true. Any people would feel so about having to give up whole regions of the country because an neighboring empire demanded it. It's not saying anything bad about the Romanian people, but giving some background information to the reader.

Second - the scapegoating - this is supported by the source. I'll add a quote.

"I don't think the majority of people who attacked Romanian soldiers were Romanian and your source no matter how biased it is doesn't claim that either." - What are you talking about? When did I say that? How do any of my claims get you to that? Because I said we can generalize if it's a majority, you think we can generalize when someone says "some"? Did I write "All attackers were ethnic Romanians"? okedem 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Scapegoating is a POV, how you present it looks like Romanians were upset and couldn't find anybody else to blaim they blaimed Jews (who didn't have much to do with that) while there are documents that show that some Jews behaved bad and that mainly the Jews were the ones that behaved bad in Bessarabia for example. So you actually transform the fact: some Romanians accussed the Jews for behaving bad (because some Jews did behave bad) to something like "Romanians were upset therefore they accused Jews of something that they had little to do with". -- AdrianTM 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am using the source, you are using some OR claims. Anyway, it's still scapegoating - what do the Jews of Bessarabia have to do with the Jews of Bucharest? Even if I were to accept your claims, they change nothing. okedem 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, now in the same logic what do Romanians from other cities (more than 90% of the population -- you talked about majority, right?) have to do with what Legionnaires did in Bucharest? -- AdrianTM 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have used the name of another city. The scapegoating is not the pogrom, but everything around it, all the action taken against the Jews, which are detailed in the sources. Replace "Bucharest" in that my comment with the name of any other city, say Iasi, or Galatz. okedem 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's a quote about robbery (ch.5, p.3): "Jews were deported from dozens of villages where they had lived for more than a hundred years. Specially-established “commissions for the administration of Jewish property” took part in the expropriation proceedings before county courts. In smaller villages, the robbers—whether they were Legionnaires or ordinary citizens—were unconcerned about the illegality of their actions." okedem 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And another one, from p.4: "By mid-December 1940, the Legionnaires were confident enough to start robbing Jews in Bucharest of their property. Homes and other immovable property were prized. After severe beatings Jewish owners reluctantly signed sales contracts and requests for the termination of rent contracts. The deportees never returned to their homes, as Antonescu himself agreed that deportation was desirable. Out of 110,000 Jews residing in the countryside, about 10,000 of them became refugees." okedem 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all these, these are precise and clear quotes, but as you notice it's not Antonescu who is called robber here. See the article for robbery: "Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation." that doesn't fit Antonescu wanting to pass laws that would expropriate Jews. Robbery and expropriation are distinct concept, for example I can't say: "the thief expropriated my wallet". -- AdrianTM 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Still robbery. I've changed the phrasing a bit. okedem 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation." -- Antonescu wanted a law, right? How is a law "violence or intimidation"? -- AdrianTM 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing Anti-Romanian behavior

"The Romanian people were traumatized and frustrated by giving up these areas without a war, and the regime's position weakened significantly. The government chose to scapegoat the Jews, with the press's support" [...]
"During the Romanian Army's withdrawal from Bessarabia, some of the local residents, including ethnic Romanians, demonstrated their joy. Attacks on the soldiers by locals are also documented. The reports defined all of these as "Jews", although among them were Ukrainians, Russians, pro-Communists, and newly-released criminals."

This paragraph is nothing else than POV pushing. If that's supported by that Commission's findings that's probably because the Commission was constituted for researching the crimes against Jews, not the crimes against Romanians. Notice that the Jews Anti-Romanian behavior during occupation of Bessarabia is expedited with this simple sentence: "Attacks on the soldiers by locals are also documented", while the implication of others including some Romanians in criminal acts is disproportionated treated (BTW, nobody contests that there were other people than Jews who participated at the anti-Romanian fest that was held during the Soviet invasion). However historical documents show that many Jews have committed Anti-Romanian acts during the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia by actively participating in making the Romanian retreat harder and in humiliating, torturing, and killing of Romanian soldiers and civilians. This, of course, doesn't justify in any way the way Romanians treated Jews afterwards, however, I do think it's plain whitewashing to expedite this as "planned governmental scapegoating of Jews" at least as it is done in this article, there are documents that don't come from Romanian government of that time and there are historians, including Jew historians, who admit that some/many Jews behaved in a shameful way towards Romanians. Antonescu and some other Romanians judged Jews en masse, which of course was wrong, and Legionnaires resented Jews en masse because of Jews Anti-Romanian behaviour during the Soviet occupation (among other crazy motivations the had against Jews), but misusing the facts for evil ends doesn't make the historical facts nonexistent (that many Jews manifested Anti-Romanian behavior). While there was scapegoating, mentioning only or mainly the scapegoating is whitewashing of historical facts. -- AdrianTM 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, the whole "attacks" issue is covered extensively in the report, so read it.

Now, even if some Jews attacked the Romanian soldiers, how does that justify anti-semitic laws? Robbery? Pogroms? It has nothing to do with it, these are even the same Jews! The existence or non-existence of attacks changes nothing. okedem 08:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't, but that's not the issue I discuss here. Here I discuss whitewashing of the historic facts and expediting them as "scapegoating and propaganda". While I don't have any interest in detailing the crimes committed by some Jews against Romanians in Bessarabia in this article, I don't like that those acts are whitewashed as anti-semitic propaganda (and as result of Romanian people trauma and frustration, which by the way is a silly psychoanalyse attempt at the level of nation, which makes use of unencyclopedic generalizations) -- AdrianTM 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I use what the source gives me. Regardless of any attack which might or might not have occurred, attacking Jews living in Romania is scapegoating and anti semitic propaganda. okedem 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but this paragraph "During the Romanian Army's withdrawal from Bessarabia, some of the local residents, including ethnic Romanians, demonstrated their joy. Attacks on the soldiers by locals are also documented. The reports defined all of these as "Jews", although among them were Ukrainians, Russians, pro-Communists, and newly-released criminals." is about Bessarabia not about Bucharest and it's whitewashing. It's just like saying that USA was not attacked mainly by Muslim Arabs.... it was attacked by different people "including American and British citizens" that's putting spin by using collateral facts to cloud the main one. -- AdrianTM 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, using a source is not a good argument to introduce POV and generalizations in Wikipedia, sources don't abide by Wikipedia rules of NPOV. And in this case it should be said "the Commission reported or found:...." not present that as "the truth". -- AdrianTM 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about Bucharest, and that's why it's in the "background" section. It's not whitewashing, and had you read the source, you'd understand that. Are you claiming that most of the attack were by Jews? Read the source: "there is no evidence that Jews took part in actions against Romanian authorities or the Romanian administration.", "One of the dominant myths in Romanian historiography about the period of June 28-July 3, 1940, was that the Jews in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina behaved disloyally toward the retreating Romanian troops and civilian administration. This belief, though false, was used to justify subsequent anti-Jewish Romanian actions." okedem 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"there is no evidence that Jews took part in actions against Romanian authorities or the Romanian administration." -- that seems biased especially that there is such evidence and as I mentioned even some Jew historians say that. And why do you think that we need to present the Commission findings as "the truth", I think we should present the info using "the Commission says" kind of expression, not claim that that's the truth. I don't think that commissions have the monopoly on the truth. -- AdrianTM 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is getting tiring. Go read the report, and then come back to argue, okay? It addresses these issues precisely, they've examined the evidence. Besides, the current phrasing doesn't even say that there were no attacks by Jews. It only makes it clear that many "demonstrated their joy", among them Ukranians, etc. What you are claiming, it seems so to me, is that the vast majority of attackers were Jews, a doubtful claim, not backed by sources (who are these "Jew historians"?).okedem 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, from this book published in US: "Green Shirts and Others: a History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania" by Nagy-Talavera, Nicolas M. "In the chaos generated by a hasty and unorganized Romanian retreat many things happened that were not supposed to happen [...] Jew and Ukrainian population, in the enthusiasm generated by the departure of Romanian authorities, who made out of this province the worst administered part of the country, have treated the retreating Romanians in a way that will cost them direly one year later". So there you go, an American Jew historian wrote that in 1970. (sorry for my poor translation, I don't have the English edition of the book, but if you want a precise quote I could get it). And please stop asking me to read stuff, you have no idea what I have read or haven't, that becomes quickly annoying. -- AdrianTM 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you give me answer which make it clear you haven't even taken a look at the source, I will ask you to read it. The commission has addressed these claims, and quite frankly, historical research from 2004 is much more reliable than from 1970, given the release of documents takes time.

Again I say, the existence or non-existence of attacks changes nothing, it's still scapegoating and propaganda against Jews who didn't have anything to do with whatever may or may not have happened in Bessarabia. okedem 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Truth" - This is the way sources are used. We don't write about everything "____ says". We just write the thing, and write the reference at the end. You wanna change policy, go ahead, but until then - we don't use that phrasing. okedem 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the reason why there's a need for inline references, to show where is that coming from (and that's not the opinion of the editors), in case of disputed paragraphs it should be clearly said who said what, not threat that as truth? Do you want me to provide the exact quote from Wikipedia Policy? Here you go: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." from WP:NPOV with my emphasis. Note that in this article "other viewpoints" are not even presented it's only one big POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 16:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a debate, since I'm not claiming that there were no attacks. In fact, the sentence as it now reads, would make the reader think that there were attacks by Jews. I've brought an exact quote, and gave an inline ref. If you have other viewpoints from respectable sources, we can add them.

And I ask you to stop with the "POV pushing" claim. What POV do you claim I'm pushing, anyway? What do you think is the truth? That the Jews had it coming? okedem 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you try to pin antisemitic opinions on me, where did I say or imply that? I just said that's whitewashing of the events in Bessarabia. And I gave a similar example from today's world: "US was attacked by different people including American and British citizens" that's what a commission led by a Muslim Arab will probably find after 50 years, no mention of Muslims or Arabs. -- AdrianTM 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's good. By your last sentence you manage to refute your first. You think the commission lied because it was led by a Jew? Nice. okedem 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be led by the Romanian president, that's irrelevant, I just presented an equivalent example, if it makes you more satisfied remove the last part of the example, the example still holds. -- AdrianTM 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I find your claim of "unilateral sources" offensive and unjustified. This is an international commission of historians, led by a Nobel prize laureate, established by the president of Romania, and whose conclusions were recognized and acknowledged by the Romanian Government. You're going to have to explain how this source is unilateral, or POV, as you've claimed here. okedem 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But it is one source even if it's a commission and the article doesn't mention other opinions and sources as Wikipedia requests for NPOV treatement of such cases. I'm also not sure whether the Nobel prize is a sufficient or actually any guarantee for objectivity and truth. The source whitewashes what happened using ridiculous arguments "no names were recorded" or "there were "others" who behaved bad too" that's would be even funny if it wouldn't be tragic, you mean that people who were on the run and were humiliated and tortured by Jews 1. are guilty that they didn't take their time to record the names of the people who tortured them 2. that they mistook Ukrainians, Russians or even Romanians for Jews. 3. or on purpose accused Jews instead of admitting that Ukrainians, Russians, etc tortured and killed them. That doesn't pass even the basic common sense test, why would anyone invent such things about Jews if they were humiliated/tortured/killed by somebody somebody else (it's not like Romanians loved Ukrainians or Russians at that time to close their eyes to their actions)? There are letters sent by soldiers to relatives in Romanian that were stopped by military censorship (no one can claim propaganda there: soldier sent a letter home that was intercepted, the letter was found in military archives after the end of war) and those letters detailed the behavior of the Jew community, why would those soldiers lie to their own families? Would it be more shameful to say that you were beaten or shot at by Ukrainians, Russian, etc than by Jews? -- AdrianTM 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not one source, there are 3 listed sources. Ancel's book is very detailed.

I see you're very adamant about claiming Jews attacked soldiers. Why would people lie? Heard of a thing called Antisemitism? It was very common in Romania of that time. The details of that are given here, see p.13 and beyond.

Although I have no interest in discussing things of "common sense" with you, as these have nothing to do with historical research, or verifiable sources, I will counter with one point: "if the Jews were disloyal to Romania, they would not have withdrawn with Romanian troops, as many did, especially those who were prosperous. Fear of Soviet occupation was pervasive among ethnic Romanians and Jews alike."

You keep asking for other viewpoints, but give no verifiable sources. Also, you cling to one insignificant point, where I don't even claim the full extent of what the source gives me - that there are no recorded attack by Jews. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you can suggest a better phrasing, go ahead. I'll be happy to discuss it on the talk page. okedem 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Why would people lie? Heard of a thing called Antisemitism? It was very common in Romania of that time. " -- if you consider any witness unreliable because of antisemitism presumption then of course there is no "recorded attack by Jews" only lies... and any source that quote something like that would be antisemitic. To me it seems strange to be beaten almost to death by Ukrainians and then send a letter to your parents and complain about how Jews beat you, but hey... it's not impossible. That's the argument of the commision from what I gathered, it's not impossible that Romanians blaimed Jews while they were attacked by other people, it's not impossible that they were mistaken about attackers identity. I agree, it's not impossible, but I choose to take the declarations at their face value if there's no reason to believe otherwise. -- AdrianTM 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care what such letters claim. I'm not a historian, and dealing with such evidence is OR. This is why we use sources - like Ancel's book, or the commission's report. We report their findings, even if we don't think they're very reasonable. okedem 08:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

" I will counter with one point: "if the Jews were disloyal to Romania, they would not have withdrawn with Romanian troops, as many did, especially those who were prosperous. Fear of Soviet occupation was pervasive among ethnic Romanians and Jews alike."

Do you read Romanian? I can provide documents regarding this issue if you consider that this such a key issue (I don't). -- AdrianTM 23:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually reading that source I've found that:

There are rich archival resources on the situation of the civilian population in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from June 28 to August 30, 1940. Numerous military records (such as operation logs, reports, notes, and diaries) and civilian documents (administrative reports, police reports, personal diaries) indicate that some Jews from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina participated in anti-Romanian/pro-Soviet actions during this period. Scholars who emphasize the relevance of these documents point to such actions as the flying of Soviet flags, rallies of support for the Soviet Union, desecration of Romanian government signs, public monuments and Romanian Orthodox churches, participation in Soviet actions to disarm Romanian soldiers and officers, confiscation of Romanian government property, mistreatment of Romanian army personnel, and even murder. It is also argued that these actions were more numerous in towns with large Jewish populations (such as Cernauţi, Cetatea Albă, Storojineţ, Hotin, Soroca, Chişinău, Bălţi, Ungheni, and Ismail) or in villages situated on the retreating routes of Romanian army units. Some historians argue that the high number of such incriminating documents reflects a historical reality: the Jews in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were anti-Romanian.38

However, a critical examination of the documents depicts something quite different than the catastrophic picture presented to the public since the cession of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. First, it is important to note that many of the so-called incriminating documents contained generic evaluations and accusations about such collective entities as the “Jews from Bukovina,” “Jews from Chişinău,” “the Jewish population from Bălţi,” and “Jews and communists from Româneşti.” Moreover, field reports do not indicate any specific situations and give no names. Second, given the dramatic circumstances in which these documents were written, there were myriad instances of rumor spreading and exaggeration, as many in the withdrawing army and civilian population saw “communists,” “Jews,” and “Jewish communists” everywhere. Many times, these distortions were used to disguise the poor organization of the withdrawal. For example, after Gen. Constantin Atanasescu abandoned his troops and fled to Galaţi (a city in the Old Regat), his actions were blamed on ethnic minorities, including Jews; the cases of Gen. Ioan Ralcu and Gen. Marin Popescu were similar.

There are several more points on mystificated narratives and some other arguments, but so far let's focus only on primary sources and their assessment. Let's make few comments:

• there are primary sources affirming anti-Romanian actions from Jews, no doubt
• the rebuttal is "many" not "all"; therefore are cases when Jews were nominated, the evaluations were not generic, etc.
• the rebuttal doesn't assume or claim no Jews were involved, perhaps it's not very clearly illustrated in the report, but this would mean the myth they refer to is the myth that Jews (as a monolithic entity, all the Jews, The Jews) had an anti-Romanian behavior, not that only some Jews.
• the rebuttal is vague in several of its terms ("numerous", "many", "myriad") lacking footnotes or at least exemplyfing details. Of course, it's their choice to write their material how they wish, but if an invoked historian (secondary source) gives some concrete examples and they reply with "No, he's wrong, in many situations it wasn't so" but fail to mention what supports their "many", in a proper NPOV balance of the two, their POV will be unpersuading. So perhaps better sources to illustrate this point would be in order. Daizus 08:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. okedem 08:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me join in welcoming you, there's need for more people to discuss these thing not only my and Okedem POVs... -- AdrianTM 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said this before, and will say it again. This is not a very important point. The current wording doesn't claim there were no attack by Jews. The point is that Romanians (the government, the press, some of the people) chose to blame the Jews as a group, even when most of Romania's Jews had nothing to do with whatever might have taken place in Bessarabia. This is called "scapegoating", considering that the real culprit here is obviously the soviets, who took the territories by threat of force. These steps were part of the more major antisemitic scheme, which is well detailed in the source.okedem 08:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"This is not a very important point. " -- it is here since it's whitewashing some historical facts. Also if the issue is not important why mention it at all? (and in an incorrect manner to that) -- AdrianTM 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also said, that my wording isn't perfect. I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm sure we can find better phrasing.okedem 08:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither. That's understandable, however it's not English error that's problematic here or the maner of expression. -- AdrianTM 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I deeply resent AdrianTM's attempts to discredit the commission, because it was headed by a Jew. Such claims have no place here. okedem 08:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In the light of documents and explanation posted here by Daizus the commission is plain lying when it says "there is no evidence that Jews took part in actions against Romanian authorities or the Romanian administration." You can resent my opinion all you want, as I mentioned the fact that's headed by a Jew is not important (although it might cast some questions about bias), the part that it presents incorrect info is important. -- AdrianTM 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the "there is no evidence" bit refers to the time before the withdrawal, to disprove the claims the Jews were disloyal then (which was the justification for treating them differently from other Romanians). It's not about the withdrawal itself. okedem 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about withdrawal. Somehow I thought that quote was served to me as pertaining to withdrawal. -- AdrianTM 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Documents? AdrianTM, you have not presented even one document here.

Again you show you have no interest in constructive edits. You keep sticking to a point that doesn't exist, where the article doesn't even claim there were no attacks, and it seems your only claim is that the wording isn't clear. I've asked you to suggest better phrasings many times now, and you have shown no interest in doing so. I've asked you to present respectable sources, and you haven't done so. I'm sick of this. okedem 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, from the current wording, any reasonable person would conclude that many of the attacks were by Jews, but some were from other people, and the reports just labeled them all as "Jews". This would seem to be your position, so what do want? okedem 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I said document and explanations posted by Daizus, his explanations are better than mine. I also asked if you can read Romanian to provide Romanian documents, you didn't respond to that, now you accuse me of not providing documents. If you want I can translate, but I do poor job at that and those are official documents who are better posted in original. What do I want? I already explained why this is whitewashing, I just want to eliminate the whitewashing language, present other opinions about the events (although this is not specifically about Bessarabia, so I would either be pleased with removing whitewashing info about those events or including balancing opinions and documents about what happened there). -- AdrianTM 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He provided no new evidence or documents. He only linked to the commission report, or don't you recognize it?

If you provide sources in Romanian, I could handle them.

I say this again, for the 1,000th time, apparently - anyone reading the current phrasing will think that there were many attack by Jews. This seems to be your position, so what's your problem with it? The whole thing is mentioned in 1 sentence, and isn't the main thing in this article, so there's no point in elaborating. If you think we could phrase it better - suggest something, and stop talking in slogans like "removing whitewashing".

What other opinions about the events would you like to present? okedem 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading that paragraph would understand that there were many attackers: Ukrainians, Russians, communists and criminals, even Romanians but because of antisemitic inclinations of Romanians they chose to blame Jews. It's a matter of balance, in that paragraph Jews are not even mentioned (only implied) that couples with this explanation: "The Romanian people were traumatized and frustrated by giving up these areas without a war, and the regime's position weakened significantly. The government chose to scapegoat the Jews, with the press's support" make it sound like everything was invented and planned propaganda instead of saying clearly "many Romanians were resentful on Jews' Anti-Romanian behavior during the withdrawal from Bessarabia" while you can qualify that saying that not all Jews did wrong and not only Jews misbehaved, it wasn't only fabrication and propaganda as the paragraph makes it sound. Again, it's a matter of balance. -- AdrianTM 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As for documents from that period read (sorry, in Romanian) "Săptămâna Roşie" by Paul Goma, starting from page 177 there's a collection of documents, the amount of evidence is overwhelming, and it comes from multiple sources: soldiers' letters addressed to relatives censored by the army, secret communication (that was meant to remain secret, so there's no reason to believe it was meant to be used as propaganda), local and foreign newspapers, declarations of many witnesses, etc. By the way, some Jews are named in those documents contrary to the lies (as it seems to me) promoted by Commission that "no names were recorded". BTW, I said read from page 177 because otherwise it contains author's opinions that are contested and disputed as antisemitic and I don't want to get into that... but the collection of documents is very good and was not contested by anyone to my knowledge and has clear references to archives. But feel free to read all the material, you'll see that there are other opinions about Elie Wiesel, and his approach to historical evidence is revealed in the French television interview "mistake" about the nationality of the people who arrested him (he said he was arrested by Romanians when actually that part of the country was under Hungarian occupation so that was not even possible) and his later on explanation to Eugen Ionesco that that's not important -- French people don't know history anyway. -- AdrianTM 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph. Happy now? I really don't want to deal with this anymore. This isn't the focus of the article. The previous wording gave the reader the impression that there were attacks by Jews, and so does this one. The fact remains, that regardless of attacks, placing the blame on Jews is anti semitic propaganda. Even if some Jews attacked soldier in Bessarabia, that doesn't give anyone the right to riot against them in Galati or Bucharest, to rob them of their property, and to exile them from their homes. okedem 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think is marginally better, I still don't like generalization and collective psychoanalyse and process of intentions (on government) but I will let it slide I guess... -- AdrianTM 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You bring me Goma as a source? Come on, the man isn't a historian, he's just an author. He writes rumors and unsubstantiated claims. His accusations have been refuted quite enough. He's no more as source than my next door neighbor. okedem 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you didn't understand my post. I don't bring Goma as a source, I bring forth the documents gathered in his book. Those are documents not his writings. -- AdrianTM 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, there no point in further discussing this issue. It's irrelevant now. okedem 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Other example of biased expressions

"Legionnaire women also took part in the pogrom; they especially liked stripping Jewish men and hitting their genitalia."

It's possible that women took part in pogrom, and it's also possible that some of them "especiallty liked" to hit genitalia of Jewish men, but this kind of sentence generalize too much, I mean, how many instances were of stripped Jews by women and how many women hit their genitalia? From this sentence I have no clue, was it one case? 10? 1,000? 10,000? Was this the main entertainment for legionnaires women or an isolated case? This sentence seems to support the former, I have no clue, but I think someone needs to provide the documentation for this and a more precise quote. -- AdrianTM 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse episode

Again this is presented as truth with many details, it would be nice to have a quote and the source mentioned. There's a sworn document of a witness that says that the bodies hung in the slaughterhouse were actually the bodies of Legionnaires killed during rebellion (it doesn't say anything about being alive and anything about kosher ritual). I also understand that the slaughterhouse had Jewish owners and workers and there were some claims that they hanged bodies in order to blame legionnaires, I obviously don't know what the truth is (Legionnaires were probably capable of things like that) but I'd prefer to see a clear quote and reference when there are such detailed claims. When I asked for clear reference I was directed to read all the references listed down the page, I don't think that's acceptable. -- AdrianTM 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to bother giving you a detailed reference. You demand a direct quote, and when I give it to you, you attack the validity of the source, so why bother? You're not here to construct an article, you're here to tear down what you don't like.

But since I'm acting in good faith, I would direct you to the commission's report, chapter 5, p.7. okedem 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding info and references. How should we treat two pieces of info: the 1941 declaration of 37 veterinary and workers of the slaugherhouse who declared that nothing like that happened there. And the sworn declaration of witness Darasteanu I. Constantin that those hung bodies were the ones of the legionnaires shot by Antonescu. Should we mention that, should we present that but mention that's doubtful and why is doubtful? Also, Antonescu had the interest to paint Legionnaires as bad as possible (now of course the question is if he really needed to fabricate evidence or he just used what evidence legionnaires gave him), BTW, it looks like reports from the administration about Jews in Bessarabia are not to be trusted because they come from a lying administration, but the same type of evidence coming from the same administration is suddenly believable when it's against the legionnaires. About Virgil Gheorghiu quote, was he a witness or he only expressed his disgust with what he heard it happened there? (I find this a little bit doubtful, I mean what would a writer do at the slaughterhose during those times? If he visited the slaughterhouse, what was the context: did the Antonescu administration make a show out of it? It's not very clear to me) -- AdrianTM 13:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to engage in original research, I would recommend a career as a historian. We, however, are not here to compare and discuss primary sources. We are not qualified to do that. We only need to report what historians say - they know what weight to give these statements. Since we have some nice respectable sources, we're going to report what they say about it.

Antonescu didn't need to fabricate anything to make the Legionnaires look bad. They did it all by themselves.

And why are you still going on about the Bessarabia thing? It has nothing to do with the discussion here, and didn't really have anything to do with the discussion there. okedem 14:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not original research, those are available documents. I hope you know the difference.

Why I still go about Bessarbia thing? It looks like it's cherry-picking season here, people trust Antonescu when it's convenient for them and they don't when it's not. -- AdrianTM 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know what weight to give these documents, and since they contradict what the respectable historians say, using them would be OR, and, possibly, violate WP:UNDUE.

I tell you this again, I use what the source gives me. If you don't like it, tough. Go ask the Romanian government why it established the commission, ask them why they accepted its results, and ask all of the institutions who employ the commission's members why they keep employing such dubious characters (most of them not even Jewish, by the way). I will have to suppose they know better than you (or I) what weight to give various evidence and documents, and how to sift through them to get the best possible idea of what really happened. Live with it. okedem 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian government doesn't have a monopoly on truth. If the government appointed a commission and accepted the results that's their business, they also probably had some interests to defend (after all they needed all the support they could gather, or at least not opposition for NATO and EU admissions so they needed to "play nice") Another issue is that the declaration that I talk about was published in 2004, presumably after the commission already finished the research, commission report was released that year. The commission is not the only source you use, for example you didn't respond about Virgil Gheorgiu quote, was he a witness or he just expressed his disgust? I'm not sure how this is undue weight to present signed declarations of people who were there at that time as opposed to people who read about the events in newspapers? Of course those signed declarations could be lies... that's why I wasn't sure how to treat them. I don't claim I know the truth and I don't actually have any opinion on the issue (actually I'm inclined to believe that Legionnaires did it) I am just asking if other documents and opinions pertinent to the issue should be presented or not. -- AdrianTM 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure everybody has their interests, but I'm inclined to believe a panel of experts, and a respectable Holocaust researcher like Ancel. Gheorghiu's quote isn't there as evidence, but because he's a known figure, who was a supporter of the Nazis, at least at one point. It gives some more depth of it.

Declarations and the likes are very problematic, and that's why I want to use actual historic research, done by people who know how to do it, and not by us. okedem 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gheorghiu was an eyewitness. He was a reporter then (as he was in Bessarabia). okedem 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant info missing

In the article is mentioned that "During the Pogrom, 125 Bucharest Jews were murdered" what is missing is how many of them were combatants and how many of them were just civilians murdered by Legionnaires. There are some documents that say that at least a part of them should be considered combatants (or maybe this number refers specifically to civilians not to Jews who took arms to fight against the Legionnaires). Also what's missing from the article (or I missed it somehow) is how many Legionnaires were killed during the rebellion. I think that's relevant and important info that should not miss from such an article. -- AdrianTM 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They were all civilians. The number doesn't include any combatants (hence the word "murdered").

I don't know how many Legionnaires were killed. If you can find a sourced figure for that, I'd like to see it. okedem 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found this quote: "rebelii legionari organizeaza un pogrom de proportii in Bucuresti care s-a soldat cu peste 416 morti, dintre care 120 au fost evrei." [4] my approximate translation: "legionnaires rebels organized a pogrom of big proportions in Bucharest which resulted in 416 dead people out of which 120 were Jews". Do you know who were the other 296 dead people? I understand they were 30 soldiers who were killed... who are the rest? Legionnaires? Other civilians? (BTW, I've seen this total number (416) in some other parts, I think it comes from an official document that I cannot locate right now) -- AdrianTM 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This site says 70 soldiers, 120 Jews, and 226 legionnaires (source says "the rest", so simple arithmetic) died. Since I've seen the 125 Jews figure in various sources, it seems more likely to me, but I think we can use the legionnaire figure, using this source. okedem 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like good info, are you going to add it? -- AdrianTM 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added it. Also, in Ancel's book Horia Sima is quoted claiming (later on) that there were 800 legionnaire casualties. In the same quote he acknowledges 124 Jews were murdered. okedem 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"other" opinions missing

The whole article is slanted in my view, it just ignores the opinon of Wilhem Filderman, the President of the Hebrew Union at that time about Antonescu and rebellion, I think that's highly relevant and shouldn't miss from this article. -- AdrianTM 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you want to be constructive here, you ought to start writing more meaningful comments. No one here is a mind reader, you know.

The only relevant thing you might be referring to, is Filderman's testimony about Antonescu. Since at that time, the full extent of Antonescu's actions was not known, I don't see how that's of any relevance here. okedem 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear, yes that's what I was talking about. I think that's an important testimony (if true, I read somewhere that there are some doubts, do you know more about that veridicity issue?) So, if true, I think we should mention it because would be an important historical document about the issue, we can explain that Filderman didn't know anything, but that doesn't change his testimony about things he did know. -- AdrianTM 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not intimately familiar with all that, so if you could bring the quote you're talking about, we can see what to do with it (if anything). okedem 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look first to see what I can gather about its veridicity, otherwise it's a moot point. -- AdrianTM 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add references and citations

Hi, this interesting article is quite long and IMHO seems a bit unreferenced (ie: few references included for this size of article). I'd appreciate if the editors can please cite references for the most contentious paragraps (ie: those that might lead to discussion/difference of views), to comply with verifiability.
I'll tag the article accordingly, to make my request more visible. And will add a "citation neded" tag where I believe there should be one.
Thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag - all information is supported by the references cited at the end. okedem (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with DPdH that the style of referencing could use some work. The only general ref currently given is a paper in Romanian by Radu Ioanid (a language I grok), and it only covers the details of the pogrom ("The Bucharest pogrom" section—oddly enough by mostly summarizing some English sources, which could be cited directly), but it does not cover the other unreferenced stuff in this article, e.g. the planning of the rebellion. That should somehow be made clear. Pcap ping 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing unreferenced in this article. All of the information comes from the sources listed under "References", mostly Ancel and the international commission report. okedem (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble adding a handful of inline citations as requested. Compare with Ion Antonescu#Antonescu and the Holocaust. Pcap ping 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a few cites to the paragraphs and the points you've tagged, but I won't start adding a citation to every sentence. It'll take a few days, so please have patience. okedem (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not challenging the contents. Pcap ping 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added sources to the points you've indicated. Any others you feel particularly need a specific source? okedem (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to add them. And sorry for the later reply, with the craze surrounding the Romanian elections, which spread to Wikipedia too, I forgot to reply here back then. Pcap ping 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a drama there, indeed... okedem (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

References

I noticed that all the references and "further readings" are centered on the pogrom [5], not the actual conflict between the army and the legionnaires, which was the rebellion itself. Unfortunately, I dont know any other sources, but I'm sure they must exist. Yes, I imply that the present sources may have be not quite NPOV, since they are coming from the "damaged side".193.57.67.241 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You make two claims here. First, focusing on the pogrom - indeed, the sources deal with the rebellion in the wider context of the holocaust, and in relation to the pogrom. Whatever; I don't know of sources focusing on the rebellion, so this is a moot point. Second, I reject your "NPOV" claim. First, the claim is just false - one of the main sources is the commission chartered by the Romanian government to investigate these issues (when Romania finally started confronting its past). Second, the other sources used are respectable historians, and their origin is wholly irrelevant. okedem (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I messed up a bit. Actually, I'm not sure if is OK that the 2 events are merged in 1 article. They are related, but one is a politic-military event, the other was just another typical pogrom, nothing politic or military about it. One can even consider that was a time coincidence. That's why sourcing is a bit awkward. And, just imho, any jewish sources are accepted everywhere without any question, the other are being carefully scrutinized (are they denialist, even tangentially? - which is THE SIN). This is just a rethoric, I know I cant change anything. Have a good day. 193.57.67.241 (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616052332/http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/2003-01/paper.pdf to http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/2003-01/paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613061634/http://www.inshr-ew.ro/en-index.htm to http://www.inshr-ew.ro/en-index.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229225552/http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/features/details/2005-03-10/ to http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/features/details/2005-03-10

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

MoS: avoid bold

@Anonimu: can you please elaborate on your revert [6]? MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:SBE are quite clear that if the article title is cumbersome, it should not be crammed into the text just to follow the common bold style convention of the opening line. You should explain why you think an exception to the guidelines is warranted in this case. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler vs. Antonescu

Hitler loved Antonescu, it is just that Hitler loved the Iron Guard more than Antonescu. I mean it was obvious to him that Antonescu was lukewarm about the Final Solution. Strategically, Antonescu was a good choice for Hitler, but Hitler dreamed of something more. Hitler was obsessed with killing the Jews, while Antonescu's priority were the Russians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem to let that if a source is provided. It's just strange to me that Italy and Germany were both involved into this and in opposing sides. Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Did the Wehrmacht actually support Antonescu?

I read the book mentioned as a reference and I couldn't find anything about it. This is what the book says:

"Von Bolschwing helped arm and instigate the rebels by giving them the secret blessing of the SS, according to German records. 24 Later he smuggled a dozen of their top leaders out of Bucharest when the rebellion was put down by a rival faction of Romanian rightists. About 630 people were killed during the violence, accord¬ ing to contemporary reports, with another 400 reported missing. “In the Bucharest morgue, one can see hundreds of corpses,” a Nazi military attache cabled back to headquarters in Berlin. “But they are mostly Jews.”"

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)