Talk:Lwów pogrom (1918)

Claim of 270 Christians also killed needs better substantiation, or speedy removal

The lead-in to this article, as well as the synopsis that appeared on Wikipedia's front page "Did you know" section, states that nearly 270 Christians also were killed, twice the number of Jewish people killed, which is stated in the article as up to 150. Given the history and large Christian population of Poland at the time, this seemed so unlikely that I clicked through to the article to read how 270 Christians could have been targeted and victimized to a degree that exceeded the ferocity of the attack against the Jewish population.

However, there were no more than two footnotes, impossible to follow up on immediately, to substantiate this claim. In my mind, this is highly dubious. There is not even a reference to how or why Christians could have been targeted. I think the reference to the 270 Christians should be removed. If it is not removed, it certainly ought to have some further explanation than the bare insertion of an alleged fact.

Before there are any suggestions that my point of view is Jewish and biased, I would like it noted that I have a 2002 B.A. in History from UCLA with a emphasis on the analysis and critique of historical sources, so it's second nature for me to ask where information came from. Additionally, I'm Irish and not Jewish, despite my first name.

Deborah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah64554 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Those Christians were Orthodox Christians and ethnic Ukrainians. In WW2 times Poles massacred Orthodox Belarussian population in Podlasie region. So it is not unique event for Polish ultranationalistic formations. Ukrainian historians also agree that there were killed from 270 to 400 ethnic Ukrainian Orthodox. But article is biased and have ZERO mentions of Ukrainian historians views. 95.109.249.40 (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See also

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

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

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

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

Name

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

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

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

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

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

Exaggerated reports

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

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

Who participated in the pogrom?

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

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

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

Many sources cited (including Hagen) stress the criminal participation, and all mention Polish soldiers only (at best) as part of the participants. Here's another ref: [1] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lwów (?) pogrom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia's policy (here WP:NAME and offshoots) is not determined by such considerations as "who owned when", but by usage in the English language. The article should be Lemberg pogrom not because it was owned by [ethnic-German] Austria or inhabited by Germans, but because that is the most predominant way of referring to the event in English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag drama

What's up guys? What's the deal with that whole tag drama thing. We were discussing things, article was being expanded step by step, and BANG! here comes the TAG [2]. And BANG! here comes more tag drama "omg MY TAG was removed!"[3]. What's the deal? Can't we discuss thing calmly without spreading the drama through the whole project?. Talk page didn't exhaust itself yet. Many serious issues about this article needs to be resolved. Let's try to discuss it, maybe some uninvolved editors should be invited to join this discussion? M0RD00R (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Why do you insist on continuing discussion over content dispute, where it clearly does not belong [4]?M0RD00R (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Deleting reliably sourced material from background and elsewhere

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

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

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

I wouldn't call bogus edit summaries removing a ref - link provided fails at verification can't find anything in the ref supporting this doubius fragment an explanation that would justify arbitrary removal of referenced information. This behaviour is getting more and more disruptive. First it was attempted to push untrue information by revert warring ("more Poles dies than Jews"[5][6][7]), now referenced info suddenly "fails verification". I hope disruptive "verification" will cease. Just in case David Engel page 36: "During the first days of Polish-Ukrainian armed clashes, the Polish quarter was defended by only a handful of local students and young people. Gradually, others, mostly criminals who had been released either by Austrian rulers before the abandoned the town or by the Ukrainian authorities thereafter, came to volunteer. Because at the time Polish forces needed every available able-bodied man, these felons were not turned away. instead they were given uniforms and arms, and they played an important role in the battle. however, whenever such soldiers could plunder for their own gain, they did: they were the bandits who attacked Jewish stores in the Polish quarter" M0RD00R (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Bendersky. The “”Jewish Threat” [8] Morgenthau described in detail the "eight principal excesses" that had occurred in Poland, including the well-publicized events in Lemberg, Pinsk, Vilna, and Minsk.

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

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

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

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

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

A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. In response, the Jewish National Council in Krakow organized a self defense group made up of Jewish former army officers; a few days later, the city's military commander, Boleslaw Roja, ordered the Polish military to surround the Jewish defense group's headquarters to be surrounded, it's leaders arrested, and the members of the self defense groups to be disarmed. These actions were accompanied a a series of stories in the local and national Polish press alleging a Jewish military plot, along with stories of weapons caches being discovered in synagogues; Jewish protests against the allegations were ignored and dismissed. These actions against the Jewish defense groups and the press campaign have been described as serving as a tacit approval of violence against Jews. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów.[13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring reliably sourced material in background section

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

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

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

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

Let's not deface article with tags OK? Lwow pogrom or pogrom in Lwow is probably most [10] common name in modern academic literature for this event. Attempts to minimize the role of Polish troops also failed to be supported by references. Even Davis calls it military massacre. M0RD00R (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Czesław Mączyński as WP:RS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have overwhelming majority of academic sources do not supporting thesis, that the blame for the pogrom lies on "mainly Ukrainian" criminals. And so far we have only Maczynski as a ref for this fact. But nevertheless this POV is inserted time and time again into lead section. WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE cames to mind, if not WP:TE.

Mączyński is used in this article sixteen times, mainly to contradict schlarly consesnsus. This is absurd POV pushing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

generalizations

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

A good point. The sentence lists three refs, one of them ([11]) is in Polish, and agrees that only a part of the Jews worked with the Ukrainians.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing "pogrom" to "riot" please

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

The Ukrainian and Polish civilians that died are as important as the Jewish ones. There are scholarly sources that argue the word pogrom is not as applicable here as massacre or a riot. Contemporary US ambassador, Hugh S. Gibson, who investigated the events, and analyzed how they were depicted in contemporary press, wrote ([12]) "when a Jew was injured it was always called a pogrom but when a Christian was mobbed it was called a food riot." We should be more neutral and less biased in our descriptions and the word pogrom is not 100% neutral here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one fringe current source (Davies). Gibson was a known anti-semite. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I can't find a statement of that in his article. Slandering another figure? Care to back this with any references? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See Kapiszewski, p 302, Bendersky p 96 and 307 to start with. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Full publication info, please. Quotes? GPrint links? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian criminals

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

It's not only Mączyński. Here's another source that stresses the role of criminals. and so's here: note that in both of those cases the reports note that criminals started the riot, and some elements of the army only joined afterwards. And there are sources that argue that majority or all of the army did not participate in the riot, but tried to stop it (ex. [13], Mączyński). To portray the event as orchestrated by the Polish army is heavily biased. The article should note that there are different accounts, and present them all - not only the one version favored by certain editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To portray the event as orchestrated by the Polish army is to go with the overwhelming scholarly consensus. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well. You see Piotrus, keyword in this case is not "criminals" but "Ukrainian criminals". What is the point of showing the references that mention just criminals, and adding extremely biased "mainly Ukrainian criminals" to the lead section? So far you failed to present multiple reliable sources for "mainly Ukrainian criminals", but yet you keep adding it time and time again. When this is done in the lead section it is straight forward WP:TE. M0RD00R (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Others, however, note that it was the rioting was started by (mainly Ukrainian) criminals, and the most of the Polish army tried to stop the riot, not participated in it (majority of the sources do agree, however, that a small percentage of the Polish forces - primarily recently enlisted criminals - did join in the rioting). If multiple reliable sources will be not provided for each questionable part of this edit, it probably should presented as a textlbook example of WP:OR, WP:FRINGE etc. M0RD00R (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe revisionist speculations do not belong in the lead

The fringe speculations of a controversial revisionist historian do not belong in the lead of a history article in an encyclopedia. Besides the views being fringe, Davies is admittedly speculating "Yet one has to wonder...," "it is conceivable of course.." "or perhaps...". This illustrate a disturbing problem that has been disrupting this article--the constant strafing of the article with such revisionist notions (Davies views alone are cited 3 times) with a blatant attempt to skew the article towards a fringe and offensive POV that minimizes the character and gravity of this documented murderous pogrom that targeted for murder an entire town's community based on their ethnicity. This is akin to inserting into the lead and body of articles about US slavery the views of dinosaurs who still hold century old views to the effect that sleavery really wasn't so bad. There were historians 100 years ago who said such things, and there are fringe historians who say it now--we do not prominently feature such discredited and racist viewpoints, regardless of which race or ethnicity such views are attacking. This really needs to stop. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Norman Davies and Richard C. Lukas are not controversial revisionist historians. Calling them such is a violation of WP:BLP and slandering respected and notable scholars. I strongly object to the removal of this important point from the lead ([14], [15]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No BLP violation; Davies' can easily be reliably sourced as controversial and his views on this matter are entirely fringe. IAnd Lukas by his own admission is simply repeating Davies' claim. Show me where Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of fringe speculations that go against the accepted scholarly view of a subject in the lead of an article. Provide some scholarly sources supporting your claim that these admitted speculations by a controversial writer are an "important point" worthy of inclusion in the lead. That's the issue here, not WP:BLP (but feel free to take it to the BLP board if you think it's a problem). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Single opinion of one historian, quoted by other historian, has no place in the lead because it is WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we would be forced to quote opinions of more than a dozen other historians, one by one, that call this event simply a pogrom. M0RD00R (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Lucy Dawidowicz, does not like Davies is insignificant and ridiculous. Also, do not use Wikipedia itself as a source for your prejudices. Mordoor, this article is full of single opinions, or same opinions of historians who present only one, Jewish side of the problem. Tymek (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, you reveal the problem with your very formulation--your belief that there is a "Jewish side of the problem--and your belief that that is "one side of the problem." You might want to consider the fact that what you derogatorily refer to as "the Jewish side of the problem" is in fact the majority view of the scholarly community. Your attempts to paint the scholarly view as "the Jewish side" is a silly form of bias--since yuo don't agree with it, it can't possibly be the scholarly view--it must be "the Jew side!" That is, as you would say, AMAZING! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish support for the Ukrainians

With the qualification that we are talking about a minority, it was a significant minority, actions of which were exaggerated but nonetheless are highly notable and contributed to both the background and the events in question. I object to this change not supported by the source cited ([16]), which - just as other sources (ex. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) - speaks only of exaggeration, not total falsification, with all of those sources noting instances of Jewish armed support for the Ukrainians.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, most propagandistic lies are based upon some kernel of truth. Should we qualify account of Hitler's defamation and lies about Jews, which like the Polish lies of 1918, were based upon some kernel of truth (Jews in Germany were well represented in certain arenas) in the same manner you want to qualify the lies about Jewish support for the Ukrainians? You really should stop blindly lifting any random quote you can find to support your fringe POV on this article--it's really getting offensive. A serious encyclopedia does a thoughtful weighing of sources. Just because something was written in 1918 by an anti-semite like Gibson, or a minor, nationalistic writer like Piotrowksi, doesn't mean that it is given equal weight in an encyclopedia. I suggest that you moderate your frenetic attempts to skew this article towards your POV by pulling random quotes in this manner. And lighten up with Piotrowksi--he's a truly biased, non notable source. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat what makes you think that Piotrowski is a biased, nationalistic writer? Simply because you disagree with him, or because he writes about Poland? How about Marsha L. Rozenblit, Joanna B. Michlic, Ezra Mendelsohn and Zvi Y. Gitelman, quoted here? They are not biased? They are not nationalistic? So a Polish scholar is bad, but a score of Jewish-American scholars is good? Amazing. Tymek (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so amazing. Piotrowksi has a reputation as a biased nationalist writer, and no standing as an historian. The other writers are respected historians. Can you produce any claims that they are biased and nationalistic? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reputation among whom? Can you provide a single source to back up those outrageous claims? Please stop slandering a reliable scholar.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

eg Friedrich, 2005, who calls him unbalanced. I correct myself though; Piotrowski more accurately can be described as having no reputation among serious scholars; his work is nowhere cited in any serious studies. It consists largely of cutting and pasting quotations solely from the POV he supports, while ignoring massive amounts of contradicting data. Who would possibly take him seriously as a scholar, except perhaps some equally biases Wikipedia editors, who have cited his psedo scholarly book dozens of times in support of fringe POV's that go against scholarly opinion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide full publication data when you cite it. His work is cited by hundreds of books, he is an award winning scholar. The only thing that's unbalanced is your description of him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

only who lie here is you little zionist 83.21.231.180 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They are respected among some cicles, just like Piotrowski is respected in some other circles. A reputation as a biased writer? According to whom? Tymek (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is a clear instance of polish antisemitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.247.90 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Posibble mistake?

Hundreds more Ukrainian Christians were killed during this time as well. Total number of victims are 52-150. How it possible? This source didnt mention about Ukrainian victims - Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide.. This source - Norman Davies. "Ethnic Diversity in Twentieth Century Poland." In: Herbert Arthur Strauss. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39. Walter de Gruyter, 1993. doubles number of victims to 340, 70 were Jews, rest Ukrainians = 270. Strange.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Czesław Mączyński not a reliable source

Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political partry. His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included inthe article as a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the goal was to include accounts (also first hand) from both sides of the conflict. "Mączyński, the Polish commander who prior to the pogrom had issued anti-Jewish pamphlets" Could you provide details supporting this claim? --Hedviberit (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the top paragraph here (page 112).Faustian (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we include this person's claims his background needs be clear. Such info should be included near his claims, in my opinion. Readers should know the kind of source this info is coming from. If the current way this is done is cumbersome or involves too much repitition, perhaps all of his claims should be put into one paragraph with a description of the source, rather than scattered around?Faustian (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hagen/ Blue Army

Hagen's claim that the Blue Army played a role in this pogrom is contradicted by pretty much every serious history of the Blue Army, which states that the first units of the Blue Army did arrive in Poland until April of 1919 - more than four months after the pogrom took place. I've already included these sources in the article, but more generally, just looking up "Haller Army" or "Blue Army" in any history book that deals with them in anything more than a cursory fashion, gives this information. While Hagen meets the requirements for a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, he is simply mistaken here.

Best as I can make out this mistake stems from the fact that he takes sensationalist accounts of the events - including from publications which originally claimed thousands of deaths, rather than 52-150 deaths that actually occurred - at face value rather than subjecting them to a critical analysis, or even comparing them to other documents, such as the Morgenthau report. The other claims sourced to his work in the article appear to be based on a similar approach and as such are also of dubious authenticity.

Since Hagen is technically a reliable source however, I guess the text based on his work can be included (though personally, I am at a complete loss to understand why someone would want to put information into Wikipedia which they know to be false, however "reliable" the source). Other sources however, particularly since they are so much more numerous need to be included as well. In fact, given the isolated nature of Hagen's claims, Hagen's claims should probably be tagged with a "dubious" tag. Volunteer Marek  16:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hagen is a historian whose cited work here was published by Cornell University. With respect to the Blue Army claims it is possible that, although as all sources say the Blue Army did not get there until later, units of that army may have gotten to Poland earlier. Or, Hagen may have been mistaken on that one point (the chapter I've added much material from doesn't mention the Blue Army, his other work does). A reliable source isn't necesarily infallible or correct 100% of the time. As for all the other material taken from his work and added to this article, given his impressive background and the fact that the work being cited was published by Cornell it would be wrong to slap a dubious tag on it.Faustian (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an anti-Polish article from The Nation which was written June 15th 1919 and publisehd in the August 30, 1919 issue: [22]. It is bitterly anti-Polish: "the Jewish cemetary where Haller's troops had pastured their horses on the graves of soldiers fallen during the war, and where they had been engaged in the refined pastime of descrating graves and destroying monuments. Another evidence of Polish culture was to be found in the robbery of the biggest jewlry shop in Lwow, owned by a Jew. The shop was robbed in broad daylight by our proteges, Haller's troops. It was the second time they had cleaned up this paticular shop. The Jewish press was not permitted to to refer to the robbery as having been perpetrated by the soldiers...the next day, some of these Hallerchiks as they are called, started a merry little pogrom in Cracow that killed a few of their Jeiwsh fellow-citizens. Since they had already done this thing in...fifty other Galician towns, nobody was surprised...." Here is info from a reliable source: Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870. It states that Haller's troops were allies of the notoprious Polish antisemite Roman Dmowski (in opposition to the non-antisemitic Pilsudski). "In the martyrology of Polish Jews during the years 1919-1920 the "Haller boys" ("Hallerczycy") won sad repute as the worst torturers of Jews." This suggests that perhaps Hagen mistook Haller's troops' participation in later anti-Jewish looting for the events in 1918. In other words, if Hagen was wrong, he was wrong in not in blaming Haller's troops for pogroms but for dating his atrocities wrong. Faustian (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article. And yes, I agree that the Haller troops were most likely involved in anti-semitic incidents, including possibly pogroms. And yes, that is probably where the confusion stems from. However, whatever else they were guilty of, this pogrom wasn't on them as they just weren't physically present in Lwow when it happened - they were still in France.

There's some other possible sources of the mistake. Hagen is relying exclusively on German sources. At the time, the peace negotiations between the Entente and Germany was going on and, according to sources, German authorities exaggerated the reports and manipulated them for their own ends - they were the source for info that Jewish Germans got. Since Haller's army was identified, rightly or wrongly, with the anti-German Dmowski, rather than the anti-Bolshevik Pilsudski (who even opposed the Wielkopolskie Uprising against Germany), they made for an excellent bete noire and a particularly appealing target.

Btw, apparently Haller himself complained about the behavior of his own troops and their anti-semitism; recall that he was made head of the army only in late October 1918. Interestingly, he, as well as the American ambassador to Poland, attributed this characteristic of the soldier to the fact that most of Haller's army was composed of ... Americans. In fact, Gibson referred to "the trouble that American boys are causing in Poland" or something like that in this context (I'll have to look up source again) and mentioned that the Poles were being quite gracious about not throwing this fact in the Americans' faces (prolly cuz they still needed American support). But again, all that was later - not 1918, when this pogrom occurred. Volunteer Marek  00:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Given this other information, it seems that Hagen's mistake (if it was a mistake, personally I suspect so...) was relatively minor. There was a pogrom in Lviv, Haller's troops did commit pogroms (or if one wants to use less inflammatory words, anti-Jewish violence), but it was other Polish troops pogromming in Lviv because Haller's troops didn't start committing pogroms until a few months later.Faustian (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reliable source claiming Haller's soldiers committed the pogrom in Lwow (it seems to use Hagen's article as a source): Poland's threatening other: the image of the Jew from 1880 to the present By Joanna B. Michlic publissed by University of Nebraska Press, pg. 111. To quote from the book: "The chief perpetrators of these murders were soldiers and officers of the so-called Blue Army (Blekitna Armija) of Josef Haller..."Faustian (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's Michilic, and she's just repeating Hagen.

I am a little bit surprised about how blithe you are about this mistake. Either Haller's troops were there or they were not and a serious approach to history would appreciate this distinction, rather than just say "it's minor" and "it doesn't matter, they did something else bad". I mean, how would you feel about sources - which very much exist, and many of which would be considered "reliable" - which discuss the atrocities committed by "Ukrainians" during the Warsaw Uprising or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? The OUN, or UPA, or Galizien, committed attrocities elsewhere, so why not just throw in WU and WGU in there too for good measure? Volunteer Marek  01:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

IF a reliable source said that UPA massacred Poles in a particular village when in fact they did not I would be similarly nonchalant because UPA massacred Polish villlagers all over the place. I would consider that to be a minor mistake (Galizien would be a different story as such crimes by their members were not as widespread). From what is known, Haller's troops were committing pogroms or anti-Jewish violence and looting all over the place where they went, and indeed developed a reputation as the worst of the Polish perpetrators of anti-Jewish violence. It is for this reason that I stated that if Hagen misidentified them as the perpetrators in Lviv, his mistake was a minor one. At any rate, I am quite satisfied with the inclusion of other reliable sources stating that Haller's army didn't get there until a few months later.Faustian (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Hagen's quote on Haller again: ""the pogroms surprised not only the Jews, but also the Poles. They tried therefore to make excuses not only to the world, but to themselves," blaming Jewish black marketeers and price gougers, along with the Jews' alleged pro-Bolshevism and anti-Polonism. These were alibis that tallied precisely with Endek propaganda. They fit the Lemberg case particularly well, Segal argued, since the Jews' prime tormenters there were not civilian and criminal "elements of disorder," as the Polish government lamely claimed, but the Endeks' Haller army." I see that he did correcly identify the soldiers committing the pogrom as Endek soldiers (which other sources indicate they were). So the mistake was even narrower. Polish fighters linked to the antisemitic Roman Dmowski did commit the pogroms. Haller's forces did commit pogroms in many places, so much that they are generally considered the Polish forces most prone to that behavior. In the words of another reliable source, "In the martyrology of Polish Jews during the years 1919-1920 the "Haller boys" ("Hallerczycy") won sad repute as the worst torturers of Jews." Haller's soldiers were also followers of/linked to Dmowski. Really, it seems like a minor mistake - remove the word Haller and everything is correct; Haller's army were killing Jews a couple months later, it was other Polish soldiers linked to the same DMowski as Haller's army was, who were responsible for the atrocity in Lviv in November 1918. If Hagen had misidentified the pogroming soldiers as followers of Pilsudski, or as non-Polish forces, etc. that would have been a much more serious error. I'll stop beating the dead horse now.Faustian (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Since Hagen may have misidentified the particular unit of Polish soldiers involved in the pogrom but is clearly a reliable source whose general description is credible and reliable, should we simply remove his specific identification of Haller's troops from this article while keeping the rest of his stuff in? That way we could also remove from this article the information about Haller's wherabouts from other sources which has nothing to do with the 1918 pogrom and which clutters the article somewhat. I am inclined to keep both sets of info on the Blue Army article but not here, as it is peripheral to these events. What do others think?Faustian (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion in the preceding section, I agree that Hagen's identification of the pogromists as Haller's army looks increasingly weak with each passing day. I think Blue Army (Poland) is the right place for the discussion of troop transport. This article can probably be fixed by taking out all mention of the Blue Army. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To re-open this discussion, it's not just Hagen, Michlic makes the same mistake, basically because she's relying on Hagen. In this instance, the source is unnecessary as the relevant text is already cited to several other sources - hence I would also remove this cite as well.

More broadly, given that Hagen makes a pretty fundamental mistake - how much do we really want to rely on him? I think it would be advisable to try and avoid using him as a source for this article whenever possible (same for Michlic) and try to reference any text to other sources. For the things that he's correct on, it should be relatively easy to find corroboration in other sources, while for things he's getting wrong it won't be (aside from sources which rely on him explicitly).

Also this edit [23], which added the text bolded below: "According to Tadeusz Piotrowski, in the chaotic events of the riot, more Christians than Jews have died,[8] and Morgenthau Report, for example, raised a question of whether the label pogrom it technically applicable to such riots in the times of war.[8] even though the last Ukrainian soldier had left the city and the Jews offered no armed resistence" is pretty much a textbook example of synthesis, where you take two different sources and combine them in a way which neither supports. I'm going to revert that part.  Volunteer Marek  07:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The source I added addressed the specific claim that the pogrom had a military aspect.Faustian (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Hagen's mistake isn't that fundamental. He misidentified a particular unit, one which did indeed commit pogroms elsewhere, just in different places and which indeed was linked to the same Endek movement that committed the pogrom. Throwing out everything by this reliable source by an expert in the field, over a minor error, would seem to be inappropriate. Faustian (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pogrom?

A number of editors have questioned whether the term pogrom is appropriate here. This source also questions it and the Morgenthau Report specifically rejected the term. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Morgenthau report is a political and historical document, not a reliable source for anything but itself. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"340 total deaths in the violence, of whom two thirds were Ukrainian Christians and the remaining 70 were Jews" - the math is wrong here. Besides, if the majority of victims were Orthodox Christians, why is the focus solely on the Jewish victims? Is this intentional?89.69.82.3 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"leading to exaggerated rumors, that some Jews, including the militia, collaborated with the Ukrainians in various ways" - this sounds convoluted. The rumors could be exaggerated only if no Jewish militiamen collaborated with the Ukrainians. If there were at least two people engaged in the collaboration, the rumors in question cannot be referred to as exaggerated. Whoever wrote this passage wants to convey the message that no Jewish militiaman collaborated with the Ukrainian. This is, at best, disingenuous.89.69.82.3 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This article reads like an anti-semitic apologist has tried at every turn to blame the pogrom on "criminals" instead of the local populace. Mentioning the criminal element is fine, once, but the article reads very awkwardly the way "criminals" is repeated so many times. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You may not like it, but people who murder people are criminals. I hope you do not want to imply that the local Polish population were, by and large, murderous by nature. If it were the case, the death toll would have been much higher. Besides, the majority of the victims appear to be Orthodox Christians (Ukrainians), so I do not see why this incident could be considered antisemitic at all. Ukrainians died, Jews died, Poles died - a typical scenario during any post-war lawlessness.89.69.82.3 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is reliably referenced, up to and including specific references describing the perpetrators. The lead mentions three groups, criminals are only one of them. Everything is properly attributed and referenced. I don't see what's not-neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lwów pogrom (1918), or Lemberg pogrom (1918)

Following the age of partitions, Regency Council (Poland) declared independence on 7 October 1918 with the first Provisional Government set up only two weeks prior to the pogrom in Lemberg. The eastern borders of sovereign Poland were not established until the end of the Polish–Soviet War in 1920. Therefore the city's name remained officially Austrian until then. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The question, to which I do not know the answer, is what is the common name of the pogrom? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Czesław Mączyński not a reliable source (2)

I wrote this in 2010 and it's still true:

Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political party. His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included in the article as a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the goal was to include accounts (also first hand) from both sides of the conflict. "Mączyński, the Polish commander who prior to the pogrom had issued anti-Jewish pamphlets" Could you provide details supporting this claim? --Hedviberit (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the top paragraph here (page 112).Faustian (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed sections devoted to his claims because they were presented as accurate reliable information. Perhaps someone has time to reincorporate them in such a way that it is clear that the source is an antisemite implicated in the crime.Faustian (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Stop beating around the bush please. The link to historian Carole Fink (above) is already in the article, and does not support any wayward claims that would justify the removal of information. I understand you want to push that POV at all costs, but the quote from the commandant of the city Czesław Mączyński, provides a factual breakdown of casualties no other source has. It points a finger at the attrocities committed during the Ukrainian control of the city in a matter-of-factly way, and although it might sound painful to you, removing it can only suggest undisclosed ideological motives inherent in the western historiography. Poeticbent talk 13:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you treat the report of a Petliurite commander linked to pogroms, or some German commander linked to atrocities, as you treat Maczynski's report? No. Similarly, the report of Maczynski, who is linked to this pogrom according to reliable sources such as Fink, ought not be treated simply as a "dry report." Indeed, Maczynski has been discussed before and most people reject excessive use of his claims. Here on this talk page, for example: [24]. Note that the comments I made above were from 2010 - you ought to have addressed those issues on the talk page before treating Maczynski's claims as reliable and giving them such prominence in the article. He's already been rejected by several editors several times and you decided to just insert large amounts of text about his claims into the article with no discussion. Faustian (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Maczynski's claims are already mentioned in the article: " Although Jewish eyewitnesses described Poles as committing the pogrom,[11] Mączyński, the Polish commander who prior to the pogrom had issued anti-Jewish pamphlets, blamed Ukrainian criminals for initiating it, and claimed that they were the most numerous group among the rioters.[1]. Faustian (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I added another phrase based on the removed text, about his claim that most Jews were killed while Ukrainians were in control of the city.Faustian (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Poeticbent, you've been "indefinitely" banned in the past :[25]; please refrain from disruptive editing.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes in lead

Marek, would you mind please explaining this revert of my changes to the lead? You state the unit was already in France at the time of the pogrom, but I provided a source, which you haven't addressed. Obviously, if you were just to remove the source because you know it's wrong, with no other explanation, as you've done, that would be original research.

Regarding the exaggerated claims, the text as written now is factually incorrect, since it implies that the lower numbers (52-150 jews killed) may be exaggerated, whereas Carol Fink, in "Defending the Rights of Others," writes that the exaggerated numbers are those like 300, 900, 1,100, or 3,000. Norman Davies also refers to exaggerations of the pogrom, and it is clear this happened, however he is not specifically challenging the numbers presented in the lead. Your edit may accomplish this only inadvertently, but "an estimated 52–150 Jewish residents were killed and hundreds injured according to accounts some of which might have been exaggerated," implies that maybe not that many people were killed. I think both Davies and Fink put the real number of jews killed at around 70.

Besides being misleading, the text as you returned it also makes for uncomfortable (awkward) reading. What is your objection to my solution, which was to write, below, that early reports (whose numbers we don't even cite) were exaggerated? -Darouet (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the talk page and the archives, also at Blue Army. This was discussed extensively. The Blue Army was in France when the pogrom happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The above comment is in regard to the role of the Blue Army. In regard to the "exaggeration" since this is in the sources, please don't remove it, although you can reword it appropriately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll read about the army's location at the time and assume for now that the source was wrong, and you are right. In the mean time I'll restore my text about exaggeration, based on my arguments and what seems to be your agreement. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the reworded version is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lwów pogrom (1918). 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/20120112125419/http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm to http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112125419/http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm to http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006100322/http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj14kapi.pdf to http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj14kapi.pdf

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) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

This page is on my watchlist (obviously) but I got a note from one of the participants in the ongoing dispute. I haven't had time to look at the actual sources or all the details of the disagreement, but it strikes me as obvious that User:Icewhiz's edit summary here is false. He says "UNDUE weight to primary report by those who were complicit". Presumably this is referring to the sentence " whereas a Polish police report listed a Greek Catholic, likely a Ukrainian, among those killed in the rioting.".

But that sentence, contra Icewhiz's apparently false claim in his edit summary appears to be sourced to a work from ... 2018. The work is Zbigniew Zaporowski, “Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji,” Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość, vol. 1 (2018): 465–471. It looks like this is a WP:SECONDARY SOURCE which is simply using primary sources for its study. You know, like historians do all the time. The author appears to be a professional historian.

I haven't read the source and can't comment on the accuracy on the text based on it (although we generally are expected to assume good faith in that regard) but it's pretty clear that Icewhiz is using false edit summaries here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. A primary source (police report) quoted in a non-English secondary source is still primary. I will also note that notes have been selectively sent to other editors [26][27][28].Icewhiz (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If I made a personal attack then please point out what it was. Otherwise, please don't make false accusations. A primary source used by a secondary source (of whatever language) is primary, but we're actually using the secondary source. This isn't that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

All we are doing in this edit is report what the primary source said. That this is quoted via a secondary source does not make the information itself less primary. Mainline secondary sources by reputed historians do not treat such reports with credibility.[29].Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The page you link to is not available. Can you tell us how the source you linked to discusses this source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Once a scholar (or anyone else) refers to a primary report, this becomes a secondary source and is now acceptable per WP:SECONDARY, since the point of not using primary is to avoid doing original research and interpreting stuff. Secondary sources discuss primary sources and allow us to mention facts and such discussed in said primary sources. If we found a primary source - police report - yes, it's not a good source per WP:PRIMARY. But once it is discussed in secondary source, it is fine. PS. I did some c/e. Can anyone tell me how to read "Zbigniew Zaporowski, “Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji,” Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość, vol. 1 (2018): 465–471, I don't see the full text at [30], which confusingly also says 'this publication is not available for sale'. So how to read it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A PDF pile is generally generated about one month later than the Content, so we have to wait few days.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.umcs.pl/pl/addres-book-employee,3160,pl.html Zbigniew Zaporowski is a historian, a professor. Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an online copy of this anywhere. This being published in the (forthcoming?) Remembrance and Justice journal of the IPN is not the best venue to say the least due to the IPN's poor reputation, but at least this publication (unlike other IPN publications) purports to be scientific. What is missing for me is context (which I can not understand without the article itself - or a an extended quotation from it) - surely the author of "Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji" (Victims of riots and robberies in Lviv on November 22-24, 1918 in the light of the findings of the Lviv Police Directorate) refers to the documents of the Lviv Police - however - what is his analysis of those documents? He quotes them and says what? One would presume this is not just a list of primary quotations (in which case it would still be primary) - but some analysis based on these documents.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's not a forum to present your prejudices toward the IPN. What about your reputation?Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources - Mączyński

Instead of worrying about a work by modern historian mentioned above, I think we should worry about this article reliance on [31]. This is a pretty much primary source, and account by the participant/Polish commander Czesław Mączyński. It should be used with caution. Polish wiki article (pretty poor) does note that Maczynski denied the pogrom has taken place, and he has been described by some historians as significantly responsible for it: "Według komendanta obrony Lwowa kpt. Czesława Mączyńskiego żadnego pogromu nie było, wystąpiły jedynie rabunki i wypadki doraźnego karania wrogiej ludności. Antysemickie podejście Mączyńskiego było jedną z przyczyn pogromu; historycy w dużej mierze właśnie jego obarczają odpowiedzialnością za to zdarzenie", sourced to Kwartalnik historii Żydów. Instytut. 2004, s. 354. - sadly, no link and I am too tired down to hunt this. IMHO, Maczynski's book can be mentioned, but he should not be used as a source in Wikipedia's tone, at most, we can occasionally attribute him. User:Icewhiz, I will trust you with de-Maczynski'ing this article :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was only following orders - diff. (though I agree completely with the above).Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Incoherent

There are portions of this article which are simply incoherent. There's a lot of "howevers" and "buts" and "at the same time"... but these are used in ways which don't make sense. In several places it looks like competing paragraphs or sentences were spliced together, after the middle was removed. The entire article requires clean up. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Historical texts often include a lot of qualifiers. I've tried to edit to remove some and make the English more consistently correct; perhaps you can take a lot and see if it reads a little more coherently now?Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sept 2020 edit

Preserving here by providing [32]. My rationale was: "mv detailed discussion on possible perpetrators into the body; rm statement re: exaggerated accounts as a non sequitur in the lead". Specifically, these details, prominently placed in the lead, seemed like apologetics to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)