Jump to content

Talk:Pinsk massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]

Propose Pinsk pogrom. Bad titles of some articles is no justification to create new articles under such names. --Irpen 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad title. I've copied it after Polish wiki. Also checked Google books [1] for usage. --Lysytalk 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The use of pogrom for this event is specifically criticized by sources, for example see Piotrowski where Mongenthau's commission stated it was not a pogrom ([2]), Bendersky ([3] where a US officer on scence states it was not a pogrom, and Davies which calls it a "so-called Pogrom" ([4]). Also, please don't mix up the murder of 35 Jews, discussed by quite a few sources, with some other controversies of the Polish-Soviet War.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luczynski

[edit]

Davies (see above) notes that the order to shoot was given by a lieutant. Bendersky notes that 'major Luczynski' was the town commander, but doesn't state he gave the order. My quick search show that future general Aleksander Narbut-Łuczyński served as a colonel during the PSWar, but I can't find anything more in online sources, for now I suggest rephrasing the text so that - per our sources - we don't associate Łuczyński with the order itself; I can't find anything on his promotion, but the current article implies he was promoted for ordering a massacre - certainly a mistaken allegation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect his promotion was associated with the massacre. Maybe this should be rephrased. --Lysytalk 22:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Morgenthau talks about major Łuszyński - or perhaps its a wikisource typo? Anyway, looking for a shorter name (Aleksander Łuczyński), I found more data: according to this, he was promoted to colonel in 1919 and general in 1924.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital massacre?

[edit]

The lead states: Also arrested and shot where members of the medical personnel of the Pinsk hospital. The reference laks most info (full name of the author, page citation, isbn). Also, another reference is non-English (Документы и материалы по истории советско-польских отношений.), please translate. Further, per WP:LEAD lead should summarize the article - so the hospital massacre should be discussed in article; even so what's the connection of this alleged hospital massacre to Pinsk massacre, I don't know - it is not mentioned in a single source I can find (the current text event doesn't state who shot whom in the hospital - Poles Jews, Soviet Poles, Poles Soviets...?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any information on the hospital massacre. Maybe some of the murdered Jews were the hospital personnel ? --Lysytalk 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltyukhov speaks of murder of Jews arrested at the meeting separately from the murder of the medical personnel. Also, that would be not a unique event. Medics were also murdered at the Berdychiv hospital. Perhaps they where Jews as there were many Jewish medics and Polish advances were notorious by anti-Jewish atrocities. I recommend Babel's diary recently translated into English and published in NY. --Irpen 22:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, does this belong here ? --Lysytalk 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current reference in body is acceptable, and the events can be also mentioned in the Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War article. Both sides claimed that the other has done various attrocities; for example there were reports of Soviets massacring Polish hospital staff and patients near Mohylew in 1918 ([5]). The event certainly is not notable enough to mention in lead, as it is not mentioned by any other source.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltyukhov does not say that the hospital was in Pinsk. He may be describing a completely separate event. --Lysytalk 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Irpen 07:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what he writes:
  • Занятие городов и населенных пунктов сопровождалось самочинными расправами военных с местными представителями советской власти, а также еврейскими погромами, выдававшимися за акты искоренения большевизма.
  • Так, после занятия Пинека по приказу коменданта польского гарнизона на месте, без суда было расстреляно около 40 евреев, пришедших для молитвы, которых приняли за собрание большевиков.
  • Был арестован медицинский персонал госпиталя и несколько санитаров расстреляны.
  • Хотя эти факты получили широкую огласку, военное командование отказало гражданской администрации в допуске к документам. Преступление было оправдано нервным напряжением офицеров в боях с большевиками, а прямой его виновник — переведен в другое место с повышением.
The second and third sentence are the illustrations for the first sentence and they are not clearly interrelated. He does not even mention if the people in the hospital were Jewish or why they were arrested. So far, it does not seem related to the subject of the article. --Lysytalk 08:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the author's paragraphing. --Irpen 08:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Lysytalk 08:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A paragraph is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea, or the words of an author." --Irpen 09:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've bulleted the sentences for easier reference. Their order is not changed. What I'm trying to convey it that there is no clear relation between sentences 2 and 3. Also, about the hospital, we don't know who was arrested, when, where, by whom, why, if there was any trial, how many prisoners were executed, and why. This is pretty useless for the purpose of the article about the Pinsk massacre. --Lysytalk 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the second phrase is continuation of the first bullet point otherwise the text does not make sense Alex Bakharev 10:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's the third bullet that is the problem. If read together with the second sentence, it could suggest that the hospital was in Pinsk, personnel was Jewish, and was shot without trial. Neither of these has to be true. We need another source, which describes what happened more specifically if we want to link the hospital story with the Pinsk massacre. Otherwise they are unrelated. --Lysytalk 11:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I cannot read Russian, I am hoping you can answer the following questions:

  • does M. state it was 'Pinsk hospital' specifically or only that it was some hospital local to the area?
  • does M. state nationality/ethnicity of the victims and perpatrators?
  • does M. state the number of victims?

English translation would be appreciated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, all he says is: Был арестован медицинский персонал госпиталя и несколько санитаров расстреляны, which means "Medical personnel of a hospital was arrested and several orderlies (or combat medics?) were shot." That's all. --Lysytalk 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in essense he is not saying they were shot by Poles, nor that they were killed (possibly only wounded)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he implies that they were shot dead by Poles. The incident happened during "capture of towns and settlements". In the previous statement he briefly describes the Pinsk massacre, this is why Irpen believes that the hospital incident is related. However no whereabouts or other details of the incident are provided, just the statement that I have translated before. --Lysytalk 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source that Meltyukhov cites for that section is Документы и материалы по истории советско-польских отношений. That may sound familiar to some because we already once had extensive discussion about a controversial quote supposedly backed by that source, which in the end turned out not to exist in the actual publication as referenced (see [[6]]). In Polish the title of that publication is Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich; studia i materiały. (I am concluding here these are Polish and Russian language versions of the same book published in parallel, as would be reasonable for this kind of compilation, but correct me if I am wrong in this).

I invite everyone here to consider the bias inherent to these volumes that were published in the 1960s and the 1970s. At that time, it was the standard line of Soviet and Communist Polish historiography to portray the Second Polish Republic that existed in 1918-1939 as inherently immoral, and its conflict with the Bolsheviks in 1919-1921 as the blackest of evils. The fact that Meltyukhov is relying on that publication to back up his claims speaks volumes about the quality of his historical research and his caliber as a historian. In a nutshell, it appears he does not seem to have time to go after original documents in the archives, and instead is using what was conveniently compiled by the biased Communist Soviet and Polish scholars. Balcer 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims

[edit]

Most of the sources agree, that the number of victims were 35. Do we have any significant sources that claim otherwise ? --Lysytalk 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltyukhov gives 40. --Irpen 22:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does he give an exact number, or "around 40" ? (btw, out of curiosity: does he explain how he arrived at this number?) --Lysytalk 22:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I did not realise it was available online. Indeed all he says is "around 40". So simply 35 is "around 40" for this author. We can be grateful that 40 is not "around 50" and 50 is not "around 100". --Lysytalk 06:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? --Irpen 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we don't know why Meltyukhov chose not to give the exact number. But indeed it's not our role to speculate about this here. --Lysytalk 06:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, however all other sources give 35. His differing number may be given in body, but there is no reason to discuss his dissenting view in lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pinsk massacre was discussed some time ago at Talk:History_of_Jews_in_Poland#1918-1939.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davies in WERS on Pinsk

[edit]

I found online a (Polish edition) citation about this incident: [7]. Interesting points: 1) most but not all victims were Jewish; American lieutant Foster confirmed that Polish army acted withing acceptable limits (considering it was near frontline during a war) and finally, that there are still doubts whether it wasn't, indeed, a Bolshevik meeting after all.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! But because of your past incidents of sources falsification, I am sure it is not asking for too much as to get your source and your reading of it verified by a third party. --Irpen 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, if you are accusing another editor of multiple offenses as grave as source falsification on an article talkpage, you really must provide relevant diffs to back up your claim. Common decency requires this.
Anyway, the link by Piotrus points to newsgroup post from 1998. Care to explain how he could have falsified this? Of course, the original poster might be putting up incorrect information, but if that is the case, that is not the fault of Piotrus. Anyway, now that you made it an issue, I am sure someone will check the original book. Balcer 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, please provide diffs or apology for this appalling personal attack.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, we are hearing this Personal Attack accusations to deflect from the topic. I am right now busy writing up an evidence for your ArbCom as the fact that you continued the behavior with unabashed zeal gave me an impression that you think you have some sort of impunity. The recent series of events was the last straw to make me set aside some time to collect diffs for your evidence page. So, for now, I leave the articles to others. As for examples of yours sources manipulation, here is one recent example and here is another. --Irpen 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, the second link points to a talk page, in which a non-native Polish speaker mean-spiritedly accused Piotrus of making imperfect translations from Polish to English. In response, I can only say that good translation is not equivalent to word for word translation.
This last edit illustrates quite well Irpen's attitude here, and nothing more needs to be said, as any impartial observer will make his own conclusions. I would only like to point out to him that Arbcom is likely to investigate the actions of more than just Piotrus. Balcer 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, if you read an entry of David Gerard who Piotrus brought to his ArbCom by asking secretly over IRC, my behavior is already being investigated by an IRC-club. Besides, this is not news to me. I really enjoy having their attention for quite some time lately. Your comment about second incident is interesting. So, you admit that the translation of sources was not exactly an exact one. But what about the first example? Anyway, more later. --Irpen 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first example, anyone can read for themselves and draw their own conclusions, so my comments are unnecessary. In the second, most people don't speak Polish and hence cannot make their own judgements. I wanted to help with that. Anyway, as you surely must know, there is no such thing as an "exact" translation, especially between languages as distinct as Polish and English. Balcer 04:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire thread strikes me as being much ado about nothing. However, Davies tells us in both the Polish translation and in the original English version of "White Eagle, Red Star", that out of approximately 24,000 inhabitants in Pinsk, 20,000 were Jewish. If some of the 35 victims were not Jewish, what does that mean? During the Kielce Pogrom some of the victims were not Jewish, so what? What is however more telling, Balcer, is that P.P. suggests that maybe the meeting was a Bolshevik meeting afterall. Nowhere does Davies say this or confirm this. In fact Davies states that the pupose of the meeting was never clarified. So to suggest that he did in WERS, is a falsification of the source. Is that understandable? Am I wrong to suspect that somewhere, somehow, the author of Zydokomuna is trying to suggest that if it was indeed a Bolshevik meeting, then it would be O.K. to murder these people. If I'm wrong, what is the significance that it may have been a Jewish-Bolshevik meeting "after all"? How does that lessen this horific crime that heralds what took place in Europe 22 years later? As for the ArbCom (which for a brief moment I hoped was going to die out on its own for lack of interest) it has now become some kind of battle ground where some of the participants are determined to censor other Wikipedians because they don't like what they read on the talk pages when it doesn't agree with their POV. My spin on the ArbCom is dealing about what people put in and remove from the articles, since I could care less what they say on the talk pages. Just the same this tidbit is quite revealing and Irpen is correct that Davies himself doesn't support what P.P. is claiming he wrote. For those interested, the material that I'm using is WERS, 1972, pgs. 47-48. Dr. Dan 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Dan, please don't twist my statements. I don't "suggests that maybe the meeting was a Bolshevik meeting afterall", I wrote that there "are still doubts whether it wasn't, indeed, a Bolshevik meeting after all". Davies writes that: chociaz charakter nielegalnego zebrania nigdy nie zostal wyjasniony (opisywane je rozmaicie: jako spotkanie komunistycznej komorki, zebranie miejscowej spoldzielni badz Komitetu Pomocy Amerykanskiej), which translates, roughtly, as "although the character of illegal meeting [note that he contradicts other sources stating it was a legal meeting - note by P.P] was never explained (it was described differently: as a meeting of communist cell, local cooperative or American Relief Committee)". Therefore Davies indeed notes that there are still doubts whether it was or wasn't a Bolshevik (communist) meeting, he doesn't endorse this version, but he doesn't disprove it, neither. As for 'not all the victims being Jewish', it is an important note, as it rules out that Polish army specifically targeted Jews, or exectuted only Jewws, thus confirming Morg. report that the excesses were not anti-Semitic, but rather, political (anti-Bolshevik). Your allegations that I support this tragic event are very offensive and I ask for an apology.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I am not twisting anything. If you'll permit me to use English on the English Wikipedia, Davies: WERS pg. 48, "-and although the nature of the illegal meeting, variously described as a Bolshevik cell, an assembly of the local co-operative society, and a meeting of the Committee for American Relief, was never clarified, the publicity reflected badly on the Polish Army." By saying there are still doubts whether it wasn't, indeed, a Bolshevik meeting after all, under the header Davies in WERS on Pinsk, is to imply that that's Davies' own conclusion, whereas it is not Davies' conclusion, but your own conclusion. Maybe it even was that kind of a meeting, but don't tell us that that is what Davies said. Now as for an apology, I'll be happy to make one when you explain, what the significance of these people possibly attending a "Bolshevik meeting" has to do with this crime. Is that justification for murdering them? Davies tell us in WERS that Łuzyński ordered these hostages to "be summarily shot to make an example. The town was pacified." Dr. Dan 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgenthau

[edit]

Mission of The United States to Poland, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. Report From Wikisource [8]

This article is not linked to by any other article on the English Wikisource (it is an Orphaned page). It should be determined whether a link to this page should be added to another page or whether this page is a candidate for deletion. Links from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia, do not count. See Category:Unlinked for guidance on choosing pages to link to this page. See Wikisource:Deletion policy for guidance on whether this page is a candidate for deletion.
--Poeticbent  talk  15:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I have read in other sources it seems like 'the real thing', it was uploaded by a reliable user - User:Ttyre, I'll drop him a note about this issue, hopefully he will remember the source. PS. I did notice one problem with wikisource documents - some mispelling, suggesting a use of OCR soft at some point (for example, Crown Commander instead of Town Commander).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Henry Morgenthau, Sr. Report already in electronic format somewhere in the US Senate records (will try to find out where exactly). However, the report was printed by the US Government office in Washington D.C. in 1920. See the following document's foreword which I didn't originally upload to the English Wikisource:
66th Congress, 2nd Session ----- SENATE ----- Document No. 177
MISSION of the UNITED STATES to POLAND
MESSAGE from the President of the United States transmitting: pursuant to a Senate Resolution of October 28, 1919, a communication from the Secretary of State submitting a Report by the Hon. Henry Morgenthau on the work of the Mission of the United States to Poland.
January 15, 1920. - Read: referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.
WASHINGTON, Government Printing Office 1920.
To the Senate:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers in response to a resolution of the Senate requesting him to furnish that body, if not incompatible with the public interest, with the reports made by the mission of the United States to Poland, headed by the honorable Henry Morgenthau.
WOODROW WILSON.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 15, 1920.
THE PRESIDENT:
The undersigned, the Secretary of State, in response to a resolution passed by the Senate of the United States on October 22 (calendar day, October 28), 1919, reading as follows:
Whereas it is understood that the mission of the United States Government to Poland, headed by Hon. Henry Morgenthau, has completed its work, and Mr. Morgenthau has made a report to the Secretary of State: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Secretary of State is hereby requested to send to the Senate, if it is not incompatible with the public interest, a copy of said report, has the honor to submit herewith for transmission to the Senate, if the President approve thereof, a copy of the report made by the honorable Henry Morgenthau, head of the mission, and a copy of a report made by the other members of the mission, Gen. Edgar Jadwin, United States Army, and Mr. Homer H. Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT LANSING,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, January 14, 1920.
Hope this would help. --Ttyre 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the deal, in a nutshell:

Aside from material aid, Washington bestowed tokens of political favor upon the Poles. ... To protect Poland's international reputation against widespread, if exaggerated, accusations of mistreatment of her large Jewish minority, Washington dispatched an investigatory commission led by Henry Morgenthau, one of the most prominent American Jewish political figures. Morgenthau was selected for the job precisely because he was known to be sympathetic to Poland, and his report largely exculpated the Polish government, exactly as expected.

From Poland, the United States, and the Stabilization of Europe, 1919-1933 By Neal Pease, Oxford University Press, 1986, page 10.

I hope this confirms to the doubters the reliability of this report. However, if we do use the information it contained, in fairness we should make clear its favorable view of the Polish government's attitude towards anti-Jewish violence. Balcer 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, although it may be worth mentioning that Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was of Jewish origin himself. Also, please note that wikisource has two reports: first one by HENRY MORGENTHAU, second one (!) by two other members of the commission, Brig. Gen. Edgar Jadwin and Homer H. Johnson. As other American military reports cited, it seems to be broadly favourable to Poland. PS. Anyway, article on Morgenthau report is needed. Any takers?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points? although it may be worth mentioning that Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was of Jewish origin himself. And the point of that observation is what, P.P.? Balcer would you please throw that one into his ArbCom proceeding? Dr. Dan 01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you getting at now? I am just repeating what is noted in Balcer's source "Henry Morgenthau, one of the most prominent American Jewish political figures". That source deem it notable to note that he was not only American, but American-Jewish with sympathies for Poland; I don't think any part of this is less notable than other, and if we are going to be discussing his POV, all three possible allegiances should be noted (per our source).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Dr. Dan. Balcer 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC}
Thanks Balcer. And P.P. keep on going with the likes of... Morgenthau: all three possible allegiances should be noted. Really now? Dr. Dan 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tl:unverifiable

[edit]

And who and why is introducing this template. The article carries an incredible number of inline refs is deemed unverifiable now? Or is it done to hold off the featuring of this proud event at DYK while it is still eligible? If so, I expect revert warring to keep the tl no matter how many refs are there for the next two-three days and a sudden "acceptance of compromise" once the freshness of the article expires. Better yet, please cut this sabotage. --Irpen 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would be more worried about all the claims backed by Meltyukhov. As discussed on Talk:Vilna offensive, there is strong evidence that his suitability as a source is in question. Still, I will definitely not fight a revert war over the tag. After all, I also keenly want to see this article featured on the Main Page via DYK.
Irpen, I find it somewhat amusing to see you assume that the "Polish editors" as a whole would fight against this article becoming more widely known. In actual fact, most European nations have their skeletons in the closet (France has Algeria, Britain has Kenya, Germany has the obvious and so on and so forth). It is a sign of a mature and confident nation that it is able to fearlessly examine the tragic and shameful events of its past. I congratulate Lysy on creating this article, and other editors from Poland who have helped to improve it. Balcer 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, where do you see "Polish editors" in my entry? --Irpen 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, I'm sure that you meant "taking their skeletons out of the closet". I agree with you that Lysy should be congratulated. I'm looking forward to seeing you and P.P. doing more of the same. That would be a step in the right direction. Dr. Dan 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, while I had a number of issues with Balcer and Lysy, they were never known to be eager to hide the Polish skeletons in closets. Whatever bad blood there was between me and them, this is not the accusation I would ever make. --Irpen 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Irpen. I am glad you made that clear. Indeed, I have overinterpreted your remarks. Please accept my apologies. Balcer 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Irpen, would you care to apologize for assuming that the tag has been added to prevent DYKing of that article and that somebody is trying to sabotage it through revert warring?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come, come, this is getting all too sweet ;-). Can't we just get over it, without the need of endlessly apologizing each other ? --Lysytalk 06:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Poeticbent at #Morgenthau, the wikisource article has no source, and thus fails WP:V. Although I think it is 'the real thing', we cannot use sources that are unverified and as such instead of arguing about a tag or not, let's concentrate on finding the best way to verify the reports. I was able to verify some quotes on Google Print, but not the entire report: if somebody could find it in some other sources, this would be appreciated. Until then, we can either keep the tag, remove the report quotes, or - preferably - try to verify each claim with google print.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since both Dr. Dan and Irpen appear to support taking out skeletons from our respective closets, may I suggest some articles be created or expanded by them to show their sincerity. Irpen, the one article which is sorely missing is Kiev Pogrom (1905), one of the most notorious in the Russian Empire, with about 100 Jews murdered. And Dr. Dan, may I suggest that you expand the freshly created Kaunas pogrom article, maybe even nominate it for DYK (there is still time as it was only created on May 29). Balcer 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Balcer. And it's good to see your apology to Irpen for over interpreting his remarks. What has been your own effort to take the skeletons out of the closet of your homeland on WP? Can you give anyone an example of anything you have created or expanded remotely resembling what you are suggesting Irpen and I should do. Certainly you could have tried to do so on this very article the "Pinsk massacre", but instead you prefer chatting on this talk page doling out advice and otherwise giving instructions to others on what they should do. Please try practicing what you preach instead. Dr. Dan 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm, in over 3 years of editing, I must have written something to fit the criteria. How about this paragraph on Polish diplomacy between the wars? How about my edits to Kielce Pogrom that improved that article considerably, making clear that attempts to blame the Soviets for that crime amount to conspiracy theories, and how even the existence of such a conspiracy would not have justified in any way those who committed the murders. [9]. Anyway, it is besides the point what I have done. If taking skeletons out of the closet is a good thing, whether I have done it or not is irrelevant. Still, I am curious, Dr. Dan, have you done anything in this department?Balcer 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dan, it is really OK, no problem. Just to make sure what Balcer really wants to see, a new article or verification of my commitment to uncloseting skeletons? Because the latter can be easily inferred from my past work if only one is interested to see. I am not sure, uncovering of whose closets Balcer has in mind. I have been accused in the Ukrainian nationalism and Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism and Russophobia, propagating of Stalinist myths and propagating the imperialist anti-communist ones. This combination of incompatible biases that I was accused of somehow makes me sure that I am doing the right thing overall. For my uncovering of Ukrainian skeletons, please take a look at the history of UPA article. Also check Babi Yar. For my uncovering of Soviets skeletons, check who wrote much of the Holodomor article. For uncovering of Russian skeletons, check who wrote much of the Orange Revolution. I can continue the list for as long as Balcer needs. 3 article's per skeleton's ethnicity? 5? 7? This is the strangest development of this discussion so far.

As for the Kiev pogrom, there are two obstacles. The relative obscurity of the event and scarcity of sources is one of them. I don't go to state archives primarily due to real life commitments. Additionally, I have a HUGE backlog on my todo wikilist. Just my folder with not yet finished but mostly written articles to post contains over a dozen articles. And often when I feel just like sorting out some of it, an urgent wikievent happens, like a new IRC engineered block if somebody, a grievous incident of wikipower corruption, harrassment campaign against valued editor or a new stage of fervent nationalist POV pushing that demands my undivided attention. I am sorry Balcer to have disappointed you wrt to not writing about Kiev pogrom yet. But please check some of the articles linked above if you think I keep skeletons in closets. --Irpen 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complexity of Ukrainian history in the 20th century, it may be difficult to decide what is in one's closet, so to speak, and what is not. Thus someone who holds a very pro-Soviet view of Ukrainian history in the 20th century will feel no qualms and have no barrier to overcome when writing about UPA atrocities. Still, I don't know where exactly you stand here and I have not been reading your edits in these areas, so I will not say anything about you specifically.
As for the Kiev pogrom, there is a lot of information in Kiev: A Portrait, 1800-1917 by Michael Hamm, published in 1993. The book should be available in every university library. Balcer 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now you are hinting that I have a pro-Soviet view. Did you check Holodomor and Orange Revolution by any chance? --Irpen 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hinting anything about you, as I made clear. I only said that Ukrainian history is complex. Balcer 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Balcer, what you were hinting at is clear to any reader of the above and I am fine to leave it at that. Out of reciprocity, I would like to draw your attention to History of Jews in Poland actively edited and watched by our respected colleagues and skeleton outers some of who dared even to mention its being an FA for a while. This is the kind of stuff I was expunging from it this very year.

These both rants were added by our dear Ksenon/Pawel/Reichenbach/Turthseeker what are his other names and remained there for months in the articles watched and heralded by our skeleton uncoverers.

Here is more added by others:

So, while some action on mine and Dan's part would help in UA/LT-related topics, I think such challenges are inappropriate. There is still too much mess in this very house to challenge others. --Irpen 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an article like History of Jews in Poland is bound to attract all kinds of idiots with extreme views. I must say that I personally don't like posting myself as a permanent guardian over any particular article. It gets boring, plus regularly dealing with editors pushing extreme POV uses up a lot of one's energy. Still, after what you have pointed out, I will try to make an effort. Indeed, this is an article which ought to be kept in top shape, given that it carries the FA star. Balcer 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not up to modern standards (not enough inlince citations). Updating it with refs would be much welcome.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hostages

[edit]

How could they be considered hostages, if they were shot within hour of capture ? What would be the reason for having them as hostages ? Did the soldiers demand any ransom ? This does not make sense. --Lysytalk 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, Norman Davies, a respected scholar who no one would consider to be biased against Poland or Poles tells us in WERS, "White Eagle, Red Star" pg. 47, ...They seized thirty-five people as hostages, whom Luzynski then ordered to be summarily shot. The town was pacified. I hope that the fact that the Polish Army was the perpetrator of this war crime is not the basis for P.P., (Prokonsul Piotrus) removing the term hostage, as it is correct and appropriate. And Lysy, I fail to understand what is so puzzling about it to you. And whether a hostage is murdered within in two minutes or two weeks is not really an issue either. Respectfully. Dr. Dan 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Dan is right in this case (except for his automatic assumption of bad faith of course). Lysy, if you want an analogy to help explain this, think of the Germans during the occupation of Poland, who would take a number of Poles as hostages and post a list of their names in the street, with an announcement that if any German is killed by the Underground, those on the list will be killed. I think something similar happened in this case.Balcer 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, sorry but this was not an "automatic" assumption of bad faith. I have seen a repeated effort on the part of some editors to soften the brutality, if you will, of Polish crimes (and this one is a doozie), by removing terms that are unfortunate, but brutally accurate. Dr. Dan 01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, as I have seen others doing the exact opposite (not, however, in this particular example, as I believe the difference between 'prisoner' and 'hostage' is very small either way and the article cannot be white or blackwashed with neither of those words).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edits to the article, I think prisoner is more correct than hostage, but this seems like a minor semantics issue. If Davies uses hostages, I have no further objections, he certainly knows the nuances of English better than I.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, prisoner and hostage are not the same. This is not about semantics either. These were innocent civilians taken as hostages, and murdered as examples in order to "pacify" the rest of the city's inhabitants. That's the whole point. Dr. Dan 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But civilians can be taken as prisoners to for the same reasons, can't they? Or perhaps it is me missing nuances of English translations of Polish word 'więzień', which can be translated as both 'hostage' and 'prisoner'? Anyway, I am withdrawing my objection to 'hostage', it is indeed at least as correct as 'prisoner'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus was right about this. The basic difference between war prisoner and a hostage taken during military action lays in the idea of security and/or ransom, or lack of thereof. According to Free Dictionary by Farlex the Jewish captives could only be interpreted as prisoners, not as hostages, and here’s why:

pris·on·er(prz-nr, prznr) n. 1. A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint...[10]

hos·tage(hstj) n. 1. A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party. [11]
--Poeticbent talk 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish soldiers went to the meeting, arrested a bunch of people at random (security), and marched them off to their headquarters. They appear to have done this to ensure that no violence would be carried out against them by the people of the town (specified terms). It seems to me clearly a case of hostage taking (think of a bank robbery where hostage taking is used by the robbers to ensure their safety). The soldiers guarding them appeared to have panicked subsequently and executed the hostages. Davies is a through historian, and he certainly cannot be accused of an anti-Polish bias. I would go with his choice of words in this case. Balcer 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that that's settled. Some time ago I emailed Sir Ian Kershaw regarding an erroneous quote attributed to Paul von Hindenburg that appeared in his book Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, and was also being quoted on Wikipedia. Sir Ian was courteous enough to respond quickly and inform me that the error was removed from all subsequent and future printings of the book. I took the liberty to remove it from WP too. Since Poeticbent seemed very earnest in what the definition of prisoner vs. hostage is, he might want to write to Norman Davies and see if Davies might make a similar type of change in his description of what the murdered victims were. Dr. Dan 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panic attack

[edit]

If there are no objections I intend to remove the nonsense about the Polish Army "panicking" (thereby committing this atrocity under this form of stress), as this is someone's pure POV. Furthemore, the using of Davies', WERS, as the source confirming this nonsense is another example of the falsification of a source. Nowhere does Davies use panic in describing the motives or basis of the Polish Army in WERS for committing this crime. Dr. Dan 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, no objection from me on this score. Balcer 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These excesses were, therefore, political as well as anti-Semitic in character"

[edit]

This is what Morgenthau said. And the word political is used in much more wider context (i.e. Ukrainian independence movement). I think there is no need to distort the sources. Please try to show more respect for the readers next time, please. M0RD00R 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executed or Murdered?

[edit]

The references to "executed" need to be substantiated. Is taking thirty-five civilians hostage, and shooting them without due process an execution, or murder? Shooting hostages in order to pacify what is believed to be a potentially dangerous situation is definitely an unjustifiable criminal atrocity and this article has made too many attempts at weaseling out of that fact. I wish to correct this. Any objections? Dr. Dan 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems a bit like overstating the obvious and underestimating the intelligence of Wikipedia readers (massacre and execution in the first sentence made it perfectly clear that this was an evil, criminal act). But if you think that this point must be made, be my guest. Balcer 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does matter what article do we link to. Execution? Massacre? Mass murder? Pogrom? Etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your four examples, P.P., execution would be the least logical choice. Dr. Dan 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the bottom line is that we should use a term our sources use. Davies uses 'execution' ("komisja sledcza z ramienia aliantow zaprzeczyla, by powodem egzekucji") and incident ("Poniewaz incydent w Pinsku"). PS. Benersky uses 'shot' and 'exectuted', too. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is to be listed in Mass murder article, sources confirming it is called that and is prominent enough to be included should be presented (ideally we should see some authors discussing mass murder in general, mentioning Pinsk massacre as a specific example of it). Balcer 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just the same, I'd like to see some consistency coming out of your side here. In the many articles "created" by Molobo, and edited by P.P., and others, the German Army murders Polish civilians, while here the Polish Army executes them. Is there a double standard, or not? And let's not forget the Russians and or Soviets. They are also often the murderers, and occupiers, especially in the eyes of many editors out of your little group. Lysy removed my correct assertion that the Polish Army occupied Pinsk. He feels it's too POV. Don't know why? The Germans occupied Paris and a lot of other cities in WWII. So what? Interrelated is my problem over the attempt to somehow lessen the seriousness of this murder over the fact "that it might have been a Bolshevik meeting." We know that this was not established, and it's totally irrelevant from a moral standpoint. I can't put my finger on it but, it certainly heralds that Goebbelsian "Jewish-Bolshevik" phraseology so sadly used. Dr. Dan 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Dan, there are no sides here, only Wikipedians trying to create a good article (as the numerous instances where I agreed with you above must have convinced you by now). If you have a problem with formulations used in other articles, please make edits to the relevant articles and/or initiate discussion there. Balcer 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, my apologies. You are right, there are no sides here. How could have I made that foolish assumption? Best. Dr. Dan 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pogrom or riot? WHy do the Poles always pogrom but White Americans riot? Xx236 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zionistic meeting

[edit]

I can't exactly remember the source that mentioned the "Zionist meeting" now. Anyway, Polish wiki also mentions it (pl:Masakra w Pińsku, 1919). --Lysytalk 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here: Józef Lewandowski in "Rzeczpospolita", #39, 15 February 2001 writes: Na rozkaz majora Łuczyńskiego rozstrzelano 35 miejscowych Żydów. Próbując zatrzeć zbrodnię, twierdzono, że zamordowani byli komunistami i że szykowali powstanie. Ze źródeł żydowskich wiadomo, że byli to syjoniści, zebrani w domu ludowym w celu podziału amerykańskiej pomocy żywnościowej przed Wielkanocą. Zbrodniarzowi nic się nie stało, przeciwnie - awansował, został generałem. Budziło to zgrozę również w wielu polskich działaczach. O zbrodni w Polsce zapomniano, zwłaszcza że historycy dużo uczynili, by ją zamazać. I'm removing the citation request. --Lysytalk 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you add the citation to the article to the, well, article? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Przed Wielkanocą? What about Passover?

Cow?

[edit]

For most English speakers a cow is the major source of milk in the western world (and elsewhere), but it seems to be understood differently by my constant shadow stalking my edits. True, the alternate definition of cow, as a verb, is to, "Subdue, restrain, or overcome by affecting with a feeling of awe", and perhaps the author of Zydokomuna, thinks this is what the purpose of the actions of the Polish Army was before, during, or after murdering these people in Pinsk. I do not. I would be very happy to discuss each recently reverted edit of mine by the "Prokonsul," and welcome anyone else's input into this tragic event. I would even suggest that Piotrus write to Dr. Efraim Zuroff to get his opinion on this Polish officer "panicking" from the "reports" that he received (and from whom), causing him to effect this horrendous massacre. Many people are very unaware of this brutality that may have set the stage for the later tragedy that befell the Jewish people in Eastern Europe. This article is truly not "neutral" and needs to be cleansed of it's multitude of WP:Weaseling terminology. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but agree with Dr. Dan. I must also state my objection to the classification of the "attack type" as "execution by a firing squad" with the "target" being "Bolshevik Jewish Agitators." This is, once again and unfortunately entirely unsurprising, an attempt to to blame the Jewish victims with the clearly unsubstantiated "fact" that these people were executed as a result of their crime. The article makes it abundantly clear that this is not the case yet the quick reference information is clearly intentionally misleading. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Lieutenant

[edit]

Talking about a "Polish lieutenant" or the "officer in charge" is mealy-mouthed; surely his name is known? Hugo999 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Aleksander Narbutt-Łuczyński . M0RD00R (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source?

[edit]

How reliable is this? It's an interesting read, but it's written by Józef Lewandowski, published on www.jozeflewandowski.se, and claims to have been published first in 1988 in some engimatic outlet, "POLIN 2". I am afraid it may fail the WP:V as a self-published/unreliable source... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No its not self published, and hardly enigmatic, it's merely reprinted on the authors website. See here for the original publication info The editor is Antony Polonsky, also a hardly enigmatic source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please cite it properly, per WP:CITE. As for Antony Polonsky, perhaps you can stub him so we can read about his credentials? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same historian Antony Polonsky who said that killings in Jedwabne were motivated by Polish revenge for Jewish cooperation with Soviets ?(Rzeczpospolita 20-21 September 2008 "Winni i tak nie przepraszają") from Jewish-Polish Studies on Oxford ?--Molobo (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pinsk massacre. 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:

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) 05:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find waring info in source

[edit]

For the warning from the two Jewish soldiers I can not find in the source provided any backing that they specifically targeted this meeting as part of any uprising. "He was told by two Jewish soldiers that the purpose of the meeting was to plot an armed Bolshevik uprising". The source provided only seems to confirm that the soldiers informed about a possible uprising not that this meeting was part of the uprising.2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also where are you getting the information for the "Rzeczpospolita" article. The original source is down and the archived copy is just the first few paragraphs. Honestly though after reading the beginning it doesn't seem like a very useful source. It pretty obviously has an editorial bent instead of an academic one.2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both the info on the "two jews" (probably a Polish army claim) which is sourced to a PRIMARY report, and Rzeczpospolita (written by a journalist, in a newspaper, and not in English - which per WP:NOENG we prefer) - should be struck from the article. In general, sourcing for an article on a ~100 year event should be sourced to reputable history books and journal articles, with a strong preference for English - and there is quite a bit ofmwork to do in this regard here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"probably a Polish army claim"-please can I ask for a source supporting your claim?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivial observation - per the report this was a report of two Jewish soldiers in the Polish forces to their Polish commander.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before you two get to arguing can my two questions get answered? I can't find the full article in "Rzeczpospolita" anywhere and I can't find anywhere in the source provided that these two soldiers said anything specifically about the meeting. Before we argue about the weight of the sources we at least need to confirm they are properly represented. I havn't seen any evidence that the investigator interviewed the soldiers in the source but I wouldn't expect to either. They would be considered informers so their identity would presumably have been protected. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant paragraph seems to be It has been asserted officially by the Polish au- thorities that there was reason to suspect this assemblage of bolshevist allegiance. This mission is convinced that no arguments of bolshevist nature were mentioned in the meeting in question. While it is recognized that certain information of bolshe- vist activities jn Pinsk had been received by two Jewish soldiers, the undersigned is convinced that Maj. Luczynski, the town commander, showed rep- rehensible and frivolous readiness to place credence upon such untested assertions, and on this insuffi- cient basis took inexcusably drastic action against reputable citizens whose loyal character could have been immediately established by a consultation with any well known non-Jewish inhabitant.. Which seems to indicate general information on bolshevik activities and not specific intel on this meeting. As for the rp article - I would reject it on the venue and author - but I had trouble accessing it as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless there is a better explanation then that would seem to be source falsification on at least two points. First turning activities into armed uprising and second turning a general warning into a specific one. I found another source falsified earlier so that is unfortunate. Do we know who added this?2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the paragraph above it is clear that the information is in regards to the meeting as the both facts are within the same context. Rzeczpospolita is a reliable source and there are no reasons for its deletion. There seem to be different versions of the Morgenthau report as well, this one has different wording[12]"he town commander with judgment unbalanced by fear of a bolshevik

uprising of which he had been forewarned by two Jewish soldier informers sought to terrorize the Jewish population". Also which sources according to you are falsified?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Some of this dates a long ways back. But yes, many articles in this topic area have a very large POV and sourcing problem - if you have time to critically examine each source - all power to you. In other articles un this topic area I have found use of self puvlished works by fringe authors (so two reasons not to use in the first place) that were then actually misrepresented. The rp article seemsmto have been added in this difff.Icewhiz (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for Rzeczpospolita - WP:NOENG wold preclude its use if we have better or equal sources quallity wise, which we do. And, in general, newspapers are not great sources for historical articles. Context matters when evaluating RSes, and if only rp carries this claim - it is also UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Polish sources are highly reliable and dependent, while we can use English ones, Polish ones are good as well and often have information that will be difficult to find elsewhere.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you accessing the full article from. Do you have a copy? To be honest if it is difficult to find elsewhere with the amount of book sthat have been written on the subject then it probably isn't worth noting. 2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quote about the uprising is not in the source you supplied. Are you saying this quote you added "he town commander with judgment unbalanced by fear of a bolshevik uprising of which he had been forewarned by two Jewish soldier informers sought to terrorize the Jewish population". is in another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8502:1FB0:EC00:5A4D:9083:30FA (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean? The quote about the uprising is here quite clearly[13]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is from the "The Jadwin and Johnson Report" you should either fix your reference or remove it. Either way it is concerning that you are using sources you clearly don't understand.2601:641:4001:CE80:9963:2CFE:FC4F:B030 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinks massacre of 1941

[edit]

Seems there is also a Pinsk massacre (of Jews) of 1941. [14], [15]. I think it is less known, but likely notable. So Pinsk massacre (1941) should be created, probably? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Icewhiz, also on your thought re 1941 events notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without reviewing the literature in depth, this would most likely pass WP:GNG. However a Holocaust in Pinsk (which Pińsk Ghetto partially is) - as in Holocaust in Telšiai (created by me this year - all men massacred in July 1941, most women in August 1941, young women ghettoized then massacred in December 1941) - might be a better organization - as usually you want pre/post massacre as well, and this often better follows the way source material is organized (which often covers the whole Holocaust period in the town/region - as opposed to the specific massacre). There may be WP:COMMONNAME issues with Pinsk massacre (1941) as well (certainly fits descriptive, but e.g. Babi Yar, might be known by a different name). Note we have The Holocaust in Belarus#Massacres. If I were doing this now - I would try to do Holocaust by Bullets in Belarus - covering the shootings in 1941, and Holocaust in X covering each locale, before possibly doing individual events - but this is more of a merger/editing-plan/priority discussion than standalone notability. Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

[edit]

The third-fourth lines require a correction. Currently reading "The Jews who were executed had been arrested were meeting in a Zionist center . . .", it should say "The Jews who were executed had been arrested while meeting in a Zionist center . . ." Mister-P-Niss (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pinsk_massacre&oldid=1209763982"