Talk:Białystok pogrom

Polish Participation

As it stands the article makes no mention of Polish participation in the pogrom. Was this the case? Were the thugs, hooligans, looters, and "bandits" (mentioned in the Jewish references), who preyed on these hapless people, all imported from Ukraine, Belarus, or Lithuania? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please check the referenced source on Apolinary Hartglas (another source indirectly implies that Jabotinsky shared this view) by Sarah Bender (I assume that would fall under your definition of "Jewish references"). The information's already there if you just look with a modicum of good faith.radek (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have much more than a "modicum of good faith." What I don't have is an ability to see an issue from one perspective, and one perspective only. What I also don't have is the ability to allow sources to be "twisted" to fit a biased POV agenda based on weaseling and denial. What I also don't have is the patience to allow a continual bashing of other nations, while historical crimes are perpetually explained away, if they concern Poland. Wikipedia has the inherent ability to inform and educate its readers. Unfortunately it also has the ability to skew and twist information in the hands of those, who not only edit without a "modicum of good faith," but with an obvious agenda to promote a one sided picture of historical events. The reversal of the edits made by me in the last several hours stand as irrefutable evidence of my contention. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.radek (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the English and Polish references thoroughly. I'm sure that both you and Jacurek did too. Inspite of the reference clearly stating that "the Poles" destroyed the "Pillar of Sorrow," monument, you changed it to "some Poles" (adding the blather that the Polish nation didn't destroy it). The reference didn't claim that the Polish nation did it either. Jacurek upped the ante a notch by removing any reference to Polish culpability in the post Holocaust Polish vandalism. I think the basis for his edit was explained with something suggesting that a claim to Polish participation cannot be substantiated (my extrapolation). So what's the bottom line? Simply that the information from the referenced source was first "changed" and then "removed." Seen it done over and over again. These mind games are beginning to become all too obvious to neutral participants in this project. It might be time to back down. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, obviously "the Poles" (who is that? all of them?) didn't vandalize the monument but possibly some individuals of Polish ethnicity did. How is correcting ordinary grammar "whitewashing", particularly since the source is a translation from Yiddish (so it's not surprising that the definitive articles got mixed up)? And seriously, this is a really really minor aspect ("the" vs. "some") of the article and you're nit picking here. It seems as if you are desperately trying to find a place where you can put in something anti-Polish. Unless you really think that it was ALL the Poles who vandalized the monument, can you explain why it should be "the" and not "some" (if either)?radek (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Radek, it's now a moot point, "the" Poles, "some" Poles, are gone. Maybe you'll someday add that "possibly some individuals of Polish ethnicity did (vandalize the monument)." Incidentally, are you inferring that my ability to read the original source (in Yiddish) is as faulty with definitive articles as some of your colleague's is in English? Don't bet on it. All I can say is I appreciate your surprise that this article was not even stubbed prior to your starting it. So now that it's here, I'm sure it's early flaws will be improved upon. Hard as it might be for you to believe, I had no idea that the Pinsk massacre ever happened , or that the concept of Żydokomuna existed. Wikipedia is not only a vehicle for teaching but for learning. Over and out! p.s. Good luck with the Siedlce pogrom! Dr. Dan (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, first, I don’t appreciate you accusing me of whitewashing, o.k ? Second, if your edits are so unbiased and in good faith as you endlessly claim, so please explain why are you so sure that the people who destroyed the monument but were never caught were ethnically Polish and why you insisting on having “the Poles did it” in the sentence even if it does sounds (YES IT DOES) as it was the Polish Nation that did it. ...and please don’t hide behind “because this is what the source says” B.S.

Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- Actually now that I'm looking for more sources I find several that state that the monument in the Jewish Cemetery that stands there today is the same one that was raised before the war. For example this: [1] and this: [2]. It may be the case that the original monument got vandalized right after the war in all the chaos but was then rebuild thereafter. Without further, more detailed, sources it's hard to say.radek (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Many people arrived from out of the city to take part in Corpus Cristi celebration and Russian Orthodox celebration (this is supported by the sources). It is possible that most of the hooligans and looters were not from Białystok itself, but from nearby villages, arriving to take part in celebrations (this is just my supposition).DonaldDuck (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Plagiarism

I would like to ask some of the contributing editors of this article to review some of their edits. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? While we're at it, can I ask you review some of your edits?radek (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a very serious allegation. Could you point out the source of the alleged plagiarism? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Malik, I asked some of the contributing editors to review their contributions, and the WP policy concerning plagiarism; some have asked me to review some of my edits. Don't remember making any allegations. In any case you might want to read the sub-section regarding the Pillar of Sorrow monument, the references, and the edits. On another matter you might also want to check the sources as to whether it states the vandals who destroyed the monument were "unknown". Dr. Dan (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for your response. See my comments below. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, you titled this section WP:Plagiarism. You asked "some of the contributing editors" to review their edits under this heading. The clear implication is that somehow the Wiki policy on plagiarism was violated. And then you were asked to specify how supposedly this breach occurred - if it did, we're all interested in correcting the error. Did the plagiarism occur in the monument section? Or is that unrelated? So. Can you please state clearly, precisely, and succinctly where you think this particular violation (of plagiarism, not something else, plagiarism, since you titled the section "plagiarism") occurred in the edits to this article?radek (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Radek, prior to thinking about it a little and writing the above remarks, you wrote: "While we're at it, can I ask you review some of your edits?" Can you please state clearly, precisely, and succinctly, what you meant by this question? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan. Plagiarism. Yes? No? Where?radek (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Radek, here it is again: "I would like to ask some of the contributing editors of this article to review some of their edits." It's polite simple English. And yes, my header is WP:Plagiarism. If you choose to read into that as an accusation of some kind that's your perogative. As I began to read various edits that seemed a little too close for comfort, I thought it to be an appropriate reminder for some to read or re-read those guidelines, nothing more. That you want to make something more out of it than that, is beyond my control. What you read into my other edits is also beyond my control. Hope that answer satisfies you. Perhaps now you will explain your question to me,"While we're at it, can I ask you review some of your edits?" Same subject. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying there's no plagiarism in the edits? You just put that heading up there for kicks. Am I right in my interpretation of what you are saying?radek (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I've already answered your question, perhaps you might answer mine. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

<--Except you really haven't which is why I'm trying to get a clarification here. So: No plagiarim. Just for no reason at all. Correct?radek (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think this is becoming a childish waste of time? I have answered your question, you're unfortunately unhappy with the answer. Even so, you haven't even tried to answer mine. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll come out and say what Dr. Dan won't. The whole section Białystok pogrom#Monument to the victims is lifted, almost verbatim, from this source. And the source says that "the Poles" vandalized the monument.

There are other sections that aren't as egregious, but still are plagiarism. Too many phrases are taken directly from the sources. "However Jews who had survived the pogrom testified that the local Poles had refused to participate in the violence and sheltered Jews instead" is one example, and "fanned out in the center of the city" is another. Almost everything sourced to this book looks like plagiarism.

Somebody's got to go through the article and make sure that Wikipedia says things in its own words, not the words of other authors. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Malik, thank you!!!radek (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to rewrite the section you pointed out - hopefully this took care of the problem. If there's any other instances where you think the wording is too close to the sources please point it out (or change it yourself). The issue of "the Poles" vs. "some Poles" (since it obviously wasn't ALL the Poles) is a bit silly IMO, really brought up for no good reason. At worst changing "the" to "some" is no different then rewording other passages. At best it's simply more correct grammatically. Additionally there's at least two sources which state that the memorial present there today is the same one which stood there before the war - possibly the original was vandalized and then restored using the same material, or a copy was made. Either way I included both sources (which is standard when sources seem to conflict). I might actually try emailing somebody about this and see if more information can be obtained.(add: that last edit was also mine, somehow I got logged out mid edit)radek (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Radek, what are you thanking Malik for? And would you still mind giving me an answer to my question? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thanking Malik for helping out. As to your question, I just thought it would be good if you looked over your edits again.radek (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Radek have you forgotten this?: "Alright, if this: (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues"...radek (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Or this? I believe you are also referring to me here too: "I want to restate my question for Deacon: what exactly is "absurd" or "tendentious" to objecting to frivolous, unsubstantiated and spurious charges of Plagiarism (for which, in real world, students get failed, people get fired, people get sued, reputations are ruined, etc. - all the good reason why Wiki takes copyvio and plagiarism very seriously)"?radek (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Why couldn't you have said what Malik said? You made 5 different comments since your initial allegation over almost 12 hrs in none of them stating in a clear manner what you were referring to. Why did he have to say "I'll say what Dan won't" (and I do NOT want to drag him into this)?radek (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, why did he have to say "what Dr. Dan wouldn't", but what you have recently claimed at an on going AE against me, were "frivolous, unsubstantiated and spurious charges of Plagiarism", that you are now grateful to Malik "for helping you out", not only to understand the problem, but to cause you to start re-writing the article. Something is very wrong here, Radek. Very wrong. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Picking on the image

If anyone feels like making a constructive contribution, the book that the image comes from is "Rok 1905" by Feliks Tych and is attributed to Henryk Nowodworski [3]. It is available in some major university libraries, unfortunately, not mine. Here's a list: [4]. If someone has easy access to these places then a short trip could quite potentially and simply clear up this 'alleged' business. From the image description it sounds like in scanning the image the caption simply got cut off, hence the 'alleged'. Hence the drama. (and BTW, that is very clearly a Tsarist cap).radek (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No drama. If the image depicts the Bialystok Pogrom, then it does. If it allegedly does, then it shouldn't "claim" that it does depict the BP (other than allegedly). As far as it being "clearly" a Tsarist cap, dunno, if you told me it looked like a cap from the Imperial Germany army, I'd have the same problem. Even though it does resemble one. Just the same, WP is still an encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help you Dr.Dan. [5]. This is the hat from the drawing but worn sideways. Like you said before, one learns something everyday.--Jacurek (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully some Wikipedian from or visiting Białystok will take a photo of the monument. It will eventually appear in the commons:Category:Monuments in Białystok.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous photos of the monument available on line, some from personal collections and some historical ones whose copyright (if any) has probably expired. Honestly though I get lost in the guidelines for images so I hesitated in including one.radek (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless its available under a free license, we cannot really use it (easily and for a long period...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject of the caricature. Please provide a source that specifically states that the image pertains to the Bialystok pogrom, 1906. Please provide a source that claims the thug in the caricature is wearing a "Tsarist" cap. You may leave it here, on the talk page, (in Polish if you'd like). If that's not possible, or impossible, I will change the caption back to when I changed it to a pogrom caricature, claiming nothing else. No personal opionions regarding the caricature and what it represents, O.K. ? Supposedly it's all in ... Encyclopedia "Dzieje narodu i państwa polskiego" t. III (Feliks Tych "Rok 1905"), Wyd. KAW, Warsaw, which should make it easy to do. On the other hand it might not be all that easy, since the pogrom took place in 1906, and the source was printed in 1905. So what's up? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting old books is not generally easy (particularly since I'm not in Poland ATM). The books title refers to the year 1905, not when it was published. The uploader identifies it as this pogrom. Czarist cap is obvious.radek (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm fine with having "probably" in the image caption.radek (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Getting old books is not generally easy" is not an excuse for weaseling or for violating WP:OR. As usual, my edit does not pertain only to you Radek, but to anyone interested who can straighten the matter out. So whether or not you are in Poland, or not, is of no importance. We are not supposed to place images with subjective interpretations, like "Czarist cap is obvious", either. The uploader (a newer, "changed" explanation) does not hold water and cannot "identify" this image with the Bialystok pogrom. It is simply a violation of WP:OR. Furthermore if the question of 1905 vs 1906 is hard to comprehend, let me reiterate that the caricature was published in 1905, one year prior to the pogrom. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on the image

Could we please ask for a WP:3O or open an RfC concerening the image? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Malik's proposal. Let's take a close look at it and what's going on here. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of victims

• List of victims at The Pogrom Against The Jews By David Sohn includes 79 names.
• Another list of names, compiled by doctors of Bialystok Jewish hospital during the events and published in Владимиров В. Очерки современных казней. М., 1906. lists 80 Jewish victims.
• Sarah Abrevaya Stein in referenced book Making Jews modern (p. 117) reproduces a list of victims published by Jewish newspaper Der fraynd on 7 July, 1906. It includes 49 names. [6]

All this definitely proves that number of approximately two hundred Jews killed in Making Jews modern, p. 113 is far from real number of victims. It should not be included in the article as some alternative source.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On page 116 of Making Jews Modern, the author describes the illustration on page 117, and says: "The list contained forty-nine names, and a caption added 'in addition to the forty-nine dead listed here, there are many others—women, children, youths, old people, whose names we do not yet know.'"

It seems to me that the illustration on page 117, then, is useless as a source of "49 dead". The author of Making Jews Modern has made her views clear on page 113: more than 200 dead.

PS: When various reliable sources disagree, as they often do, we typically offer a range with sources that support both ends of the range. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

49 dead is incomplete list. Full list includes about 80 dead. Duma committe report gives 82 killed and about 70 wounded Jews and 6 killed and 12 wounded Christians. So real figures are 80-90 dead, while Stein's figure of approx. 200 dead is out of any reasonable range and is not reliable.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

80 (or arounds there) is the most quoted number which is why it's in the lead and presented with few qualifications. The other estimates are mentioned however - as they should be. I've also seen a few other sources which give higher figures. It's possible - though this is ORish - that the 200 figure includes victims from another pogrom which happened around the same time, under similar circumstances in a nearby town. radeksz (keyboard tilda key broken)

Why not to include figure of 49 dead from Der fraynd, as other estimate? Because it is incomplete and not correct estimate. Similarly 200 figure is gross overestimate and should not be included.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Derkacz

"most likely on the orders of Szeremietiev" with reference to P.Korzec, Pogrom Białostocki w 1906 and political repercussions, "Rocznik Białostocki", t. III, Białystok 1962, page. 149 - 182. This looks highly unlikely - police officer ordering (whom?) to kill his own police chief. Author himself presents it not as fact, but as some assumption ("likely"). Can someone provide full text of Korzec article, or some alternative sources?

Also, from Polish wikipedia article pl:Anarchiści w Rewolucji 1905 roku (ziemie polskie): "W czerwcu 1907 r. anarchista Szpindler zabił naczelnika policji, we wrześniu anarchista Gorodowojczyka dokonał zamachu na sekretarzu carskiej Ochrany." Police chief is not named, may this be about murder of Derkacz?

Derkacz is named Derkachev (Деркачев) in some sources, was he Polish as stated in the article? DonaldDuck (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The above is a year off. Radeksz

As to the other issues: that Szeremietiev, or Sheremetev, was an anti-semitic is in several sources, for example here: [7]. On the Derkacz thing, honestly, I saw it in one of the sources when writing the text but didn't think to cite it then couldn't find the source again; same as with that peasant that confessed - it's there, but I forget where and it will take me a little time to find it again. Feel free to fact tag it for now. I'm assuming that Derkachev was a Russified version of his name since he was after all a Tsarist official during a time when Polish was frowned upon (at least in the gov). The fact that Sheremetev and Derkacz were at odds with each other is also in the sources so it's not that far out of the range of possibilities. BTW, I saw your edit summary which said "remove conspiracy stuff" or something like that. Now, most conspiracy theories are false, but there are some real conspiracies - say, Watergate - and this is why you can even get charged with "conspiracy to commit...". I'm not sure if this counts as an instance of conspiracy but there was definitely some heavy plotting involved.radek (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User DonaldDuck is exactly right. Derkachev is obviously not a Polish name; it's Russian or Russified Ukrainian. Derkachev was born in Poltava governorate (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). Radek's idea that the surnames of Poles would be Russified this way because "being Polish was frowned upon" is preposterous and it's no coincidence that no examples are given. Also, as mentioned above, the conspiracy theory that Radek is promoting here is extremely unlikely, i.e. that Derkachev's deputy, Sheremetov, somehow had him murdered (in an area that the article itself refers to as an anarchist stronghold) for the purpose of then committing a pogrom against Jews. The article itself lists a series of attacks against police in the city in which several officers were killed and wounded shortly before Derkachev's death. His death is mostly likely simply a continuation of that. There's no need for any baseless conspiracy-mongering.

Furthermore, Radek curiously refers to Sheremetov as a "Russian commissar", contrasting him with the good "Pole" "Derkacz" (who, of course, was not even a Pole). Sheremetov's job title obviously wasn't "commissar" and this kind of blatant ethnic whitewashing and vilification should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Neither should Radek's selective use of sources, e.g. Bender, who says that Derkachev was shot and killed by a local Pole and doesn't mention anything about Sheremetov having him murdered. The only reason he cites that source is that it goes on to claim the discovery of a secret document proving that the Russian authorities planned the pogrom in advance. If such a document really existed, wouldn't it feature prominently in the main article on pogroms in the Russian empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:E902:B100:D51E:3C1F:175D:7F21 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is Chernoe Znamia hanging on in the lead?

there indeed is no citation behind it so why keep it up? Zuzu8691 (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)