Talk:Mława riot

Are Polish neo-Nazis editing this

Anti-Gypsy attitudes on Wikipedia? The article has so many absurd passages. The "also described by Western media as the Mlawa pogrom" is one of them. Actually this is also the name used by Polish media, except far right sources for at least a decade (maybe even from the beginning). Yet as the word pogrom is really bad and incriminating in meaning and riot is not (at least in Polish), the title and the text use the weird unused name. It's actually like calling the LA Riots (for instance) the LA civil disturbance, as this would be the same euphemism in English. I don't believe English speakers did it, as the word "pogrom" is widely used on Wikipedia for brutal racist incidents in Eastern Europe. And the lie about how Polish media call it. Someone is letting Polish neo-Nazi and far right activists edit this. Maybe protect it? And when using Polish media links only use those to central (Warsaw or Krakow published) outlets with circulations of note and not local newspapers with minimal circulations and questionable roles in the events...

Untitled

Was this a pogrom? I think we should consider renaming this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well: Pogrom is a form of riot, a massive violent attack on a particular group; ethnic, religious or other, primarily characterized by destruction of their environment (homes, businesses, religious centers). Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murders, in some cases to the degree of massacre. I think the events in Mława have been usually referred to as pogrom. --Lysy^talk 05:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedydelete

English: Controversial stub, based on information to their own, serves the only as a link to a certain page.
Polish: Kontrowersyjny stub, na podstawie informacji własnych, służy jedynie jako link do pewnej strony.--Robsuper (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see how this meets any of the specific criteria for speedy delete. That is not to say that the subject, by this or another name, merits an article, but it should be properly discussed in the usual manner. RashersTierney (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - PL:WP refers to it as Pogrom_mławski as do contemporary reports in Gazeta Wyborcza. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PROD

Wikipedia is the repository of encyclopedic knowledge and should not serve as a registry of crimes. It seems that some people abuse the freedom of speech on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.14.41 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia ...should not serve as a registry of crimes. If the crime is sufficiently notable, why not? On your second point I couldn't agree more. Its called not adhering to a neutral point of view. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete NPOV, a victim of a crime, a criminal offense. A very difficult concept. Daily newspapers thrive on them and make money from ads. I do not judge anyone. As a Pole I have the right to shape the image of the country where I live. This short article gives a newspaper-style description of the incident in Mlawa. In this way, care for ethnic hatred. This is a place in the pages of Wikipedia. I can not agree to this. BTW, good job editing.--Robsuper (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims, sources, differences.

The information provided in this article differs from that provided in the Polish version.
The differences include dates, numbers (that the victim died after "a few days" not two weeks, the riots lasted 2 not 5 days), some details, e.g. PL doesn't say anything about the guy who caused the accident having been threatened and fleeing because of that - it says it was a hit and run, which is what typically happens. I mean how can a guy who is in a car hear people threatening him? Logically it's improbable, looks like a hit and run to me, especially since the guy was very young. Another thing is, an independent analysis cited in the Polish version states no one was injured, with the attacks being vandalism and destruction of property (The difference is also in how the English version only briefly mentions economic factors i.e. that it was wealthy Roma people who were being targeted for some reason. The houses of the poor Roma were left untouched -this is an interesting fact because generally I think in anti-Romani attacks, it's the poor who are being attacked, so it makes this particular attack quite unique).
Interestingly, the Polish article was based largely on Michnik's newspaper (as well as some books and reports), and this article here cites Michnik as one of those who reported the incident properly. Why the contradiction, then?
I noticed that the facts that don't match are taken mostly from the article on European Roma Rights Centre. That article doesn't cite sources on those particular claims I've mentioned here.
I don't mean to offend anyone, I just feel that the differences are too significant to be just left unaddressed. I find the section of the Polish article which recounts the events believable, while the other section, speaking about "genesis" of the attack seems too broad and sociological and thus gives the impression of being defensive, which I'll be addressing in Polish article 'talk'.
Meanwhile it would be great if the English language editors discussed the inconsistencies.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)