Talk:Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom

message: I don't think any of this is particularly wrong, but I do think a lot of this is undercited. For example, when we say "The Romanians complied grudgingly," that is definitely a subjective (if essentially accurate) statement and should be attributed. - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we need clear and specific citations. Also, I added POV-check tag especially for formulations like this: 
"The disagreement between Antonescu and the Iron Guard about the robbery of the Jews was not about the robbery itself, but about the method, and the final destination of the stolen property. " this seems unbalanced at least. If it was a clear quote from a book with a reference it would be other story but like this it looks like this is the opinion of WIkipedia. -- AdrianTM 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More specific citations

message: :The Romanians complied grudgingly, with great resentment among all social classes, especially concerning giving rights to the Jewish population. The new territories, especially Bessarabia and Bukovina, included large numbers of Jewish people, whose presence stood out, because their clothing, customs, and language were different from those common in Romania.
I don't think the "clothing, customs, and language" were the most important issues brought up during the debate. The Hungarians and Ukrainians have different clothing, customs and languages, too. Also, it was not due to their religion either, because there was no resentment against the Muslim population of Dobruja at the time. 
From what I know, the main issue was that the Jewish population was that they were seen as "recent immigrants" who did not belonged in there, as most of them came to Bessarabia and Bukovina during the 19th century. bogdan 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina 

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

message: Yeap, the article and the discussion is a prime example. "I've read wiki policy, and am well versed in it." - I'm sure you did. --Laur2ro | Talk 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any actual claims or suggestions, or are you here just to amuse us with humoristic pages? okedem 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[user:Daniel Quinlan/gaming|Gaming the system]]

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

message: Hi, this interesting article is quite long and IMHO seems a bit unreferenced (ie: few references included for this size of article). I'd appreciate if the editors can please cite references for the most contentious paragraps (ie: those that might lead to discussion/difference of views), to comply with verifiability.  I'll tag the article accordingly, to make my request more visible. And will add a "citation neded" tag where I believe there should be one.  Thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag - all information is supported by the references cited at the end. okedem (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I agree with DPdH that the style of referencing could use some work. The only general ref currently given is a paper in Romanian by  Radu Ioanid (a language I grok), and it only covers the details of the pogrom ("The Bucharest pogrom" section—oddly enough by mostly summarizing some English sources, which could be cited directly), but it does not cover the other unreferenced stuff in this article, e.g. the planning of the rebellion. That should somehow be made clear. Pcap ping 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing unreferenced in this article. All of the information comes from the sources listed under "References", mostly Ancel and the international commission report. okedem (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you should have no trouble adding a handful of inline citations as requested. Compare with Ion Antonescu#Antonescu and the Holocaust. Pcap ping 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add a few cites to the paragraphs and the points you've tagged, but I won't start adding a citation to every sentence. It'll take a few days, so please have patience. okedem (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, I'm not challenging the contents. Pcap ping 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added sources to the points you've indicated. Any others you feel particularly need a specific source? okedem (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for taking the time to add them. And sorry for the later reply, with the craze surrounding the Romanian elections, which spread to Wikipedia too, I forgot to reply here back then. Pcap ping 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a drama there, indeed... okedem (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add references and citations 

message: I noticed that all the references and "further readings" are centered on the pogrom , not the actual conflict between the army and the legionnaires, which was the rebellion itself. Unfortunately, I dont know any other sources, but I'm sure they must exist. Yes, I imply that the present sources may have be not quite NPOV, since they are coming from the "damaged side".193.57.67.241 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You make two claims here. First, focusing on the pogrom - indeed, the sources deal with the rebellion in the wider context of the holocaust, and in relation to the pogrom. Whatever; I don't know of sources focusing on the rebellion, so this is a moot point. Second, I reject your "NPOV" claim. First, the claim is just false - one of the main sources is the commission chartered by the Romanian government to investigate these issues (when Romania finally started confronting its past). Second, the other sources used are respectable historians, and their origin is wholly irrelevant. okedem (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I messed up a bit. Actually, I'm not sure if is OK that the 2 events are merged in 1 article. They are related, but one is a politic-military event, the other was just another typical pogrom, nothing politic or military about it. One can even consider that was a time coincidence. That's why sourcing is a bit awkward. And, just imho, any jewish sources are accepted everywhere without any question, the other are being carefully scrutinized (are they denialist, even tangentially? - which is THE SIN). This is just a rethoric, I know I cant change anything. Have a good day. 193.57.67.241 (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616052332/http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/2003-01/paper.pdf to http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/2003-01/paper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613061634/http://www.inshr-ew.ro/en-index.htm to http://www.inshr-ew.ro/en-index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legionnaires' rebellion and Bucharest pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229225552/http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/features/details/2005-03-10/ to http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/features/details/2005-03-10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Hitler loved Antonescu, it is just that Hitler loved the Iron Guard more than Antonescu. I mean it was obvious to him that Antonescu was lukewarm about the Final Solution. Strategically, Antonescu was a good choice for Hitler, but Hitler dreamed of something more. Hitler was obsessed with killing the Jews, while Antonescu's priority were the Russians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem to let that if a source is provided. It's just strange to me that Italy and Germany were both involved into this and in opposing sides. Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler vs. Antonescu 

message: I read the book mentioned as a reference and I couldn't find anything about it. This is what the book says:
"Von Bolschwing helped arm and instigate the rebels by giving 
them the secret blessing of the SS, according to German records. 24 
Later he smuggled a dozen of their top leaders out of Bucharest 
when the rebellion was put down by a rival faction of Romanian 
rightists. About 630 people were killed during the violence, accord¬ 
ing to contemporary reports, with another 400 reported missing. 
“In the Bucharest morgue, one can see hundreds of corpses,” a Nazi 
military attache cabled back to headquarters in Berlin. “But they 
are mostly Jews.”"
HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the Wehrmacht actually support Antonescu?