Talk:Pinsk massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not a bad title. I've copied it after Polish wiki. Also checked Google books  for usage. --Lysytalk 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 (), Bendersky ( where a US officer on scence states it was not a pogrom, and Davies which calls it a "so-called Pogrom" (). 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)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't expect his promotion was associated with the massacre. Maybe this should be rephrased. --Lysytalk 22:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Luczynski

message: 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)
replies: text: Meltyukhov gives 40. --Irpen 22:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ? --Irpen 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Number of victims 

message: 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)
thread_title: Related discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hostages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead, no objection from me on this score. Balcer 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Panic attack]]

message: 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)
thread_title: "These excesses were, therefore, political as well as anti-Semitic in character"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Regarding your four examples, P.P., execution would be the least logical choice. Dr. Dan 17:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Executed or Murdered?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zionistic meeting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cow? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was Aleksander Narbutt-Łuczyński . M0RD00R (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ref? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Lieutenant 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-published source? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502041929/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/428213%2C642362.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/428213,642362.html
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) 05:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "probably a Polish army claim"-please can I ask for a source supporting your claim?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  The relevant paragraph seems to be . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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"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)
replies: text:  (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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean? The quote about the uprising is here quite clearly--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can't find waring info in source 

message: Seems there is also a Pinsk massacre (of Jews) of 1941. , . 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)
replies: text: Ping User:Icewhiz, also on your thought re 1941 events notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Pinks massacre of 1941 

message: 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)
replies: text: – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2021