Talk:Lwów pogrom (1918)

message: The lead-in to this article, as well as the synopsis that appeared on Wikipedia's front page "Did you know" section, states that nearly 270 Christians also were killed, twice the number of Jewish people killed, which is stated in the article as up to 150. Given the history and large Christian population of Poland at the time, this seemed so unlikely that I clicked through to the article to read how 270 Christians could have been targeted and victimized to a degree that exceeded the ferocity of the attack against the Jewish population.
However, there were no more than two footnotes, impossible to follow up on immediately, to substantiate this claim. In my mind, this is highly dubious. There is not even a reference to how or why Christians could have been targeted. I think the reference to the 270 Christians should be removed. If it is not removed, it certainly ought to have some further explanation than the bare insertion of an alleged fact.
Before there are any suggestions that my point of view is Jewish and biased, I would like it noted that I have a 2002 B.A. in History from UCLA with a emphasis on the analysis and critique of historical sources, so it's second nature for me to ask where information came from. Additionally, I'm Irish and not Jewish, despite my first name.
Deborah   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah64554 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of 270 Christians also killed needs better substantiation, or speedy removal 

message: Do we have any guidelines as to the intended purpose of the "See also" section ? I believe the links in the "See also" should be to other articles containing additional information about the content of the current article, and maybe present the topic in a wider or a narrower context. "See also" however is not the correct place to put links to other articles only because they belong to the same category. That's what the categories are for. --Lysytalk 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "See also" section has a much narrower scope than a category, if it links to closely related topics I see no problem with it. M0RD00R (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:SEEALSO. I agree that number of links should be minimized.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "closely related topics" is still very arbitrary and some editors use it to promote their political or other agendas. Maybe it would be a good practice to provide a short description/explanation of why a link is closely related to the article ? Then it would be apparent if there indeed is a close relation to the article's subject, or whether it is purely one of the "another article on ..." type of link, in which case a category would be appropriate but not the "See also" section. --Lysytalk 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Considering that more Poles than Jews died there, and it was not a dedicated pogroms but simply civilians of various ethnicities suffering during chaos, I suggest renaming this article to Lwów unrest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't understand that logic. It was a well documented pogrom against Jews. The fact that it occurred in a larger context where there were more deaths does not negate that fact. Polish officers were shot by the Sovetes during world War 2. Many more Russians died in World War 2 than did Poles. Does that negate the discrete character and historical significance of Katyn? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Katyn was a purposeful event. In Przyszowice massacre, Soviets killed a Holocaust survivor, not because they were targeting them, but because they were massacring the village. Nobody planned a pogrom in Lwów, and Jews were not target because they were Jews but because all peaceful civilians were targeted by rampaging criminals and drunken soldiers.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No according to multiple reliable sources it was a purposeful massacre of Jews because they were Jews. Your unique view runs counter to pretty much all scholarly sources on the subject. Your constant harping on the "more Poles than Jews died there" meme, lifted from the fringe views of sociologist (no historian) Piotrowski that run counter to a substantial number of scholarly sources (as well as your fringe POV multiple characterizations of this murderous pogrom as a "riot"--counter to the overwhelming common usage)is not much of a basis to propose a renaming, but feel free to try. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: In the article two reports are stated which different casualty counts. I get it that the higher number is challenged but does that make it exaggerated?
Scafloc (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, which I fixed. I think the point someone was trying to make was that some newspaper reports at the time had much higher figures, which were later modified downward. This notion of "exaggerated" figures has made it into a number of articles that cover this, far beyong the actual importance of the misstated news reports of 1919. I wont speculate at this point on why some editors want to emphasize this "exaggeration". Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exaggerated reports

message: The sources seem pretty clear: Mączyński cites some numbers and documents for that. In terms of ethnic background, primarily Ukrainian criminals (~1000) were arrested, as well as some Poles (~100s) and even Jewish criminal elements (he gives the breakdown as 60%, 30%, 10% in the high (1600 arrested) estimate). Mączyński notes that Majority of the Polish forces tried to stop the pogrom, but some joined in, including 18 officers as well as few dozen of Polish soldiers (who were later, as Morgenhau confirms, arrested and sentenced as well). With that, I believe the article will not be neutral until we recognize that 1) it was not only Poles (or just Polish army!) who perpetrated the pogrom and 2) we stop stressing the participation of Polish officers (many more tried to stop it, not aided it, many more professional groups were better represented in the thousands arrested). Please note that I don't object to mentioning of the officer participation (and subsequent arrest), but it does not belong in lead. This was not a pogrom orchestrated by Polish army and officers, as some try to suggest; it was a general riot, pillage and robbery that occurred in the aftermath of an urban battle, before order could have been reestablished, targeting all defenseless civilians, and carried out primarily by the criminal elements.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a source (singular) not the sources (plural). And it is not neutral source, because Mączyński himself participated in Lemberg events. And when come to more neutral sources, Morgenthau commission for example, the blame is put on Polish soldiers, and not on "primarily on the criminal elements". M0RD00R (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding breakdown of people tried after the pogrom. It is good just for that, it shows who was tried, not who participated in pogrom. It is two different things. David Engel is quite clear on unwillingness of Polish public to face the trials of Polish officers and soldiers. Morgenthau Report also stressed unwillingness of the Polish side to trial Polish soldiers guilty of atrocities against the Jews. M0RD00R (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many sources cited (including Hagen) stress the criminal participation, and all mention Polish soldiers only (at best) as part of the participants. Here's another ref:  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Criminals Further complicated already bad situation. No one is denying their participation. But criminal element was not the primal cause of the pogrom. Morgenthau is quite clear on that. M0RD00R (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who participated in the pogrom?

message: Shouldn't this article be at "Lemberg Pogrom"? For example, google books has: 
* 47 English hits for "Lemberg pogrom"
* 1 English hit for "Lwów pogrom" (though 19 for "lwow  pogrom")
* 7 English hits for "Lvov pogrom"
Google scholar has 6-2 (+ 2)-1. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lviv pogrom, for the record, is not popular (0 hits). Considering the city was part of German-speaking Austro-Hungary, popularity of Lemberg is not that surprising.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The name of the pogrom is not up to us.  It should follow the majority of reliable sources.  We should create pages with the names used by minority reliable sources, with redirects to the main article which uses the mainstream name.  In any event, the name should be determined by the most notable views from the most reliable sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so you think the page should be moved to "Lemberg pogrom (1918)" then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I abstain on that; both names seem relevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *As someone who knows a bit about Poland, I would never have associated the name "Lemberg" with Lviv/Lwow. Also, in 1918, had it already stopped being called Lemberg? When did the name change? Perhaps it is most appropriate to use the official name it had at the time? Malick78 (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: User Deacon of Pndapetzim has raised an important issue. The question is - what country did this beautiful city belong to in November of 1918 and what name should be used in the article. According to the international law, it was not part of Poland, neither part of Ukraine, as borders in this part of Europe were not officially recognized until 1921. Therefore, names Lwow and Lviv should be excluded and IMO the best solution is to rename the article to the Lemberg Pogrom. Tymek (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And should this solution be applied to all articles that concern this city during Austrian rule?.  M0RD00R (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's policy (here WP:NAME and offshoots) is not determined by such considerations as "who owned when", but by usage in the English language. The article should be Lemberg pogrom not because it was owned by [ethnic-German] Austria or inhabited by Germans, but because that is the most predominant way of referring to the event in English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lwów (?) pogrom 

message: What's up guys? What's the deal with that whole tag drama thing. We were discussing things, article was being expanded step by step, and BANG! here comes the TAG . And BANG! here comes more tag drama "omg MY
TAG was removed!". What's the deal? Can't we discuss thing calmly without spreading the drama through the whole project?.
Talk page didn't exhaust itself yet. Many serious issues about this article needs to be resolved. Let's try to discuss it, maybe some uninvolved editors should be invited to join this discussion? M0RD00R (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained things above. To sum it up: the most numerous force behind the pogrom were criminals, many of whom were Ukrainian. To center the blame on Polish soldiers is highly biased, and it ignores the role played by the majority who obeyed orders and tried to stop the rioting (and succeeded after two days, arresting thousands of criminals and mutinous soldiers).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you insist on continuing discussion over content dispute, where it clearly does not belong ?M0RD00R (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, your argument is based simply on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than reliable sources. It is akin to someone trying to censor the fact that the My Lai Massacre was carried out by american troops by using the argument that the majority of American troops weren't carrying out massacres. If you have reliable sources contradicting the overwhelming scholarly consensus that this pogrom was launched by Polish troops, then supply them. As I've explained to you in other contexts, your views simply do not take precedence over the consensus of scholarly reliable sources. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  Subtelny also blames it on the Poles. Ostap 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag drama

message: Since there seems to be no serious objection to the reliably sourced passage for the background section, I will restore it today. The above discussion has veered into a discussion of place names, which is not directly relevant to the passage. This is an encyclopedia discussing a serious, but not well known event in which scores of Jews were murdered and hundreds more brutalized simply because they were Jews. These attempts to remove well sourced basic facts about this massacre, and it's immediate context, are baffling to me.  Piotrus had indicated that "Piotrowski refutes the claims", but I dont see where, and no one has indicated where. Piotroeski was also a source for another claim regarding Polish casualties which also failed verification. I will add some of the additional sources from above as appropriate to the passage. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are ignoring all the serious objections, I am afraid that's not a way to go.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we arguing over the name of the article again?  The name of the pogrom is not up to us.  It should follow the majority of reliable sources.  We should create pages with the names used by minority reliable sources, with redirects to the main article which uses the mainstream name.  In any event, the name should be determined by the most notable views from the most reliable sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is one of the issues discussed. See my recent posts above for the other issues of contention (primarily - undue weight/bias/lack of neutrality with regards to some issues like background, reason for the pogrom, participants, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not deface article with tags OK? Lwow pogrom or pogrom in Lwow is probably most  common name in modern academic literature for this event. Attempts to minimize the role of Polish troops also failed to be supported by references. Even Davis calls it military massacre. M0RD00R (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, how you call on Davies now, yet you object to mentioning his (and Piotrowski's and others) views when they dispute whether this even even deserves to be classified as pogrom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So Davis calles this "military massacre", and not a pogrom. This indeed can mentioned in the article, but what weight does his opinion have, when overwhelming majority of the academic sources calls it a pogrom? M0RD00R (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring reliably sourced material in background section 

message: I reverted one edit that changed "false accusations" to "generalizations" because it reflected poor English style.  The sentence refers to "most Jews" which by definition is a generalization; to add the word generalization is redundant.  The question is whether the source provided claims that this particular generalization is true or false.  Remember, it does not matter whether the accusation realy is true or false; Wikipedia is not concerned with truth.  Nor is logic an issue, as the edit summary suggsted.  The question is, what does the source cited say?  I am following our policy WP:AGF and assuming that whoever added the sentence and the citation is accurately representing the point of view of the author cited.  Can anyone provide evidence that this author did not claim that the accusations were false?  This is an empircal issue, not a logical one: what does this source actually claim? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point. The sentence lists three refs, one of them () is in Polish, and agrees that only a part of the Jews worked with the Ukrainians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  generalizations 

message: The scholarly-accepted term for this episode was "pogrom." It was not a "riot." The majority scholarly view was that scores of Jews were murdered because they were Jews, and the scholarly view is that the excuses for these cold blooded murders are fabricated. It is insensitive POV pushing to keep slipping these change in, and it is less than honest to keep making such a serious change to the article without discussion. If you think it's worth discussing, and if you think there are valid arguments for making this change, than discuss it, openly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ukrainian and Polish civilians that died are as important as the Jewish ones. There are scholarly sources that argue the word pogrom is not as applicable here as massacre or a riot. Contemporary US ambassador, Hugh S. Gibson, who investigated the events, and analyzed how they were depicted in contemporary press, wrote () "when a Jew was injured it was always called a pogrom but when a Christian was mobbed it was called a food riot." We should be more neutral and less biased in our descriptions and the word pogrom is not 100% neutral here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one fringe current source (Davies). Gibson was a known anti-semite. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I can't find a statement of that in his article. Slandering another figure? Care to back this with any references? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Kapiszewski, p 302, Bendersky p 96 and 307 to start with. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Full publication info, please. Quotes? GPrint links? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop changing "pogrom" to "riot" please 

message: Majority academic sources does not mention them at all. More importantly "blame the Ukrainians" is considered to be an attempt by Polish side to shift the blame from real perpetrators. Only one sources in the article puts the blame on Ukrainian side, and that is Maczynski. To put Maczynski views violates WP:UNDUE. "mainly Ukrainians", based on sole ref is even more outrageous violation of WP:NPOV. M0RD00R (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only Mączyński. Here's another source that stresses the role of criminals. and so's here: note that in both of those cases the reports note that criminals started the riot, and some elements of the army only joined afterwards. And there are sources that argue that majority or all of the army did not participate in the riot, but tried to stop it (ex. , Mączyński). To portray the event as orchestrated by the Polish army is heavily biased. The article should note that there are different accounts, and present them all - not only the one version favored by certain editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To portray the event as orchestrated by the Polish army is to go with the overwhelming scholarly consensus. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukrainian criminals

message: The fringe speculations of a controversial revisionist historian do not belong in the lead of a history article in an encyclopedia. Besides the views being fringe, Davies is admittedly speculating "Yet one has to wonder...," "it is conceivable of course.." "or perhaps...".
This illustrate a disturbing problem that has been disrupting this article--the constant strafing of the article with such revisionist notions (Davies views alone are cited 3 times) with a blatant attempt to skew the article towards a fringe and offensive POV that minimizes the character and gravity of this documented murderous pogrom that targeted for murder an entire town's community based on their ethnicity. This is akin to inserting into the lead and body of articles about US slavery the views of dinosaurs who still hold century old views to the effect that sleavery really wasn't so bad. There were historians 100 years ago who said such things, and there are fringe historians who say it now--we do not prominently feature such discredited and racist viewpoints, regardless of which race or ethnicity such views are attacking. This really needs to stop. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Norman Davies and Richard C. Lukas are not controversial revisionist historians. Calling them such is a violation of WP:BLP and slandering respected and notable scholars. I strongly object to the removal of this important point from the lead (, ).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No BLP violation; Davies' can easily be reliably sourced as controversial and his views on this matter are entirely fringe. IAnd Lukas by his own admission is simply repeating Davies' claim. Show me where Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of fringe speculations that go against the accepted scholarly view of a subject in the lead of an article. Provide some scholarly sources supporting your claim that these admitted speculations by a controversial writer are an "important point" worthy of inclusion in the lead. That's the issue here, not WP:BLP (but feel free to take it to the BLP board if you think it's a problem). Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that Lucy Dawidowicz, does not like Davies is insignificant and ridiculous. Also, do not use Wikipedia itself as a source for your prejudices. Mordoor, this article is full of single opinions, or same opinions of historians who present only one, Jewish side of the problem. Tymek (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tymek, you reveal the problem with your very formulation--your belief that there is a "Jewish side of the problem--and your belief that that is "one side of the problem." You might want to consider the fact that what you derogatorily refer to as "the Jewish side of the problem" is in fact the majority view of the scholarly community. Your attempts to paint the scholarly view as "the Jewish side" is a silly form of bias--since yuo don't agree with it, it can't possibly be the scholarly view--it must be "the Jew side!" That is, as you would say, AMAZING! Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe revisionist speculations do not belong in the lead 

message: With the qualification that we are talking about a minority, it was a significant minority, actions of which were exaggerated but nonetheless are highly notable and contributed to both the background and the events in question. I object to this change not supported by the source cited (), which - just as other sources (ex. , , , , ) - speaks only of exaggeration, not total falsification, with all of those sources noting instances of Jewish armed support for the Ukrainians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, most propagandistic lies are based upon some kernel of truth. Should we qualify account of Hitler's defamation and lies about Jews, which like the Polish lies of 1918, were based upon some kernel of truth (Jews in Germany were well represented in certain arenas) in  the same manner you want to qualify the lies about Jewish support for the Ukrainians? You really should stop blindly lifting any random quote you can find to support your fringe POV on this article--it's really getting offensive. A serious encyclopedia does a thoughtful weighing of sources. Just because something was written in 1918 by an anti-semite like Gibson, or a minor, nationalistic writer like Piotrowksi, doesn't mean that it is given equal weight in an encyclopedia. I suggest that you moderate your frenetic attempts to skew this article towards your POV by pulling random quotes in this manner. And lighten up with Piotrowksi--he's a truly biased, non notable source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boodlesthecat what makes you think that Piotrowski is a biased, nationalistic writer? Simply because you disagree with him, or because he writes about Poland? How about Marsha L. Rozenblit, Joanna B. Michlic, Ezra Mendelsohn and Zvi Y. Gitelman, quoted here? They are not biased? They are not nationalistic? So a Polish scholar is bad, but a score of Jewish-American scholars is good? Amazing. Tymek (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so amazing. Piotrowksi has a reputation as a biased nationalist writer, and no standing as an historian. The other writers are respected historians. Can you produce any claims that they are biased and nationalistic? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reputation among whom? Can you provide a single source to back up those outrageous claims? Please stop slandering a reliable scholar.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: eg Friedrich, 2005, who calls him unbalanced. I correct myself though; Piotrowski more accurately can be described as having no reputation among serious scholars; his work is nowhere cited in any serious studies. It consists largely of cutting and pasting quotations solely from the POV he supports, while ignoring massive amounts of contradicting data. Who would possibly take him seriously as a scholar, except perhaps some equally biases Wikipedia editors, who have cited his psedo scholarly book dozens of times in support of fringe POV's that go against scholarly opinion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide full publication data when you cite it. His work is cited by hundreds of books, he is an award winning scholar. The only thing that's unbalanced is your description of him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: only who lie here is you little zionist 83.21.231.180 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

text: They are respected among some cicles, just like Piotrowski is respected in some other circles. A reputation as a biased writer? According to whom? Tymek (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish support for the Ukrainians 

message: Hundreds more Ukrainian Christians were killed during this time as well. Total number of victims are 52-150. How it possible? This source didnt mention about Ukrainian victims -  Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide.. This source -  Norman Davies. "Ethnic Diversity in Twentieth Century Poland." In: Herbert Arthur Strauss. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39. Walter de Gruyter, 1993. doubles number of victims to 340, 70 were Jews, rest Ukrainians = 270. Strange.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Posibble mistake?

message: Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political partry.  His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included inthe article as a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the goal was to include accounts (also first hand) from both sides of the conflict. "Mączyński, the Polish commander who prior to the pogrom had issued anti-Jewish pamphlets" Could you provide details supporting this claim? --Hedviberit (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the top paragraph here (page 112).Faustian (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we include this person's claims his background needs be clear. Such info should be included near his claims, in my opinion.  Readers should know the kind of source this info is coming from. If the current way this is done is cumbersome or involves too much repitition, perhaps all of his claims should be put into one paragraph with a description of the source, rather than scattered around?Faustian (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Czesław Mączyński not a reliable source

message: A number of editors have questioned whether the term pogrom is appropriate here.  This source also questions it and the Morgenthau Report specifically rejected the term. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Morgenthau report is a political and historical document, not a reliable source for anything but itself.  Jehochman Talk 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pogrom? 

message: This article reads like an anti-semitic apologist has tried at every turn to blame the pogrom on "criminals" instead of the local populace.  Mentioning the criminal element is fine, once, but the article reads very awkwardly the way "criminals" is repeated so many times.  Jehochman Talk 15:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not like it, but people who murder people are criminals. I hope you do not want to imply that the local Polish population were, by and large, murderous by nature. If it were the case, the death toll would have been much higher. Besides, the majority of the victims appear to be Orthodox Christians (Ukrainians), so I do not see why this incident could be considered antisemitic at all. Ukrainians died, Jews died, Poles died - a typical scenario during any post-war lawlessness.89.69.82.3 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The article is reliably referenced, up to and including specific references describing the perpetrators. The lead mentions three groups, criminals are only one of them. Everything is properly attributed and referenced. I don't see what's not-neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed 

message: Following the age of partitions, Regency Council (Poland) declared independence on 7 October 1918 with the first Provisional Government set up only two weeks prior to the pogrom in Lemberg. The eastern borders of sovereign Poland were not established until the end of the Polish–Soviet War in 1920. Therefore the city's name remained officially Austrian until then. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The question, to which I do not know the answer, is what is the common name of the pogrom? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lwów pogrom (1918), or Lemberg pogrom (1918) 

message: I wrote this in 2010 and it's still true:
Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political party.  His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included in the article as a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the goal was to include accounts (also first hand) from both sides of the conflict. "Mączyński, the Polish commander who prior to the pogrom had issued anti-Jewish pamphlets" Could you provide details supporting this claim? --Hedviberit (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the top paragraph here (page 112).Faustian (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Stop beating around the bush please. The link to historian Carole Fink (above) is already in the article, and does not support any wayward claims that would justify the removal of information. I understand you want to push that POV at all costs, but the quote from the commandant of the city Czesław Mączyński, provides a factual breakdown of casualties no other source has. It points a finger at the attrocities committed during the Ukrainian control of the city in a matter-of-factly way, and although it might sound painful to you, removing it can only suggest undisclosed ideological motives inherent in the western historiography. Poeticbent talk 13:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you treat the report of a Petliurite commander linked to pogroms, or some German commander linked to atrocities, as you treat Maczynski's report?  No.  Similarly, the report of Maczynski, who is linked to this pogrom according to reliable sources such as Fink, ought not be treated simply as a "dry report."  Indeed, Maczynski has been discussed before and most people reject excessive use of his claims.  Here on this talk page, for example: . Note that the comments I made above were from 2010 - you ought to have addressed those issues on the talk page before treating Maczynski's claims as reliable and giving them such prominence in the article.  He's already been rejected by several editors several times and you decided to just insert large amounts of text about his claims into the article with no discussion. Faustian (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Maczynski's claims are already mentioned in the article: " Although Jewish eyewitnesses described Poles as committing the pogrom,[11] Mączyński, the Polish commander who prior to the pogrom had issued anti-Jewish pamphlets, blamed Ukrainian criminals for initiating it, and claimed that they were the most numerous group among the rioters.[1]. Faustian (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I added another phrase based on the removed text, about his claim that most Jews were killed while Ukrainians were in control of the city.Faustian (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Poeticbent, you've been "indefinitely" banned in the past :; please refrain from disruptive editing.Faustian (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Czesław Mączyński not a reliable source (2)

message: Marek, would you mind please explaining this revert of my changes to the lead? You state the unit was already in France at the time of the pogrom, but I provided a source, which you haven't addressed. Obviously, if you were just to remove the source because you know it's wrong, with no other explanation, as you've done, that would be original research.
Regarding the exaggerated claims, the text as written now is factually incorrect, since it implies that the lower numbers (52-150 jews killed) may be exaggerated, whereas Carol Fink, in "Defending the Rights of Others," writes that the exaggerated numbers are those like 300, 900, 1,100, or 3,000. Norman Davies also refers to exaggerations of the pogrom, and it is clear this happened, however he is not specifically challenging the numbers presented in the lead. Your edit may accomplish this only inadvertently, but "an estimated 52–150 Jewish residents were killed and hundreds injured according to accounts some of which might have been exaggerated," implies that maybe not that many people were killed. I think both Davies and Fink put the real number of jews killed at around 70.
Besides being misleading, the text as you returned it also makes for uncomfortable (awkward) reading. What is your objection to my solution, which was to write, below, that early reports (whose numbers we don't even cite) were exaggerated? -Darouet (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk page and the archives, also at Blue Army. This was discussed extensively. The Blue Army was in France when the pogrom happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

text: The above comment is in regard to the role of the Blue Army. In regard to the "exaggeration" since this is in the sources, please don't remove it, although you can reword it appropriately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read about the army's location at the time and assume for now that the source was wrong, and you are right. In the mean time I'll restore my text about exaggeration, based on my arguments and what seems to be your agreement. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the reworded version is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lwów pogrom (1918). 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/20120112125419/http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm to http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112125419/http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm to http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006100322/http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj14kapi.pdf to http://www.studiajudaica.pl/sj14kapi.pdf
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) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page is on my watchlist (obviously) but I got a note from one of the participants in the ongoing dispute. I haven't had time to look at the actual sources or all the details of the disagreement, but it strikes me as obvious that User:Icewhiz's edit summary here is false. He says "UNDUE weight to primary report by those who were complicit". Presumably this is referring to the sentence " whereas a Polish police report listed a Greek Catholic, likely a Ukrainian, among those killed in the rioting.".
But that sentence, contra Icewhiz's apparently false claim in his edit summary appears to be sourced to a work from ... 2018. The work is Zbigniew Zaporowski, “Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji,” Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość, vol. 1 (2018): 465–471. It looks like this is a WP:SECONDARY SOURCE which is simply using primary sources for its study. You know, like historians do all the time. The author appears to be a professional historian.
I haven't read the source and can't comment on the accuracy on the text based on it (although we generally are expected to assume good faith in that regard) but it's pretty clear that Icewhiz is using false edit summaries here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA please. A primary source (police report) quoted in a non-English secondary source is still primary. I will also note that notes have been selectively sent to other editors .Icewhiz (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If I made a personal attack then please point out what it was. Otherwise, please don't make false accusations. A primary source used by a secondary source (of whatever language) is primary, but we're actually using the secondary source. This isn't that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  All we are doing in this edit is report what the primary source said. That this is quoted via a secondary source does not make the information itself less primary. Mainline secondary sources by reputed historians do not treat such reports with credibility..Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you link to is not available. Can you tell us how the source you linked to discusses this source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Once a scholar (or anyone else) refers to a primary report, this becomes a secondary source and is now acceptable per WP:SECONDARY, since the point of not using primary is to avoid doing original research and interpreting stuff. Secondary sources discuss primary sources and allow us to mention facts and such discussed in said primary sources. If we found a primary source - police report - yes, it's not a good source per WP:PRIMARY. But once it is discussed in secondary source, it is fine. PS. I did some c/e. Can anyone tell me how to read "Zbigniew Zaporowski, “Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji,” Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość, vol. 1 (2018): 465–471, I don't see the full text at , which confusingly also says 'this publication is not available for sale'. So how to read it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

text: A PDF pile is generally generated about one month later than the Content, so we have to wait few days.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: https://www.umcs.pl/pl/addres-book-employee,3160,pl.html Zbigniew Zaporowski is a historian, a professor. Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't been able to find an online copy of this anywhere. This being published in the (forthcoming?) Remembrance and Justice journal of the IPN is not the best venue to say the least due to the IPN's poor reputation, but at least this publication (unlike other IPN publications) purports to be scientific. What is missing for me is context (which I can not understand without the article itself - or a an extended quotation from it) - surely the author of "Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji" (Victims of riots and robberies in Lviv on November 22-24, 1918 in the light of the findings of the Lviv Police Directorate) refers to the documents of the Lviv Police - however - what is his analysis of those documents? He quotes them and says what? One would presume this is not just a list of primary quotations (in which case it would still be primary) - but some analysis based on these documents.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Icewhiz, it's not a forum to present your prejudices toward the IPN. What about your reputation?Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Instead of worrying about a work by modern historian mentioned above, I think we should worry about this article reliance on . This is a pretty much primary source, and account by the participant/Polish commander Czesław Mączyński. It should be used with caution. Polish wiki article (pretty poor) does note that Maczynski denied the pogrom has taken  place, and he has been described by some historians as significantly responsible for it: "Według komendanta obrony Lwowa kpt. Czesława Mączyńskiego żadnego pogromu nie było, wystąpiły jedynie rabunki i wypadki doraźnego karania wrogiej ludności. Antysemickie podejście Mączyńskiego było jedną z przyczyn pogromu; historycy w dużej mierze właśnie jego obarczają odpowiedzialnością za to zdarzenie", sourced to Kwartalnik historii Żydów. Instytut. 2004, s. 354. - sadly, no link and I am too tired down to hunt this. IMHO, Maczynski's book can be mentioned, but he should not be used as a source in Wikipedia's tone, at most, we can occasionally attribute him. User:Icewhiz, I will trust you with de-Maczynski'ing this article :)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only following orders - diff. (though I agree completely with the above).Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources - Mączyński 

message: There are portions of this article which are simply incoherent. There's a lot of "howevers" and "buts" and "at the same time"... but these are used in ways which don't make sense. In several places it looks like competing paragraphs or sentences were spliced together, after the middle was removed. The entire article requires clean up. Volunteer Marek  06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical texts often include a lot of qualifiers. I've tried to edit to remove some and make the English more consistently correct; perhaps you can take a lot and see if it reads a little more coherently now?Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent 

message: Preserving here by providing . My rationale was: "mv detailed discussion on possible perpetrators into the body; rm statement re: exaggerated accounts as a non sequitur in the lead". Specifically, these details, prominently placed in the lead, seemed like apologetics to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sept 2020 edit