Talk:Kraków pogrom

message: There is a very interesting discussion on pl wiki; please note that the recent consensus is that there was only 1 person killed and 5 wounded.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I'll quote: rv - Onet, a web portal, is hardly as reliable as historians cited, and besides its only a review of Chchopek book.
Article in Onet is written by historian Ph.D. Marcin Zaremba and is not only a review of Cichopek books as you say, but is based on author's own research of archives as well. Other source deleted by you, is an article on Polish-Jewish relations during that period, by different historian. So your reverts clearly are under false pretences.
M0RD00R 06:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reverts by Piotrus

message: In light of all relevant articles in Wikipedia re. post war history of Polish-Jewish relations including pogroms, the inflated number of possible casualties lacking credible source is nothing more than anti-Polish hate mongering. I removed the relevant line from the article. Properly quoted numbers can be inserted again. --Poeticbent  talk  21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source is Yad Vashem Studies. Volume number and pages will be provided as well. I'm slightly busy right now and will sort things out shortly M0RD00R 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: To the best of my knowledge, Cichopek mistankenly took a photo from a random funeral and insisted that it was the one. After reading dr. Libionka explanations I stick to his guns. Cichopek was wrong saying about five victims ->!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Litwa (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cichopek version 

message: What was the theme of Cichopek's Master Thesis, when was it published as a book, has nothing to do with this article. It's not about her. And it is not the Master Thesis, nor the book that is cited here. One opinion of Lebionka is cited, another is deleted. Why is that?  Clearly some editors have set themselves a goal to disrupt this article by all means. And I feel pity for them. No more, no less. M0RD00R 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that section "Casualties" is not the right place for general discussion. Mynek 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to jump in, but I'm confused about this polish historian thing, if she is of Polish nationality and is a historian, why is this not appropriate? SGGH 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put 'graduate of Jagiellonian University in krakow, poland' is this an acceptable comprimise? SGGH 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks Mynek 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: She's Ph.D. now, so leaving  just 'graduate of Jagiellonian University in krakow, poland' is misinformation. Then we should go with 'graduate of Jagiellonian University in krakow, poland, Ph.D. at Michigan Uni etc.' but this all is irrelevant, because this article is not about her. This is the way I see things. M0RD00R 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not 'attended jagiellonian university in krakow'? SGGH 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but she also attended Michigan Uni, so if we put one Uni, we should put another. And should we do same thing with other historians mentioned in the article? We can't single out one historian, and one uni. Same rules should be applied to all. Then it would be a mess. Polish historian would be simple and logical solution. M0RD00R 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Though it's occured to me, was she there? Why is where she attended important, if you just put Dr. Anna Cichopek at the beginning then doesn't that solve the issue of where she got her degrees? Or are there POV problems as a result of where she came from or something for which drawing attention to her background is important? SGGH 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cichopek was a graduate student from UJ and not phd when she published her controversional findings. I find this relevant in the context of the article which is based on her findings. Mynek 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only controversial issue about Anna's work is the number of victims. Lebionka regards her book to be of exceptional value, you know it very well. And this work led her to Ph.D. But somehow all positive reviews of her book got deleted as having nothing to do with topic, all negative stayed. Why? Is it one sided a little bit? M0RD00R 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not true, what M0RD00R is trying to impose, that Libionka questioned number of victims only. I inserted the link to the Polish Wikipedia with his opinion regarding Cichopek's findings. In general he claims that Cichopek did not examined/verify sources of information, and she did not described them properly. Mynek 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Cichopek contradics herself! Mynek 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Cichopek contradict herself, but rather users citing her. M0RD00R 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the sentence certainly does, so I've inserted a "later" to sort that out. I'm still not sure why it is important that she went to that university or got her PhD from Michigan... could someone explain (simply for m :D) SGGH 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's of no importance what Uni she went to. She's respected historian and Ph.D. now. And it is all that matters. There is no need to put any redundant information. This all can be solved simply "Polish historian Anna Cichopek". But if we put one Uni, we must pu another, if we put this information on Cichopek, why not to do the same with other historians mentioned in the article. And then it will be a mess. M0RD00R 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I will change it simply to Polish historian then, I agree that there isn't really a need for either university to be mentioned as it doesn't seem to have any impact on the article. SGGH 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now this is getting really disruptive

message: Shouldn't the Notes section be titled References? KosherJava 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally the section with the footnotes is titled notes, and is followed by a section titled references which lists what sources were actually used.
for instance:
notes
1. bloggs p 33
2. bloggs p 39
3. smith p 92
references
Bloggs, Joe, Journey to the Centre of the Earth
Smith, Peter, Office Space
A references section should be set up for this article, I'll go and take care of it. SGGH 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I didn't write the article and can't speak polish, its a little difficult for me to finish up but I have gotten most of it set up. See Mozambican War of Independence and scroll down to the refs sections at the end to see what I mean. SGGH 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes VS References  

message: Just want to say that it is almost incredulous that some editors are trying to down play these events by arguing over a definition. A mob, (at times over a thousand people), setting fire to a synagogue, beating and robbing people because they are Jews (re-attacking hospitalized ones), etc., is definitely a pogrom, even if no one had died. Unfortunately that was not the case, and Roza Berger survived the holocaust only to be killed in this pogrom. Dr. Dan 14:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop accusing others (presumably me) of downplaying anything. Definitions are often important, and I will trust a dictionary over your gut feeling any day. Find a better reason to be morally indignant. Appleseed (Talk) 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have preferred a response from you regarding the definition (and link that I provided you with) that I gave you of POGROM, rather than your indignation over my response of your calling it, "A progrom of 1." Maybe to you it seems reasonable, but to me calling these horrible events, "A pogrom of 1", seems to be mocking them. And I think we have not confirmed that there was in fact only "one" fatality. At the moment, I feel very justified being morally indignant over the events in this article. No need for me to find a better reason. Sorry that I can't agree with your advice. Maybe you need to become a little more indignent over Polish anti-Semitism. Best Dr. Dan 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the definition you provided can be applied to the events in this article.  As for your other comments, they're off topic and intended as bait (again) so I won't bother responding. Appleseed (Talk) 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your agreement about the definition. As for who baited whom, I'll let others decide that question after re-reading your comments. Dr. Dan 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I posed the question because I looked over the references and saw only one source (Cichopek) that uses the term. Appleseed (Talk) 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact all provided references except Mr.Kwiek, from Academy of Mining and Metallurgy who questions usage of the term pogrom, use this term. Including Libionka. If even more sources are needed I can provide it, but what's the point? M0RD00R 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Or a pogrom of 1000?

message: Moved from main page: The Kraków pogrom or Cracow pogrom refers to the events that occurred on August 11, 1945, in the city of Kraków, Poland, when from one to up to five p. 272 Polish Jews were murdered and many were beaten. Since one death is confirmed in all historical sources, it is questionable whether this event truly falls under the definition of a pogrom.
I suggest to work on the lead, when consensus over the rest of the issues is reached. So far it should stay as neutral as can be. M0RD00R 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we have the opinions of just three historians in this matter: Anna Cichopek, Dariusz Libionka and Julian Kwiek. To call any two of them a “majority” without revealing their number would verge on boasting if not on misinformation, which ought to be avoided.  Trying to be cautious I replaced the somewhat contentious word with “other [two] historians” instead.  --Poeticbent  talk  03:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted to the Mynke's version. His sentence is selfexplanatory -the problem is with using the term "Pogrom" in the context of 1 dead person. Therefore no need to call historians by name in the lead. 83.26.250.3 11:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: I removed the absurd remark about "not being a pogrom since only 1 death victim was confirmed". This will suggest quiet new, previously unknown definition of a pogrom, based on a "several death victims"-rule. 
A pogrom is defined as follows:  "a form of riot directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious or other, and characterized by destruction of their homes, businesses and religious centers. Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murder or massacre." see pogrom. Regards --213.200.155.119 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a pogrom? 

message: Once again I have removed the following:
"He also stated that the book by Cichopek was based on unscientific data with sources not properly cited, but the book itself is of immense value. Dariusz Libionka, "Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość", nr 1/2002 str. 179-182  p.182" 
Where exactly did he stated that the book "was based on unscientific data"? Quotation please! --213.200.155.119 06:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the quotation providing that you possess the ability to extrapolate: "W wielu wypadkach, zwłaszcza w rozdziale pierwszym, właściwiej byłoby, gdyby autorka odwołała się do istniejących opracowań niż do archiwaliów." Polish term archiwalia constitute all forms of unscientific data. 207.102.64.211 14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as far as I'm concerned the "archiwalia" in quotation simply refer to her relaying on the historical sources instead of existing scientific studies/papers. It may be wrong way to do it but it surely is not unscientific, hardly "unscientific data". What was the purpose of this highly questionable remark in this particular section anyway? --213.200.155.119 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that's Your opinion, but it don't gives you right to use distort quotations. Once again: where did you find "unscientific data", since the word "archiwalia" its something quite different?--213.200.155.119 08:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libionka on Cichopek in Casualties

message: I’m providing my English translation of the aforementioned text by Libionka in hope of curtailing the senseless edit war and thereby resolving the issue. Please improve on my translation if you can.Several critical comments can be made about some parts of the book. Almost entirely omitted was the opinion of the newly created PSL. The author relies on only one text published by Society “Wolność i Niezawisłość” (Freedom and Independence). Meanwhile, extremely interesting interpretations of the genesis and the development of the Kraków pogrom, revealing attitudes of the participants, can be found in other (already published) documents of WiN. Many footnotes were made with carelessness. The names of the writers and the titles of the quoted text from local and the party press were not provided. Not convincing is the thesis, that the overwhelming majority of articles published by the press in response to the pogrom were written in “newspeak”, as defined originally by Michał Głowiński. [..] In many cases, especially in chapter one, it would have been more appropriate if the author relied on existing studies rather than on archival material. In spite of the aforementioned faults the work under review is immensely valuable and broadens our knowledge about the Polish-Jewish relations.
I’m pasting the following citation from Libionka into the disputed section. In many cases – Libionka suggested – it would have been more appropriate if the author relied on existing studies rather than on archival material. I hope this will settle the issue. --Poeticbent  talk  14:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: *The article discusses not only the Kraków pogrom but also the context, which should be moved to another article(s).
*Chodakiewicz has studied the post-war killings of Jews, so his numbers should be quoted here.Xx236 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title, Chodakiewicz 

message: The Poles make pogroms and are nasty. White Americans are smarter - they riot.
*East St. Louis Riot (that article is maybe 10 times shorter than this one) - 150 died, how many beaten?
*As the result of the Tulsa Race Riot about 300 were killed. 
What about Jedwabne, Kraków and Kielce riots? Xx236 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland and USA 

message: The group didn't execute Kuraś' orders at that moment. I have replace the word group by partizans, maybe someone can do it better. The commander was later executed on Kuraś' order because of his another crime. Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of these accusations against Kuras are based on various "found" versions of Kuras' supposed diaries, as published in the 50's and 60's by various communist propagandists (Machajek being the most notable one, particularly since he regularly attributed crimes committed by bandit and communist units to various anti-communist groups) some being more believable than others. They then got and still get repeated and taken at face value by others, particularly Western writers(including by Gross in 'Fear' I believe). The killing of the five people at Nowy Targ also gets mixed up with the killing of eleven at Kroscienko, which I think is what you're referring to. Supposedly, in Nowy Targ Kuras' partisans, dressed in police/milicja uniforms, were stopping cars and searching them for NKVD and UB personnel when one of the cars opened up fire on them. After shooting the driver the partisans executed the remaining people in the car who happened to be Jewish. Again, supposedly, the five were smugglers taking goods illegally across the Polish-Czech border who mistook the partisans for the police (MO). The group that was responsible for the killing at Kroscienko was an independent bandit group but which did include a former member of Kuras' partisans, one "Lazik". As a result Kuras did issue a death sentence on "Lazik" and couple others (as he usually did when acts of banditry occured). Lazik got executed by Kuras' people but some of the others escaped to other parts of Poland. Later communist propaganda attributed the killing to Kuras (notably, some of the later "found" diaries don't mesh here with the earlier "found" diaries). It's been awhile since I read stuff on this so I'm recalling this from memory and a quick internet search. Of course not much is written on Kuras in English, and what is there is almost entirely based on communist sources from the 50's and 60's and those 'diaries'. On the other hand some of the Polish sources are a little too ready to excuse anything every done by Kuras.radek (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, I see this was already covered on Polish wiki : "20 kwietnia 1946 patrol "Zbika" nalezacy do zgrupowania "Ognia" rozstrzelal 5 Zydow (samochod, ktorym jechali nie zatrzymal sie na wezwanie a z jego okien padly strzaly". (trans: On April 20th, 1946 a patrol led by "Zbik" belonging to "Ogien"'s group shot five Jews (the car in which they were traveling failed to stop and shots came out from its windows). So Zbik was the leader of the group in the essentially mistaken shooting at Nowy Targ and Lazik was the unaffiliated bandit at Kroscienko that was sentenced to death by Ogien.radek (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  shot on April 21, 1946 by Józef Kuraś "Ogień" group near Nowy Targ 

message: Admittedly, "pogrom" is a sensitive term, but please... citations by the foot-run? For one word? That's pretty preposterous, and it just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. If the article's editors find it absolutely necessary to provide nineteen citations - and I doubt that it is - can they at least be combined in a single inline link for now? That way, the reader would be distracted by a gigantic footnote, rather than more than an inch of blue. Better still, see WP:OVERCITE. Haploidavey (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The multiple sources were added since there was constant editing with claims that it was not a pogrom. That is why so many sources were cited. KosherJava (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Over-citation's a sure sign of disagreement. Even so, things seem to have settled down, and four or five of the highest quality sources should suffice.  Citation is not - or shouldn't be - a numbers game, "Pogrom" is the descriptor in weighty and reliable sources; the word has a precise meaning and a positive presence. It doesn't matter whether all sources use it or not. Any objector need only be referred to this exchange, and the article's editing history. In the end, it's a consensus issue.  Haploidavey (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Does "pogrom" really need 19 separate citations?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kraków 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.uj.edu.pl/alma/alma/64/01/02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kraków 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://archive.is/20120525190004/http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1345444,1292,1,kioskart.html to http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1345444,1292,1,kioskart.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415133209/http://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index1.htm to http://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index1.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) 17:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In her 2014 book, note 63 on page 125, Cichopek stated 
No one is defending this theory anymore so why give it so much space in the article? buidhe 21:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. buidhe 08:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight