Talk:Antisemitism in Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV on Petlura's role

This page is extremely biased and does not take a NPOV. This is unfortunate since it is clear that the contributers are well aware of it and have done so on purpose. In Petliura's page there has been a long process of trying to come up with a reasonable description that will include all sides of the historical debate. Unfortunately, the contributers of this page chose NOT to use this information that is available for them and create a biased version.

Mashkin 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is full of historical inaccuracies and Ukranian nationalist propaganda. Lenny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.103.70 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's worse, Main Page now says: "Did you know?":

...that the Ukrainian pogroms in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution of 1917 were falsely attributed by the communists to Symon Petlura, despite his efforts to save Jews?

But, to put it mildly, that's far from settled. GregorB 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen. These findings are based on recently accessed official documents and the recently published research by noted Ukrainian historian Dr Serhiychuk in Kyiv. All that is required is to find scholarly articles that discuss Dr Serhiychuk's latest findings, and summarize their conclussions here.

The map of eastern Europe has changed. History is the football of the victors. Now some of those victors are not there and exclusive access to these documents and the truth is finally getting out. Bandurist 14:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are modern sources disputing Serhiychuk's findings, they should certainly be added. By the same token, it would be nice to see positive reviews - or just reviews - of his works.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Having examined the claims of the partisans of Petliura, Denikin, the Soviets and Makhno and others, I can only conclude that it must be that nobody was to blame; certainly the Ukrainian people and the Russian people had the highest regard for the Jews, and if any of them died or got raped, it must have been from natural or supernatural causes. The women were perhaps all with child by the holy ghost.

And from this article, we must conclude that no pogroms took place at all. That is because no pogroms are described! Never mind who was at fault. Where are the pogroms at Medzhigoriye and Berdichev and Fastiv and Proskurov and Kiev (was there a pogrom in Kiev?) No descriptions or statistics or any other facts are given. In Proskurov town, about 2000 Jews were murdered in February 1919, according to reports in the the New York Times and elsewhere. About 10,000 Jews were killed in all in Proskurov governorate in repeated pogroms. What forces were in Proskurov on February 15 1919? Was it the Poalei Tziyon who did the Pogroms? What forces were in Fastiv (Fastov, Fastow) on September 9, of 1919? Proskurov, appropriately enough is now called Khmelnytsky, named after that notable philo-semite who built synagogues. It is legitimate to have different opinions. But the facts must be presented at least, and if opinions are presented, then both sides must be reported. If 2,000 people died, tell us where and when and according to whom, and who were the probable culprits. It is not interesting that Denikin on the one hand, or the Reds on another or Petliura made this or that statement. The fact is, that their troops, as well as those of Zeliony (Zeleny) and many others, sometimes allied with this side, and sometimes with that, killed between 50,000 and 100,000 people in the Ukraine. This is not mentioned here. There is only a long exoneration of Petliura. Likewise in WW II, it seems there was no Ukrainian SS and no Ukrainian fascists at all if we believe this artlce. [[Mewnews (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Partial Blanking

The section on pogroms during the Russian Civil War did not describe pogroms but rather served as an apology for Petliura. A new section should begin by giving details of what happened... Jd2718 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the Encyclopaedia Judaica, I intend to rename the page to Antisemitism in Ukraine and to insert a few lines about the so-called Steiger Affair in Lviv in 1924 (see here). --Alfons2 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Judaica is a VERY insufficient source, and very often dated. Steiger affair has no bearing on the subject, and musg go to the Antisemitism in POland article, as it illustrates Polish antisemitism, not Ukr. one. Galassi (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there is a confusion with the Jewish Encyclopedia, which really IS dated. The second edition of the EJ - which I'm referring to - was released in 2007. It received the Dartmouth Medal from the American Library Association, so it can't be that insufficient. The Steiger affair is headed there under "Antisemitism in Ukraine". Don't forget that the Ukrainian Military Organization claimed responsibility for the attempted assassination plot. --Alfons2 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, EJ is confused on the subj. UVO claim was immediate, but Poland blamed Jews. See http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n51texts/melamed-en.htm .-Galassi (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any third opinion about the recent changes? --Alfons2 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antisemitism in Ukraine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Ratings etc. == This is an important topic, but not necessarily related to religion. The Pogroms of 20th century Ukraine were not motivated by religion except in a most general way. The article is poor as it is a whitewash of Ukrainian nationalism that gives almost facts about the pogroms. [[Mewnews (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)]] ~]]

Last edited at 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 14:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Had Petlura’s policies been different"

I just removed the sentence: Had Petlura’s policies been different, then the representatives of the Jewish population at a meeting which took place July 17, 1919, would never have told Petlura that they supported him and the building of a Ukrainian State since it seems WP:SPECULATION to me. The simple truth is: We will never know what would have happened if Petlura’s policies had been different.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

POV on Petlura's role

[...] This page is very inaccurate, lacking in a NPOV, and is full of the standard Ukrainian nationalist propaganda that appears on most pages that are trolled by its supporters. The problem here is that this is not just a page of interest to the ultra-nationalists but has much further reach into areas touching on the Holocaust. As a result, many of the inaccuracies border on, if not actually advocate Holocaust revisionism which incorporates denial of responsibility for Ukrainians (nationalists, "Nationalists," militia, as well as other Ukrainian groups) that murdered Jews on a very large scale. In this regard, I have amended & edited an attribution, "according to Yad Vashem..." (whatever that means, who at Yad Vashem or what source materials of which there is a library full) with a verifiable published source that provides accurate information about the so-called "Lviv Pogroms." This, I note is just the tip of the iceberg of why this article should probably be scrapped and rewritten from a NPOV. Gmw112252 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This article closes with the following assertion: "Earlier that month, a leaflet was handed out to the Jewish community in the city Donetsk by the pro-Russian separatists. The leaflet contained an order to every Jewish person over the age of 16 to register as a Jew, and also to declare all the property they own, or else have their citizenship revoked, face deportation and see their assets confiscated, ostensibly as retribution for being Ukrainian loyalists" This has by long been discredited as a malicious falsehood. Note for example the following article: http://www.eurasiareview.com/22042014-john-kerrys-self-deception-oped/ A the very least, the above quoted assertion must be altered by mentioning the strong skepticism regarding the authenticity of the document in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.63.20 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Lviv Pogroms

Hi Yulia_Romero! Thank you for your recent edits. I wondered why did you decide to erase the section about the Lviv pogroms. Waiting for your answer. ScottyNolan (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the section about the Lviv pogroms because it was a direct copy of the Wikipedia article Lviv pogroms and per Wikipedia policy/suggestion wp:contentfork it is strongly advised not to write 2 Wikipedia articles about the same subject especially if this subject is a controversial subject. My other reason was that this article is so incomplete that it looks really strange to suddenly in the article describe very detailed just one (albeit a very tragic one) episode of anti-Semitism in Ukraine; that is like writing about New York and ignoring all Boroughs of New York City except The Bronx. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Tnx! ScottyNolan (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

22 April 2016

On 10:10, 22 April 2016‎ User:Lute88 removed historical background with numerous book citations (-5,707)‎ by deleting the entire section Antisemitism in Ukraine#World War II and in the process, reverting my editorial improvements based on MOS:LAYOUT policy guideline. Please look at the Revision history. Lute88 falsely claimed that the section was a WP:POVFORK, even though such FORK could not exist, because there's no other article in Wikipedia devoted to this subject. Book citations from reputable historians are not WP:POV. I would like to engage the user in constructive discussion about his concerns which need to be stated openly in order to be addressed. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 14:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not unusual for this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

How about WP:GOODFAITH? Having said that - there is a bit in Poetic's edit that claims UPA assisted Germans in Holocaust implementation, and that sounds very dubious.--Lute88 (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, Poetic puts in some general nazi-collaboration bits that have nothing to do with Antisemitism in Ukraine. Sounds like COATRACK and SYNTH to me.--Lute88 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It sounds may be to you, but definitely not to other users. Would you please abstain from further removing material based on reliable sources until consensus have been reached. In addition, you have repeatedly demonstrated pro-Ukrainian bias.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record: I'm jewish, and my great-grandmother is in Babi Yar. No bias whatsoever. Remember WP:GOODFAITH.--Lute88 (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is the absolute reliance on the reliable third-party sources. My expansion of the World War II section was sourced and directly relevant to the subject. If you believe that the statements made by the quoted authors do not reflect reality, than we need to get feedback from the WP:RS noticeboard about that, not just delete based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let me quote directly from reference. In Civil Wars in the Soviet Union Alfred J. Rieber stated: "Most Jewish historians argue that the destruction of the Jewish population of Ukraine, reduced from 870,000 to 17,000, could not have been accomplished without the aid of the local population, because the Germans lacked the manpower to reach all of the communities that were annihilated, especially in the remote villages." ^{[pp. 147–148]} This is not my own assessment. – Please read, who Alfred J. Rieber is. As a university professor, he "has been teaching and writing Russian and Soviet history for more than fifty years. He was a participant in the first year of the Soviet-American cultural exchange in 1958-59 and has returned to the Soviet Union and Russia many times to lecture and conduct archival research."[1] User:Lute88 is correct that Nazi collaboration in general has nothing to do with Antisemitism, but the participation the Shoah is a different story. I am not discovering America here for anyone. So, how is this COATRACK and SYNTH to you. Poeticbent talk 23:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Rieber quote is not questioned, but two other items are. UPA's "offer to assist" and general insinuations of Ukrainian collaborationism (which smack of WP:SYNTH), which are well outside of the scope of this article.--Lute88 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In the preceding paragraph of the same analysis Alfred J. Rieber stated: "OUN-B embraced anti-Semitism at its second congress in Krakow in August 1941. Two years later it omitted the resolution from its program and Jewish specialists were admitted to the ranks of the UPA. But by then there were few Jews left in Ukraine to reap the benefits; when the Soviet forces returned, the UPA executed its Jewish doctors." ^{[p. 147]} – Again, I am not inventing this. The author himself makes a clear connection between OUN-B, UPA, and anti-Semitism. Antisemitism is in the title of this article. How is this not plain enough? Poeticbent talk 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with version by Poeticbent [2], although it might be good to use wording like "served" in such and such detachments rather than "offered to assist". My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Either way - It has nothing to do with antisemitism, and it is a major POVfork with UPA article. UPA was formed long after the massacres, and couldn't possibly offer any assistance therein.--Lute88 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Also Jewish doctors execution is not a mainstream accepted hypothesis yet. at least one Jewish UPA fighter survived to have been interviewed a few years ago.--Lute88 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Partly agree. Even after your last removal [3] section about WWII reads like propaganda, rather than encyclopedic page. This is typical for many pages about ethnic conflicts and this is not good. My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no way general collaborationism could be construed here as a manifestation of antisemitism, that's the bottom line.--Lute88 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The World War II section is heavily underdeveloped. Members of OUN compiled lists of targets for the branch offices of the KdS and assisted with roundups, which is historically proven. The killings of women and children cannot be justified by the canard of Judeo-Bolshevism. One of the first massacres of men, women, and children took the lives of 23,600 Jews at Kamianets-Podilskyi on 26–28 August 1941. Between 9 July 1941 and 19 September 1941, the city of Zhytomyr was made Judenfrei in three murder operations conducted by German and Ukrainian police in which 10,000 Jews perished. Long before Wannsee, 28,000 Jews were shot by SS and Ukrainian military in Vinnytsia on 22 September 1941, followed by the 29 September massacre of 33,771 Jews at Babi Yar. On 12 October 1941 in Stanisławów, some 10,000–12,000 Jewish men, women, and children were shot at the Jewish cemetery by the German uniformed SS-men and Ukrainian Auxiliary Police during the so-called "Bloody Sunday". – If the active participation in the Final Solution is not a manifestation of antisemitism, than what is Antisemitism? By the way, please follow WP:talk page guidelines, and do not WP:SOAP by throwing "your stories" into the mix. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Yad Vashem (2016). "Goering orders Heydrich to prepare the plan for the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem". The Holocaust Timeline 1940-1945. The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority.
2. Desbois, Patrick (2009). "Places of Massacres by German Task Forces between 1941 - 1943" (PDF). Germany: TOS Gemeinde Tübingen.
3. Weiss, Jakob (2011). "Introduction". The Lemberg Mosaic. New York: Alderbrook Press.
4. Löw, Andrea (10 June 2013). "Stanislawów (now Ivano-Frankivsk)". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Archived from the original on 20 May 2014. Retrieved 29 January 2016. From The USHMM Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945.
5. Pohl, Dieter. Hans Krueger and the Murder of the Jews in the Stanislawow Region (Galicia) (PDF). pp. 12–13, 17–18, 21 – via Yad Vashem.org. 'Bloody Sunday' massacre of 12 October 1941.

• Yes, sure, that was genocide by German Nazi. Yes, the Ukrainian units under control of Nazi occupiers took part in the genocide. However, there is a question: was it merely a collaboration by a part of Ukrainian population with the occupiers or a genuine manifestation of Ukrainian antisemitism ("Ukrainian" means an ethnic group in this context). If multiple RS tell that it was the latter, then yes, this should be included on this page. If RS tell it was the former, then such materials belong to genocides by German Nazi. One might argue that the title is "antisemitism" in Ukraine, hence this should be included as antisemitism by Nazi (no matter German or Ukrainian) in Ukraine. However, that was merely a German-occupied territory at this time. For example, it would be inappropriate to include atrocities by German Nazi on the occupied Soviet territories in page Antisemitism in the Soviet Union. Hence I tend to agree with Galassi at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Otherwise this would open the floodgate of every imaginable vilification. --Galassi (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All Nazi collaborators, including Ukrainian OUN and Russian detachments led by Andrey Vlasov took part in ethnic cleansing operations and therefore accused of antisemitism. No doubts, many of them were actually guilty of antisemitism. Should these crimes by German Nazi and their local supporters on the occupied territories be included on pages like Antisemitism in the Soviet Union and Antisemitism in Russia? No, I would rather place them on pages like The Holocaust in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. I once unknowingly shook hand of a Trawnik. Found that out later, when his name surfaced on wiki. He was not an antisemite, but did hideous things to save his own skin.--Lute88 (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting commentary about this and related subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent and sober article. THank you.--Lute88 (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antisemitism in Ukraine. 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/20120609170927/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/05/25/1005397/ukrainian-partys-presidential-candidate-worries-jews to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/05/25/1005397/ukrainian-partys-presidential-candidate-worries-jews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Neutrality

Article lacks WP:Neutrality. Specifically points raised by Peter Kenez, a specialist on the Civil War in Ukraine in 1918-21, in his book (P. Kenez (1977), Civil War in South Russia, 1919-1920: The Defeat of the Whites. Berkeley: University of California Press. p: 166.) are not reflected in the section entitled 'Ukrainian National Republic (1918–1921)'. E.g. involvement of Russian white forces (e.g., Denikin forces), Russian Black Hundreds and Russian Bolsheviks is hardly mentioned in that section. Kenez' point is not reflected in that section:

before the advent of Hitler, the greatest modern mass murder of Jews occurred in Ukraine, during the Civil War. All the participants in the conflict were guilty of murdering Jews, even the Bolsheviks. However, the Volunteer Army [the Whites or anti-Bolshevik Russians] had the largest number of victims. Its pogroms differed from mass killings carried out by its competitors; they were the most thorough, they had the most elaborate superstructure, or to put it differently, they were the most modern ... Other pogroms were the work of peasants. The pogroms of the Volunteer Army, on the other hand, had three different participants: the peasant, the Cossack and the Russian officer ... The particularly bloody nature of these massacres can be explained by the fact that these three types of murderers reinforced one another--Piznajko (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: Hi. Please explain your reverting of my edits, adding a tagline "rv whitewashing by POV warrior". None of the information in the article was removed by my edits - I merely renamed the sections to correspond to different historical periods of Ukraine (e.g., periods when part of most of its present-day territory was under the control of various other empires, such Polish & Lithuanian Commonwelth etc.) and slightly updated 1 source (changing it from 1 article by the author to a book by the same author that talks about the issue in more details than the newspaper article). Could you please explain what exactly did you perceive as "POV whitewashing"? I am not a fan of simply putting labels on edits of other users, so I will refrain from mentioning "edit warring" and will assume good faith of your edits and will blame it for a simple misunderstanding. Thank you--Piznajko (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that old version was probably better. Here is old version, and here is the new one. Why new version does not describe everything in chronological order, but instead places the events in the "Independent Ukraine" (Directorate of Ukraine (1918–1920)) at the bottom? Why it uses language like the "Soviet Empire"? Now, speaking about Petliura, the pogroms have been committed while he was in charge/in command of the army. Hence he was responsible, even if he personally did not approve it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The order is still chronological, but it follows the logic of Ukraine's subordination to other powers, e.g., section that talk about the times when it was a colony of other countries followed by a section that talks about the times when Ukraine was independent (e.g., 1917-1921, 1991-onwards).--Piznajko (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with My very best wishes. The article has undergone some problematic WP:POV changes over the last month or so. I believe it should be restored to the long standing consensus version prior these changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, Iryna Harpy. The article content hasn't changed over the last month - the section were just moved to conform to generally accepted historical periods of Ukraine. --Piznajko (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

All the events should be generally described in chronological order. Hiding content that you do not like on the bottom of the page is not an option. If you want to improve sourcing and add more content, that's fine. Please do. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What are talking about, What hiding? I moved "Ukrainian National Republic 1917-1921" to the "Independent Ukraine" section, because that's a period when Ukraine was independent. We can move "Independent Ukraine" to the top of the article - I have zero preference either way.--Piznajko (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you please WP:LISTEN. All of the editors contesting your changes have made it clear that it is the actual chronology which should be followed. The brief independence in the early 20th century and post-Soviet independence are not the same event, therefore conflating them is WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, Please WP:LISTEN yourself and try to stop doing WP:Original research when you make your claims. Please familiarize yourself with history of Ukraine before making any claims about what is actual chronology of Ukrainian history.--Piznajko (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Describing the events in chronological order is not WP:OR. But what you do is. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's put it very simply so there's no chance of misunderstanding: the years MUST go in order of increasing number. That is what "chronological ordering" means. --Khajidha (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The current order does indeed go in such an order that years increase. The reason I relabeled the section headers is because previous version had "Independent Ukraine" label for one of the sections - which was confusing, since Ukrainian National Republic (1917-1921) was also Independent Ukraine.--Piznajko (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, everyone could see that instead of describing everything in chronological order, you divided the page into two sections entitled "Non-Independent Ukraine" and "Independent Ukraine". I am not sure what exactly point you are trying to make (that Ukraine was not independent for a long period of time? that current Ukrainian leaders are followers of Petlura?), but this is irrelevant to the subject. Let's simply follow chronology, as the stable version did, OK? My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I literally just explained to you above that the earlier version had a section "Independent Ukraine" that was misleading (per explained above reasons). Is it so hard to understand?--Piznajko (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I removed "independent". It does not matter if it was independent or not, unless sources make explicit connection between the antisemitism and the independence. I do not see it now. Of course if they do, the tite can be restored.My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the old section titles didn't make much sense, such as "Background" - what is that supposed to mean?--Piznajko (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון:Please stop reverting everything, without ever doing any effort to explain your edits on the talk page. Without explaining your logic on the talk page, your edits seem disruptive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia.--Piznajko (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Current section titles are misleading and should be renamed

Current section titles are misleading and should be renamed. My version from March 31 2018 has the section titles fixed, so they are logical and not misleading.--Piznajko (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll explain why the previous titles were misleading. Below is the list of them

• Background

What is this section title supposed to tell us? It gives a list of numerous cases of anti-Semitism that have no chronological logic or sometimes don't even belong to the article. E.g., this "Background" section gives links to Khmelnytsky Uprising Koliyivschyna articles (16h century), then Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire (18th-20th century; this should be part of a separate article Antisemitism in the Russian Empire (a link to which was also provided in this "background" section); then Pale of Settlement (where does this fit here) Lviv pogroms (from the XX century, when Ukraine was under Nazi Germany); then Antisemitism in the Soviet Union (this should also be a separate section, this is also from 20th century)

• Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905

Wait, what? Just above this section there were references to Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire and Antisemitism in the Russian Empire. You would think that this would be sub-section of the section describing Ukraine under Russian empire, but evidently not... I think a logical person would agree that this title makes it sound like it would fit better into Antisemitism in the Russian Empire.

• Early 20th century

Okay makes sense, but why do we jump all of a sudden to labeling section titles by century? Just a second ago in the section above the section title name was based on "significant event" (e.g., Russian revolution) but now all of a sudden it jumps to periods. Hmm, "very" logical.

• • Directorate of Ukraine (1918–1920)

And now we are jumping to labeling sub-section by the name of the parliament of the Ukraine (e.g, Directorate of Ukraine), I guess naming it after the name of the country (e.g., Ukrainian National Republic) didn't seem logical to whoever created the title names. I see...

• • Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution

Incredibly logical . Altogether ignores the fact that on the territory of Ukraine there actually was a Ukrainian revolution, not a Russian revolution during that period of 1917-1921.

• • • Historiography

let's ignore this section for now, although doesn't seem like it's place is right beneath "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution"

• • World War II

Job well done! Just above in the "Background" you gave a link to Lviv pogroms that happened during the WWII, but I guess it made so much more sense to include it there rather than here (where it logically belongs). Also job well done from me on the fact that after previous section title name that titled (early 20th century), this one all of a sudden jumps to labeling section titles according to a historical event.

• • Post-Soviet Ukraine

Job well done yet again! - now we're back at labeling section titles by country names again, great!. Older version had this labeled as "Independent Ukraine" (although that section title ( Directorate of Ukraine (1918–1920)) that was named after the parliament name of Ukrainian National Republic (1917-1921) was also independent Ukraine. But who cares about those silly historical accuracy things. Oh and the new title "Post-Soviet Ukraine" introduced by 'My very best wishes' - is an excellent example of how to bring a politically incorrect (and frankly offensive) term to Wikipedia.

• I disagree with your new version because dividing Ukrainan history into two "periods" of the "independent" and "dependent" country (one of the "periods" is discontinuous and combines years 1918 and 1921, then jumps to 1991) looks to me as a pure WP:OR on your part or at the very least something that is not supported by typical academic sources on the Ukrainian history. If you think I am wrong here, please provide references to widely accepted history textbooks which use such periodization. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Look closely, my version from March 31 2018 moved UNR period to where it was before, and I removed the big "Independent" and "Non-independent" separation.--Piznajko (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant another version. If you tell about this edit, then OK, I do not have significant objections, except only one paragraph where you are giving an undue weight to a single source by calling it "Latest research". Simply saying "according to" or omitting "Latest research" will fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for either starting that paragraph with "according to" and omitting "Latest research" or the other way around - I think it's immaterial. But if the former seems better to you - I have no objection to that.--Piznajko (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, whole section about pogroms in 1918-1920 must be rewritten. It incorrectly puts most of the blame to White Army, but whitewash the Ukrainian forces. In fact, it were they who committed most of the atrocities, as reputable historians tell in their books [4]. Actually, this factual info is already included on the page. However, an unsuspecting reader (like myself) can not quickly see it because this page (just as many other WP pages!) are flooded by controversial opinions instead of factual information. Such "sourced content" must be removed or properly re-written. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is about title headers - that's it. Please create a separate discussion for actual content of the article. But regarding your point, other reputable sources, e.g., specialist on the subject prof. Peter Kenez in his book (P. Kenez (1977), Civil War in South Russia, 1919-1920: The Defeat of the Whites. Berkeley: University of California Press. p: 166.) states that Russian White Army was the one that committed the majority and most brutal pogroms on Ukrainian territory during that period. See my comment above about it.--Piznajko (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This pissing contest who killed less Jews is utterly disgusting. Both White Russian and nationalist forces were elbow-deep in blood, and this must be clearly stated. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, I do not support version by Piznajko ("Ukraine was a colony of the Soviet Uniton", etc.). And who is this guy? This is not you, Piznajko? My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No response? Just to be clear, this is only you who thinks that titles were misleading, contrary to your edit summary [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

this guy is not me and this anonymous editor who's trying stop edit warring by user יניב הורון is not doing me any favors - by editing from an IP they make it look as if it's me trying to edit from out side my account. Also, 'My very best wishes' well done on doing a 360 degrees turn on your earlier statement where you said you were fine with updating title headers - hence I thought we've reached consensus. Now you are doing a 360 turn - fine, I've already realized who I'm dealing with here.--Piznajko (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Saying "I do not have significant objections" does not mean supporting your version, but only a willingness to compromise (because you edit war) and admitting that your new version is not entirely unreasonable, even though I do not like it. For example, you removed word "pogrom" from the titles. Why? The content was clearly about pogroms. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Saying "I do not have significant objections" is probably the closest phrase one could possibly get in reaching consensus on the topic. Especially, given how we have diametrically opposite views. And I have no idea what you're talking about "the word pogrom" - I did not remove the word pogrom, and if I did it was accidental--Piznajko (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is your last edit. You removed word "pogrom" in two titles for subsections and in the title for a figure. I think this whole page is poorly written, but your changes are hardly an improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is my last edit removed the word "pogrom" from all sub-section titles for consistency - it's implied that each section is about pogroms from that period (e.g., we either remove the word pogrom from all sub-section titles, or add it to all sub-section titles; but have some consistency) ps. The page is poorly written - that's why there's a template "article needs to be completely rewritten" on top. However, old titles were incredibly confusing (as was described by me in detail above) so my updates to the titles are definitely a move towards improving this article. But you changing your positiong by 360 degree no longer surprises me, now that I know who I'm dealing with here.--Piznajko (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Piznajko. I checked now more carefully, and here is main problem with your version [6]. Under title "Ukrainian National Republic" it describes pogroms committed not by the Ukrainian People's Republic soldiers under command of Symon Petliura, but by Russian Volunteer Army and even by Imperial Russian Army in 1917. This is wrong. First paragraph should go to preface for the whole section (1917-1921), followed by several subsections, i.e. as in old version. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow. Ukrainian_National_Republic existed between 1917-1921. So all pogroms that happened during those years on the territory of Ukrainian_National_Republic, are descriated under the sub-section "Ukrainian_National_Republic", regardless of who committed those pogroms. My main point in fixing titles was to make them all uniform: e.g., the title describes the name of the country (or if a country was under a rule of another country) during a specific point in time (instead of how old version had it all over the place - sometimes it was name of a country, sometimes time period etc.; see above for details).--Piznajko (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days. 'My very best wishes' you are yet to explain what is it exactly that you don't like in my version (which, as I stated numerous times above, simply fixes incredibly illogical previous structure of the sub-section titles) except that you have a personal animosity towards me and thus you try to block all constructive edits by me on as many articles as you possibly can. Unless you provide specific examples of how my new titles are inconsistent (as I did above and showed why the old articles were inconsistent) I will go ahead and updated section titles.--Piznajko (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand that during Ukrainian War of Independence the military forces of Ukrainian People's Republic did not control all of this territory. Some parts were controlled by the Volunteer Army, etc., ant it were they who committed a number of pogroms. Therefore, your version of subtitles (when this is all defined as "Ukrainian_National_Republic") seems problematic to me. Yes, I disagree with such version of titles. Is anyone else on this talk page who would agree with your version of titles? I do not see them. I am not saying all your changes are bad. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement you said above (e.g., I understand that during Ukrainian War of Independence the military forces of Ukrainian People's Republic did not control all of this territory. Some parts were controlled by the Volunteer Army, etc.) can be stated about pretty much any historic period of Ukraine over the past 400 years (or even older), in other words even today, part of Ukrainian territory is controlled by other entities, e.g., Russia) but we are not labellling current period as "Independent Ukraine and territories of Ukraine controlled by Russia". Consequently, based on this, your statement above makes no sense - the vast majority of Ukraine's territory was controlled by Ukrainian People's Republic from 1917 to 1921 and thus Ukraine in that period should be referred to as Ukrainian People's Republic.--Piznajko (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to my comment(s) above, your edit was problematic in other aspects. For example, it tells "the periods when Ukraine was a colony of the Soviet Union". A colony? My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the version in your own comments (diff) it doesn't say anything that you've mentioned above.--Piznajko (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does ("details|topic=the periods when Ukraine was a colony of the Soviet Union|Antisemitism in the Soviet Union"). You probably do not even read what you do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

POV tag in "Historiography" section

The section is based on the view propagated by the modern Ukrainian revisionists, who work hard to whitewash the ugly Ukrainian past. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I would not say that. However, if there are any new interesting findings by Ukrainian historians (I do not see them in this section), they should be simply included in previous section. So removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-Soviet section

I think it really needs to be rewritten based on some published statistical data. The situation does not look good according to this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few large right-wing organizations, such as C 14 and Right Sector who are openly anti-Semitic. By "openly" I mean they do not hesitate to call for "Ukraine without kikes" at their rallies, easily found on Youtube. But Western so-called "human rights" observers are silent. And Ukrainian Helsinki Group turned into a travesty and a bunch of liars. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know about the "liars", but this section is currently a mess and should be fixed by someone familiar with the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)