Talk:Kiev Pogroms (1919)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

[edit] Bolshevik support?

I find this article quite confusing. It seems to say that the pogroms took place with the support of the Bolsheviks, but there don't seem to be references as to whether this is the case. Would it possible to clarify who controlled the territory at the time and whether the pogroms had any sort of official support? Warofdreams talk 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m interested in how you arrived at your conclusion and where exactly did you find the citation indicating that the pogroms took place with the support of the Bolsheviks. One of the links I suggest you examine leads to text by Elias Tcherikower called "The Pogroms in Ukraine in 1919" [1] where the question of control over the territory is at least partialy explained. --Poeticbent talk 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the references didn't seem to support the contention, which may simply have seemed possible from my reading of the text, but I was keen to see clarified. Either way, the sections of text in the article which suggested this seem now to have gone. Warofdreams talk 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the disappearance of most of the article. It is an action verging on vandalism and will not be tolerated. --Poeticbent talk 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the references, and can't find any suggestion that Red Army detachments were involved, so I've removed that claim. I also can't quite make sense of the sentence "Apparently, the new communist ideology of tolerance (see: Lenin, "On Anti-Jewish Pogroms") was very short-lived, and as early as 1918 the Russian Jews became victims of vicious attacks." Despite having two references, the sections visible to me on Google Books don't seem to support the claim. I suspect that other sources could be found to confirm the second half of the sentence, although I'd like to see it clarified who carried out the attacks (peasants? sections of the Red Army?), while the first half seems rather contentious and likely to be difficult to source satisfactorily. Warofdreams talk 01:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be informed that every single claim made in this article was based on solid reference with most of it of scientific value. In fact, it is the sheer number of those online references to “Kiev pogrom of 1919” that made it hard for me to place the exact quotation at the exact place once the article was composed in full. I realize that almost every sentence there might draw attention especially of editors with national bias, that’s why I used most of the references I found regardless of their level of importance. However, every word and each and every number claimed can be confirmed by looking through the complete list of references and footnotes. I feel obliged to do it myself as a result of the violent reaction of just one editor, Irpen, to the sheer scope of the article. In fact, a number of passing comments made by Irpen below, could not be confirmed by a single source from the list of references provided in the article. What I sense is a strong aversion to scientific approach on his part, based on raw emotion triggered by the subject. --Poeticbent talk 03:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Violent reaction", huh? "Raw emotion"? What sort of emotion? Please watch your mouth!

Now, back to the topic, what you call a "sheer number of those online references" is in fact a "sheer number of google links", many totally random. Just look at what you produce as references. Here are some of your links that you call "references" copied from the article: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I can continue. Just click on them and tell me what these refs can support except that the words Kiev, pogrom, 1919 can be found on the same page of this particular link.

You wanted to add to Wikipedia a lacking article on a valid topic. This is commendable. But what you did is some googling around, pasting the results as references and writing an incoherent page that consists of arbitrary pasted together material "referenced" to arbitrary pasted links as "sources" many of which show just one or two lines of the text.

Do not try to write on the subjects like antisemitism while sitting on your left hand. I have a dozen or so unfinished articles on my PC that are not posted exactly because they cannot represent their subject in WP until I develop them to some minimally acceptable form.

And one more time, think twice before accusing fellow editors of "violent reactions" and "raw emotions", particularly when dealing with subjects that include mass murder of innocent people. Such statements raise exactly those "raw emotions" that are best to be avoided in the Wikipedia space. --Irpen 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, how else would you call wiping out most of the article in your edit as of 22:11, 4 June 2007 [10]. All reactions verging on vandalism are based in this same attitude. However, Kiev pogrom of 1919 is not the kind of subject that would make me want to react to your slash and burn approach every time it happens, but even Warofdreams noted your indiscriminate flagging. Your flags are excessive, don’t you see that? --Poeticbent talk 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Vandalism to familiarize yourself of what is and what is not vandalism. My edits are well-explained here. Please seize these silly accusations and get serious if you want to write on such subjects. Articles on killing people cannot be generated by google-linking. Recommendations are below as well as above. --Irpen 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scope of the article

I removed the material about events that were not part of Kiev pogrom. This is not a review article such as History of Jews in Ukraine, in Russia, Antisemitism in Russian Empire, etc. There are more general articles for that, please use this material there. --Irpen 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find your attitude unacceptable. The article is about the series of pogroms in Kiev and its vicinity in the year 1919. It’s all highly relevant. --Poeticbent talk 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article used to talk length about multiple pogroms in various townlets within the Pale of Settlement Ukraine-wide. Kiev was not part of the pale and its pogroms are just that, Kiev pogroms. If you want to talk about large-scale murders all over Ukraine at about that time, do that properly. The article about Kiev pogrom is should be about just that, not anything else. There is Ukraine after Russian Revolution article. There is a History of Jews in Ukraine article. There is also History of Jews in Russia and USSR. Perhaps you may want to start an article about Pogroms in Ukraine in early 20th century or something like that. I would have no objections. I do object to adding random material to random articles.

Finally, the article currently talks about three separate events. Is there any scholarly publication that calls this particular series of events in suburbs of Kiev as "Kiev pogrom". If not, this is an unacceptable synthesis, which is WP:OR. --Irpen 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do your own legwork. All three events listed in the article are at various times referred to as “Kiev pogrom of 1919” in all scholarly publications although not at the same time. That might be a source of confusion for those who haven’t read about them separately. It is important that the three massacres be put together for clarity and under one title. --Poeticbent talk 00:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will do some leg work to find out whether these events are connected elsewhere. However, the events in Volhynia, Proskuriv, "all over Ukraine" are separate events at any rates and should not be pasted to a randomly picked article. I don't want to delete encyclopedic info from wp. Nothing of this sort. This is exactly why I commented it out rather than deleted so that it can be moved to proper places.

I suggest the following. Take a look at the existing more general articles were such events might fit. Or start a new article about pogroms in Ukraine from the time of the closing years of the RU empire to the times where Soviet power firmly established (1921) that pretty much ended any mob violence. Please understand that the scope of the articles must fit the title and their actual contents. In the meanwhile I will try to find out whatever I can about Justingrad and a mysterious "Ivankov district" of Kiev and add the info to this article.

While this is being sorted out, I suggest we tag the article with {{noncompliant}} to preserve the integrity of the WP for the non-editing folks who use Wikipedia as a source of info. --Irpen 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the titling of the article, but the general principle of providing background and a summary of the aftermath of an event seems entirely appropriate for any encyclopaedia. Certainly, this article could use much more detail on the actual events - and the Tcherikower article looks a good starting point for this - but this does not mean that it is non-compliant with Wikipedia policies. Warofdreams talk 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Aftermath" of something is usually what is connected to the event by a "cause and effect" connection. The whole Ukraine was being rocked by violence. As always in any wave of country-wide violence Jews who were easiest to abuse suffered most and this anti-Jewish violence perpetrated by all sorts of scum, the worst elements of among all groups: the local mobs, the monarchists, the Poles, the nationalists, the anarchist bands and unaffiliated gangs, "neo-Cossacks", "partisans", etc.

What caused this all is impossible to say in one-two paragraphs but certainly the Kiev pogrom was not the event that caused the rest. Kiev pogrom was nothing more that one such event of the many. General review and analysis belong to review articles rather than event articles. We already have several review articles about events in Ukraine of that time. Another narrower review article can be started. But picking one of such event articles and saturate it with events that are unrelated to it makes a mess and does not help the reader's understanding of this chaotic and violent time. --Irpen 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked more of the article's sources. I have an impression that the whole article is produced by dumping together whatever google + google books give out in response to a string "1919 Kiev pogrom". Many of these events were not even in Kiev and some, including many described in the article, are about events that took place hundreds of kiolmetres from Kiev.

In fact, the worse of them all was the Tetiev pogrom (1919) the event that, along with pogroms in Chernobyl, Vasilkov, etc. certainly deserves a separate article rather than be dumped to a random article so remotely related.

Tcherikower's The Pogroms in Ukraine in 1919 article may be used as a starting point but note that its title is not "Kiev pogrom". Also, Tcherikower's article, unfortunately, has very few references within itself and it certainly affects its value for us.

What is the plan here? An overall article about the pogroms Ukraine-wide that took place at about that time? Why 1919 only? Tragic pogroms of 1918 and 1920 were of no lesser scale. 1919 mainly restricts the perpetrators to gangs and whites. Why are just these two perpetrators banded together? Add 1918 and 1920 and you get also Petlurovites, other nationalists, Poles and Budyonny Cossacks.

Sorry, but now this is plainly a mess. This is more than a title of the article problem. It is an utter incoherence and non-seriousness of the author's approach. Don't start writing such articles without setting aside sufficient time and doing some reading homework. I am tagging the article. --Irpen 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That tag really is not appropriate. It reads "To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view and must not include unverifiable or unsuitable material, or original research." You have not raised any of those issues. I am no expert on this topic and am quite prepared to consider that an alternative periodisation or spatialisation may be more appropriate, and no doubt there are many ways in which this article could be improved, but claiming this is "non-compliant" does not bear examination. Warofdreams talk 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you propose to leave the article as is while you will be "considering alternative periodization, spacialization"? Think of the impression we make on the accidental visitor who finds that sort of text under such entry? And do you think that Kiev pogrom of 1919 does not deserve to have an article on its own? And if so, what is a more logical place for such article than this one which is already titled as such. Go ahead with your spacialization/periodization and take a look at the existing review articles or start a new one. But the current state of affairs is unacceptable and the reader needs to be warned. --Irpen 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen's view that in its current form the article is somewhat incoherent, and lumps together many important events under a somewhat accidental title. At the same time, the text of the article is correct and well referenced, and a large chunk of this good work should not be simply deleted. The obvious solution would be to move the content to another, more appropriate article. This may be an existing article, or a new one. Moving to Pogroms in Ukraine in early 20th century proposed by Irpen sounds good, or some variation of that title. Balcer 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I’d like to repeat, that all references used in this article describe just one point in time, referred to, in all literature I read, as a “Kiev pogrom of 1919”. Also, the places mentioned in the Aftermath have an immediate social, political, economic and cultural connection with each other since most of the towns mentioned are in close proximity. Those are not separate circumstances by any stretch of the imagination. The perpetrators (and the bystanders) would most likely know each other from the local market in Kiev. I have nothing against writing more articles on related subjects, but the title of this article is based in history of the region, and not in an ad hoc debate between Wikipedia editors. --Poeticbent talk 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I commented already on your "references". Also, your original idea about acquaintances being made from "local markets" in Kiev shows that you really know very little on the subject. Look at the map where Kiev is and where other places that you mention in the article are located, like Volhynia or Proskurov (the latter being in Galicia). I can only welcome your interest in elucidating this underrepresented subject to our readers. But writing about mass murder is unlike writing about food or aquarium fish. It should be done carefully and diligently. Takes more time per line of text, true enough, but it is worth it. --Irpen 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article from Kiev Pogrom to Kiev Pogroms since there was an obvious series of unrelated events with different perpetuates and months apart in the time scale. Still the events through out the whole Ukraine are beyond the scope of the article and should be placed elsewhere. There is no chronology in the article, the readers are in loss what happen in March, in April, June, etc. Some facts are dubious:

• The 1919 Kiev progroms were not the first even in Kiev. 1918 was full of pogroms as well.
• There was no settlement with the official name Justingrad as well as probably no Ivankov district

I am under impression that some sources are misrepresented. E.g. the reference that used to source that the pogroms were carried by the White Army starts with the statement that commanders of the White Army forbade the pogroms and persecuted the perpetuates. The article needs attention from an expert in the history of the Civil War in Ukraine Alex Bakharev 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ru:Юстинград is mentioned in Brokhaus: [11]. It seems to have been totally wiped out in the ww2 and now it does not exist. I am yet to figure out where exactly it was.

Skvira is over 120 km away from Kiev.

I am still puzzled by the "Ivankov district of Kiev". I thought I know the city well. Will be back as soon as I figure out anything --Irpen 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ivankiv must be it. The reference speaks of a place in the Kiev district, not the city itself. Balcer 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This town is about 60 km north-west of Kiev, by my very rough estimate. I suppose it is an open question whether it is close enough to fall withing the scope of "Kiev Pogroms". My feeling is that it does not. Balcer 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all weird. Ivankiv you mention is about 80 km north from Kiev. Why isn't it an Ivankiv pogrom? Skvira pogrom (mentioned in the article) and Tetiev pogrom (not mentioned but this one was the worst) are close to each other and to known to many Volodarka but 100+ km southwest from Kiev. Finally, some web-links claim that Justingrad was split from Sokolivka in 19th century. There are dozen of Sokolivkas in Ukraine and the nearest to Kiev is of the Vasylkiv raion some 40 km from the city and about 100 km from the other two locations. Who and how met in "Kiev markets", Poeticbent? Does anyone think that these three were committed by the same people really? And what this all has to do with Volhynia and Galicia, unless someone wants to write a review article about the violence overall. If so, why such strange name? I hope the article's tags will not be removed until we address this strange coverage of this important topic properly. --Irpen 05:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Brokhaus:

Юстинград (Загайполь, Соколовка) - местечко Киевской губернии, Липовецкого уезда, при реке Конелке, в 27 верстах от станции железной дороги. 2782 жителя; православная церковь, синагога, школа грамоты.

Justingrad was a town of Lypovets uezd, currently Vinnytsia Oblast - quite a long way from Kiev Alex Bakharev 06:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we continue to get surprises from this article, don't we? Actually the modern Lypovetsky district does not contain any Sokolivka. The nearest Sokolivka to Lypovets is in Pohrebyschensky district. Two other Sokolivkas of Vinnytsia Oblast are rather remote but there is another one in Zhashkivsky district of the Cherkasy Oblast. All these villages are 100+ km from Kiev. Overall, the more we analyze this article, the more mess with its condition we see. --Irpen 08:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It clearly now emerges that none of the three events described happened in Kiev, or even near Kiev, if by "near" we mean the immediate vicinity of the city. We have to keep in mind here that the population of Kiev in 1919 was about 500,000 or so, five times less than the current population of 2.5 million. Thus the city is much larger and what today may be within the city limits of Kiev could have been far beyond them in 1919. Given this, a more reasonable title for the article in its current form would be something along the lines of Kiev District Pogroms (1919). Balcer 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also would hardly work. The administrative borders of the Kiev Governorate were very much different from modern Kiev Oblast (province) and even now some of the locations are outside of the oblast's modern border. Sokolivka seems to be either the one in Cherkasy or in Vinnytsia province. We would need to figure out the adminstrative subordination of Ivanovka back then. Can very well be outside of Kiev region as well as the Chernigov Governorate stretched to the south much more than modern Chernihiv Oblast reaching up to Kiev itself. In any case, this would have been an ORish name. What is so special about these pogroms to group them together with each other but separate from Tetiev, Chernobyl, Berdichev and many other pogroms? They are not even geographically closer to each other than to some of the locations above. Each pogrom needs a separate article or a review article about pogromism in Ukraine of that time is in order. --Irpen 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the question of proximity to Kiev of neighbouring towns and villages mentioned in the article is being brought up here repeatedly. However, for the paramilitary cavalry units of 1919 reaching many of them would have been a matter of hours. Therefore my earlier suggestion that some of the troops might have been moving around the city of Kiev (or its suburbs) and conducting operations within its reach is not totally out of the question, hence the concept of the one local marketplace (subsequently challenged by Irpen)... I believe that those and similar circumstances are at the root of the Kiev pogrom being called by various authors by one and the same name. Changing it could make the events historically unrecognizable and draw suspicion in the eyes of historians unless other sites are all clearly linked to this article. --Poeticbent talk 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

200 kilometers (140 miles) on foot and in horse driven carts? I would guess it was more like a week than a few hours. There were no bitumen roads and only a few cars in Ukraine during the Civil war Alex Bakharev 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Such issues need to be addressed in the article as well, and perhaps reinforced with citations including additional research. As I understand, Cossack military units were mounted on horses (i.e. cavalry) and most likely faster than suggested. How many sites were outside of their immediate reach? --Poeticbent talk 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This argument seems a bit of a stretch to me as well. Do any authors that are cited specifically talk about these cavalry units? Balcer 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)