Talk:Symon Petliura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Ukraine Portal

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Role in Pogroms is even more unbalanced now

Even more material from Taras Hunczak is given whereas no historian critical of Petlura is cited. Simply length-wise the article imbalanced. I see two possibilities: (i) add citation from the critical historians, but this will make the whole article too long. (ii) trim with the Taras Hunczak citation.

Also the historians who are critical of Petliura do not claim that lack of activity indirectly encouraged the pogroms, rather his lack of activity encouraged the pogroms and he was well aware of this.

I plan to move the reference to the Ukrainian-Jewish source to the legacy and add about the way Petliura is remembered in Israel and the Jewish world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.129 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USSR - Bolshevyk Russia

User Bandurist removed many changes and improvements for some reason. If there is an argument about using Soviet Union or Bolshevik Russia we can debate it. (The Soviet Union was formed in December 1922.)

Yes the papers were signed December 30 1922, but it did not come into existance until Jan 1 1923. Up until then ..... Ukrainian sources state that the USSR came into being in 1923. But is was Bolshevik Russia he fought against not the USSR Bandurist 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role in Pogroms still needs work

The role in pogroms is still not balanced. Also there are two problems with citations. One is "original research", pointing out to documents trying to prove a position where these document authenticity is in doubt. It is best to use this as attributed to a historian - e.g. if Taras Hunczak relied on it then say Taras Hunczak pointed out...

The citation below is not to a scholar and what this person writes has no scholarly weight on the question of the Petliura's role in the pogroms. There is some interest in this piece, since it shows how some elements in the Jewish community in Ukraine today are thinking of Petliura. So I suggest moving it Petliura's Letter Legacy. Some Jewish scholars have reconsidered Petlura's role and the situation during the Civil War. They are placed the blame for the Pogroms on either a minority, or Denikin's "White Guards" who upset at losing to the Bolsheviks, took out their rage on the local Jewish population. [8] If you want to cite a Jewish scholar who reconsidered the position you can use Henry Abramson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashkin (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still very biased

The article is still very biased. It does not do a good job in explaining the debate about Petliura's role and responsibility for the pogroms. The fact that he was not a rabid anti-Semite should make his case more interesting and relevant to other cases. It should be made clear that Petliura was seen as a villain by most (but not all) Jewish parties.

Also Sholom Schwartzbard is portrayed as a Soviet agent - this discussion belong in Schwatzbard's page.

Mashkin 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What responisibility can this man have for pogroms which took place in Ukraine if there is no evidence that he ordered any pogroms in the first place? Where are the documents that tie this man in with any pogroms? Even if you analyse the time period in which he was active it was miniscule. May 1917 - elected head of army Committee. Later left the government after a disagreement with Vynnychenko. Jan-Feb 1918 Stopped Bolshevyk push in Kyiv. April 1918 - Lost position during the Hetman putsch and spent 4 months incarcerated. Jan 1919 - after the fall on the Hetmanate he became the leading figure fighting Bolsheviks and Denikin. By the end of 1919 he had withdrawn to Poland. As I see it the only time he would have been able to do something would have been in 1919 when he was withdrawing to Poland when he was in Kamianetz Podilsk.

The article may seem biased only if it does not agree with your owb personal POV, which it seems it does not. The association of Petlura with Pogroms is a myth which was fueled by the Soviets for their own specific purposes.

Sholom Schwartzbard was Petlura's assassin. The fact that the independant Ukrainian government recognises him as a Soviet agent also has relevance.Bandurist 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be rather possessive about this and other articles and not open at all to discussion. I do not wish to discuss whether Petliura was responsible or not for the pogroms (if you think he wasn't, then you should make an effort in identifying the main culprits for Wikipedia; also according to your theory he is not a particularly significant person in Ukrainain history, after all he never had any effective control of anything). The point is that in a Wikipedia entry the viewpoints concerning his role should be given a better representation, and it should be done from a NPOV. Another issue is that the language should not insinuate (throwing around `communist').

About the debate on Perliura's role: the first schoraly argument was on the pages of the The Journal of Jewish Studies between Zosa Szajkowski and Aras Hunczak . The debate itself is an interestign enough fact that should be mentioned. In fact, it used to be mentioned, but I suppose that your zeoulous undoing got rid of it.

Also using a source that says "Zhyd in Ukrainian Means Jew" is not such a great idea.

Mashkin 10:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: "according to your theory he is not a particularly significant person in Ukrainain history, after all he never had any effective control of anything)."

Petlura was very influential aminly through his editorship of and major written contributions to the journal "Ukrainskaya Zhyzn" which he edited in Moscow for the years before the Russian Revolution. Although it was published in Russian and had to be delicately written and editied, it played a major part in shaping Ukrainian thought, developing and spreading concepts such as Ukrainian self-awareness and national conciousness. These magazines were not accessable in Ukraine and indeed are still not accessable in the major Ukrainian research libraries (because most copies were destroyed) and until recently were only available in the closed archives in Moscow. (I had a very difficult time getting a copy of one article for my dissertation on the bandura because of this}. Recently a couple of books have come out about this little studied (and little researched) area of Petlura's activities, and this area in the article should be expanded considerably. However, I can only do this when I get my copies back from his nephew to whom I lent my personal copies. Petlura as a major influence though his writtings and shaped many of the political ideas of the Ukrainian intelligentsia in the time leading up to the revolution. This is the reason for his meteoric rise and support. Everyone already knew him through his articles. His leadership of the government is also one up to discussion. What was his title - President, premier, dictator, manager, secretary with a leadership which he assumed after Volodymyr Vynnychenko left for France. (By the way, Vynnychenko's wife Rosa was Jewish).

RE:The Journal of Jewish Studies and the statement "but I suppose that your zeoulous undoing got rid of it".

You made an incorrect assumsion.

RE: Your statement "Zhyd in Ukrainian Means Jew" is not such a great idea.

I would like to suggest that you read through Yevhen Nakonechnyj's book: Ukradene im'ia - Chomu Rusyny staly Ukraintsiamy. The fifth edition was published in Lviv in 2004 and I believe you can read an older version online at here. It discusses the use of a variety of ethnonyms in the Ukrainian language, the differences and subtlties of their use in comparison to the languages of Ukraine's neighbours. It also discusses the use of the terms "zhyd" and "yevrei" in Ukrainian in cultural and historic context. here Bandurist 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I moved the huge material to the article about the assassin. However, the article is now still biased.

What is missing here, the account of the effort of the Petlura to stop the pogroms and witness testimony that he was not an anti-Semite himself.

I hope that anynody can help me with NPOV this article. Cautious 09:19, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The bias you see is because you want to believe that Petliura was some sort of saint. He may not have been directly responsible for the pogroms that were committed and organized by the Ukrainian army-- nowhere does the article claim that he was. But he was the head of government and Commander of that army while they were going on. Thus, as it rightly notes, " Petliura's responsibility...was a widely held belief among Jews." That's a factual statement. It does not say that Petliura was responsible; it says that the belief that he was responsible was widely held by Jews.

To say that he tried to "stop the pogroms" is nice, but you provide no basis or support for your argument. Read the very balanced review of historian Henry Abramson's book listed in the external links.

The information you deleted, without comment, was taken from the articles cited in those links -- from the Ukrainian Weekly, in particular -- based on the historical accounts, court records and eyewitness-testimony. Do you deny the information therein? Do you understand the difference between your own opinion and what has been documented as true? Did your school not require you to differentiate between reality and fiction?

I have removed your change: "The problem with Petlura responsibility for the Pogroms, is that he himself was not an Anti-Semite and he tried to stop them, intrducing capital punishment for that crime. This decreased the number of the pogroms. Petlura is accused of being the head of state, on the territory of which there happenned pogroms."

Your deletion of actual, historical information and substitution with your own personal opinion is what introduces bias. This is contrary to the nature of Wiki.

If you want to improve the article, provide counter-examples -- based in documented history.

LeFlyman 13:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mr Flybrain, we are supposed to make review out of external resources. It is too difficult to understans for you?? OK, you gets all material. Cautious 13:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, your English is impossible to understand. The section you plagiarised has been removed for copyright infringement. I'd suggest you try to re-write it in your own words, but I suspect that would be a painful exercise in futility. LeFlyman 16:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the information on pogroms somewhat, as it seems to reflect some bias. Two sources on Ukrainian history - written by University of Toronto historian PAul MAgosci and York University prof ORest Subtelny - cite the number of victims as approximately 35,000-50,000. I'm not sure where the 100,000 figure came from (it contradicts subsequent information about the estimate total number of Jewish victims in the Russian empire ranging from a low point of 70,000), but I have retained it anyways while adding the lower estimate. I added the information about Petliura's execution of the otaman (warlord) Semesenko for committing the notorious pogrom in Proskuriv.

With respect to Solzhenitsin's figues in terms of who was to blame for the pogroms, I added some balance by provided numbers cited by Ukrainian researchers. Those numbers were included in Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: A History, published by the University of Toronto Press in 1988 ISBN 0-8020-5808-6.

[edit] Appeal to Ukrainian Army

The fact was, that Shalom Shwartzbard and his family lived closer to Turkey, an area which was not even part of the Ukrainian Republic at that time. And Petliura's armies could not reach him, okay, let's just admit that Schwarzbard was a Soviet agent, and he killed an innocent human being for no reason. The fact was, that the pogroms were comitted by the RUSSIAN ARMY not the Ukrainian, which was actually trying to drive them out. Second of all, Petliura had a Jewish minister in his cabinet, as well as a ministry of Jewish affairs. He actually attempted to collaborate with them against the Russian army. Adolf23653 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)adolf23653

The reference Symon Petlura. Against pogrom. The Appeal to Ukrainian Army. cited in the article seems dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergivs-en (talk • contribs)

The source is genuine while the particular site is indeed spammy. Here is the replacement link to the same document published at the more respectable web-site. http://www.ukrcenter.com/library/read.asp?id=374 --Irpen 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the websites, it is the source that I question. Incidentally, Український Центр не несе відповідальности за опубліковані матеріяли. Sergivs-en 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no web-site can be held responsible for the material on remote past it posts. The said letter by Petliura is mentioned in many historic works, so no doubt it existed. True enough, I could not find the letter's full text at any academic site. So, are you saying that the text is falsified? --Irpen 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What historic works? I can't say for sure whether it's falsified or not. It does seem very suspicious, given the atrocities that went on while he was -- at least nominally -- in power. Either they happened with his approval, maybe tacit approval, or he had no real control of the situation. The burden of proof is on Petlura's supporters. If the article claims that he made serious attempts to stop the pogroms, which I seriously doubt, then there better be more serious evidence than some nationalistic website quoting some text without sources. Sergivs-en 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot say for sure whether anything is falsified or not, especially as, unlike professional historians who work with archives, Wikipedia is written by amateurs most of who use google as their primary search for the info. Standards here are pretty lax, but I won't object to digging a little more. The idntical text, which also calls itself the Petlura letter is posted at this rather Russophile, or at least neutral, web-site. Now, I did not find indeed the letter posted at any academic site, but I found it being mentioned and quoted in Mykola Riabchuk, "Vid Malorosiii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia", K., Krytyka, 2000, ISBN 966-7679-11-X (LCCN 20-364006). This book was translated and published in French as 'De la "Petite-Russie" à l'Ukraine', L'Harmattan (2003), ISBN 2747551342 (Amazon link) and the original full Ukrainian version is available online (see [1] and [2] for a particular chapter). I think we can safely assume that the letter existed. In what I agree is that this by itself is not sufficient to conclude lack of Petlura's complicity in pogroms. This question is a complex one and historians disagree. --Irpen 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize before that this was supposed to be a letter. Perhaps, it did exist, and we both agree that it does not prove lack of complicity. But I certainly cannot assume that it existed just because (as I discovered by now) it was posted on multiple websites, even if one of them is Russophile, and, apparently, in two books. For instance, Riabchuk does not seem to mention the source; I also skimmed over the introduction, which seemed quite tendentious to me, although it might be interesting to read this book later more carefully. By the way, the most convincing exoneration of Petlura that I read so far was a quote from an article by Zhabotinsky that Riabchuk cites right after the Appeal. However, it does not concern the text of the Appeal. And I am still convinced in Petlura's guilt, whether direct or not, since I believe that tens of thousands of innocent people had been murdered by his subordinates. This is why I think any arguments in his support need to be treated skeptically. Sergivs-en 01:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, user:adolf (any clue?), is that Schwartzbard's family moved to somewhere near Odessa. We can't 'just admit' anything. It has never been proven. AllenHansen (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge, Petliura or Petlyura?

These articles should be merged: Symon Petliura + Simon Petlyura

Done. I apologize in advance if i inserted something false or npov by merging, but i'm not too well versed in my Ukranian history; i'm only being a janitor. -℘yrop (talk) 05:25, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. One thing though: if you want to transcribe the Ukrainian name correctly into English, it should be Symon Petlyura, not Petliura. IJzeren Jan 09:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Is that the most common convention? Keep in mind that it can be transcribed correctly in many ways (see Romanization of Ukrainian). —Michael Z.

Petliura can be correct indeed. But my impression is that the wikipedias use popular transcriptions, which in the case of English would be the column BGN/PCGN on the page Romanisation of Ukrainian, rather than scientific or national systems. We also write Yushchenko and not Yuschenko (as the National system that also spawns Petliura seems to dictate). IJzeren Jan 06:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC).

I was about to suggest moving the article to Symon Petlyura, but now that I look it over, I'm not so sure.

Names aren't conventionally transliterated according to BGN/PCGN, but transcribed phonetically using an informal system (consider the conventional Dmytro Bortniansky vs. BGN Bortnyans'kyy). Ye, yi, yu, ya are often used, especially to define a syllable break. But ie, iu, ia are also used, apparently to indicate iotation when the syllable begins with a preceding consonant. Petlyura might be read pet-lee-UR-ah, instead of pe-TLIOO-rah.

Look over the names in List of Ukrainians, keeping in mind that many are transliterated by other systems, or from Polish or Russian. Petliura might come to us through Polish or French, considering his history. —Michael Z. 03:32, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Vowels after L in Ukrainian are often softened, particularly in Poltava area. The Petlura family (his nephew) in Canada spell their name Petlura. Bandurist 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV removal

This article have an NPOV disclaimer since February. Is it still a dispute over it? Przepla 21:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it still needs a lot more historical material unrelated to the pogrom question, but both sides of that issue seem to be represented. I'll remove the notice, and resolve to do some more reading so I can expand this article. Anyone else care to chip in too? —Michael Z. 03:38, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

[edit] President?

People, I doubt the wording "President" for formal reasons purely. I mean Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma are f**n assho*es, but they were legitimate presidents, elected by millions, with constitutionally regulated authority. Can we apply all this to Petliura (who was, no doubt, an outstanding leader)? Pryvit, AlexPU

Pryvit. I think he was head of the Directory, not president. I will mark this article for myself and see to it later, after checking the facts (and yet, there is no article about the Directory either). You touch upon one minor (or so it seems) issue, and pull out a whole bunch of omissions, lack of neutrality, or outright falsification (being impressionistic on this point, rather then factual. however, some falsifications have become mainstream theory - see Da Vinci Code for that matter ;)). In general, as for Ukrainian related articles, would like to recommend the Encyclopeda of Ukraine, published in Canada pretty good in English in 1989-1991 (deplorably, there is no article on this encyclopedia either). Compay 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

He certainly wasn't the president. The only pre-Kravchuk president of Ukraine was Hrushevsky. Compay, you may check the Ukraine portal with its notice boards to get a clue of what articles exist. We have a well written, although unfinished, Ukrainian People's Republic. You may check its links for more. --Irpen 00:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the Ukrainian Wiki page on Hrushevsky, he was never president of UPR, and there was no such post. Sergivs-en 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed widely in the past and, yes, this seems to be an urban legend. There is no indication that such post even existed in UPR and none of the UPR's laws mentioning presidency were cited to date. --Irpen 20:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica provides these dates

born May 17 [May 5, Old Style], 1879 died May 26, 1926 Lotsofissues 10:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title - Holovnyi Otaman

Changed ataman to Otaman.

[edit] Petlura, Petlyura and Petliura

Another spelling issue - this one is mainly for consistency. Usage of all three within the article reflects differeng views, either past or present, on how the name should be spelt. On the other hand, the article title is Symon Petlura, at the start of the article he is called Symon Petlyura, and for each subsequent subheading his name is spelt Symon Petliura. I could not say whether people who had either never heard of or read about him previously, or had not seen his name written in English before, would find this confusing or difficult to follow. I have not made any edits in relation to this issue, and just wonder what others think.

The Petlura family (his brothers son) spell their name Petlura. In Ukrainian, and in particular in the Poltava region, all vowels after an l are softened. This is the case here as well Bandurist 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petlura the journalist and writer

What is missing is the 1000's of articles Petlura penned in his writing to various journals and as the editor of various journals, in particular Ukrainskaya zhyzn' in Moscow in Russian. He wrote under a number of pseudonyms. The magazine played a major role in the formation of Ukrainian thinking and was banned in the Soviet Union. From what I can gather a full set only exists in Moscow. There have been a number of studies done recently on his writings - but this wiki article has not addressed this aspect of the man but seems to dwell more on things such as pogroms which he was never directly associated with at all. Bandurist 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Where might one find at least a hundred of his masterpieces? Sergivs-en 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Recently they have published a ten volume collection of his writings in Kyiv. I was able to purchase Volume 4 in Kharkiv last month and sent it by mail. --Bandurist 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added paragraph on Yuri Finkelshtein

According to Yuri Finkelshtein, the number of Jewish civilians murdered by Petlura's army is about 500,000. He lists at least some of the massacres that took place, their location, date and number of the dead. One of the places he lists is Germanovka (Hermanivka), where my great-grandfather was killed by "soldiers" ("bandits" might be a more appropriate term) under the command of Petlura's officer Zelenyi. Among Ukrainian Jews terrible tales of Petlura are told to this day. He is remembered as the most horrible of all warlords of the period.75.84.97.215 09:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the paragraph you have added meets up with the style of an encyclopedic entry. It has numerous mistakes with regard to language.

Yuri Finkelshtein has published an excellent book on antisemitic massacres of Petlura's army[3]. He gives much a much greater number of Jewish civilians killed: 500,000 form Petlura's army alone. He puts on Petlura responsibility for doing nothing about the pogroms, provides strong evidence to show shows how consistently avoided any efforts to stop the massacres, tells about the "Whites" of Denikin who were almost as bloody as Petlura, as well as of other armies (the "Reds", Mahno) who took a different course. He argues that Petlura originally was not an antisemite, but became one because he lacked the guts to oppose extremely strong antisemitism in his army. Unfortunately, the book is available only in Russian.

The use of words such as "excellent" book, phrases such as "puts on". "strong" evidence, "show shows", "lacking guts" just isn't the type of language expected in such an article and demonstates a POV which in my opinion demonstrates bias. If Fikelstein's book was "so excellent" it would have been also made available in English. Most volumes dealing with the tragedy of the pogroms have been republished in English.

The fact that the book is only available in Russian also tends to make one feel that the work has an anti-Ukrainian bias.

Who is Yuri Finkelstein? Is he an academic or an historian. No. He is a journalist who writes for the Russian Jewish Newspapers in New York. This to me is not a credible source despite the fact that you may like what he says, there is little on the article to back up what he states.

I feel that you addition should be removed.

--Bandurist 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected most of the phrases you complain about. I have left "lacking guts" - I don't see it as biased as long as it is clear that this is Yuri Finkelshtein's opinion. I think it would be better if you would correct what you find objectionable instead of deleting everything.

The tragedy of antisemitic pogroms in general is so huge that I don't think most of them are even known. Far less has been printed in English. In my opinion, it would be very limiting to reduce Wikipedia material in this manner, especially if it relates to events that took place in a non-English-speaking country. (For example, if the best study of the works of Taras Shevchenko is in Ukrainian and had not been translated to English, would that mean that one is obligated to ignore it?)

(I actually looked at Wikipedia entry for Taras Shevchenko, which linked me to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine's entry [3], which provides a long list of books and articles about him and his work. They are in Ukrainian, German, Russian, Swedish, Polish, French, Czech and English. How much poorer would it be if only English books and articles were to be admitted.)

"The fact that the book is only available in Russian also tends to make one feel that the work has an anti-Ukrainian bias." I am sorry, but this is a very prejudiced statement. If you are prejudices against Russians, this is your problem. Such statement tends to make one feel that you have a pro-Ukrainian bias.

Yuri Finkelshtein is an historian. He does write for Russian Jewish Newspapers in New York, but is a historian prohibited from doing so? As far as I know, he does not have any American degrees. I do not know whether he has any Soviet degrees. But in my opinion a specialist in any field, history included, should be defined by thoroughness and diligence of his investigation. (For example, since Marco Polo had no American degrees, should all his claims of having traveled to China be seen as rubbish?)

The fact that Yuri Finkelshtein's book is available only in Russian says that Finkelshtein is poor and has no grants to help him hire a translator, nor a lobby to help him promote his case. It says nothing about the quality of the book.

The formal rituals that up to now had to accompany being taken seriously have caused innumerable damage. I have myself witnessed one: when immigrants from the Soviet Union came to the U.S. in 1976-82 (approx.), some of them were excellent specialists in the country they came from. Only one (Dimitri Simes) has achieved recognition. The rest were dismissed outright with a simple statement: "You left the USSR, so you are against it, so you are biased." This was not legitimate concern about bias, it was not even illegitimate concern about bias, it was pure protection of academic mafia against those who might have known better. They were never given any chance. Judging from what I read in American textbooks on sociology of the USSR or the Communist block in general, the level of knowledge in the US left much to be desired. Statements like "Level of income in East Germany is better than in West Germany" were the accepted wisdom. No wonder every specialist was surprised when Soviet Union fell apart.

I think that this is the beauty of Wikipedia: one does not need to go through the procrustean bed of formal rituals to be taken seriously. This might break the academic mafia. I am not naive enough, though, to think that the mafia fill leave without a fight.

Besides, since such people as Lenni Brenner, Norman Finkelstein (no relation to Yuri Finkelshtein), Jimmy Carter and other authors of extremely prejudiced and deliberately twisted materials (and sometimes outright lies) are presented as specialists, I think that Yuri Finkelshtein (who in my opinion is much more thorough, unbiased and trustworthy) deserves at least as much credit as they do.

I find it very sad that with exception of Germany, from every nation where Jews have been subjected to massacres come complete denial of any responsibility for them. From Morocco to Ukraine to Russia to Afghanistan, it is the same story everywhere: either there were no massacres, or they were greatly exaggerated, or someone else did them, or Jews themselves were guilty of causing people to kill them.

If you have read "За дела рук своих: Загадка Симона Петлюры или парадокс антисемитизма," please feel free to express your objections. But let us not get into the "he has no American degrees, so he is not entitled to speak about it" arguments.75.84.97.215 11:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Last night I corrected and restored the paragraph on Yuri Finkelshtein's book. Today (May 28, 2007) I see it deleted with no explanation whatsoever. This is rude, to say the least. I have restored it again, and will continue to do so until I either get some meaningful reasoning from you or the whole matter is referred to some Wiki higher-up.

If one does not need a degree to write or edit articles in Wikipedia, why would one need a degree to be quoted on Wikipedia? It seems to me that this would defeat the very purpose of open encyclopedia75.84.97.215 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe your paragraph regarding Yuri Finkelstein has any place here. I pasted it here for you to review. I don't want to be rude, however I am deeply offended by the posting. Let us discuss it.

Yuri Finkelshtein has published a book about antisemitic massacres of Petlura's army^[1]. He gives a much greater number of Jewish civilians killed: 500,000 form Petlura's army alone. He claims Petlura carried responsibility for doing nothing about the pogroms, provides evidence to show how he avoided any efforts to stop the massacres, tells about the White Army of Denikin who proved to be almost as bloody as Petlura, as well as of other armies (the Red Army, Makhno) who took a different course. He argues that Petlura originally was not an antisemite, but became one because he lacked the guts to oppose extremely strong antisemitism in his army. Unfortunately, the book is available only in Russian.

The book is not a scholarly source. It is a book with a particular point of opinion. Anyone can publish a book on such matters, particularly in the United States. Please quote a scholarly work, preferably from either Israely, Russian or Ukrainian sources. I have many questions.

1) Where did the author come up with 500,000 Jewish civilians killed? 2) Why was Denikin almost a bloody as Petlura ? On what evidence is this sweeping statement made. 3) When did he become an anti-semite? Before 1905, during the revolution, after 1917, in Paris? Where and when? On what evidence? If he was originally an anti-semite when did he become one? 4) "Lacked guts" - Tis is not language fit for a Wikipedia article.

Statements like "Unfortunately, the book is available only in Russian." also do not fit in a Wikipedia article.

So what did Petlura think about Jews? In the recently published materials from the State Archives of Ukraine (Symon Petlura - Stattia, Lysty Dokumenty Vol 4. p 10) in a letter to the minister of of the army Petlura states his thoughts: "By our laws, we do not have the right to make any restrictions to the Jews. Especially, and in particular, when they fulfill all of the general requirements placed to the seniors of our army who are of other nationality or faith. In the case of religious association one should look more to state association, taking as an example the French army, where the nationality of Jewish-officers or Kozaks has not impeded them from being good French patriots. Such a policy will sooner turn to our side our Jewish elements, rather than with policies of restrictions and persecution, because firstly and finally, this will place us Ukrainians on the wrong side of Moses's vow, and secondly will create enemies of our statehood who will decompose it from the insides."

If you want the original I can post it, but could such quotes come from a person who is antisemitic. Give me a source of Petlura's anti-semitic writings or anything which he could have written which was anti-semitic.

Historian Taras Hunczak of Rutgers University concludes in his study Symon Petlura and the Jews: A Reappraisal (1985) with this statement: "...to convict Petliura for the tragedy that befell Ukrainian Jewry is to condemn an innocent man and to distort the record of Ukrainian-Jewish relations." (p. 33). Because the USSR saw Petlura and Ukrainian nationalism as a threat it blackened his reputation and mounted a propaganda campaign including accusing him of anti-Jewish crimes.

Who would know Petlura’s true character and deeds better than Jewish members of the Ukrainian government who had high positions as ministers and ambassadors? Arnold Margolin who was a defense lawyer in the infamous Beillis case is a Jew with unimpeachable integrity. As Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador to Great Britain he was in a position to know the inside of Petlura’s government and he strenuously defended Petlura’s reputation.

In his book The Jews of Eastern Europe (New York 1926), Arnold Margolin says: "It is noteworthy that there was not a single pogrom under the Ukrainian Government of the Central Rada nor during the regime of Hetman Skoropadski." (p. 124). Margolin also stated: "Even as we Jews, justly disclaim responsibility for the acts of the Jewish Bolshevist commissars and for the disgraceful actions of those Jews who participated in the work of the Bolshevist chekas (Secret Police), the Ukrainian people has a full right to disclaim any responsibility for those who have besmirched themselves by pogrom activities" (p. 136).

Solomon Goldelman, who held high posts in the Government of Ukraine also defended the record of the government in relation to the Jews. For the first time in history the government of a country had established a Ministry of Jewish Affairs, included Jewish or Hebrew words on the currency, legislated Jewish national autonomy and provided a budget which included special support for destitute Jews and victims of pogroms.

Such non-scholarly emotional postings as the one you have made does not do you or your people any service. Continuing to promolgate the myth of Petlura's being an anti-semite is shameful, particularly in the light of most recent documents. --Bandurist 23:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very preliminary answer for now. Unfortunately I don't have the book with me. Besides, I am very tired, so I need time to recuperate and to think about it.

There are many good questions in your reply. Yuri Finkelshtein would be the best person to ask them.

As far as a "scholarly source," see what I wrote above. I think any book that honestly tells us what happened is a good source. On the other hand, you can look into plenty of "scholarly sources" written by people with Ph.D.s, saying all kinds of nonsense.

Not getting (for now) into the questions you raise (which, as I said, are good questions, and therefore require the time and effort I currently don't have), I would like to clear one misunderstanding. I am certainly not anti-Ukrainian. I am simply trying to put responsibility on one man for what he did or failed to do. This does not imply some kind of collective guilt on Ukrainians. I am completely in agreement with the quote from Margolin. So is Yuri Finkelshtein. There are pages and pages of this "no collective guilt" stuff in his book. So taking offense for my posting is inappropriate. I do not blame the Ukrainian Government of the Central Rada or Hetman Skoropadski.

In fact, I think there is something strange when one feels one must protect every person of one's nationality, no matter what his crimes. I feel no sympathy for Trotsky, for example.

It is true that the USSR regime accused Petlura and Ukrainian nationalism of anti-Jewish crimes. But it did the same with Nestor Makhno. In fact, it liked to paint them with the same brush: Ukrainian nationalists. It is also true that many Ukrainian Jews were confused by this propaganda. However, greater openness, change of country, availability of previously unknown materials have made many of us, including myself, and including Yuri Finkelshtein to rethink it all.

I wonder when Petlura wrote the paragraph you quote. According to Yuri Finkelshtein, Petlura became antisemitic in early 1919, when his army started the first massacres. Up till then, he made many really good statements, like the one you quote.

However, it seems obvious to me that deeds count more than words. When Halyna Kuzmenko (wife of Nestor Makhno) personally shot ataman Nikifor Grigoriev for committing anti-semitic pogroms, that was a real statement, much better than any writings.

The problem with Petlura is that he failed to stop the pogroms committed by his subordinates. That was his statement of antisemitism.

Finkelshtein writes it all in detail. I will quote from his book after I get it.

One more very important point. Elsewhere in Wikipedia I find all sorts of inanities. If you want, I can show them to you. Particularly when it comes to anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict or current islamofascist terror. For example, article on Jabotinsky lists Lenni Brenner's book as a good source of information. However, Lenni Brenner is a Trotskiist, and his views on Zionism and Jabotinsky are extremely twisted; and boldly presented in his book in this twisted form. At least he gets gets quotes right, which I cannot say about Norman Finkelstein. He is an outright liar, nothing he says can be taken at face value. At one point he claimed that common Israeli name Ari (Ariel) comes from "Arian" and thus describes the true nature of Zionism. (Actually, Ariel comes from 'arieh,' which means 'lion' in Hebrew). He is a professor at DePaul University in Chicago. So much for scholarship.

There are also articles so incredibly badly written, or so POV, glorifying terrorism-supporters, demonizing those who fight against them. If you want, I can show you what I mean. There are paragraphs and paragraphs of purely political speech or propaganda with no meaning whatsoever.

In general, as the same Norman Finkelstein said, "In academia, you can say anything as long as it is footnoted." In other words, one cannot simply write things by oneself, unless one is ready to quote someone else in support; but one can quote or present the claims of anyone one likes. And if one does not like what is written, one should find a counter-opinion and place it next to this one. One does not just erase someone else's material. So as I presented the claims of Yuri Finkelshtein, you can go and present your quotes as counter-claims.

In comparison to all that, the demands you place of accuracy and scholarship of each sentence are enormous. Wikipedia would be very different if your standards were applied everywhere.

There is not need to reply to this. These are just my disorganized thoughts for now. Let me get the book, then I will be in better shape to answer your questions.

Regards, 75.84.97.215 10:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion continues.

I find one thing quite disturbing, and that is the occurence of number of 500,000 victims. This is an order of magnitude larger i.e. 450,000 more than the previous maximum estimates and twice as many as were thought to have perished in general within the Russian Empire - period. The fact that this number is not supported by any documents or hard evidence is also disturbing. The Russian Wikepedia site for Petlura, which generally paints him in a negative light has a tendency of using enlarged estimates, but it doesn’t expand the number of those that perished during the pogroms 10 fold. Either this is a mistake or a gross exageration. Personally it is indicative of a negative POV regarding Petlura.

There are numerous things I don’t agree on. I don’t agree on some of the changes my collegue Kuban Kozak has made, however, if the argument is backed up by documents and solid reasoning all I can do is agree - until new documents and reasoning come to light. There have been numerous scholars who have distorted information, but in this case there is a lack of scholarship. When the scholarship appears regarding your POV then such a note can be added to the article.

And also I am not anti-semitic nor anti-Jewish, however, this point has little to do with scholarship. The manner in which the materials are posted make the posting look very suspect.

It is difficult to place responsibility on someone for something he didn’t do. Certainly you can mention that adequate measures were not taken, but to lay responsibilty - I do not think so. Let us examine the period. It was very brief. Petlura for a time was even incarcerated by the conservative government of Skoropadsky for his Socialist positions. Was he responsible then? How much authentic control did he really have over a rag-tag group which called itself a Ukrainian army? Vynnychenko was against having a national army period and did all he could to block its formation. He certainly was not successful in Ukrainianizing the language of command in the army during this period. How much command does a leader have when most of the time he was retreating from either the Reds, the Whites, the Poles or the Rumanians and trying to regroup?

The facts are -

1) That Petlura was not directly involved in the Pogroms and did not instigate any pogroms. 2) Under the Petlura government you had the first Ministry of Jewish affairs in Europe in history. 3) Under the Petlura government you had monetary units with notation in Yiddish for the first time in Europe. 4) Under the Petlura government you had government ministers and ambassadors who were Jewish.

The Soviets did not blame him for anti-jewish crimes, however, they did support that particular point of view by Western journalists.

But let us step back. If Petlura suddenly became anti-semitic - tell me what historic event suddenly made him that way. What event triggered within this statesman such an about face that he would suddenly support the comitting of horrible attrocities, yet at the same time punishing those that comitted them? And what evidence is there that he continued to thoink this way whilst in emigration? Certainly there are no writtings which support this.

The problem with Petlura is that he failed to stop the pogroms committed by his subordinates. That was his statement of antisemitism. This statement to me is not logical. All that can be deduced from it is that he failed to do something because either he was unaweare or incapable. Then the question arises - why?

Please note that I didn’t erase your passages but simply moved them to the discussion page. The fact that the first one appeared after your complaint of removal can be explained by the fact that you made your posting about the complaint whilst I was writing my explanation. This can be seen from the time stamps.

Standards are standards. Tell me what would Wikipedia be without them.Bandurist 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nestor Makhno

In Wiki article on Nestor Makhno, there is the following, "In March 1918, the RIAU succeeded in defeating the Germans, Austrians, Ukrainian Nationalists of Symon Petlura, and multiple regiments of the White Army." Therefore, I am adding Makhno to the list of those Petlura fought. 75.84.97.215 11:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What is interesting is that Makhno himself was present at the table at Petlura's birthday party-dinner in Paris in 1926 and actually foiled an attempt to assasinate him then. Makhno stated that Petlura had saved his life in 1923 in Poland and he owed him. Bandurist 11:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Of Schwartzbard

To User:Mona23653, writing something like "and a convicted bank robber" when describing Schwartzbard makes no sense. You may as well write that he was a decorated Foreign Legion veteran. The place for those things is at the entry for Schwartzbard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashkin (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that this comment has its place. It has been placed and removed numerous times. He was twice arrested and convicted of armed robbery, was incarcerated and escaped. That has something to do with his criminality. In France, by entering the foreign legion all previous criminal acts are wiped clean, however, for the rest of the world it is not. That is possibly the reason he was refused a visa by the British. Bandurist 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to hard to make this into a "Petliura good, Schwartzbard bad" article. The convictions in Austria or Hungary (not clear there were actually two of them) were part of his activities as an anarchist, so putting it down as "and a convicted bank robber" does not provide the right context. One could argue that his service in the Foreign Legion is more relevant since this is where he learned how to shoot properly :-). Anyway, the phrasing "Petlura was approached by Sholom Schwartzbard, a Jewish anarchist who has lost his family in the 1919 pogroms" conveys just the right amount of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashkin (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To Bandurist, you simply erased the changes I made. In particular I find it offensive to Ukrainians and Jews that you treat pogroms as a force of nature. Mashkin 01:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to: "Petlura was approached by Sholom Schwartzbard, a Jewish anarchist and twice convicted criminal who had lost his family in the 1919 pogroms". I hope this compromise works. I think both points are notable for this article. Ostap 02:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How many times do you have to repeat the word pogroms???? They are already discussed in a special separate section. They are also mentioned in the section about of the trial.

^{On May 25, 1926, while walking on rue Racine not far from boulevard Saint-Michel, Petlura was approached by Sholom Schwartzbard, a Jewish anarchist and twice convicted criminal who had lost his family in the 1919 pogroms. Schwartzbard asked him in Ukrainian, "Are you Mr. Petlura?" Petlura raised his cane and Schwartzbard pulled out a gun, shooting him five times. When police rushed to him to make their arrest, he reportedly calmly handed over his weapon, saying, "I have killed a great assassin."}

^{Schwartzbald's parents were among fifteen members of his family murdered in the Russian pogroms.}

You have a some sort of morbid fixation on Pogroms, and specifically mentioning anti-Jewish pogroms. If you look up the definition of a pogrom, in English it associated with Judaism. It is like saying Jewish antisemitism. Have you ever heard of any other type of antisemitism like say n'tArabic or Syrian etc? I certainly haven't

I did not insert this sentence. Actually they should't be called RUSSIAN pogroms (but Ukrainian)

The fact that Schwarzbard was a convicted felon is however important, to put the assassination in context and the travesty that happened in the following trial.

It gives the WRONG context. Even if got some reason you think he was a Soviet agent it give you the wrong impression.

Where is the evidence that Petlura was directly associated with any Pogrom? Where is the evidence that Petlura was directly involved with killing Schwarzbards family? There isn't any - because Petlura was not a killer or an assassin (as Schartzbard called him). On the other hand Schwartzbard was an assassin. He killed Petlura and he confessed to the crime. Bandurist 11:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bandurist, as I said, I have no interest in debating this with you. This is not what we are doing here. My goal at least is to get a a good Wikipedia article on Petliura. Your actions actually make the article worse and worse. Instead of letting the reader appreciate the complexity of the issues you want them to finish the article with the "Petliura good, Schwartzbard bad" impression.

I plan to streamline the article and remove redundant references to pogroms.

Mashkin 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To User:Mona23653, you have erased an important reference to a table with numbers on the victims. This is abusive behavior! There is simply no justification to your behavior. This is right after I complained about the imbalance in length of the paragraphs! Quit doing such things.

Guys, I have made a few changes that I hope help. I removed phrase anti-Jewish from before pogroms, because this is already established in the section "Role in Pogroms". I also restructured the section about the assassination for more balance, without removing or adding anything. Ostap 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes

1) Schwartzbard was a Jewish poet, anarchist (he participated in anarchists' robberies in Austro-Hungary) and decorated veteran of the French Foreign Legion, whose

What has Schwartzbards poetry have in common with his murdering Petlura. If my memory serves he started writing late in life and was not known for his writting at the time when he brutally murdered Petlura. Anarchist robberies. Armed robbery is armed robbery. It is criminal act, - at least in all the countries I have lived in. What has anarchism got to do with it.

Without saying what sort of robberies they were one may get the impression that Petlura was mugged.

Decoration - OK. however I feel that that should go in the discussion re the trial, as that would be a strong mitigating circumstance for the Juries decision. Normally murderers are not decorated, and in most cases any decorations they may have had are taken away with criminal acts.

Ukrainian outlets (emigrants at the time and nowadays the Ukrainian government) describe Schwartzbard as a Soviet agent is poor writing and non-encyclopeidic, particularly the use of the word nowdays. It should be changed back to The Ukrainian emigration and the Ukrainian government consider Schwartzbard a Soviet agent

ThIS SORT OF STUFF IS HATE MATERIAL + In Israel and the Jewish world Petlura is mostly remembered as a leader responsible for vicious pogroms (see for instance the Holocaust Encyclopedia^[2], Yad Vashem ^[3] and the writing on the street sign honoring Schwartzbard in Beersheba). aND SHOULD BE REMOVED

This is not hate material. This is part of Petlura's legacy. This represents the way he is remembered in most Jewish and Israeli outlets. The sources chosen are very serious - the Holocaust Encyclopedia and Yad Vashem. This does not mean you have to take their word, but it means that they are representative. Remember this is not for arguing about Petlura's role in the pogroms, rather it is to show the way he is portrayed. The street sign is significant, since this more people see street signs than read encyclopedias. Remember, Wikipedia should have an NPOV. Petlura is remembered completely differently in Ukraine and in Israel. This should be represented in Wikipedia.

Mashkin 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What is an "anarchist" robbery? How about " Schwartzbard was a Jewish anarchist (he participated in armed crimes in Austro-Hungary) and decorated veteran of the French Foreign Legion, whose..."? Ostap 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Added the explanation regarding the robberies

Mashkin 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mashkin, is the anti-Jewish label before pogrom necessary? The fact that they were anti-Jewish has been established in the "role in pogroms" section. Also, what is an "anarchist bank robbery"? A robbery is a robbery, I say remove that anarchist label. Ostap 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bandurist, just as you have added very interesting material regarding Petlura in folklore and music and have included what the communist did, so should Petlura's legacy in various communities be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashkin (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mona23653 14:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653

[edit] Caustic edits

User:Mona23653 keeps removing the reference to an important reference to a table with numbers on the victims. This user provides no explanation to the action. This is right after I complained about the imbalance in length of the paragraphs and asked the User to quit doing such things. This is simply abusive behavior with no justification.

I have a sentence with the whole life story of Schwartzbard, not need to repeat it.

Mashkin 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is necessarry to put down that Schwarzbard was a convicted criminal, to not make him appear like an angel, or some avebger of Jews' deaths. Oh by the way, citing biased sources does not prove anything. This article should be restored to the way it was a month ago. Petliura was not responsible for any pogroms. Capitol pun ishment was introduced for a reason. What else could he have done? SAnd plus, why do u remove the fact that Schwartz bard was a convicted criminal. I think that should be called abusive behaviour without justification. Mona23653 00:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653

Remember that this is Wikipedia and not the Mona Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History. Wikipedia takes a NPOV. Therefore the description is for the debate among historians regarding Petlura's role in the pogroms. (This description can be improved, but that's a different matter.) There should not be an attempt to judge who wins the debate. Regarding how Schwartzbard is portrayed, then I originally thought tht most details should be given only in the entry on Schwartzbard. But given that several users thought they should be given in the article itself I composed a sentence describing him (that includes the robberies!).

Throwing away unfounded accusations of abuse is abusive in itself! Mashkin 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet i don't understand why you keep on always removing the fact that Schwarzbard was a convicted bank robber Mona23653 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653

[edit] Page name

The spelling (petlura) in the article doesn't match the title (petliura). If this is the correct spelling, perhaps a page move should be discussed? Ostap 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Localties

When he emigrated to Lviv, it was called Lemberg and it was an Ukrainian city no less than it was Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.163.61.178 (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion?

Why in the role of pogroms section, does it say Petliura's invasion of UKraine? I think this needs to be clarified —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona23653 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Littell

This was deleted without explanation: Jonathan Littell in his 2006 novel Les Bienveillantes describes a pogrom agains Jews committed at the beginning of the war by Ukrainian militias "wearing blue and yellow ribbons", the national colours of the Ukraine. The new German occupation authorities tolerate and encourage this under the name "Aktion Petliura". --Alex1011 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The explanation was given in the Edit summary. The material was not sourced. However, is this the place to add secondary material from a fictional novel. It is an encyclopedia. I would suggest a separate article with references linking to this article. In the mean time this information would be beeter placed under Lviv pogroms or Lwow ghetto Bandurist (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)