This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Corrected the page to reflect that fact that for most of the time Kovner lived in Vilnius, it was in Poland, not Lithuania. Did Kovner self-identify as a Lithuanian rather than a Polish Jew?
Ephialtes (
talk)
18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I read in Wyborcza that his plan was to poison the public water supply and kill six million German civilians in retaliation for the holocaust and that when his capture made that plan impossible, his followers instead applied rat poison to the bottoms of seven thousand loaves of bread, making unknown numbers of people sick and killing between zero and seven hundred people, depending on who's numbers you use. I think that describing a plot to murder six million civilians as "to continue underground activities agasint Nazi POWs" is highly misleading.
Just the other day I was in a concert by
Daniel Kahn where they sang about the "six million Germans"
[1], pretending it was for real. This could be the origin of the story, but I have no idea about the veracity of it all. --
Syzygy (
talk)
13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
"Battle Leaflets"
An anonymous IP wrote in this article "During his service he authored "battle leaflets," designed to keep up morale. One, dated July 12, 1948 declared: "The rotting corpses of our enemies will make our fields blossom" [bezevel gufot oyvenu od yelavlevu sdoteinu]. Five days later Kovner wrote: "Squeeze the trigger with love! Slaughter, Slaughter, Slaughter". [lekhatz al ha-hedek be ahava - lishkhot, lishkhot, lishkhot]" though there is no citation for this. I would ask for a citation, for starters.
Stellarkid (
talk)
17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree and suggest that the text is removed until, at least, a citation is provided and the matter can be discussed appropriately.
Davshul (
talk)
13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
"The Avengers," by Rich Cohen, (October 9, 2001), contains quotes from Abba Kovner from that period in time. Those quotes do not sound unlike things I recall from that book. But I don't have the book on hand to check for that now.
Bus stop (
talk)
17:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
So I have removed the quotes for the time being. They do not seem appropriate anyway as they are highly POV, clearly trying to make Kovner out to be a butcher. We do not quote his poetry, why are we quoting from "battle leaflets"? Please bring any reinsertion to talk.
Stellarkid (
talk)
02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)reply
He did indeed write things like that and it caused quite a stir. It is described in his biography by Dina Porat (Fall of a Sparrow), which I am reading. When I get to that part of the book I will add something to the article.
Zerotalk15:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
That article has been a target of some major BLP violations by a now indef banned user and likely needs a review. I have no problem with attribution that scholar if you want, but I don't believe there are grounds for calling his work unreliable. The book you removed has passed editorial review at Routledge, one of the top tier academic publishers. It is likely notable given the reviews I see (
[2]). I may stub an entry on it, but right now I don't see any grounds for calling this particular work unreliable. PS. Just to be clear, I have no love lost for the author, who has some rather... disturbing views on some topics, IMHO. But what he says about topic X in venue Y doesn't mean that his academic book on topic A published by very reliable outlet should be problematic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
According to Dovid Katz review 10.1080/23739770.2013.11446559 Chodakiewicz is promoting the guilt of
Rachel Margolis in war crimes, which is not accepted by any scholars outside of Eastern Europe that I know of. The issue of massacres by Soviet partisans is a very sensitive one and demands the best sources; both publisher and author should be considered. Overall from what I know about Chodakiewicz he is out to promote a particular viewpoint rather than being a seeker of truth. Such sources should be avoided in general imo. buidhe04:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no need for "MJC says" because the fact that the Avengers group participated in the Konuchny massacre is not debated by anyone. It comes directly from partisan own war-time documentation and their post-war memoirs.
Renata (
talk)
05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Of course, but a book published by Routledge just a few years ago is a pretty good source. I will repeat my claim: was this book used for any REDFLAG claim? Why remove it? Is all the content properly cited now to sources which are 'better'? Have you checked the other sources to verify that the claims in this article remain cited? And what makes the remaining sources for this section/sentence 'better'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's a very good source. And anything having to do with massacres by Soviet partisans should be treated as a redflag issue as it is very sensitive, same as massacres of Jews by Poles (even if well documented like Jedwabne, etc.) buidhe05:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
You don't think it's a good source because...? With all due respect, the book has been positively reviewed by several experts, like Stachura or Miloiu. And criticized by others, and received mixed reviews by others still. What makes you conclude that in general, it is "not good"? Are you more of an expert that
Peter Stachura who called it "impressively ambitious, panoramic examination of a substantial part of Central and Eastern Europe"? Given the mixed reviews, as I said attribution should suffice, I see no need to censor this book out of the reference section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
Why? If there are other sources that could be used unattributed, why not cite them? I don't think it's reliable because sadly the author has a documented history of making things up. buidhe05:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Where do you see anything about Margolis in Intermarium or in Katz's review? Google preview shows that Margolis was mentioned once in Intermarium (page 507) when quoting three paragraphs related to Koniuchy from her own memoir published in 2006. There is no mention or even allusion of Margolis' role in the massacre.
Katz review talks about how Intermarium did not cover the Lithuanian investigation into Koniuchy and how authorities wanted to talk to Margolis. Nowhere does it say that Intermarium accused Margolis of anything.
Renata (
talk)
06:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
"Chodakiewicz’s one reference to any of these extraordinary events is a single obtuse footnote in which former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is pilloried for having risen, in a 2011 article in the UK’s Independent, to Margolis’s defense: “Such ignorance, of course, informs politics. The United Kingdom’s [former] Labor leader Gordon Brown himself opined in favor of one of the participants of the Koniuchy massacre without really researching anything much about the event” (no. 37, p. 518). In fact, Brown had been briefed in great detail by Holocaust historian Sir Martin Gilbert, and knew very well that Margolis was not a participant in any massacre. For the antisemitic campaign in Lithuania to rear its head in Polish guise in this book is most discouraging." buidhe06:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
That's it? One vague footnote (that does not even name the participant) is the basis for disqualifying the whole book?? For the record,
the article in Independent also talked about Fanya Branstovsky who Margolis herself mentioned as a participant at Koniuchy.
Renata (
talk)
07:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The central fact that some of Kovner's group was involved in the Koniuchi massacre is confirmed by Porat's book. I'll add it. I have no opinion on the other sources.
Zerotalk09:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Terrorist or not?
Some time ago I was encouraged by
Meters to take this matter here. Previously, on multiple occasions, the other editors refused to engage on this topic, reverting my edit and messaging me threatening an edit ban.
I understand that Kovner’s reputation is an important investment for the State of Israel, with a recent exhibition in London (UK) advertising him as a freedom fighter.
I’ll rephrase. I can see how Kovner was a freedom fighter (factually and by way of a long-established supporting narrative), but is it not typical for quite a few of 20th-century freedom-fighters to also be considered terrorists due to their chosen tactics?--
195.235.52.107 (
talk)
02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, he is a terrorist. RAF did similar avenge tactics on political basis and are widely considered terrorists, don't see why he isn't. What he did was neither act of self defense, nor sanctioned by a court.
89.1.128.63 (
talk)
17:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Corrected the page to reflect that fact that for most of the time Kovner lived in Vilnius, it was in Poland, not Lithuania. Did Kovner self-identify as a Lithuanian rather than a Polish Jew?
Ephialtes (
talk)
18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I read in Wyborcza that his plan was to poison the public water supply and kill six million German civilians in retaliation for the holocaust and that when his capture made that plan impossible, his followers instead applied rat poison to the bottoms of seven thousand loaves of bread, making unknown numbers of people sick and killing between zero and seven hundred people, depending on who's numbers you use. I think that describing a plot to murder six million civilians as "to continue underground activities agasint Nazi POWs" is highly misleading.
Just the other day I was in a concert by
Daniel Kahn where they sang about the "six million Germans"
[1], pretending it was for real. This could be the origin of the story, but I have no idea about the veracity of it all. --
Syzygy (
talk)
13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
"Battle Leaflets"
An anonymous IP wrote in this article "During his service he authored "battle leaflets," designed to keep up morale. One, dated July 12, 1948 declared: "The rotting corpses of our enemies will make our fields blossom" [bezevel gufot oyvenu od yelavlevu sdoteinu]. Five days later Kovner wrote: "Squeeze the trigger with love! Slaughter, Slaughter, Slaughter". [lekhatz al ha-hedek be ahava - lishkhot, lishkhot, lishkhot]" though there is no citation for this. I would ask for a citation, for starters.
Stellarkid (
talk)
17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree and suggest that the text is removed until, at least, a citation is provided and the matter can be discussed appropriately.
Davshul (
talk)
13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
"The Avengers," by Rich Cohen, (October 9, 2001), contains quotes from Abba Kovner from that period in time. Those quotes do not sound unlike things I recall from that book. But I don't have the book on hand to check for that now.
Bus stop (
talk)
17:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
So I have removed the quotes for the time being. They do not seem appropriate anyway as they are highly POV, clearly trying to make Kovner out to be a butcher. We do not quote his poetry, why are we quoting from "battle leaflets"? Please bring any reinsertion to talk.
Stellarkid (
talk)
02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)reply
He did indeed write things like that and it caused quite a stir. It is described in his biography by Dina Porat (Fall of a Sparrow), which I am reading. When I get to that part of the book I will add something to the article.
Zerotalk15:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
That article has been a target of some major BLP violations by a now indef banned user and likely needs a review. I have no problem with attribution that scholar if you want, but I don't believe there are grounds for calling his work unreliable. The book you removed has passed editorial review at Routledge, one of the top tier academic publishers. It is likely notable given the reviews I see (
[2]). I may stub an entry on it, but right now I don't see any grounds for calling this particular work unreliable. PS. Just to be clear, I have no love lost for the author, who has some rather... disturbing views on some topics, IMHO. But what he says about topic X in venue Y doesn't mean that his academic book on topic A published by very reliable outlet should be problematic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
According to Dovid Katz review 10.1080/23739770.2013.11446559 Chodakiewicz is promoting the guilt of
Rachel Margolis in war crimes, which is not accepted by any scholars outside of Eastern Europe that I know of. The issue of massacres by Soviet partisans is a very sensitive one and demands the best sources; both publisher and author should be considered. Overall from what I know about Chodakiewicz he is out to promote a particular viewpoint rather than being a seeker of truth. Such sources should be avoided in general imo. buidhe04:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely no need for "MJC says" because the fact that the Avengers group participated in the Konuchny massacre is not debated by anyone. It comes directly from partisan own war-time documentation and their post-war memoirs.
Renata (
talk)
05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Of course, but a book published by Routledge just a few years ago is a pretty good source. I will repeat my claim: was this book used for any REDFLAG claim? Why remove it? Is all the content properly cited now to sources which are 'better'? Have you checked the other sources to verify that the claims in this article remain cited? And what makes the remaining sources for this section/sentence 'better'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's a very good source. And anything having to do with massacres by Soviet partisans should be treated as a redflag issue as it is very sensitive, same as massacres of Jews by Poles (even if well documented like Jedwabne, etc.) buidhe05:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
You don't think it's a good source because...? With all due respect, the book has been positively reviewed by several experts, like Stachura or Miloiu. And criticized by others, and received mixed reviews by others still. What makes you conclude that in general, it is "not good"? Are you more of an expert that
Peter Stachura who called it "impressively ambitious, panoramic examination of a substantial part of Central and Eastern Europe"? Given the mixed reviews, as I said attribution should suffice, I see no need to censor this book out of the reference section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
Why? If there are other sources that could be used unattributed, why not cite them? I don't think it's reliable because sadly the author has a documented history of making things up. buidhe05:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Where do you see anything about Margolis in Intermarium or in Katz's review? Google preview shows that Margolis was mentioned once in Intermarium (page 507) when quoting three paragraphs related to Koniuchy from her own memoir published in 2006. There is no mention or even allusion of Margolis' role in the massacre.
Katz review talks about how Intermarium did not cover the Lithuanian investigation into Koniuchy and how authorities wanted to talk to Margolis. Nowhere does it say that Intermarium accused Margolis of anything.
Renata (
talk)
06:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
"Chodakiewicz’s one reference to any of these extraordinary events is a single obtuse footnote in which former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is pilloried for having risen, in a 2011 article in the UK’s Independent, to Margolis’s defense: “Such ignorance, of course, informs politics. The United Kingdom’s [former] Labor leader Gordon Brown himself opined in favor of one of the participants of the Koniuchy massacre without really researching anything much about the event” (no. 37, p. 518). In fact, Brown had been briefed in great detail by Holocaust historian Sir Martin Gilbert, and knew very well that Margolis was not a participant in any massacre. For the antisemitic campaign in Lithuania to rear its head in Polish guise in this book is most discouraging." buidhe06:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
That's it? One vague footnote (that does not even name the participant) is the basis for disqualifying the whole book?? For the record,
the article in Independent also talked about Fanya Branstovsky who Margolis herself mentioned as a participant at Koniuchy.
Renata (
talk)
07:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The central fact that some of Kovner's group was involved in the Koniuchi massacre is confirmed by Porat's book. I'll add it. I have no opinion on the other sources.
Zerotalk09:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Terrorist or not?
Some time ago I was encouraged by
Meters to take this matter here. Previously, on multiple occasions, the other editors refused to engage on this topic, reverting my edit and messaging me threatening an edit ban.
I understand that Kovner’s reputation is an important investment for the State of Israel, with a recent exhibition in London (UK) advertising him as a freedom fighter.
I’ll rephrase. I can see how Kovner was a freedom fighter (factually and by way of a long-established supporting narrative), but is it not typical for quite a few of 20th-century freedom-fighters to also be considered terrorists due to their chosen tactics?--
195.235.52.107 (
talk)
02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, he is a terrorist. RAF did similar avenge tactics on political basis and are widely considered terrorists, don't see why he isn't. What he did was neither act of self defense, nor sanctioned by a court.
89.1.128.63 (
talk)
17:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply