This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As it stands the article makes no mention of Polish participation in the pogrom. Was this the case? Were the thugs, hooligans, looters, and "bandits" (mentioned in the Jewish references), who preyed on these hapless people, all imported from Ukraine, Belarus, or Lithuania? Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
<-- Actually now that I'm looking for more sources I find several that state that the monument in the Jewish Cemetery that stands there today is the same one that was raised before the war. For example this: [1] and this: [2]. It may be the case that the original monument got vandalized right after the war in all the chaos but was then rebuild thereafter. Without further, more detailed, sources it's hard to say. radek ( talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Many people arrived from out of the city to take part in Corpus Cristi celebration and Russian Orthodox celebration (this is supported by the sources). It is possible that most of the hooligans and looters were not from Białystok itself, but from nearby villages, arriving to take part in celebrations (this is just my supposition). DonaldDuck ( talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask some of the contributing editors of this article to review some of their edits. Dr. Dan ( talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Thank you for your response. See my comments below. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
<--Except you really haven't which is why I'm trying to get a clarification here. So: No plagiarim. Just for no reason at all. Correct? radek ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll come out and say what Dr. Dan won't. The whole section Białystok pogrom#Monument to the victims is lifted, almost verbatim, from this source. And the source says that "the Poles" vandalized the monument.
There are other sections that aren't as egregious, but still are plagiarism. Too many phrases are taken directly from the sources. "However Jews who had survived the pogrom testified that the local Poles had refused to participate in the violence and sheltered Jews instead" is one example, and "fanned out in the center of the city" is another. Almost everything sourced to this book looks like plagiarism.
Somebody's got to go through the article and make sure that Wikipedia says things in its own words, not the words of other authors. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Radek have you forgotten this?: "Alright, if this: (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues"...radek (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Or this? I believe you are also referring to me here too: "I want to restate my question for Deacon: what exactly is "absurd" or "tendentious" to objecting to frivolous, unsubstantiated and spurious charges of Plagiarism (for which, in real world, students get failed, people get fired, people get sued, reputations are ruined, etc. - all the good reason why Wiki takes copyvio and plagiarism very seriously)"?radek (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If anyone feels like making a constructive contribution, the book that the image comes from is "Rok 1905" by Feliks Tych and is attributed to Henryk Nowodworski [3]. It is available in some major university libraries, unfortunately, not mine. Here's a list: [4]. If someone has easy access to these places then a short trip could quite potentially and simply clear up this 'alleged' business. From the image description it sounds like in scanning the image the caption simply got cut off, hence the 'alleged'. Hence the drama. (and BTW, that is very clearly a Tsarist cap). radek ( talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully some Wikipedian from or visiting Białystok will take a photo of the monument. It will eventually appear in the commons:Category:Monuments in Białystok.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Back to the subject of the caricature. Please provide a source that specifically states that the image pertains to the Bialystok pogrom, 1906. Please provide a source that claims the thug in the caricature is wearing a "Tsarist" cap. You may leave it here, on the talk page, (in Polish if you'd like). If that's not possible, or impossible, I will change the caption back to when I changed it to a pogrom caricature, claiming nothing else. No personal opionions regarding the caricature and what it represents, O.K. ? Supposedly it's all in ... Encyclopedia "Dzieje narodu i państwa polskiego" t. III (Feliks Tych "Rok 1905"), Wyd. KAW, Warsaw, which should make it easy to do. On the other hand it might not be all that easy, since the pogrom took place in 1906, and the source was printed in 1905. So what's up? Dr. Dan ( talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we please ask for a WP:3O or open an RfC concerening the image? — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
All this definitely proves that number of approximately two hundred Jews killed in Making Jews modern, p. 113 is far from real number of victims. It should not be included in the article as some alternative source. DonaldDuck ( talk) 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
80 (or arounds there) is the most quoted number which is why it's in the lead and presented with few qualifications. The other estimates are mentioned however - as they should be. I've also seen a few other sources which give higher figures. It's possible - though this is ORish - that the 200 figure includes victims from another pogrom which happened around the same time, under similar circumstances in a nearby town. radeksz (keyboard tilda key broken)
"most likely on the orders of Szeremietiev" with reference to P.Korzec, Pogrom Białostocki w 1906 and political repercussions, "Rocznik Białostocki", t. III, Białystok 1962, page. 149 - 182. This looks highly unlikely - police officer ordering (whom?) to kill his own police chief. Author himself presents it not as fact, but as some assumption ("likely"). Can someone provide full text of Korzec article, or some alternative sources?
Also, from Polish wikipedia article pl:Anarchiści w Rewolucji 1905 roku (ziemie polskie): "W czerwcu 1907 r. anarchista Szpindler zabił naczelnika policji, we wrześniu anarchista Gorodowojczyka dokonał zamachu na sekretarzu carskiej Ochrany." Police chief is not named, may this be about murder of Derkacz?
Derkacz is named Derkachev (Деркачев) in some sources, was he Polish as stated in the article? DonaldDuck ( talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User DonaldDuck is exactly right. Derkachev is obviously not a Polish name; it's Russian or Russified Ukrainian. Derkachev was born in Poltava governorate ( https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). Radek's idea that the surnames of Poles would be Russified this way because "being Polish was frowned upon" is preposterous and it's no coincidence that no examples are given. Also, as mentioned above, the conspiracy theory that Radek is promoting here is extremely unlikely, i.e. that Derkachev's deputy, Sheremetov, somehow had him murdered (in an area that the article itself refers to as an anarchist stronghold) for the purpose of then committing a pogrom against Jews. The article itself lists a series of attacks against police in the city in which several officers were killed and wounded shortly before Derkachev's death. His death is mostly likely simply a continuation of that. There's no need for any baseless conspiracy-mongering.
Furthermore, Radek curiously refers to Sheremetov as a "Russian commissar", contrasting him with the good "Pole" "Derkacz" (who, of course, was not even a Pole). Sheremetov's job title obviously wasn't "commissar" and this kind of blatant ethnic whitewashing and vilification should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Neither should Radek's selective use of sources, e.g. Bender, who says that Derkachev was shot and killed by a local Pole and doesn't mention anything about Sheremetov having him murdered. The only reason he cites that source is that it goes on to claim the discovery of a secret document proving that the Russian authorities planned the pogrom in advance. If such a document really existed, wouldn't it feature prominently in the main article on pogroms in the Russian empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:E902:B100:D51E:3C1F:175D:7F21 ( talk) 23:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
there indeed is no citation behind it so why keep it up? Zuzu8691 ( talk) 05:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As it stands the article makes no mention of Polish participation in the pogrom. Was this the case? Were the thugs, hooligans, looters, and "bandits" (mentioned in the Jewish references), who preyed on these hapless people, all imported from Ukraine, Belarus, or Lithuania? Dr. Dan ( talk) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
<-- Actually now that I'm looking for more sources I find several that state that the monument in the Jewish Cemetery that stands there today is the same one that was raised before the war. For example this: [1] and this: [2]. It may be the case that the original monument got vandalized right after the war in all the chaos but was then rebuild thereafter. Without further, more detailed, sources it's hard to say. radek ( talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Many people arrived from out of the city to take part in Corpus Cristi celebration and Russian Orthodox celebration (this is supported by the sources). It is possible that most of the hooligans and looters were not from Białystok itself, but from nearby villages, arriving to take part in celebrations (this is just my supposition). DonaldDuck ( talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask some of the contributing editors of this article to review some of their edits. Dr. Dan ( talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Thank you for your response. See my comments below. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
<--Except you really haven't which is why I'm trying to get a clarification here. So: No plagiarim. Just for no reason at all. Correct? radek ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll come out and say what Dr. Dan won't. The whole section Białystok pogrom#Monument to the victims is lifted, almost verbatim, from this source. And the source says that "the Poles" vandalized the monument.
There are other sections that aren't as egregious, but still are plagiarism. Too many phrases are taken directly from the sources. "However Jews who had survived the pogrom testified that the local Poles had refused to participate in the violence and sheltered Jews instead" is one example, and "fanned out in the center of the city" is another. Almost everything sourced to this book looks like plagiarism.
Somebody's got to go through the article and make sure that Wikipedia says things in its own words, not the words of other authors. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Radek have you forgotten this?: "Alright, if this: (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues"...radek (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Or this? I believe you are also referring to me here too: "I want to restate my question for Deacon: what exactly is "absurd" or "tendentious" to objecting to frivolous, unsubstantiated and spurious charges of Plagiarism (for which, in real world, students get failed, people get fired, people get sued, reputations are ruined, etc. - all the good reason why Wiki takes copyvio and plagiarism very seriously)"?radek (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If anyone feels like making a constructive contribution, the book that the image comes from is "Rok 1905" by Feliks Tych and is attributed to Henryk Nowodworski [3]. It is available in some major university libraries, unfortunately, not mine. Here's a list: [4]. If someone has easy access to these places then a short trip could quite potentially and simply clear up this 'alleged' business. From the image description it sounds like in scanning the image the caption simply got cut off, hence the 'alleged'. Hence the drama. (and BTW, that is very clearly a Tsarist cap). radek ( talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully some Wikipedian from or visiting Białystok will take a photo of the monument. It will eventually appear in the commons:Category:Monuments in Białystok.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Back to the subject of the caricature. Please provide a source that specifically states that the image pertains to the Bialystok pogrom, 1906. Please provide a source that claims the thug in the caricature is wearing a "Tsarist" cap. You may leave it here, on the talk page, (in Polish if you'd like). If that's not possible, or impossible, I will change the caption back to when I changed it to a pogrom caricature, claiming nothing else. No personal opionions regarding the caricature and what it represents, O.K. ? Supposedly it's all in ... Encyclopedia "Dzieje narodu i państwa polskiego" t. III (Feliks Tych "Rok 1905"), Wyd. KAW, Warsaw, which should make it easy to do. On the other hand it might not be all that easy, since the pogrom took place in 1906, and the source was printed in 1905. So what's up? Dr. Dan ( talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Could we please ask for a WP:3O or open an RfC concerening the image? — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
All this definitely proves that number of approximately two hundred Jews killed in Making Jews modern, p. 113 is far from real number of victims. It should not be included in the article as some alternative source. DonaldDuck ( talk) 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
80 (or arounds there) is the most quoted number which is why it's in the lead and presented with few qualifications. The other estimates are mentioned however - as they should be. I've also seen a few other sources which give higher figures. It's possible - though this is ORish - that the 200 figure includes victims from another pogrom which happened around the same time, under similar circumstances in a nearby town. radeksz (keyboard tilda key broken)
"most likely on the orders of Szeremietiev" with reference to P.Korzec, Pogrom Białostocki w 1906 and political repercussions, "Rocznik Białostocki", t. III, Białystok 1962, page. 149 - 182. This looks highly unlikely - police officer ordering (whom?) to kill his own police chief. Author himself presents it not as fact, but as some assumption ("likely"). Can someone provide full text of Korzec article, or some alternative sources?
Also, from Polish wikipedia article pl:Anarchiści w Rewolucji 1905 roku (ziemie polskie): "W czerwcu 1907 r. anarchista Szpindler zabił naczelnika policji, we wrześniu anarchista Gorodowojczyka dokonał zamachu na sekretarzu carskiej Ochrany." Police chief is not named, may this be about murder of Derkacz?
Derkacz is named Derkachev (Деркачев) in some sources, was he Polish as stated in the article? DonaldDuck ( talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User DonaldDuck is exactly right. Derkachev is obviously not a Polish name; it's Russian or Russified Ukrainian. Derkachev was born in Poltava governorate ( https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%91%D0%B2,_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87). Radek's idea that the surnames of Poles would be Russified this way because "being Polish was frowned upon" is preposterous and it's no coincidence that no examples are given. Also, as mentioned above, the conspiracy theory that Radek is promoting here is extremely unlikely, i.e. that Derkachev's deputy, Sheremetov, somehow had him murdered (in an area that the article itself refers to as an anarchist stronghold) for the purpose of then committing a pogrom against Jews. The article itself lists a series of attacks against police in the city in which several officers were killed and wounded shortly before Derkachev's death. His death is mostly likely simply a continuation of that. There's no need for any baseless conspiracy-mongering.
Furthermore, Radek curiously refers to Sheremetov as a "Russian commissar", contrasting him with the good "Pole" "Derkacz" (who, of course, was not even a Pole). Sheremetov's job title obviously wasn't "commissar" and this kind of blatant ethnic whitewashing and vilification should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Neither should Radek's selective use of sources, e.g. Bender, who says that Derkachev was shot and killed by a local Pole and doesn't mention anything about Sheremetov having him murdered. The only reason he cites that source is that it goes on to claim the discovery of a secret document proving that the Russian authorities planned the pogrom in advance. If such a document really existed, wouldn't it feature prominently in the main article on pogroms in the Russian empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:E902:B100:D51E:3C1F:175D:7F21 ( talk) 23:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
there indeed is no citation behind it so why keep it up? Zuzu8691 ( talk) 05:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)