![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 21, 2013, November 21, 2014, and November 21, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The lead-in to this article, as well as the synopsis that appeared on Wikipedia's front page "Did you know" section, states that nearly 270 Christians also were killed, twice the number of Jewish people killed, which is stated in the article as up to 150. Given the history and large Christian population of Poland at the time, this seemed so unlikely that I clicked through to the article to read how 270 Christians could have been targeted and victimized to a degree that exceeded the ferocity of the attack against the Jewish population.
However, there were no more than two footnotes, impossible to follow up on immediately, to substantiate this claim. In my mind, this is highly dubious. There is not even a reference to how or why Christians could have been targeted. I think the reference to the 270 Christians should be removed. If it is not removed, it certainly ought to have some further explanation than the bare insertion of an alleged fact.
Before there are any suggestions that my point of view is Jewish and biased, I would like it noted that I have a 2002 B.A. in History from UCLA with a emphasis on the analysis and critique of historical sources, so it's second nature for me to ask where information came from. Additionally, I'm Irish and not Jewish, despite my first name.
Deborah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah64554 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Do we have any guidelines as to the intended purpose of the "See also" section ? I believe the links in the "See also" should be to other articles containing additional information about the content of the current article, and maybe present the topic in a wider or a narrower context. "See also" however is not the correct place to put links to other articles only because they belong to the same category. That's what the categories are for. -- Lysy talk 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that more Poles than Jews died there, and it was not a dedicated pogroms but simply civilians of various ethnicities suffering during chaos, I suggest renaming this article to Lwów unrest.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the article two reports are stated which different casualty counts. I get it that the higher number is challenged but does that make it exaggerated? Scafloc ( talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The sources seem pretty clear: Mączyński cites some numbers and documents for that. In terms of ethnic background, primarily Ukrainian criminals (~1000) were arrested, as well as some Poles (~100s) and even Jewish criminal elements (he gives the breakdown as 60%, 30%, 10% in the high (1600 arrested) estimate). Mączyński notes that Majority of the Polish forces tried to stop the pogrom, but some joined in, including 18 officers as well as few dozen of Polish soldiers (who were later, as Morgenhau confirms, arrested and sentenced as well). With that, I believe the article will not be neutral until we recognize that 1) it was not only Poles (or just Polish army!) who perpetrated the pogrom and 2) we stop stressing the participation of Polish officers (many more tried to stop it, not aided it, many more professional groups were better represented in the thousands arrested). Please note that I don't object to mentioning of the officer participation (and subsequent arrest), but it does not belong in lead. This was not a pogrom orchestrated by Polish army and officers, as some try to suggest; it was a general riot, pillage and robbery that occurred in the aftermath of an urban battle, before order could have been reestablished, targeting all defenseless civilians, and carried out primarily by the criminal elements.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"In Lemberg, Lida, Wilno, and Minsk the excesses were committed by the soldiers who were capturing the cities and not by the civilian population." Morgenthau Report. M0RD00R ( talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"The situation was further complicated by the presence of some 15,000 uniformed deserters and numerous criminals released by the Ukrainians from local jails, who were ready to join in any disorder particularly if, as in the case of wholesale pillage, they might profit thereby. Upon the final departure of the Ukrainians, these disreputable elements plundered to the extent of many millions of crowns the dwellings and stores in the Jewish quarter, and did not hesitate to murder when they met with resistance." Morgenthau Report (on Lemberg pogrom).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be at "Lemberg Pogrom"? For example, google books has:
Google scholar has 6-2 (+ 2)-1. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What's up guys? What's the deal with that whole tag drama thing. We were discussing things, article was being expanded step by step, and BANG! here comes the TAG [2]. And BANG! here comes more tag drama "omg MY TAG was removed!" [3]. What's the deal? Can't we discuss thing calmly without spreading the drama through the whole project?. Talk page didn't exhaust itself yet. Many serious issues about this article needs to be resolved. Let's try to discuss it, maybe some uninvolved editors should be invited to join this discussion? M0RD00R ( talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the sources however have a different approach. The quotes are provided and quite clearly they put a blame on Polish troops. Criminal factor also played some role, and it is reflected in the article. M0RD00R ( talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop deleting this reliably sourced background material from the "Background" section. Discuss your concerns on the talk page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call bogus edit summaries removing a ref - link provided fails at verification can't find anything in the ref supporting this doubius fragment an explanation that would justify arbitrary removal of referenced information. This behaviour is getting more and more disruptive. First it was attempted to push untrue information by revert warring ("more Poles dies than Jews" [5] [6] [7]), now referenced info suddenly "fails verification". I hope disruptive "verification" will cease. Just in case David Engel page 36: "During the first days of Polish-Ukrainian armed clashes, the Polish quarter was defended by only a handful of local students and young people. Gradually, others, mostly criminals who had been released either by Austrian rulers before the abandoned the town or by the Ukrainian authorities thereafter, came to volunteer. Because at the time Polish forces needed every available able-bodied man, these felons were not turned away. instead they were given uniforms and arms, and they played an important role in the battle. however, whenever such soldiers could plunder for their own gain, they did: they were the bandits who attacked Jewish stores in the Polish quarter" M0RD00R ( talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have explained my reasons above, and in edit summaries. To repeat myself: 1) excessive detail about banging on the doors and opening them with grenades is not needed and 2) poorly sourced and hardly neutral para about alleged "wave of anti-Jewish pogroms [that] broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918" does not belong here - perhaps we need to create an article about that, akin to pogroms in Ukraine, but discussions of other pogroms in former Russian Empire is too detailed for this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess what intro by Boodles is supposed to show that Lemberg pogrom is not one-off odd event. It is no secret that Polish take over of contested territories was often accompanied by anti-Jewish violence ( Pinsk massacre, pogroms and military massacres in Lida, Minsk, Vilna, etc). This period of Jewish Polish history was marked by the wave of violence against Jews, and this article should reflect that, the question is how, and in what detail. And we should try to find a consensus on these questions here on talk page instead of revert warring. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ronald Modras. Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 . 1-2 thousand Jews killed by:Poles in this period.
Ezra Mendelsohn. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars.: “During the first decade of the new Poland, both the state and its people displayed a hostility toward the Jewish population which found expression in systematic discrimination and widespread anti-semitic violence.”
RJ Crampton . Eastern Europe in the twentieth century “ There were pogroms in Lwow, Pinsk, Vilnius, and other Polish cities”
J Bendersky. The “”Jewish Threat” [8] Morgenthau described in detail the "eight principal excesses" that had occurred in Poland, including the well-publicized events in Lemberg, Pinsk, Vilna, and Minsk.
Celia Stopnicka Heller On the Edge of Destruction: "The declaration of Polish independence from Russia, Germany, and Austria in November 1918 was followed by anti-Jewish violence in many cities, towns, and villages." Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the first background paragraph can be shortened to "A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów." This would keep only the most relevant background as related to this specific event. Ostap 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. In response, the Jewish National Council in Krakow organized a self defense group made up of Jewish former army officers; a few days later, the city's military commander, Boleslaw Roja, ordered the Polish military to surround the Jewish defense group's headquarters to be surrounded, it's leaders arrested, and the members of the self defense groups to be disarmed. These actions were accompanied a a series of stories in the local and national Polish press alleging a Jewish military plot, along with stories of weapons caches being discovered in synagogues; Jewish protests against the allegations were ignored and dismissed. These actions against the Jewish defense groups and the press campaign have been described as serving as a tacit approval of violence against Jews. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów.[13]
Since there seems to be no serious objection to the reliably sourced passage for the background section, I will restore it today. The above discussion has veered into a discussion of place names, which is not directly relevant to the passage. This is an encyclopedia discussing a serious, but not well known event in which scores of Jews were murdered and hundreds more brutalized simply because they were Jews. These attempts to remove well sourced basic facts about this massacre, and it's immediate context, are baffling to me. Piotrus had indicated that "Piotrowski refutes the claims", but I dont see where, and no one has indicated where. Piotroeski was also a source for another claim regarding Polish casualties which also failed verification. I will add some of the additional sources from above as appropriate to the passage. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Boodles let's give 48 hours or even more to present more arguments on talk, there is no need to rush things. So far I still have a hope that this can be resolved on talk in discussion based on references, and not personal opinions. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How is he a reliable source? Please explain. His bias is obvious. Hi actively participated in said events. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like there are two issues. First, NOR: we need to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources have to be used literally, we cannot use them to build our own arguments or draw our own conclusions. It would be better to use secondary sources - historians for example. Second issue is the degree of notability. I think you guys are using the word "reliable" in the colloquial sense, but that is not the issue in Wikipedia - we assume all viws have some bias and NPOV explicitly demands that we include even sources we consider biased. What is important is that the view be notable. Manority and minority views ought to be included, it is only clearly fringe views that should be excluded from the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted one edit that changed "false accusations" to "generalizations" because it reflected poor English style. The sentence refers to "most Jews" which by definition is a generalization; to add the word generalization is redundant. The question is whether the source provided claims that this particular generalization is true or false. Remember, it does not matter whether the accusation realy is true or false; Wikipedia is not concerned with truth. Nor is logic an issue, as the edit summary suggsted. The question is, what does the source cited say? I am following our policy WP:AGF and assuming that whoever added the sentence and the citation is accurately representing the point of view of the author cited. Can anyone provide evidence that this author did not claim that the accusations were false? This is an empircal issue, not a logical one: what does this source actually claim? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The scholarly-accepted term for this episode was "pogrom." It was not a "riot." The majority scholarly view was that scores of Jews were murdered because they were Jews, and the scholarly view is that the excuses for these cold blooded murders are fabricated. It is insensitive POV pushing to keep slipping these change in, and it is less than honest to keep making such a serious change to the article without discussion. If you think it's worth discussing, and if you think there are valid arguments for making this change, than discuss it, openly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Majority academic sources does not mention them at all. More importantly "blame the Ukrainians" is considered to be an attempt by Polish side to shift the blame from real perpetrators. Only one sources in the article puts the blame on Ukrainian side, and that is Maczynski. To put Maczynski views violates WP:UNDUE. "mainly Ukrainians", based on sole ref is even more outrageous violation of WP:NPOV. M0RD00R ( talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, well, well. You see Piotrus, keyword in this case is not "criminals" but "Ukrainian criminals". What is the point of showing the references that mention just criminals, and adding extremely biased "mainly Ukrainian criminals" to the lead section? So far you failed to present multiple reliable sources for "mainly Ukrainian criminals", but yet you keep adding it time and time again. When this is done in the lead section it is straight forward WP:TE. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Others, however, note that it was the rioting was started by (mainly citation needed Ukrainian citation needed) criminals, and the most citation needed of the Polish army tried to stop the riot, not participated in it (majority citation needed of the sources do agree, however, that a small percentage citation needed of the Polish forces - primarily recently enlisted criminals - did join in the rioting). If multiple reliable sources will be not provided for each questionable part of this edit, it probably should presented as a textlbook example of WP:OR, WP:FRINGE etc. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The fringe speculations of a controversial revisionist historian do not belong in the lead of a history article in an encyclopedia. Besides the views being fringe, Davies is admittedly speculating "Yet one has to wonder...," "it is conceivable of course.." "or perhaps...". This illustrate a disturbing problem that has been disrupting this article--the constant strafing of the article with such revisionist notions (Davies views alone are cited 3 times) with a blatant attempt to skew the article towards a fringe and offensive POV that minimizes the character and gravity of this documented murderous pogrom that targeted for murder an entire town's community based on their ethnicity. This is akin to inserting into the lead and body of articles about US slavery the views of dinosaurs who still hold century old views to the effect that sleavery really wasn't so bad. There were historians 100 years ago who said such things, and there are fringe historians who say it now--we do not prominently feature such discredited and racist viewpoints, regardless of which race or ethnicity such views are attacking. This really needs to stop. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Single opinion of one historian, quoted by other historian, has no place in the lead because it is WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we would be forced to quote opinions of more than a dozen other historians, one by one, that call this event simply a pogrom. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
With the qualification that we are talking about a minority, it was a significant minority, actions of which were exaggerated but nonetheless are highly notable and contributed to both the background and the events in question. I object to this change not supported by the source cited ( [16]), which - just as other sources (ex. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) - speaks only of exaggeration, not total falsification, with all of those sources noting instances of Jewish armed support for the Ukrainians.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole section is a clear instance of polish antisemitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.247.90 ( talk) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hundreds more Ukrainian Christians were killed during this time as well. Total number of victims are 52-150. How it possible? This source didnt mention about Ukrainian victims - Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide.. This source - Norman Davies. "Ethnic Diversity in Twentieth Century Poland." In: Herbert Arthur Strauss. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39. Walter de Gruyter, 1993. doubles number of victims to 340, 70 were Jews, rest Ukrainians = 270. Strange.-- Paweł5586 ( talk) 07:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political partry. His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included inthe article as a reliable source. Faustian ( talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hagen's claim that the Blue Army played a role in this pogrom is contradicted by pretty much every serious history of the Blue Army, which states that the first units of the Blue Army did arrive in Poland until April of 1919 - more than four months after the pogrom took place. I've already included these sources in the article, but more generally, just looking up "Haller Army" or "Blue Army" in any history book that deals with them in anything more than a cursory fashion, gives this information. While Hagen meets the requirements for a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, he is simply mistaken here.
Best as I can make out this mistake stems from the fact that he takes sensationalist accounts of the events - including from publications which originally claimed thousands of deaths, rather than 52-150 deaths that actually occurred - at face value rather than subjecting them to a critical analysis, or even comparing them to other documents, such as the Morgenthau report. The other claims sourced to his work in the article appear to be based on a similar approach and as such are also of dubious authenticity.
Since Hagen is technically a reliable source however, I guess the text based on his work can be included (though personally, I am at a complete loss to understand why someone would want to put information into Wikipedia which they know to be false, however "reliable" the source). Other sources however, particularly since they are so much more numerous need to be included as well. In fact, given the isolated nature of Hagen's claims, Hagen's claims should probably be tagged with a "dubious" tag. Volunteer Marek 16:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since Hagen may have misidentified the particular unit of Polish soldiers involved in the pogrom but is clearly a reliable source whose general description is credible and reliable, should we simply remove his specific identification of Haller's troops from this article while keeping the rest of his stuff in? That way we could also remove from this article the information about Haller's wherabouts from other sources which has nothing to do with the 1918 pogrom and which clutters the article somewhat. I am inclined to keep both sets of info on the Blue Army article but not here, as it is peripheral to these events. What do others think? Faustian ( talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A number of editors have questioned whether the term pogrom is appropriate here. This source also questions it and the Morgenthau Report specifically rejected the term. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
"340 total deaths in the violence, of whom two thirds were Ukrainian Christians and the remaining 70 were Jews" - the math is wrong here. Besides, if the majority of victims were Orthodox Christians, why is the focus solely on the Jewish victims? Is this intentional? 89.69.82.3 ( talk) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"leading to exaggerated rumors, that some Jews, including the militia, collaborated with the Ukrainians in various ways" - this sounds convoluted. The rumors could be exaggerated only if no Jewish militiamen collaborated with the Ukrainians. If there were at least two people engaged in the collaboration, the rumors in question cannot be referred to as exaggerated. Whoever wrote this passage wants to convey the message that no Jewish militiaman collaborated with the Ukrainian. This is, at best, disingenuous. 89.69.82.3 ( talk) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This article reads like an anti-semitic apologist has tried at every turn to blame the pogrom on "criminals" instead of the local populace. Mentioning the criminal element is fine, once, but the article reads very awkwardly the way "criminals" is repeated so many times. Jehochman Talk 15:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Following the age of partitions, Regency Council (Poland) declared independence on 7 October 1918 with the first Provisional Government set up only two weeks prior to the pogrom in Lemberg. The eastern borders of sovereign Poland were not established until the end of the Polish–Soviet War in 1920. Therefore the city's name remained officially Austrian until then. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote this in 2010 and it's still true:
Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political party. His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included in the article as a reliable source. Faustian ( talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed sections devoted to his claims because they were presented as accurate reliable information. Perhaps someone has time to reincorporate them in such a way that it is clear that the source is an antisemite implicated in the crime. Faustian ( talk) 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Marek, would you mind please explaining this revert of my changes to the lead? You state the unit was already in France at the time of the pogrom, but I provided a source, which you haven't addressed. Obviously, if you were just to remove the source because you know it's wrong, with no other explanation, as you've done, that would be original research.
Regarding the exaggerated claims, the text as written now is factually incorrect, since it implies that the lower numbers (52-150 jews killed) may be exaggerated, whereas Carol Fink, in "Defending the Rights of Others," writes that the exaggerated numbers are those like 300, 900, 1,100, or 3,000. Norman Davies also refers to exaggerations of the pogrom, and it is clear this happened, however he is not specifically challenging the numbers presented in the lead. Your edit may accomplish this only inadvertently, but "an estimated 52–150 Jewish residents were killed and hundreds injured according to accounts some of which might have been exaggerated," implies that maybe not that many people were killed. I think both Davies and Fink put the real number of jews killed at around 70.
Besides being misleading, the text as you returned it also makes for uncomfortable (awkward) reading. What is your objection to my solution, which was to write, below, that early reports (whose numbers we don't even cite) were exaggerated? - Darouet ( talk) 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lwów pogrom (1918). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This page is on my watchlist (obviously) but I got a note from one of the participants in the ongoing dispute. I haven't had time to look at the actual sources or all the details of the disagreement, but it strikes me as obvious that User:Icewhiz's edit summary here is false. He says "UNDUE weight to primary report by those who were complicit". Presumably this is referring to the sentence " whereas a Polish police report listed a Greek Catholic, likely a Ukrainian, among those killed in the rioting.".
But that sentence, contra Icewhiz's apparently false claim in his edit summary appears to be sourced to a work from ... 2018. The work is Zbigniew Zaporowski, “Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji,” Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość, vol. 1 (2018): 465–471. It looks like this is a WP:SECONDARY SOURCE which is simply using primary sources for its study. You know, like historians do all the time. The author appears to be a professional historian.
I haven't read the source and can't comment on the accuracy on the text based on it (although we generally are expected to assume good faith in that regard) but it's pretty clear that Icewhiz is using false edit summaries here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead of worrying about a work by modern historian mentioned above, I think we should worry about this article reliance on [31]. This is a pretty much primary source, and account by the participant/Polish commander Czesław Mączyński. It should be used with caution. Polish wiki article (pretty poor) does note that Maczynski denied the pogrom has taken place, and he has been described by some historians as significantly responsible for it: "Według komendanta obrony Lwowa kpt. Czesława Mączyńskiego żadnego pogromu nie było, wystąpiły jedynie rabunki i wypadki doraźnego karania wrogiej ludności. Antysemickie podejście Mączyńskiego było jedną z przyczyn pogromu; historycy w dużej mierze właśnie jego obarczają odpowiedzialnością za to zdarzenie", sourced to Kwartalnik historii Żydów. Instytut. 2004, s. 354. - sadly, no link and I am too tired down to hunt this. IMHO, Maczynski's book can be mentioned, but he should not be used as a source in Wikipedia's tone, at most, we can occasionally attribute him. User:Icewhiz, I will trust you with de-Maczynski'ing this article :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
There are portions of this article which are simply incoherent. There's a lot of "howevers" and "buts" and "at the same time"... but these are used in ways which don't make sense. In several places it looks like competing paragraphs or sentences were spliced together, after the middle was removed. The entire article requires clean up. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing [32]. My rationale was: "mv detailed discussion on possible perpetrators into the body; rm statement re: exaggerated accounts as a non sequitur in the lead". Specifically, these details, prominently placed in the lead, seemed like apologetics to me. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 21, 2013, November 21, 2014, and November 21, 2018. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The lead-in to this article, as well as the synopsis that appeared on Wikipedia's front page "Did you know" section, states that nearly 270 Christians also were killed, twice the number of Jewish people killed, which is stated in the article as up to 150. Given the history and large Christian population of Poland at the time, this seemed so unlikely that I clicked through to the article to read how 270 Christians could have been targeted and victimized to a degree that exceeded the ferocity of the attack against the Jewish population.
However, there were no more than two footnotes, impossible to follow up on immediately, to substantiate this claim. In my mind, this is highly dubious. There is not even a reference to how or why Christians could have been targeted. I think the reference to the 270 Christians should be removed. If it is not removed, it certainly ought to have some further explanation than the bare insertion of an alleged fact.
Before there are any suggestions that my point of view is Jewish and biased, I would like it noted that I have a 2002 B.A. in History from UCLA with a emphasis on the analysis and critique of historical sources, so it's second nature for me to ask where information came from. Additionally, I'm Irish and not Jewish, despite my first name.
Deborah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah64554 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Do we have any guidelines as to the intended purpose of the "See also" section ? I believe the links in the "See also" should be to other articles containing additional information about the content of the current article, and maybe present the topic in a wider or a narrower context. "See also" however is not the correct place to put links to other articles only because they belong to the same category. That's what the categories are for. -- Lysy talk 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that more Poles than Jews died there, and it was not a dedicated pogroms but simply civilians of various ethnicities suffering during chaos, I suggest renaming this article to Lwów unrest.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the article two reports are stated which different casualty counts. I get it that the higher number is challenged but does that make it exaggerated? Scafloc ( talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The sources seem pretty clear: Mączyński cites some numbers and documents for that. In terms of ethnic background, primarily Ukrainian criminals (~1000) were arrested, as well as some Poles (~100s) and even Jewish criminal elements (he gives the breakdown as 60%, 30%, 10% in the high (1600 arrested) estimate). Mączyński notes that Majority of the Polish forces tried to stop the pogrom, but some joined in, including 18 officers as well as few dozen of Polish soldiers (who were later, as Morgenhau confirms, arrested and sentenced as well). With that, I believe the article will not be neutral until we recognize that 1) it was not only Poles (or just Polish army!) who perpetrated the pogrom and 2) we stop stressing the participation of Polish officers (many more tried to stop it, not aided it, many more professional groups were better represented in the thousands arrested). Please note that I don't object to mentioning of the officer participation (and subsequent arrest), but it does not belong in lead. This was not a pogrom orchestrated by Polish army and officers, as some try to suggest; it was a general riot, pillage and robbery that occurred in the aftermath of an urban battle, before order could have been reestablished, targeting all defenseless civilians, and carried out primarily by the criminal elements.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"In Lemberg, Lida, Wilno, and Minsk the excesses were committed by the soldiers who were capturing the cities and not by the civilian population." Morgenthau Report. M0RD00R ( talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"The situation was further complicated by the presence of some 15,000 uniformed deserters and numerous criminals released by the Ukrainians from local jails, who were ready to join in any disorder particularly if, as in the case of wholesale pillage, they might profit thereby. Upon the final departure of the Ukrainians, these disreputable elements plundered to the extent of many millions of crowns the dwellings and stores in the Jewish quarter, and did not hesitate to murder when they met with resistance." Morgenthau Report (on Lemberg pogrom).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be at "Lemberg Pogrom"? For example, google books has:
Google scholar has 6-2 (+ 2)-1. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What's up guys? What's the deal with that whole tag drama thing. We were discussing things, article was being expanded step by step, and BANG! here comes the TAG [2]. And BANG! here comes more tag drama "omg MY TAG was removed!" [3]. What's the deal? Can't we discuss thing calmly without spreading the drama through the whole project?. Talk page didn't exhaust itself yet. Many serious issues about this article needs to be resolved. Let's try to discuss it, maybe some uninvolved editors should be invited to join this discussion? M0RD00R ( talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the sources however have a different approach. The quotes are provided and quite clearly they put a blame on Polish troops. Criminal factor also played some role, and it is reflected in the article. M0RD00R ( talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop deleting this reliably sourced background material from the "Background" section. Discuss your concerns on the talk page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call bogus edit summaries removing a ref - link provided fails at verification can't find anything in the ref supporting this doubius fragment an explanation that would justify arbitrary removal of referenced information. This behaviour is getting more and more disruptive. First it was attempted to push untrue information by revert warring ("more Poles dies than Jews" [5] [6] [7]), now referenced info suddenly "fails verification". I hope disruptive "verification" will cease. Just in case David Engel page 36: "During the first days of Polish-Ukrainian armed clashes, the Polish quarter was defended by only a handful of local students and young people. Gradually, others, mostly criminals who had been released either by Austrian rulers before the abandoned the town or by the Ukrainian authorities thereafter, came to volunteer. Because at the time Polish forces needed every available able-bodied man, these felons were not turned away. instead they were given uniforms and arms, and they played an important role in the battle. however, whenever such soldiers could plunder for their own gain, they did: they were the bandits who attacked Jewish stores in the Polish quarter" M0RD00R ( talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have explained my reasons above, and in edit summaries. To repeat myself: 1) excessive detail about banging on the doors and opening them with grenades is not needed and 2) poorly sourced and hardly neutral para about alleged "wave of anti-Jewish pogroms [that] broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918" does not belong here - perhaps we need to create an article about that, akin to pogroms in Ukraine, but discussions of other pogroms in former Russian Empire is too detailed for this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess what intro by Boodles is supposed to show that Lemberg pogrom is not one-off odd event. It is no secret that Polish take over of contested territories was often accompanied by anti-Jewish violence ( Pinsk massacre, pogroms and military massacres in Lida, Minsk, Vilna, etc). This period of Jewish Polish history was marked by the wave of violence against Jews, and this article should reflect that, the question is how, and in what detail. And we should try to find a consensus on these questions here on talk page instead of revert warring. Cheers. M0RD00R ( talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ronald Modras. Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 . 1-2 thousand Jews killed by:Poles in this period.
Ezra Mendelsohn. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars.: “During the first decade of the new Poland, both the state and its people displayed a hostility toward the Jewish population which found expression in systematic discrimination and widespread anti-semitic violence.”
RJ Crampton . Eastern Europe in the twentieth century “ There were pogroms in Lwow, Pinsk, Vilnius, and other Polish cities”
J Bendersky. The “”Jewish Threat” [8] Morgenthau described in detail the "eight principal excesses" that had occurred in Poland, including the well-publicized events in Lemberg, Pinsk, Vilna, and Minsk.
Celia Stopnicka Heller On the Edge of Destruction: "The declaration of Polish independence from Russia, Germany, and Austria in November 1918 was followed by anti-Jewish violence in many cities, towns, and villages." Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the first background paragraph can be shortened to "A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów." This would keep only the most relevant background as related to this specific event. Ostap 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A wave of anti-Jewish pogroms broke out in Poland upon the establishment of the country as an independent state in October 1918. In response, the Jewish National Council in Krakow organized a self defense group made up of Jewish former army officers; a few days later, the city's military commander, Boleslaw Roja, ordered the Polish military to surround the Jewish defense group's headquarters to be surrounded, it's leaders arrested, and the members of the self defense groups to be disarmed. These actions were accompanied a a series of stories in the local and national Polish press alleging a Jewish military plot, along with stories of weapons caches being discovered in synagogues; Jewish protests against the allegations were ignored and dismissed. These actions against the Jewish defense groups and the press campaign have been described as serving as a tacit approval of violence against Jews. Through the month of November, anti-Jewish violence erupted 110 towns in Poland, including the pogrom in Lwów.[13]
Since there seems to be no serious objection to the reliably sourced passage for the background section, I will restore it today. The above discussion has veered into a discussion of place names, which is not directly relevant to the passage. This is an encyclopedia discussing a serious, but not well known event in which scores of Jews were murdered and hundreds more brutalized simply because they were Jews. These attempts to remove well sourced basic facts about this massacre, and it's immediate context, are baffling to me. Piotrus had indicated that "Piotrowski refutes the claims", but I dont see where, and no one has indicated where. Piotroeski was also a source for another claim regarding Polish casualties which also failed verification. I will add some of the additional sources from above as appropriate to the passage. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Boodles let's give 48 hours or even more to present more arguments on talk, there is no need to rush things. So far I still have a hope that this can be resolved on talk in discussion based on references, and not personal opinions. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How is he a reliable source? Please explain. His bias is obvious. Hi actively participated in said events. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like there are two issues. First, NOR: we need to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources have to be used literally, we cannot use them to build our own arguments or draw our own conclusions. It would be better to use secondary sources - historians for example. Second issue is the degree of notability. I think you guys are using the word "reliable" in the colloquial sense, but that is not the issue in Wikipedia - we assume all viws have some bias and NPOV explicitly demands that we include even sources we consider biased. What is important is that the view be notable. Manority and minority views ought to be included, it is only clearly fringe views that should be excluded from the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted one edit that changed "false accusations" to "generalizations" because it reflected poor English style. The sentence refers to "most Jews" which by definition is a generalization; to add the word generalization is redundant. The question is whether the source provided claims that this particular generalization is true or false. Remember, it does not matter whether the accusation realy is true or false; Wikipedia is not concerned with truth. Nor is logic an issue, as the edit summary suggsted. The question is, what does the source cited say? I am following our policy WP:AGF and assuming that whoever added the sentence and the citation is accurately representing the point of view of the author cited. Can anyone provide evidence that this author did not claim that the accusations were false? This is an empircal issue, not a logical one: what does this source actually claim? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The scholarly-accepted term for this episode was "pogrom." It was not a "riot." The majority scholarly view was that scores of Jews were murdered because they were Jews, and the scholarly view is that the excuses for these cold blooded murders are fabricated. It is insensitive POV pushing to keep slipping these change in, and it is less than honest to keep making such a serious change to the article without discussion. If you think it's worth discussing, and if you think there are valid arguments for making this change, than discuss it, openly. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Majority academic sources does not mention them at all. More importantly "blame the Ukrainians" is considered to be an attempt by Polish side to shift the blame from real perpetrators. Only one sources in the article puts the blame on Ukrainian side, and that is Maczynski. To put Maczynski views violates WP:UNDUE. "mainly Ukrainians", based on sole ref is even more outrageous violation of WP:NPOV. M0RD00R ( talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, well, well. You see Piotrus, keyword in this case is not "criminals" but "Ukrainian criminals". What is the point of showing the references that mention just criminals, and adding extremely biased "mainly Ukrainian criminals" to the lead section? So far you failed to present multiple reliable sources for "mainly Ukrainian criminals", but yet you keep adding it time and time again. When this is done in the lead section it is straight forward WP:TE. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Others, however, note that it was the rioting was started by (mainly citation needed Ukrainian citation needed) criminals, and the most citation needed of the Polish army tried to stop the riot, not participated in it (majority citation needed of the sources do agree, however, that a small percentage citation needed of the Polish forces - primarily recently enlisted criminals - did join in the rioting). If multiple reliable sources will be not provided for each questionable part of this edit, it probably should presented as a textlbook example of WP:OR, WP:FRINGE etc. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The fringe speculations of a controversial revisionist historian do not belong in the lead of a history article in an encyclopedia. Besides the views being fringe, Davies is admittedly speculating "Yet one has to wonder...," "it is conceivable of course.." "or perhaps...". This illustrate a disturbing problem that has been disrupting this article--the constant strafing of the article with such revisionist notions (Davies views alone are cited 3 times) with a blatant attempt to skew the article towards a fringe and offensive POV that minimizes the character and gravity of this documented murderous pogrom that targeted for murder an entire town's community based on their ethnicity. This is akin to inserting into the lead and body of articles about US slavery the views of dinosaurs who still hold century old views to the effect that sleavery really wasn't so bad. There were historians 100 years ago who said such things, and there are fringe historians who say it now--we do not prominently feature such discredited and racist viewpoints, regardless of which race or ethnicity such views are attacking. This really needs to stop. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Single opinion of one historian, quoted by other historian, has no place in the lead because it is WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we would be forced to quote opinions of more than a dozen other historians, one by one, that call this event simply a pogrom. M0RD00R ( talk) 20:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
With the qualification that we are talking about a minority, it was a significant minority, actions of which were exaggerated but nonetheless are highly notable and contributed to both the background and the events in question. I object to this change not supported by the source cited ( [16]), which - just as other sources (ex. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) - speaks only of exaggeration, not total falsification, with all of those sources noting instances of Jewish armed support for the Ukrainians.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole section is a clear instance of polish antisemitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.247.90 ( talk) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hundreds more Ukrainian Christians were killed during this time as well. Total number of victims are 52-150. How it possible? This source didnt mention about Ukrainian victims - Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide.. This source - Norman Davies. "Ethnic Diversity in Twentieth Century Poland." In: Herbert Arthur Strauss. Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39. Walter de Gruyter, 1993. doubles number of victims to 340, 70 were Jews, rest Ukrainians = 270. Strange.-- Paweł5586 ( talk) 07:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political partry. His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included inthe article as a reliable source. Faustian ( talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hagen's claim that the Blue Army played a role in this pogrom is contradicted by pretty much every serious history of the Blue Army, which states that the first units of the Blue Army did arrive in Poland until April of 1919 - more than four months after the pogrom took place. I've already included these sources in the article, but more generally, just looking up "Haller Army" or "Blue Army" in any history book that deals with them in anything more than a cursory fashion, gives this information. While Hagen meets the requirements for a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, he is simply mistaken here.
Best as I can make out this mistake stems from the fact that he takes sensationalist accounts of the events - including from publications which originally claimed thousands of deaths, rather than 52-150 deaths that actually occurred - at face value rather than subjecting them to a critical analysis, or even comparing them to other documents, such as the Morgenthau report. The other claims sourced to his work in the article appear to be based on a similar approach and as such are also of dubious authenticity.
Since Hagen is technically a reliable source however, I guess the text based on his work can be included (though personally, I am at a complete loss to understand why someone would want to put information into Wikipedia which they know to be false, however "reliable" the source). Other sources however, particularly since they are so much more numerous need to be included as well. In fact, given the isolated nature of Hagen's claims, Hagen's claims should probably be tagged with a "dubious" tag. Volunteer Marek 16:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since Hagen may have misidentified the particular unit of Polish soldiers involved in the pogrom but is clearly a reliable source whose general description is credible and reliable, should we simply remove his specific identification of Haller's troops from this article while keeping the rest of his stuff in? That way we could also remove from this article the information about Haller's wherabouts from other sources which has nothing to do with the 1918 pogrom and which clutters the article somewhat. I am inclined to keep both sets of info on the Blue Army article but not here, as it is peripheral to these events. What do others think? Faustian ( talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
A number of editors have questioned whether the term pogrom is appropriate here. This source also questions it and the Morgenthau Report specifically rejected the term. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
"340 total deaths in the violence, of whom two thirds were Ukrainian Christians and the remaining 70 were Jews" - the math is wrong here. Besides, if the majority of victims were Orthodox Christians, why is the focus solely on the Jewish victims? Is this intentional? 89.69.82.3 ( talk) 15:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"leading to exaggerated rumors, that some Jews, including the militia, collaborated with the Ukrainians in various ways" - this sounds convoluted. The rumors could be exaggerated only if no Jewish militiamen collaborated with the Ukrainians. If there were at least two people engaged in the collaboration, the rumors in question cannot be referred to as exaggerated. Whoever wrote this passage wants to convey the message that no Jewish militiaman collaborated with the Ukrainian. This is, at best, disingenuous. 89.69.82.3 ( talk) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This article reads like an anti-semitic apologist has tried at every turn to blame the pogrom on "criminals" instead of the local populace. Mentioning the criminal element is fine, once, but the article reads very awkwardly the way "criminals" is repeated so many times. Jehochman Talk 15:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Following the age of partitions, Regency Council (Poland) declared independence on 7 October 1918 with the first Provisional Government set up only two weeks prior to the pogrom in Lemberg. The eastern borders of sovereign Poland were not established until the end of the Polish–Soviet War in 1920. Therefore the city's name remained officially Austrian until then. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote this in 2010 and it's still true:
Czesław Mączyński was a Polish officer involved in this conflict, and was afterwards a member of a right-wing Polish political party. His comments attempting to exonerate Polish actions should not be included in the article as a reliable source. Faustian ( talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed sections devoted to his claims because they were presented as accurate reliable information. Perhaps someone has time to reincorporate them in such a way that it is clear that the source is an antisemite implicated in the crime. Faustian ( talk) 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Marek, would you mind please explaining this revert of my changes to the lead? You state the unit was already in France at the time of the pogrom, but I provided a source, which you haven't addressed. Obviously, if you were just to remove the source because you know it's wrong, with no other explanation, as you've done, that would be original research.
Regarding the exaggerated claims, the text as written now is factually incorrect, since it implies that the lower numbers (52-150 jews killed) may be exaggerated, whereas Carol Fink, in "Defending the Rights of Others," writes that the exaggerated numbers are those like 300, 900, 1,100, or 3,000. Norman Davies also refers to exaggerations of the pogrom, and it is clear this happened, however he is not specifically challenging the numbers presented in the lead. Your edit may accomplish this only inadvertently, but "an estimated 52–150 Jewish residents were killed and hundreds injured according to accounts some of which might have been exaggerated," implies that maybe not that many people were killed. I think both Davies and Fink put the real number of jews killed at around 70.
Besides being misleading, the text as you returned it also makes for uncomfortable (awkward) reading. What is your objection to my solution, which was to write, below, that early reports (whose numbers we don't even cite) were exaggerated? - Darouet ( talk) 19:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lwów pogrom (1918). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This page is on my watchlist (obviously) but I got a note from one of the participants in the ongoing dispute. I haven't had time to look at the actual sources or all the details of the disagreement, but it strikes me as obvious that User:Icewhiz's edit summary here is false. He says "UNDUE weight to primary report by those who were complicit". Presumably this is referring to the sentence " whereas a Polish police report listed a Greek Catholic, likely a Ukrainian, among those killed in the rioting.".
But that sentence, contra Icewhiz's apparently false claim in his edit summary appears to be sourced to a work from ... 2018. The work is Zbigniew Zaporowski, “Ofiary rozruchów i rabunków we Lwowie 22–24 listopada 1918 roku w świetle ustaleń lwowskiej Dyrekcji Policji,” Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość, vol. 1 (2018): 465–471. It looks like this is a WP:SECONDARY SOURCE which is simply using primary sources for its study. You know, like historians do all the time. The author appears to be a professional historian.
I haven't read the source and can't comment on the accuracy on the text based on it (although we generally are expected to assume good faith in that regard) but it's pretty clear that Icewhiz is using false edit summaries here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead of worrying about a work by modern historian mentioned above, I think we should worry about this article reliance on [31]. This is a pretty much primary source, and account by the participant/Polish commander Czesław Mączyński. It should be used with caution. Polish wiki article (pretty poor) does note that Maczynski denied the pogrom has taken place, and he has been described by some historians as significantly responsible for it: "Według komendanta obrony Lwowa kpt. Czesława Mączyńskiego żadnego pogromu nie było, wystąpiły jedynie rabunki i wypadki doraźnego karania wrogiej ludności. Antysemickie podejście Mączyńskiego było jedną z przyczyn pogromu; historycy w dużej mierze właśnie jego obarczają odpowiedzialnością za to zdarzenie", sourced to Kwartalnik historii Żydów. Instytut. 2004, s. 354. - sadly, no link and I am too tired down to hunt this. IMHO, Maczynski's book can be mentioned, but he should not be used as a source in Wikipedia's tone, at most, we can occasionally attribute him. User:Icewhiz, I will trust you with de-Maczynski'ing this article :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
There are portions of this article which are simply incoherent. There's a lot of "howevers" and "buts" and "at the same time"... but these are used in ways which don't make sense. In several places it looks like competing paragraphs or sentences were spliced together, after the middle was removed. The entire article requires clean up. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing [32]. My rationale was: "mv detailed discussion on possible perpetrators into the body; rm statement re: exaggerated accounts as a non sequitur in the lead". Specifically, these details, prominently placed in the lead, seemed like apologetics to me. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)