Talk:Symon Petliura

Petliura and Jews

Read the article written by a well-known Ukranian scholar: http://ukrlife.org/main/prosvita/petlura.htm 77.122.107.222 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Role in Pogroms is even more unbalanced now

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

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

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

USSR - Bolshevyk Russia

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

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

Role in Pogroms still needs work

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

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

Still very biased

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

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

Mashkin 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mashkin 10:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You made an incorrect assumsion.

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

LeFlyman 13:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Appeal to Ukrainian Army

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

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

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

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

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

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

We cannot say for sure whether anything is falsified or not, especially as, unlike professional historians who work with archives, Wikipedia is written by amateurs most of who use google as their primary search for the info. Standards here are pretty lax, but I won't object to digging a little more. The idntical text, which also calls itself the Petlura letter is posted at this rather Russophile, or at least neutral, web-site. Now, I did not find indeed the letter posted at any academic site, but I found it being mentioned and quoted in Mykola Riabchuk, "Vid Malorosiii do Ukrainy: paradoksy zapizniloho natsiietvorennia", K., Krytyka, 2000, ISBN 966-7679-11-X (LCCN 2001-364006). This book was translated and published in French as 'De la "Petite-Russie" à l'Ukraine', L'Harmattan (2003), ISBN 2747551342 (Amazon link) and the original full Ukrainian version is available online (see [1] and [2] for a particular chapter). I think we can safely assume that the letter existed. In what I agree is that this by itself is not sufficient to conclude lack of Petlura's complicity in pogroms. This question is a complex one and historians disagree. --Irpen 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Merge, Petliura or Petlyura?

These articles should be merged: Symon Petliura + Simon Petlyura

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV removal

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

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

President?

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

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

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

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

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

Britannica provides these dates

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

Title - Holovnyi Otaman

Changed ataman to Otaman.

Petlura, Petlyura and Petliura

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

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

Petlura the journalist and writer

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

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

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

I added paragraph on Yuri Finkelshtein

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel that you addition should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Yuri Finkelshtein has published a book about antisemitic massacres of Petlura's army<ref>Юрий Финкельштейн. …За дела рук своих: Загадка Симона Петлюры или парадокс антисемитизма. N-Y., Слово-World, 1995.)</ref>. He gives a much greater number of Jewish civilians killed: 500,000 form Petlura's army alone. He claims Petlura carried responsibility for doing nothing about the pogroms, provides evidence to show how he avoided any efforts to stop the massacres, tells about the White Army of Denikin who proved to be almost as bloody as Petlura, as well as of other armies (the Red Army, Makhno) who took a different course. He argues that Petlura originally was not an antisemite, but became one because he lacked the guts to oppose extremely strong antisemitism in his army. Unfortunately, the book is available only in Russian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The discussion continues.

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

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

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

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

The facts are -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nestor Makhno

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

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

Biography Of Schwartzbard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mashkin 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Latest changes

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

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

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

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

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

ThIS SORT OF STUFF IS HATE MATERIAL + In Israel and the Jewish world Petlura is mostly remembered as a leader responsible for vicious pogroms (see for instance the Holocaust Encyclopedia<ref name="USHMM">{{cite web | author = | year = | url = http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005171 | title = Lwów | format = | work = [[Holocaust Encyclopedia]] | publisher = United States Holocaust Memorial Museum | accessdate = | accessyear = 2006}}</ref>, Yad Vashem <ref name="Yad_Vashem">{{cite web | author = | year = 2004 | url = http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1939-1941/1941/chronology_1941_18.html | title = July 25: Pogrom in Lwów | format = | work = Chronology of the Holocaust | publisher = [[Yad Vashem]] | accessdate = | accessyear = 2006}}</ref> and the writing on the street sign honoring Schwartzbard in Beersheba). aND SHOULD BE REMOVED

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

Mashkin 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

20:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Added the explanation regarding the robberies

Mashkin 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agreed. What is an "anarchist" robbery? How about " Schwartzbard was a Jewish anarchist (he participated in armed crimes in Austro-Hungary) and decorated veteran of the French Foreign Legion, whose..."? [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]This should be the version posted on the article.

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

Caustic edits

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

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

Mashkin 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page name

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

Names of Localties

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

Invasion?

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

Jonathan Littell

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

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

"Latter Legacy" vs "Later legacy" section name change

Hello,

Latter is the opposite of former, while later is the opposite of sooner. I think in this section discusses Petlura's influence after his death, so later rather than sooner.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, later legacy implies something that will happen, whilst latter legacy says about something that has happened after something else. In other words three consequtive events A, B, C and D. Suppose C is present, A is Petlyura's lifetime, and B is in between, whilst D. I future. Well by using latter, we are implying how events in A have now influenced events in C. Whilst later implies how events in A will influence events in D.

Moreover it can also mean that if A is to be split to say early life and later life, the later legacy implies only the second part of his lifetime. As you can see this confusion in unnecessary. Anyhow the guy is dead, his troubles are over, what difference does it make to you? --Kuban Cossack 10:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately, I couldn't really understand what you said in the first paragraph. The only thing that I understood was the final sentence, but later in no way implies influence on events.

Latter can be used to describe the second half of events, but that is not the case here.

Please avoid sentences like "Anyhow the guy is dead, his troubles are over, what difference does it make to you?"thanks, Horlo (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if I was not clear enough I shall repeat by saying later you are impling that the events that will mark his legacy will happen in the future, whilst latter implies events have already influenced the present.

But the guy is dead! So why do you care?--Kuban Cossack 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please do not try to teach native English speakers English, especially if you make spelling mistakes during those lessons. Please avoid such disgusting comments as "But the guy is dead! So why do you care?". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have anything consructive to add please do so. Otherwise don't bother me with talkpage nonsense--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Petliura and pogroms

This is a controversial issue and the article should reflect all viewpoints rather than emphasize one viewpoint. We should also be careful to avoid original research.Faustian (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is part of an interview with Petliura's Finance Minister, Arnold Margolin (who was Jewish), from London's Jewish Chronicle in 1919, in which Margolin defends Petliura, his close friend, against charges of antisemitism: [4]:

What is the attitude of the Ukrainian government toward the Jews?

    In the Ukraine which together with Galicia has a population
    of 40 millions there live 3 1/2 million (8%) Jews. After
    the Revolution the ruling power in the Ukraine rested in a
    parliament in which all parties of the country, including
    Jewish, were represented. That parliament ("Tsentralna
    Rada") granted the Jews more freedom and rights than they
    had anywhere in Europe at any time. All national
    minorities, of course Jews too, were granted autonomy. It
    must be stressed also that the Central Council (the
    Parliament) set up a Supreme Court to which those lawyers
    were appointed as judges, who had had courage to take a
    stand against the Russian government during the Beilis
    trial. -

    Here  Margolin narrated the fate of the Ukraine  after the overthrow of
    the Tsentralna Rada and during the rule of Hetman Skoropadksy, and then
    continued:

    Hetman's rule lasted only eight months. [After its
    overthrow] the Petlura Government renewed the autonomy of
    national minorities and again appointed Jewish ministers,
    viz. Mr. Goldelman and myself. Jews belong also to the
    diplomatic missions which have been sent abroad by the
    Ukrainian government. The noted Jewish historian, Dr.
    Wischintzer, one of the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia,
    is the secretary of the Ukrainian legation in England.

    How does this government's attitude agree with the fact of anti-Jewish
    pogroms?

    There is a difference between pogroms which, unfortunately,
    have occurred now in the Ukraine, and pogroms in Russia
    during the tsarist regime. While the tsarist government
    had itself instigated and organized pogroms, the Ukrainian
    government is in no way responsible for them. In November
    1918 I myself saw the proclamations of the government in
    the Ukrainian villages and cities which very vehemently
    condemned the pogroms and explained to the Ukrainian people
    that the Jews are Ukrainian fellow-citizens and brothers to
    whom full rights are due. When, however, demoralization
    had set in the units of the Ukrainian army, its worst
    elements began to plunder. Again the Ukrainian government
    rose vigorously against the pogroms, punishing with death
    the perpetrators of the pogroms and expressing its sorrow
    for the victims. To my regret, I must state that the
    latest pogroms which, as far as I know, took place during
    the months of February and March were exceedingly serious.
    They have been perpetrated by the people of the Black
    Hundred and by provocateurs for the purpose of discrediting
    the Ukrainian government.

    These occurences made a shocking impression upon me, and at
    the end of March I tendered the government my resignation.
    I recognized that fact that the government was blameless; I
    found it, however, hard to occupy an official post in a
    country in which my brothers were slaughtered. My
    resignation was not accepted and the government requested
    me to continue in my official duties, at least abroad. Now
    I am one of the four representatives of the Ukraine at the
    Peace Conference. There is no anti-Semitic tendency in the
    Ukrainian government.

On this website one can find Petliura's currency (the first one on top). Note that part of the back is written in Hebrew: [5] (Petliura's government wanted to be representative of all Ukrainian people, including Jews).Faustian (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting book review on the topic by Colin Schindler:[6].Faustian (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pogroms in the Lead?

It seems to me that the issue was significant enough (it was the excuse for his assassination and took center stage in the subsequent trial), and for better or worse, associated with Petliura, that it deserves some sort of mention in the article's lead in a nuetral way. I'm not going to revert war over it, but that is my opinion.Faustian (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of those types of questions that lawyers like to throw in every now and then like : "Does your mother know that you wet your bed? Yes or no. Putting such a statement in the lead associates Petlura with the Pogroms with which he was never directly involved with.

{It would be far better to put more information on his prose stories, or his poetry, or his religious convictions than putting such a statement on the lead. {Yes there was a significant number of Jews living in Ukraine. Some 8% of the population because the Pale of Jewish settlement included most of Ukrainian ethnic territory, yes, there were numerous pogroms in Ukraine at the time when Petlura was struggling to put together a government but they also occurred before and after him and during the Skoropadsky reign when the Germans were in controls (Yet nobody blames Skoropadsky or the Germans). Remember that the Skoropadsky had Petlura incarcerated where he remained for most of 1918 (up until November). Was he clandestinely in charge of Pogroms then? And then seizing control of the government in November and holding on to it in Kyiv until January 25 arguing with Vynnychenko - Do you think he had the tome to do anything then? Or maybe from his train carriage moving from Kyiv to Western Ukraine.

Was Petlura responsible for the pogroms - There is no evidence to link him to any of them. As a prolific writer and editor who wote under numerous pseudonyms - nothing has been found. Did he punish officers who he found out were involved in anti-Jewish pogroms? - Yes there is evidence of this. Did he send out any anti-Jewish documents?. No there are no document s of this type. (If there were they would have been reproduces long ago.

Did he send out proclamations for Ukrainian not to participate in anti-Jewish actions? - Yes. These documents do in fact exist.

Is there an anti Petlura lobby out there? Yes this also exists as well. All that is asked is thatnd there are persons for various reasons who would like to discredit him in any way shape or form.

The article is specifically about Petlura. If the material in the body of the article is not sufficient, then I suggest more should be added to a separate article Pogroms in Ukraine where a discussion can take place examining the sources of the materials and in a scholarly manner discuss the issues and evidence put forward to describe the merits of various opinions. (Although you may notice that this has not been done, because the chief aim is not to give pertenant information on the pogroms but to discredit and undermine a Ukrainian political leader. Bandurist (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was that, whether he was guilty or not, he is associated with them, even if falsely. The lead ought to include the most important and widely known facts about him, and the controversy over pogroms is more generally associated with Petliura than is his literary work (my totally unscientific google search revealed over 3,00o hits for "Petliura" and "Pogroms", 700 for "Petliura" and "poetry"). I do agree with you, however, that it needs to be done in a way that in no way implies that he was responsible for pogroms (so my wording which you removed wasn't right) but rather reflects the consensus (or lack thereof) in the community. Perhaps something roughly along the lines of "some scholars blame him, while other scholars as well as those close to him (including Jews) do not.Faustian (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bandurist's argumentation, though the (alleged) connection with pogroms might be mentioned in the lead. However, the source I possess (O.Subtelny Ukraine. A history) points out that all the major sides in the civil war committed pogroms, and the most 'prolific' in this respect was the Russian monarchist Volunteer Army. --Miacek (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There was an active smear campaign against Petlura, which is only being addressed to now with the publication of vital documents and collections of his writings. Keep in mind that even the magazines he edited such as "Ukrayinskaya zhyzn" were not available for study until only recently in Ukraine. They aren't in the main academic libraries there because they were removed and cannot easily be replaced.

A number of very interesting works have recently appeared. There is no need to continue a baseless and unsubstantiated smear campaign against him here, and there is no need to include hearsay in the lead statement. Bandurist (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Streets

More streets named after him then only in Rivne and Kyiv (Lviv)? How bout 1 in Donetsk ;) ! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mikhail Frenkel on Petlyura

The current link does not work but I've found this article at the same site in Russian - [7].

This is the passage from the article referenced by Frenkel's work:

“ Some Ukrainian-Jewish leaders have reconsidered Petlura's role and the situation in Ukraine during the Civil War. They are placing the blame for these Pogroms on either a minority, or Denikin's "White Guards" who upset at losing to the Bolsheviks, took out their rage on the local Jewish population. [26] ”

There are several problems here: first, Mikhail Frenkel [8] is one of, not some Ukrainian-Jewish leaders.

Second, he doesn't quite shift the blame from Petlyura to some mysterious minority or to Denikin's forces in the article (and the reasoning about their anger about losing to Bolsheviks as a cause of their actions is also nowhere to be found). This is what he actually says:

“ В советские времена Петлюра рисовался врагом человеческим рангом Гитлера. Сегодня же иные украинские историки рисуют его благороднейшим и великим «отцом нации», безвинно убитым не то большевистским, не то сионистским «агентом». Но, думается, как это бывает нередко, истина лежит посередине. С одной стороны, никаких антисемитских универсалов Петлюра не издавал. С другой — он не смог или не захотел защитить еврейское население Украины от собственных войск.

Для справедливости заметим, что еще большими погромщиками оказались деникинцы.

”

“ In Soviet times Petliura was portrayed as an enemy of the humanity comparable to Hitler. Now certain Ukrainian historians describe him as a great and noble "father of the nation", murdered for no reason by Bolshevik (or maybe Zioniost) agent. In my opinion the truth is somewhere between. On one hand Petliura indeed did not issue any anti-Semitic decrees; on the other - he could not or would not defend Ukrainian Jewry from his own army.

For the sake of justice, Denikin's forces were even greater 'pogromschiks'...

”

So in his opinion White Army was responsible for more pogroms than Petlyura's forces but this is not shifting of blame from Petlyura. White Army's behaviour is in fact rather irrelevant to this article, although it should be fully described elsewhere. Alæxis_¿question? 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you translate that quote into English, please? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on vacation. Please tell me if you find any inaccuracies in my translation. Alæxis_¿question? 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Serhiychuk's reliability

This is what is written in the article:

“ Recently uncovered documents and letters to prominent Jewish community leaders demonstrate Petlura's support for the re-establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In a letter representing the Jewish population of Ukraine, minister Pinchos Krasny thanked Petlura for his support for the vote in the League of Nations of July 24, 1922 regarding the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. ”

Unfortunately the only information I could find about Pinchas Krasny (the Red) was a short article from Short Jewish Encyclopaedia at an Israeli site. This is what written there:

“ В конце 1920 г. Красный эмигрировал, а в 1927 г. вернулся в Советский Союз. (Krasny emigrated [from Ukraine] in the end of 1920 and returned to Soviet Union in 1927) ”

“ В 1928 г. вышла книга «Трагедия украинского еврейства (к процессу Шварцбарда)» (см. Ш. Шварцбард), в которой Красный обвинил Директорию и ее председателя С. Петлюру в организации еврейских погромов. (A book "Tragedy of Ukrainian Jewry" was published in 1928 in which Krasny accused the Directotate and its chairman Symon Petlyura of organising anti-Jewish pogroms) ”

So, how could he represent the Jewish population of Ukraine in any way in 1922 or later?

Second, Krasny's letter of gratitude (provided it existed) should be taken in context of his later work.

I don't have the access to Serhiychuk's paper but either he was inaccurate or misinterpreted (if someone has the article at hand, please check it). In both cases there exist doubts about the accuracy of the information that is currently sourced by this paper so I'd ask for alternative sources (Western or Israeli, preferably) backing Sehiychuk's claims. Alæxis_¿question? 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Any material post-Krasny's return to USSR would no longer be reliable, for obvious reasons.Galassi (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here. However I have not intended to use this book as a source for this article (its reliability is indeed dubious). What I want to say is that Krasny himself and his words are taken out of context (the only Jewish minister (or Petlyura's lackey in less favorable sources) in the Directorate, his return to USSR at his own will, his book). And all my other points remain valid also. Alæxis_¿question? 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the Serh. book, BTW.Galassi (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So was his book used properly? Did he really write what is attributed to him in this article in these words? Alæxis_¿question? 05:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The book is actually excellently researched and FOOTNOTED.Galassi (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Hello, once again, could you please try to provide quotes in English? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here translations were provided from the beginning (in cursive after the Russian text). Alæxis_¿question? 08:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Petluria- Murderer and anti semite

As Petluria personally killed several members of my family after the Czar was killed, I find this page to be very biased and non NPOV...

Case in point: On May 25, 1919 Peturia entered the town synagogue of the town of Radomsyzl, Ukraine, and shot the Rabbi of the town and his son in cold blood, for no reason. JJ211219 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

and you lie often ? "Petluria entered the town synagogue..." pfff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.144.31 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been reading too many comic books. If it were true that he personally did this it would be cited everywhere. Bandurist (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Change of name

The spelling used on Petlura's gave in paris is PETLURA rather than Petliura. His family living in North America also uses the spelling PETLURA in English. In Ukrainian, and particularly in the Poltava dialect, all vowels after an L are pronounced soft. I.e. Moloko become molioko, klas becomes klias etc. The library and materials in french also use the PETLURA spelling

Література: Тютюнник Ю. З поляками проти Вкраїни. X. 1924; Documents de Simon Petlura a Paris. Париж 1927; Лотоцький О. Симон Петлюра. В. 1936; Симон Петлюра в молодості. 36. споминів під ред. А. Жука. Л. 1936; Зленко П. Симон Петлюра (Матеріяли для бібліографічного покажчика). Париж 1939; Іванис В. Симон Петлюра - президент України, 1879-1926. Торонто 1952; Петлюра С. Статті, листи, документи. Нью-Йорк 1956; Документ суд. помилки. Париж 1958; En notre âme et conscience - la verité sur Simon Petlura. Париж 1958; Desroches A. Le problème ukrainien et Simon Petlura. Le Feu et le Cendre. Париж 1962.

I propose to change the spelling used to PETLURA. Bandurist (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would work, due to the overwhelming preponderance of the current spelling, per common usage rule...--Galassi (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Common usage:

Petlura gives me 126,000 hits Petliura gives me 79,200 hits

So it seems that common usage is Petlura. Bandurist (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PetLYUra gives 229,000 hits, and adheres to the modern rules of translit.--Galassi (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've regularized the name in the article to Petliura simply for consistency because that's the current article title. (The previous impression was that it was full of typos.) If the article is moved to a different spelling, please regularize the name in line with whatever decision is made. I have no preference for which spelling is used, although it should be in line with current English-language scholarship on the issue. Doremo (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

New publicatation

Here is a recent find of an anti-pogrom leaflet signed by Petlura http://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2011/05/26/40621/ . Comments anyone? Bandurist (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sholom could not: "He participated in the Jewish self-defense of Balta in 1882" because he was born 1886! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.141.121 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

not critical enough?

The German historian Götz Aly just published some commentary on this article in German newspaper. The gist of it is, that the treatment of Petliura is somewhat biased and not critical enough, which is partially due to a selective use of literature. According to him important literature has not been evaluted/is missing:

• http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/meinung/kolumne-chauvinismus-in-der-google-welt,10808020,33057668.html

--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

views of Petliura

Hero, mass murderer or whatever! Please make sure whatever view of him you plan to include that it is sourced by reputable publication/Literature (preferably scholarly publication). Do not include unsourced views as this is clear policy violation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: See also User_talk:AA999#edits_at_Symon_Petliura--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How about family evidence? Does it count as a source? Also, Petliura's military units committed the pogroms - no one seems to deny that. So is Petliura as their chief commander personally clean on that? If we take that view may be Hitler too was nor responsible for the massacres, which were committed by his troops, not him personally. User:AA999

Family evidence of 1918? Has it been published? Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyperlink to a Main Article

Currently the hyperlink under the section heading Role in pogroms (#6 in the Contents list) is Pogroms in Ukraine. Since that page automatically redirects to Antisemitism in Ukraine it should be changed. Mcljlm (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Symon Petliura. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309202323/http://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/uploads/pogromschina.pdf to http://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/uploads/pogromschina.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031050239/http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/petliura/statti/16.html to http://www.vesna.org.ua/txt/petliura/statti/16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024000504/http://www.cym.org/us/ellenville/Oselia50_UWarticle.asp to http://www.cym.org/us/ellenville/Oselia50_UWarticle.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116140351/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/495/46522/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/495/46522/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310220124/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/495/46522/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/495/46522/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Symon Petliura. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219071044/http://poltava-repres.narod.ru/petlura/tvor/tom_1/128.htm to http://poltava-repres.narod.ru/petlura/tvor/tom_1/128.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202162029/http://contactstudio.com.ua/nashi_filmi.html to http://contactstudio.com.ua/nashi_filmi.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,731176,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714151746/http://ratinggroup.com.ua/en/products/politic/data/entry/14005/ to http://ratinggroup.com.ua/en/products/politic/data/entry/14005/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1996/209613.shtm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1999/509914.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040215130859/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewas12.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewas12.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123064331/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/349/31489/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/349/31489/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051112034139/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/349/31489/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/349/31489/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109202744/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/86/6702/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/86/6702/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220171946/http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog/document?id=42156 to http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog%5Cdocument?id=42156
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194226/http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/6702/ to http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/6702/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

This series of edits by user Piznajko looks POVish to me. Why the entire section which mentioned Israel was removed? Maybe this should not be a whole section, but this needs to be mentioned. Also, making an argument in the lead that his role in pogroms was exaggerated by the Soviet propaganda is not a good idea. Somewhere in the body of page, - yes, why not? But copy-pasting this also to lead was not good. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't live in Wikipedia 24/7, I have personal life too. You didn't ping me through the appropriate WP feature, thus I had no idea you were looking for a comment. Anyways, the sub-section about "Israel" in the section " Petliura's latter legacy" made no sense - he didn't really leave any legacy (in the sense that this word is used in English) in Israel. WP:Neutrality of that sentence was questionable, but regardless if it is to be included at all in the article - should be in the section 'Role in pogroms' not in the legacy section.--Piznajko (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Given no reply here, I quickly fixed it. Welcome to improve this further. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The text you removed was quite problematic, but just clearing it out is problematic. It looks like an editor or editors introduced info about his reputed role in pogroms, and another editor or editors added a refutation to the lead. It is an important part of his biography, to the point that including no mention at the top looks his supporters have whitewashed the opening of the article. I'm not sure how to fix this. Jd2718 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I checked pages about him on French wiki [9] ("good article") and ruwiki (this is a highly detailed and long version). None of them tells about it in the lead. French, but not Russian version includes section about pogroms, but it seems to be written more objectively. So, I am for removal this from the lead and following the example of "good article" in French wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is tricky. I don't think any version of wikipedia is acceptable as a source. My internet searches divide down the middle, with many sources in English being tied to Jewish organizations, and all that I see mention the pogroms prominently, and the other large group being tied to Ukrainian organizations or the Ukrainian government, and those don't mention the pogroms, or attempt to refute the stories. Since both sets of sources are well-represented, and are often otherwise considered reliable, how do we handle this? Jd2718 (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No doubts, this should be described in the body of page. But how much, and how this should be mentioned in the lead? This is a matter of balance. I think one can consult with reliable tertiary sources, such as good encyclopedia. For example, here is what EB tells. Using this as a basis for the lead would be reasonable. That one is a specialized encyclopedia, but it also gives you an idea. Of course I do not suggest using other wikis for sourcing. However, using "good" WP pages as a hint on the appropriate balance (this article is obviously not "good") is reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I can fix the lead per these two tertiary sources - as time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So, just to summarize what these sources tell about it:

1. The Ukrainian army did commit numerous pogroms. They were motivated by the Jewish Bolshevism canard.
2. Petlura did try to stop it by issuing orders and proclamations, up to promising death penalty. Nevertheless, the pogroms have been committed. These "volunteer armies" were not anyhing like modern armies. Was he able to at least decrease the number of atrocities? This is a matter of debate.
3. He was killed after emigration by a "Jewish assassin" on the direct order from Moscow (2nd encyclopedia above)
4. Should the pogroms be included in the lead, based on the coverage in other tertiary sources, such as EB? If the lead is very brief (as right now), then no because he is known mostly for other things. If the lead is bigger (of the size of entry in EB), then yes, this should be noted in connection with his assassination (similar to that in EB). My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jd2718:, 'My very best wishes'. @Jd2718 Apologies for accidentally reverting your edit - I agree there should be information in the lead section summarizing Petliura's "controversialness" - removing it entirely, per 'My very best wishes' 's edits is WP:UNDUE and goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section's guidance, namely a statement encouraging "including any prominent controversies" in the leading section.--Piznajko (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought you would agree with me. You are under wrong impression that all sourced info belongs to the page, and even to the lead of the page. Why should we include whole paragraph about this to the lead if even Encyclopedia Britannica (in a much longer entry!) mentioned this only in two words, and in connection with his assassination? This is most definitely undue. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing whole sections that were part of a consensus version (before you came). --Piznajko (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it was you who placed this text on the page only very recently, along with massive copyright violations [10]. This does not reflect any consensus. Quite the opposite. In addition, you reverted some of my changes without any explanation [11]. For example, what wrong was with this my edit? My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Last consensus version was that one (I do not mind reverting to it), or the later version by Jd2718 (I think it was slightly better, and you seems do not object to his last edit). My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Last consensus version before your edits was from March 17 . Please stop edit warring. ps. Regarding your accusations of copyright violation - Diannaa helped me fix that; a protion of a book was quoted too close to the text, so Diannaa helped me paraphrase it so it wouldn't violate copyright. The last consensus version doesn't have copyright violations.--Piznajko (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

ps. regarding reverting some of your changes [12] - that's pretty much was bound to happen. Over the last couple of days you've reputedly violating Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary so its obvious that when editors try to rescue articles from your edit warring spree, some of your constructive edits might get lost. That's why you should expand on other people edits, rather than blankly reverting everything other editors do.--Piznajko (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked you what was wrong with this my edit, and you did not answer. Answer please. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing was wrong with it, I support that edit. It got removed because you've repeatedly abused WP rule of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and thus your constructive edit was accidentally removed when I was trying to rescue article from your undue revets.--Piznajko (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jd2718:! Could you please let me know your opinion on how best to address concerns raised by 'My very best wishes'. Since the last consensus version from from March 17 , editor 'My very best wishes' has seemingly removed whole chunks of the article. I am asking for your help, Jd2718, in suggesting how best to work together since I absolutely agree with you that the lead section should abide by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section's guidance, namely a statement encouraging "including any prominent controversies. Thank you. --Piznajko (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your version of the lead is an obvious violation of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section because you are trying to describe (rather than simply mention) a controversy in the lead section, including various claims and rebuttals to the claims. The much briefer version by Jd2718 might be defendable, because it only mentioned the controversy. However, was the controversy notable enough to be even mentioned in the very brief lead? That should be decided by sources. Here is a sufficiently long page about him in Encyclopedia Britannica, and it mentioned this controversy very briefly and only in connection with his assassination. Hence it would be logical to mention it in the lead in the same way as EB or do not mention at all. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning it the lead only a sentence stating "Petliura was a controversial figure involved with the pogroms" is misleading, because it provides the reader zero background on how Soviet leaders unjustly labeled Petliura an Anti-Semite in order to discredit him. If we are to include Petliura's involvement in pogroms in the lead, it needs to be extensive explaining that he tried to stop them and that they had happened despite his attempts to stop them .--Piznajko (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. This is a complex controversy which can be properly described only in the body of page. This is yet another reason to mention it in the same way as EB did or do not mention at all in the lead.My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated the lead per discussion suggestions.--Piznajko (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! I agree with this change. However, we now have another problem. This section is too large and repeats the same things over and over again. We should shorten it significantly by removing redundancies. Compare with similar section in French wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think while the section does indeed at times repeats the same points a few times, I'd rather we kept it as is for now. And in general repeating (especially when it's not word to word) information is not a wiki crime per se - yes, stylistically it's not ideal, but it is something that we can live with for now - it doesn't directly violate any wiki rules. I'm just very reluctant to change anything there for now - given the tendency of many editors (when they try to remove somewhat repeating information) to chop left and right and ending up removing important information so that it's no longer repeated multiple times - but is rather missing from the article altogether.--Piznajko (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How much space was dedicated to this controversy in Encyclopedia Britannica? Zero. Yes, we must have it, but what should we say? There were atrocious pogroms by the Ukrainian army (current version does not even tell how many victims - it should). Petlura did try to prevent them, but was unable for whatever reason. That did tarnish his reputation. This is it. Four paragraphs at most. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the section does mention that " the number of Jews killed during the period is estimated to be from 35,000 to 50,000." Secondly, 90-95% of that section was written by other editors long time ago and is part of a consensus version (remaining 5-10% were added by me a few weeks ago to clarify/expand that section). I still maintain all the points I've raised in my comment above, mainly I think we shouldn't try remove slight repetition in that section (per reasons explained above).--Piznajko (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) Yes, all numbers should be included - agree. (b) Who wrote what is irrelevant, let's just fix the current version. (c) some paragraphs in this section tell nearly the same (compare #5 and the last: both tell about him "supporting Jewish cause", which is kind of strange given the number of pogroms committed by his army). This need to be fixed. I just did it. If you can do it better, you are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, RE your recent edit you noted "because this info was already included on the page"; I've already pointed out to you, that while there's a little bit of repetition in the section "Role in pogroms" - blankly removing entire paragraphs that were part of a Consensus version is NOT the way to go forward. On the contrary, the way to improve that section would be to summarize those points that had slight repetition but not to delete entire paragraphs.--Piznajko (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Was it you who made this revert? The content is highly repetitive to the degree that the same statements (like he "supported Jewish case") appear in several paragraphs, and these different paragraphs are telling essentially the same. However, if you can make it shorter and rephrase better, you are welcome. Please make a new and better version of this section. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

this revert was done by another editor - do you see my username there? This is not the first time you've accused me of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (here's another instance diff). Please stop Wikipedia:Casting aspersions without any evidence whatsoever - I have never used sock-puppets in WP, if I want something edited - I edit under my own username (with a few instances where I accidentally edit under an IP when I forget to log in, however I'm always transparent about it). If you genuenly suspect that I use sock puppets - launch a formal investigation against me, otherwise stop Wikipedia:Casting aspersions baselessly against me. ps. Regarding your point that certain sentences are slightly repetitious in the section "Role in pogroms" - I've already told you that the answer to that is NOT blankly removing entire paragraphs from the article. Per your suggestion that I (or I assume another editor) summarize certain sentences in section "Role in pogroms" to fix repetition - that would be an acceptable way forward to improve the article; however, for that to happen, please self-revert your edits where you deleted entire paragraphs, so I (or another editor) could work off of the original Consensus version.--Piznajko (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

About this contributor - OK, acknowledged, thank you! I asked because this contributor made only two edits during last year, and both were made specifically to support you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because they are way WP:UNDUE based on cherrypicked sources, that create the impression that Petlyura's troops never hurt a fly and the Volunteer Army was exclusively resposible for the pogroms. This is not the scientific consensus. I'd simply cite Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia:

деятельность Директории, которой фактически управляла «атаманская группа» во главе с Петлюрой, ознаменовалась кровавыми еврейскими погромами. Отступавшие зимой 1919 г. под ударами Красной армии войска Директории превратились в банды убийц и грабителей, нападавшие на евреев во многих городах и местечках Украины (Житомир, Проскуров /см. Хмельницкий/ и другие). По данным комиссии Красного Креста, во время этих погромов было убито около пятидесяти тысяч евреев. Петлюра не мог (согласно многочисленным свидетельствам, и не пытался) положить конец кровавым бесчинствам, которые творила его армия. На одну из просьб евреев, чтобы он, воспользовавшись своей властью, прекратил погромы и наказал погромщиков, Петлюра ответил: «Не ссорьте меня с моей армией». Лишь в июле 1919 г. Петлюра направил войскам циркулярную телеграмму, а в августе 1919 г. издал приказ по армии, резко осуждавший погромы

[13]. Some of your content, of course, can be salvaged and presented in a due manner.Miacek (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Miacek, when you say "Your edits were reverted because they are way WP:UNDUE...", one knows that you spend zero time actually looking at the edit history of the article. The paragraphs removed by 'My very best wishes' were generally there before my edits (all I did, was slightly expand and add maybe 5-10% of information in that section, using WP:Reliable sources for everything I've added". @My very best wishes and @Miacek can you please stop your WP:Tag teaming: Miacek, previously over the past 2 months you've done exactly zero contribution to the article/talk page, and now all of a sudden you're interested in the topic? Nobody, denies that one can have friendships on WP, but the two of you constantly pat each other's backs on a number of WP article, colluding is becoming pretty evident here. @MY very best wishes, you're better than that. When asking for help from your tag team, at least don't ask the same people over and over again - ask for someone new from your team (at least to make it somewhat more believable that it's a new "uninvolved" editor).--Piznajko (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith such as accusations of WP:Tag teaming. This is patently not true, in fact, I was not on speaking terms with My very best wishes for many years, until I suggested we bury the hatchet and I hope we did. Similarly, I landed here because I've recently edited Ukrainian topics a lot, so this could hardly hint at anything sinister. Also, even if these things you mention were there in the article even before you, there is no rule that forbids improving an article. Your version has been rejected by a number of authors and you should work to find a compromise. Thus, please take the source I provided also into account, it gives a good summary of the consensus.Miacek (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm simply assuming that old habits die hard given editor's prior history. When I read your comments above, its obviously to me that you're not genuine in your "concern" for the article: when you claimed I "cherry-picked" sources "that create the impression that Petlyura's troops never hurt a fly and the Volunteer Army was exclusively responsible for the pogroms", one knows you're lying because Consensus version of the section maintained WP:Neutrality by mentioning both that Petliura's forces were involved in pogroms, but also that Denikin's Russian White Army (what you're calling "Volunteer Army") and Soviet Bolshevik troops were also responsible for pogroms. Your so-called "cherry picked" sources, are respected Western academics like Peter Kenez. Also, when you claim that Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia 's summary of Petliura's involvement in pogroms represents "Consensus" version - that's simple "WP:Bending the truth" - that Jewsish encyclopedia is just one of the sources, e.g., you can't just remove a bunch of paragraphs (like 'My very best wishes' did) and claim that all that information is "UNDUE" because Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia says differently; if you wanted to truly improve the article, you wouldn't just delete well-sourced paragraphs left and right, but instead would add position on Petliura that was metnioend in Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia into the article. In summary, what you @hMiacek and @My very best wishes are doing is removing WP:Neutrality from the section 'Role in pogroms'.--Piznajko (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• I was asked by Piznajko to comment on the subject, given my experience (as intermediary) on this topic in Ukrainian Wikpeidia. I agree with My very best wishes point that the deleted section had multiple repetitions. However, these repetitions are sourced using new WP:Reliable sources. Therefore, I think these new sources should be used to expand and clarify existing paragraphs of the section. At the same time, I consider information about "majority of the pogroms on the territory of Ukraine in that period was actually carried out by the Russian White Volunteer Army (cited from the book by P. Kernez) should be present in the article, since the source for this information is WP:RS. I would move this sentence immediately after "pogroms continued to be perpetrated on Ukrainian territory, and the number of Jews killed during the period is estimated to be from 35,000 to 50,000". Lastly, I think it would be useful to expand that section using Soviet and Russian historiography. A reliable and neutral source for that could be Leonid Feinberg - director of Center for studies of History and Culture of East Eurpean Jewry --Yakudza (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And you are very much welcome to fix this section to avoid repetitions. Now, speaking about Denikin army, etc., here are some statistical data about it:

During the Russian Civil War, between 1918 and 1921 a total of 1,236 violent incidents against Jews occurred in 524 towns in Ukraine. The estimates of the number of killed range between 30,000 and 60,000. Of the recorded 1,236 pogroms and excesses, 493 were carried out by Ukrainian People's Republic soldiers under command of Symon Petliura, 307 by independent Ukrainian warlords, 213 by Denikin's army, 106 by the Red Army and 32 by the Polish Army.

Yes, this can be included - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Leonid Feinberg - what exactly source do you mean? My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

−

MVBW, I have genuine doubts that you are here to improve Wikipedia. The editor above asked you maintain WP:Neutrality of the article, for example by using historians who are known to write academic research on the subject from a perspective of Sovient and Russian historiogrphay, such as Leonid Finberg. And what do you do - you remove entire paragraphs from the last consensus version that referenced an article (Leonid Finberg - On the Architects of Mutual Understanding) of a well-known and respected Jewish historian Leonid Finberg of director of Center for studies of History and Culture of East European Jewry (a highly respected institution in its field). You also remove the whole paragraph that referenced Peter Kenez's work, where he explains That Russian White Army forces were responsible for the majority of pogroms (and not Petliura's UNR forces); after deleting that entirely you instead added a source by R. Pipes that says a complete opposite of what Peter Kenez said, mainly that, according to R. Pipes, the majority of pogroms in that period were carried out by UNR forces, not Russian White Army forces. If you genuenly wanted to improve the article and maintain WP:Neutrality, you wouldn't have deleted all those paragraphs, instead you would've added (next to Peter Kenez's statement) that other historians, such as R. Pipes says differently XYZ, but you didn't do that, because as I suspect you are WP:NOTHERE to improve this article, but for some other reasons (usually referred to as WP:POV Pushing.--Piznajko (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, both sources provide similar numbers. Old numbers: 35,000 to 50,000". New numbers: "30,000 and 60,000". What's the difference? Secondly, I checked additional sources to make sure that the numbers reflect not just something that "Richard Pipes said" (although he is a good source), but something commonly cited in the literature on this subject. See this my edit: [14]. P.S. This interview is not an academic source. A publication in a peer reviewed journal or a book by Finberg would be. So, these sources tell that "of 1,236 pogroms and excesses, 493 were carried out by Ukrainian People's Republic soldiers under command of Symon Petliura". Which numbers Kenez gives? If his numbers are different (I do not see them), let's provide range of numbers, as customary in such cases. OK, I checked the book on line, Civil War in South Russia, 1919-1920: The Defeat of the Whites, Том 2 by Kenez. This book is simply not about Petlura. It is about the "whites" as the title tells, including their crimes that took place. That was selective quotation of a source written on a different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I removed some obvious redundancies. What info is currently missing? If some important factual information is missing, let's include it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

P.P.S. After looking more carefully, I am opposed to the idea of debating on this page who killed more Jews. This belongs to "Atisemitism in Ukraine" page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

[reposting from my talk page] Look MVBW, you removed all mentioning of Denikin's Russian White Forces (aka "Volunteer Army") being the main perpetrators of the pogroms in UNR times in 1917-1921, backed by RS such as Peter Kenez (a highly respected researcher in his field); and instead you've brought a complete opposite view that the main perpetrators of the pogroms were UNR forces (backed by your source by Richard Pipes), which by definition means that you're pushing your point of view that it definitely was not Denikin Russian White Forces that were the main perpetrators of pogroms, but only UNR forces can be blamed for the majority of pogroms (you've said that exact thing to me earlier, for example here diff); that's UNDUE and against WP:NPV because if you want to show information in that article from a neutral point of view, you should include information from all sides, meaning you should've kept the source that says Denikin Russian White Army Forces was the main perpetrators of pogroms and should've kept P. Kenez's source and additionally you should've added to it that other researches, such as R. Pipes disagree and consider XYZ.

ps. I feel like there's nothing I can do to influence recent, largely non-beneficial significant changes, done after last-Consensus version to the article by editor 'My very best wishes', given that he (together with User:Tritomex, User:Miacek, User:Icewhiz, and User:Ymblanter) recently filed a formal complaint against me, with admin @Swarm: saying, quote, "I will keep an eye on [Piznajko's edits] as well"; Given that, I feel like any edit on my part on any Ukraine-related topic could potentially be interpreted by Swarm as "problematic behaviour". Therefore, I'm reluctant to do any changes to the article, even though I formally request that a WP:BRD process be carried out against significant recent changes to the article from MVBW done after last Consensus version--Piznajko (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, writing "I formally request to revert all recent edits by contributor X" is not a good idea, unless this contributor was indeed "not here" or completely incompetent. A collaborative editing implies that people can agree with some changes, but disagree with others. Then they will simply fix whatever needs to be fixed, instead of reverting everything. That's why WP:BRD is not a policy and even not a guideline. Now, if you can suggest here to re-include back something specific, i.e. text "...", perhaps this will be something reasonable, and I will agree with you. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

[reverting new edits per WP:BRD ] is not a good idea, unless this contributor was indeed "not here" or completely incompetent False statement; WP:BRD states Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement, in other words an editor doesn't have to be WP:NOTHERE or completely incompetent (as claimed above) for his new, bold edits to be reverted. WP:BRD further states BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. - precisely what I've tried doing multiple times above - I've explained what I see as the problem with you recent edits and that's why I would like us to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss process, whereas we return to the last Consensus version, then discuss new changes (such as eliminating slight repetition) and achieve new Consensus and then do those edits. ps. But unfortunately, per reasons explained above, I will not initiate such BRD process given uncertainty in how Swarm might interpret it.--Piznajko (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you do not want to suggest any text to re-include ("..."), that's fine. You are asking other contributors to revert on your behalf, without even explaining what exactly was wrong with content. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't' clear to you already what my issues with your new edits are, please, kindly, re-read what I've said above on this talk page (diff diff and diff, among others)--Piznajko (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Khmm... Yes, your diffs are telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• @My very best wishes, I don't question your good intentions to improve the article. However, the methods with you are you doing it are not consistent with Wikipedia procedures. None of your new edits have been discussed on the talk page and Consensus found, on the contrary there's a heated discussion regarding potential issues with your proposed changes. See WP:BOLD#Be_careful. --Yakudza (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The only one I've seen disagreeing with his changes is Piznajko.Miacek (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Have you seen these changes in the article? Please comment. --Yakudza (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to post your specific suggestions as you just did below. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Role in pogroms

• Let's first discuss the changes on each section separately. Regarding your edits to the section "Role in pogroms", in your attempts to remove repetition in this section, you've also removed important information. My main objection is the removal of the source by Peter Kenez. I also did a little bit of digging around, and found another reliable source that The British Intervention in South Russia 1918-1920, p. 143 where it says:

"However, Denikin’s AFSR was responsible for the most organized actions against the Jewish population and consequently also responsible for the largest number of victims. It has been estimated that about half of the murdered Jews fell victim to the soldiers of the AFSR. Anti-Semitism was indeed an integral phenomenon of the White regime."

and it references the same book "Pogroms and white ideology in the Russian Civil War" by Peter Kenez as did the article. I think source can also be added to the article. I also read a couple of other articles on the subject that state that, "unlike UNR, anti-Semitism was a fundamental ideology of the Russian White Army movement. --Yakudza (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That was already responded in discussion above (see above). According to all other sources (the book by Richard Pipes and the "Encyclopedia of assassinations") the majority of pogroms have been in fact conducted by Petliura army, not by Denikin. They all provide the same numbers: "A total of 1,236 violent attacks on Jews had been recorded between 1918 and 1921 in Ukraine. Among them, 493 were carried out by Ukrainian People's Republic soldiers under command of Symon Petliura, 307 by independent Ukrainian warlords, 213 by Denikin's army, 106 by the Red Army and 32 by the Polish Army". This is now included in the page. If the book by Peter Kenez (or any other RS) provides any different numbers, let's include them. However, quick check of the book by Kenez shows it does not provide any numbers. This is not surprising because the book is not about Petura, but on entirely different subject. Hence I do not see any reason to include this. Please find any other sources that provide any numbers. There are should be a lot of them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, your another source (not the book by Kenez) provides kind of a number ("about half") but does not tell where it came from. So, this could be included after refining the exact number and the actual source. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregarding a source (in this case by a prominent researcher on the subject Peter Kenez) because that source doesn't provide specific numbers, runs against the Wikipedia principles and WP:Reliable sources policies. You can't simply say "We shall ignore this source (and in your case "I shall delete that source") because it says something in sentence format, but doesn't provide specific numbers. P. Kenez's book Civil War in South Russia, 1919-1920: The Defeat of the Whites states that:

before the advent of Hitler, the greatest modern mass murder of Jews occurred in Ukraine, during the Civil War. All the participants in the conflict were guilty of murdering Jews, even the Bolsheviks. However, the Volunteer Army [ed. Denikin's Russian White Army] had the largest number of victims. Its pogroms differed from mass killings carried out by its competitors; they were the most thorough, they had the most elaborate superstructure, or to put it differently, they were the most modern ... Other pogroms were the work of peasants. The pogroms of the Volunteer Army, on the other hand, had three different participants: the peasant, the Cossack and the Russian officer ... The particularly bloody nature of these massacres can be explained by the fact that these three types of murderers reinforced one another

and by deleting that source and the paragraph that mentioned that Denikin's Russian White Army was the main perpetrator of pogroms, you are going against the fundamental principle of Wikipedia WP:Neutral Point of View--Piznajko (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ps. Not sure if relevant at all to this discussion, but the article on Richard Pipes states that Peter Kenez was a student of Richard Pipes at some point.--Piznajko (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No one tells that Kenez is bad. It's just that he wrote a book on a different subject and did not provide any numbers about this (unless I am mistaken). My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're mistaken. When Richard Pipes states in his book that UNR carried the largest number of pogroms (and Pipes provides a specific break down of # of pogroms in his book) it does not contradict Peter Kenez's statement that the Volunteer Army [ed. Denikin's Russian White Army]'s pogroms differed from mass killings carried out by its competitors; they were the most thorough, they had the most elaborate superstructure, or to put it differently, they were the most modern . Btw, your latest edit where you "added back Peter Kenez's source did not result in desired WP:NPV in that section (as compared to how that point was raised in the Consensus version) because you entirely omitted Kenez's point that Denikin's Russian White Army forces were the most brutal. --Piznajko (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not mind including first phrase from your quotation. It is general enough and does not contradict other sources. So included. However, debating Denikin (rather than Petliura) in length on this page is undue. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And downplaying Denikin's Russian White Army involvement in pogroms (which was present in the last consensus version) by only including the source that states that Petliura's UNR forces committed the majority of pogroms is DUE?--Piznajko (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My another objection (see above) was that debating who killed more Jews is not appropriate for this page, but belongs to another page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Once again, I just included this [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And when you included that, you mentioned in your edit summary [16] that you still think it's UNDUE to include P. Kenez's statement that Denikin's Russian White Army forces's actions in pogroms were the most brutal. If I learned anything from my 2 months of interactions with you, is that you are not afraid to go back on your earlier statements. So if you're saying "you think it's UNDUE" to include it, I'm hearing "In a few days/weeks/months" when the dust settles in that information can be removed "citing UNDUE weight".--Piznajko (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I have no such intention. It's just that I personally would not include it, but we should come to a compromise. I personally would make this version with link to another wikipage. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Another source, not by P. Kenez but by by Serhy Yekelchyk, that unequivocally states that only Denikin's Russian White Army forces were ideologically motivated in their pogroms (Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation; Oxford University Press 2007--Piznajko (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The violent Jewish pogroms that claimed more that 30,000 lives were perhaps the most tragic conseqence of the chaos in Ukraine in 1919. All sices in the Civil War perpetrated pogroms: the Whites, the Directory troops, the independent otamans, and the Red Army. With the exception of some White ideologically motivated pogroms, the anti-Jewish violence was usually carried out by drunken mobs of anti-Semitic freebooters against authorities' orders.

Sure, but it is already included on the page, and telling more about Denikin would be definitely undue on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The article here is about Petlyura, not about Denikin and not about who killed more Jews. They all were guilty. Other sources can be found, that say Petlyura is responsible for more deaths than Denikin. Let us concentrate on Petlyura and just mention Volunteer Army as well as to some extent Red Army also were responsible, in addition to Petlyura.Miacek (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and the Volunteer Army is already mentioned on the page. But we are not going to discuss here the ideological motivations of Denikin's army. Petliura army - yes, maybe, not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources that would diminish (they lie) Petliura's role in trying to stop the pogroms (22 to 27) are all massively biased. Ukrainian Historical Association? Letters and articles? A dead link? Ghastly. Petliura was a rabid anti-semite and so were (and have always been) the Ukrainian "nationalists". 177.66.6.107 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and Same source listed several times

"It has been documented that Petliura actively sought to halt anti-Jewish violence on numerous occasions, introducing capital punishment for the crime of pogroming"

This (at the very end) includes several citations from the same author. I do not think any of the sources cited are reliable but at the very least the same author shouldn't get 3 or 4 of the citations... 2600:1700:A1C1:9C20:580F:2570:9FD6:479E (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Good catch. I made some changes to address this. –Ploni (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)