Talk:Podkamień massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pidkamin massacre)

Reliable sources[edit]

  1. Mikolaj Falkowski, Podkamień. Perła Kresów. Miejsce pamięci ofiar UPA. Official webpage of the Polish Radio
  2. Grzegorz Motyka, Ukraińska Partyzantka 1942-1960, Warszawa 2006
  3. Henryk Komański, Szczepan Siekierka, Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach w województwie tarnopolskim w latach 1939-1946; 1182 pages, format B5, 379 illustrations, hard cover
  4. Mikolaj Falkowski, Podkamień. Perła Kresów. Miejsce pamięci ofiar UPA. Official webpage of the Polish Radio
  5. Pure soldiers or sinister legion: the Ukranian 14th Waffen-SS Division By Sol Littman, page 75
  6. Genocide and rescue in Wołyń by Tadeusz Piotrowski, page 245
  7. Ziemia Lwowska (Lviv Land), by Grzegorz Rakowski, page 339
  • 1=This is a foreign language web page sources need to be verifiable
  • 2=Presume this is a foreign language book but the page number is required
  • 3=As 2 above
  • 4=As 1 above
  • 5=A Google books book review is not a reliable source
  • 6=The source quotes the police regiments of SS-Galizien and teh UPA were responsible. SS Galizien did not have a police regiment.
  • 7=A foreign language book sources need to be verifiable as this is the English wikipedia sources should be verifiable in english. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see a large amount of bad faith here, presented by user Jim Sweeney. I guess we will have to go to WP:RS, but before we do it, a clarification.
  1. Source 1 is an official webpage of Polish Radio, equivalent of BBC, and your worries, Jim Sweeney, are groundless here.
  2. Source 2 - Grzegorz Motyka is a renowned, professional historian, who specializes in Polish-Ukrainian relations.
  3. Source 3 has not been provided by me,
  4. Source 4 - again, official webpage of Polish Radio, it takes a lot of bias to call it unreliable,
  5. Source 5 - a book by Sol Littman, former Canadian Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. User Jim Sweeney has not dedicated a second of his time to check it, calling it a book review.
  6. Source 6. A book by Tadeusz Piotrowski, professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Why is it unreliable?
  7. Source 7. Let me remind user Jim Sweeney that sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available.
Awaiting opinion of other users. Tymek (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check the refs as above the Foreign language ones are unverifiable, ref 5 is to a book review and yes I have read it and ref 6 is just wrong as stated they did not have a police regiment in the division. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still awaiting opinions of uninvolved users. BTW Jim Sweeney, if you think that Tadeusz Piotrowski of the University of New Hampshire is wrong, simply become a professor, and write a book which will be used by the others as a source. For now, all I see isIDONTLIKEIT. Tymek (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Jim Sweeney, per discussion on WP:RS, please remove the tags. If you do not do so, I will do it. And if you insist on tagging the article, you will be reported to WT:AIV. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sol Littman is not a historian. He doesn't even have a history degree: [2] and his education consists of a master's degree in "Holocaust Studies." He has also admitted in court to lying about Joseph Mengele being in Canada. A newspaper article is here. The article is from a legitimate newspaper although the website that has put the article online is a racist antisemitic one. The publisher of Littman's book, Black Rose, is not an academic publisher but one specializing in left-wing anarchist politics (see here). #3 is clearly unacceptable, #7 I don't know about but I hope it's just another Nortom "work". I have reservations about Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist). His work meets the Wiki criteria for a relaible source (it is published by an academic press) but the man's specialty is sociology rather than history. So using him here is like using a chemist as a source for a biology article. I'd be careful with him, at least with respect to details that are controversial.Faustian (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrowski is quite reliable. You may want to read up on the existence of fields such as historical sociology. I recently attended American Sociological Association General Meeting, and listened to some interesting papers on The Holocaust. So yes, there is lot of respected and reliable historical - sociological research out there, and Piotrowski's work is a prime example of that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but historical sociology is not the same as history. If we were using Piotrowski to document the impact of the massacres on Polish society then and now, cultural development, etc. he would be an excellent source. From the wiki page: "Historical sociology is a branch of sociology focusing on how societies develop through history. It looks at how social structure that many regard as natural are in fact shaped by complex social processes. The structure in turn shapes institutions and organizations, and they affect the society - resulting in phenomena ranging from gender bias, income inequality and war. Contemporary historical sociology is primarily concerned with how the state has developed since the Middle Ages, analyzing relations between states, classes, economic and political systems." Piotrowski would be an excellent source for this stuff. But he's not being used that way here. Instead hisotrical facts (or "facts") are found in his books and placed here. To make the analogy, there is an overlap between biology and biochemistry. But a chemist specializing in the latter field wouldn't be the best source for a work on comparative zoology.Faustian (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A book doesn't have to be written by a historian to contain reliable facts about history. I see no problem using Piotrowski here, unless a fact we cite from his work is contradicted by another academic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrowski tends to recite Prus' claims uncritically. I also recall (and don't have the time now to look up the specific locations of this info, doing so wil take hours) Piotrowski's book including a passage referring to an UPA member admitting that he received an order to kill civilians. The same incident was discussed in the book about UPA from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. It stated that the confession was obtained under NKVD interogation and thus was dubious. Piotrowski didn't say anything about how the confession was obtained, only that an UPA leader admitted that he got orders to slaughter civilians. I'm not sure Piotrowski was himself being deceptive; he may have just repeated what he had read from Prus or some other dubious source. My point is that with respect to historical details Piotrowski isn't much better than any other non-historian and no more reliable. If it's not a controversial issue, then who cares. But when it comes to serious accusations we need to set the bar higher than that.Faustian (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So can you state clearly - perhaps in another section - which of Piotrowski's claims sourced here are dubious, and why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None sourced here. I was speaking in general. If you go through the google-books link in this article, however, and read further, you basically have a collection of smears repeated without criticism from among others some dubious anti-Ukrainian sources such as Wiktor Poliszczuk, facts taken out of context (trying to portray, through implication, that the head of the Ukrainian Church Andrey Sheptytsky as pro-Nazi) etc. The bottom line is that the guy is a sociologist, not a historian, his degree is in sociology as is his profession. If it's not controversial, it doesn't bother me but I'd prefer a higher standard for controversial stuff (such as corroboration from historians, which actually is the case with respect to the Pidkamin massacre so I have no problem with his citation in this article).Faustian (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THis one would seem to be- Polish historian Piotrowski claimed the SS Halychyna Division, was responsible. Piotrowski, p.230 As there was never any SS Halchyna Division.
  • Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1998). Poland's holocaust: ethnic strife, collaboration with occupying forces and genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947. McFarland. ISBN 0786403713. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, Jim Sweeney, you have found a misspelling or rather, a different spelling of the division, and you use it as a source that Piotrowski is a dubious scholar. We have 7,810 Google hits for this [3], which means that perhaps Piotrowski was not so wrong in calling the division Halychyna. Tymek (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPA and SS Galizien[edit]

I know of no campaigns or actions where the two military groups, UPA and the Galizien divizion functioned together. Either it was one, or the other. Can anyone enlighten me? Bandurist (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially yes, unofficially there was common enemy - Poles. After Brody some soldiers SS-Galizien joined UPA--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Brody battle there were no interaction between the groups. There could not have been any joint actions. Either its one, or the other. None of this Officially no, unofficially yes. If a soldier from the Galizien division went over to the UIA they were n longer in the division and were treated like deserters. It is either one or the other. Bandurist (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Huta Pieniacka was cooperation, in Podkamień and Palikrowy as well.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the book by Ilyushin the 4th and 5th police regiments were seperated from the Division and placed under entirely separate German police command. These regiments did cooperate with local UPA in the massacre at Huta Pieniacka and others. The Division itself did not, and Bandurist is correct that members of the Division who left to join UPA were considered deserters. I believe some were shot when caught.Faustian (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4-5 regiments had same command as Galizien, same nationality. There wasnt any diffrence beetwen 1 or 4 regiment.--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be what you personally believe, the source states that the 4th and 5th police regiments were seperated from the Division and placed under entirely separate German police command. They were integrated into the Division a few months later. At the time of this massacre and other ones, these regiments were seperate from the Division. I'm not sure what you mean by "1-4 regiment." The 4th and the 5th were the ones killing civilians in February and March 1944. Incidentally, I'm not sure about the numbers, I recall reading somewhere that each one had 300-400 men, out of the division's total of 25,000. So less than 4% of the Division's troops. I'll obviously have to track down this info before putting it into the article.Faustian (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

Exceptional claim of UPA/SS joint action requires exceptional sources. I do not see that here. Bobanni (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what you mean by exceptional sources? Tymek (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Redflag "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[1] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Bobanni (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motyka is a reliable source. This tragedy is also described in the work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. On the other hand, of course some editors have used nonreliable sources as well.Faustian (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of reliable source - it is a question for exceptional source for an exceptional claim. Bobanni (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now we know what exceptional sources are. Now another question - why do we need exceptional sources here, in this article, and not in the article Operation Vistula for example, in which we read that 500 [Ukrainians] were sentenced to death and executed, without any source at all? Tymek (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you think that there is another article with exception claim without high quality please deal with is on the appropriate TALK PAGE. Bobanni (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exception claim in this article is that the events described in this article were joint UPA and SS actions. There is no high-quality source for this. Please supply a source or the claim will have to be deleted. Bobanni (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no-one disputed the statement. If you find it offensive go ahead and mark it up and we'll put a source to it. --Bandurist (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are below article, read first than make claims.--Paweł5586 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is properly sourced, if you so strongly disagree with it, please take it to WP:RS or some arbitration page, where you will explain your point to uninvolved admins. For now, please do not delete referenced information, as it will be treated as vandalism. Tymek (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Bandurist: I agree that some of the soures here for eceptional claims are not "exceptional" _ piotrowski and SOl Littman come to mind. On the other hand other, clearly reliable soyurces to confirm the pasrticipation of units of the Division with UPA with respect to this massacre. Motyka is here; the work by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences also states this. This isn't another Chodaczkow Wielki.13:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This idea—that exceptional claims require exceptional sources—has an intellectual history which traces back through the Enlightenment. In 1758, David Hume wrote in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."[1]

Galizien[edit]

The Division was known as the SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien" - from August 1943 to 27 July 1944, i.e during the period in which the alleged massacre took place. However during this period they were still in training. Bandurist (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although some of the soldiers of the Galizien Division did join up with the UIA after the Battle of Brody, they would not have been any co-operation between them, particularly in the period when the Division was in training. According to Maks's memoirs the UIA he commanded had been fighting the Germans at the time. ҃҃Bandurist (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"alleged" ? Are questioning the fact that the actual events took place Bandurist? Please clarify. Thank you.--173.10.121.193 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

Some important content is being repeatedly removed[[4]] by the user Bandurist (talk) who refuses to explain the reasons for the removal on the talk page. Please check the edit history of this page.--Jacurek (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Littman a credible source?[edit]

Sol Littman - a credible source????? During the Deschenes Commission under oath, Sol Littman testified that his "documentation" to support his outrageous allegation that Josef Mengele had entered Canada, was "analyzed" by two "retired" civil servants, but that both had "exacted" from him a pledge not to reveal their names.

Under threat of a criminal charge, he did reveal their names as Al Naylor and Corporal Fred Yetter. Under oath, Naylor testified that he had analyzed no document for Littman nor had he exacted any pledge of confidentially [Vol. 25, p.3446] --- he had never seen the documentation until it was shown to his by the commission [Vol. 25, p.3426]. He also testified that Littman deliberately made up his "retired" status in order to deceive the Deschenes Commission [Vol. 23, p.3417]. Inquiring minds would like to know why Littman was never charged with perjury for lying to a Royal Commission.

Articles attesting to Sol Littman's deceptions appeared in: Hamilton Spectator, Dec. 7, 1985 - Windsor Star Dec 5, 1985 - Globe and Mail Jan 23, 1985 - Toronto Star Jan 23, 1985 - Ukrainian Echo Feb. 1986 - Globe and Mail Jan 31, 1997.

I don't think he is credible. „„„„

He also is not a historian, nor does he have a degree in history: [5]. And his book is published by a small left-wing publishing house rather than by a university press. He should be removed here.Faustian (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has already been taken to RS, and if you want to do it again, feel free. What I mean is that we will be arguing here forever, we disagree with each other on it, and I fear it may lead to a heated argument, which I would like to avoid. Tymek (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any links? I find it hard to believe that he would pass any sort of test.Faustian (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search of wp:rsn for Littman has only one hit - mentioned in passing. Is he credible? Bobanni (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I first came across hinm when doing research for my article on the Soviet Annexation of Western Ukraine. On page 47 Littman wrote: "The Soviet occupation of the Western Ukraine was relatively benign." In his acknowledgment section, he thanks Wiktor Poliszczuk describing his work as "an important monograph." Littman does not have a Ph.D. and his master's degree is not in history but in Holocaust Studies. This topic is not about the Holocaust. Littman's book is not published by a university of academic institute but by Black Rose, a left-wing activist press. There is no standard by which it meets the criteria of a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, all sources which mention about UPA'a, Galizien crimes are not reliable for you, I am going to stop reading your comments about it. You are biased.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, and you know this is not true because already several times I have highlighted to you how I have written about the OUN's participation in the murder of 200,000 Volhynian Jews, I have referenced Snyder, I have on this very talk page stated that this massacre has happened and have referred to the work of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences which described this massacre. Rather than address my concerns or discuss the topic here, you have chosen to make a personal attack. Consider this your last warning. Please stop continuing to state untruths about me. I hope I don't have to take this any further, but rest assured if you continue in this behavior I will have no other choise.Faustian (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that Sol has a personal POV and he has demonstrated on numerous occasions, even under oath in court, that he doesn't let the facts get in the way of promoting his own personal POV. This is what often happens with non-professional historians. They have an abundance of information, mainly because of the passion they have regarding the particular topic they are pursuing, however, they lack the professionalism to step back and review all the particular information from a neutral POV, not just selecting information that supports their particular POV, and discounting information that does not. Taking a neutral stance is very important in order to come to conclusion that closest reflects the actual truth. Undoubtably, he has an abundance of information, however, he has demonstrated poor judgment regarding his use of this information on numerous occasions. As a result, we do not know where-else he has viewed this subjects through a selective or distorted perspective. As a result we need to discount his writings and focus on demonstrated credible sources, particularly in delicate subjects such as this. Bandurist (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody has some kind of POV, even the best historians in the world. Still, I seriously doubt if Littman has any kind of anti-Ukrainian or pro-Polish bias. And his court trial is not related to Pidkamin massacre in any way. Tymek (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows what biases he has (I suspect, pro-Soviet bias, based on the quote from his book ""The Soviet occupation of the Western Ukraine was relatively benign."). Thr point however is that he is not a historian, does not even have a Ph.D., and the book isn't published by an academic press but by a small anarchist press. And he also admits to basing his work on that of Wiktor Poliszczuk who definitely isn't a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This article will never stand up to scrutiny if in line citations are not added where required. Stating the refs are in next sentences or likewise does not count every statement should be cited by removing the fact and page needed tags can only lead me to wonder why some editors are not trying to improve the article where required. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not easy to find informations about this subject. Its not England. At this territory was Poland, later were Germans, Russians, now is Ukraine. For some Ukrainians SS-Galizien soldiers are heroes, so they didnt want to write about massacres. In Poland we had 45 years of communist lies and propaganda. Many eyewitnesses have died, many ewidences were lost. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult part of our common history, and one which is not well documented, but because of its inflammatory potential it needs to be documented accurately and well. It is better to not jump to conclusions and to err on the side of caution and add things as accurate documentation is discovered than to add things that build up a case on undocumented sources which may lead to innaccurate conclussions. Bandurist (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney, I am sorry, but I do not get it. The article is rather short, and it has seven sources, with a number of inline citations, as almost every sentence is cited. What do you want - citations for every word? I do not know your biases, but your scrutiny here goes too far. Do you expect such standards from all articles on Wikipedia? I checked your contributions, and found Battle of Neuve Chapelle, the article much longer than Pidkamin massacre, with only one source. Where is the consistency? Tymek (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All statements need a cite, tags were added but as already stated they keep getting removed. So you can understand what should be cited, I will add the fact tags again, then editors can try and find references. On another note if you had really checked the Battle of Neuve Chapelle all I added was a link to another article, and that articles factual accuracy is not disputed. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paweł5586 has removed the citation required tags I have just added to the article, with the edit history of removing vandalism adding cite tags is an attempt to improve the article. This is one reason that the factual accuracy is disputed and even with presumed good faith leads to wonder if you are able to find any references for the claims. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We got 8 refnootes, and two sources with exact description of crime. Thats enough. I can scan those pages and show you pages from book. Do you want? --Paweł5586 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Information on Sources[edit]

Why is this repeatedly done? The reader ought to know who is claiming what.Faustian (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

factual accuracy[edit]

And what's the explanation for this tag? Is there a sentence or section which fails verifiability?radek (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See section "Disputed" Bobanni (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's not the right tag for this kind of an objection. If you're objecting to reliability of sources then tag them or bring it up on RSN.radek (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advise - however I believe that you are mistaken. Bobanni (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed[edit]

The article states Estimates of victims include 150 , more than 250 and up to 1000. then goes onto say Around 2,000 people were living at the monastery when it was attacked in March 1944 and then the UIA opened fire and entered the monastery complex, and massacred all the inhabitants including the clergy so if the maximum of 1000 victims is correct what happened to the other 1000 ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may have fled. This needs to be clarified however.--Jacurek (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, stop making your vandalisms. Second read carefully - and that night some of the inhabitants managed to escape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paweł5586 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pawel, please clarify when requested. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between some and about 1000 to 1850. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I already requested clarification from the author.--Jacurek (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, at first day attack had been repelled, at night many people fled. Second: Monastery is/was a big complex with many places to hide include large basements, towers, caves Look in youtube. Next 3 days after massacre ukrainian nationalist were coming to the monastery and trying to find more Poles. They were camping several days in nearby Podamień town. --Paweł5586 (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found information - 2 thousand according to Siekierka was in the monastery and in Podkamin town. There were many refugees from Volhynia. --Paweł5586 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point that needs clarification: Palikrowy massacre states that the Galitzen members who participated were not in fact part of the division at the time of the massacres, but were detached and under different command. Is this true, and if so it should probably be mentioned here as well (if it is not true then it ought to be removed from the Palikrowy page).72.231.248.182 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian) states likewise that the units were detached from the division at the time of all atrocities (ref. 39 on that page, I think).72.231.248.182 (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Podkamień_massacre&oldid=1225255499"