Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre

Requested move

Fântâna Albă incident → Fântâna Albă massacre — "massacre" is, in addition to being a much more accurate description of what happened than "incident", is what this event is called in common parlance in Romanian and in every source we have found. K. Lásztocska 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Strong support, per everything I have stated in the discussion. K. Lásztocska 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong support, per K. Lásztocska's arguments. And also because "mass killing" is "massacre" no matter how people feel about heavy words. Daizus 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support, per Daizus and Turgidson, "incident" is non-descript to the point that it white-washes this butchery of life. While hundreds were killed initially, the final death toll was far higher as survivors were tied to horses and dragged to their deaths, shot, etc. in the most brutal way possible. One could argue "massacre" is too kind a word. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support, per nomination, previous comments, and everything I have stated in the discussion. It was a (cold-blooded) massacre, so let's call it what it was. Turgidson 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong support: backed up by historiography and precedent, along with a weak opposing argument. Biruitorul 06:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong support: per my previous comments. Wikipedia should not whitewash such events and should not apply double standards (all the massacres are described as massacres, not as "incidents"). Mentatus 07:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support: per all of the above. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per all above. Name it with the right name. - Darwinek 09:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong support: As all said above. It was a massacre, not just a small incident. --Roamataa 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Support, per everything said here. Dahn 10:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Support, name it with the right name.. Arie Inbar 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per arguments presented. A duck is a duck, not a flying object...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per nom, I feel euphemisms like calling this a mere "incident" insults the memory of the victims. Also, the mentioned Romanian sources use the word "massacre", so it seems to be the most common usage. – Alensha ^talk 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Support per nom, etc. "incident" is a dead-obvious sanitising euphamism István 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. "Massacre" seems established in usage, and euphemisms of this kind are harmful. Todor→Bozhinov 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
16. Support per K. Lásztocska. Appleseed (Talk) 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose the usage of strong terms in the titles without need. Strong terms should be kept out of the article's titles whenever possible, unless the widely established name in the English historiography suggests otherwise. Strong terms can and should be used in the article's text if their usage is referenced but this is precisely why (our ability to reference them in the text) they should be kept to the article's body and not to the titles. In the absence of the widely established English name, a descriptive name should be used which is as neutral as possible. The well-referenced in article usage is much more convincing to the reader than the alarming titles which may likely make one think that this is "one of those" article. --Irpen 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Irpen and WP:NPOV. The term "massacre" is a POV loaded english term and with the absence of an overwhelmingly WP:COMMONNAME English usage, there is no reason to use such a POV oriented term. 205.157.110.11 08:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment about the common name: you're right that there is no common name for it in English, but in Romanian it is always called a massacre. And this is about Romanian history....K. Lásztocska 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - consider usage precedents of Wounded Knee incident and Wounded Knee massacre (two separate events) one can clearly see the Fântâna Albă event is most accurately described as a massacre. István 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose - we have to avoid POV terms in the titles. Lets the fact speak for themselves. Obviously no objection to use the word massacre in the body of the article Alex Bakharev 00:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I defy you to move Orangeburg massacre (3 killed) to "Orangeburg incident", and Boston Massacre, Greensboro massacre and Jonesboro massacre (5 killed in each) to ""Boston incident", "Greensboro incident" and "Jonesboro incident". And, for that matter, The Holocaust as a title is heavily POV in a sense, so do try moving that as well. Biruitorul 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I still don't understand why it's not acceptable to use the word "massacre" in the title if it's perfectly OK in the main text. I agree that the facts should speak for themselves, but in this case, one of the FACTS is that this was a massacre. History does not come tied up in neat little NPOV packages (although how much nicer it would be if it did!), sometimes terrible things happen and it is hardly an NPOV violation to call a spade a spade--in fact, IMHO, it is more of a violation to call things by misleadingly mild names. K. Lásztocska 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC) PS--uh-oh, Biru, let's not invoke Godwin's Law, it only weakens our position...though I do agree. :) K. Lásztocska

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Canvassing warning

Unfortunately, the integrity of this vote has been affected by the high scale canvassing campaign run by User:Biruitorul. I don't know how many votes he canvassed off-wiki, but his campaigning on-wiki has been hectic and wide-scale. See: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Therefore, the mere headcount should be discounted and rather the arguments of the sides should be taken into account. On the side note, I hope User:Biruitorul will stop this spoiling activity. --Irpen 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Biru, you forgot to canvass me. ;-) István 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, István! Irpen: I don't think it affects the validity of the vote, particularly as the bulk of these individuals had already expressed their opinions on this matter and may simply not have been aware that a vote was going on, and because they are all respected Wikipedians. However, I agree to cease and desist. Biruitorul 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! Biru, they're on to us! The Transylvanian Cabal has been exposed! István--wanna join? :) K. Lásztocska 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: Let's start from the assumption that people are capable of free will, and not simple automatons, shall we? Turgidson 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. The matter at hand is that if one campaigns to bring voters (of free will without doubt) that one knows to likely share his POV, this spoils the fairness of the vote. In political elections, this is called the campaigning to increase the turnout of one's base. All I am saying that since this happened, the headcount should be discounted and, instead, the arguments should be given more weight. --Irpen 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's your personal interpretation of how the vote is proceeding. An alternative interpretation would be that you don't like the results of the vote, and so you are trying to invalidate it, by picking on Biruitorul. No fair. As for the arguments, what arguments? You only made one argument, whereas the people supporting the move have made a baker's dozen arguments -- and not just that, added new info to the article, added references (which, as pointed out many times, almost always use the same word, "massacre", with "tragedy" used in the Moldovan History & Law PhD curriculum), and kept bringing new info to this talk pages. So let's not misrepresent the dynamics of this process, shall we? Turgidson 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What "personal interpretation"? Diffs are facts. I merely showed that the headcount may be affected by canvassing and provided the diffs for that. I am not picking on anyone. I made my case, others made their's. But than, on top of it we see the "Se votează" campaign run by one side. I am merely making a note of it rather than try to "pick on" anyone. --Irpen 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always been perplexed by these sorts of accusations of canvassing. I've heard them from multiple Wikipedians on multiple occasions, and 99% of the time it's in reaction to a simple "your thoughts and input would be appreciated here." If just notifying one's fellow editors of a discussion they might be interested in and might have something to contribute to is somehow against the rules, then why do we even have noticeboards and user talk pages? There was no coercion to vote one way or the other, no instruction or even suggestion, it was simply notification, which people (yes, having free will) are free to ignore, vote for, or vote against. K. Lásztocska 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note 8 out of the 15 voters arguing "pro massacre" so far have already expressed their opinion on this talk page. You have ignored their opinion then, you're insulting their opinion now. Daizus 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your evidence, with just a bit of WP:AGF and attention, you could have found out one of the messages was not a call of vote but a call of discussion (being posted at the end of March, before this RM even existed!) while some of the messages calling to vote where addressed to users who already expressed their opinion in this talk page. Therefore, your assessment is inaccurate and your conclusions are betraying your true colors. Have you at least checked the user page of your sole supporter in this poll: "This IP address, 205.157.110.11, is registered to Office Depot and is shared by multiple users."? Daizus 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True colors, huh? What are those? And please start a separate section to discuss my colors. I don't mind. To the contrary, I would read your assessment of my true colors with a great degree of interest. --Irpen 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring the majority view and promote a POV. You want a name for it? POV-pusher. Happy now? Daizus 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This poll is being affected by a hectic canvassing campaign, see below. If you are here because someone "asked you to vote", please do realize that the mere headcount is not what matters most in the moving polls and be sure to read the discussion and supply your vote with an explanation. Thanks, --Irpen 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If the editors voting have a demonstrated participation and competence in Eastern European articles and discussions, I would think these would be included. If you feel there are editors to make a competent case opposite to the direction the poll is tending, I at least would not object to their participating in the poll and discussion. I would, however, expect a more substantive justification than "massacre" sounds like a POV word. At this point, a strong case would need to be made that the word "massacre" does not factually apply. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Point is not just this is a "POV-word" but a POV-word which did not happen to become an established name for the event in English-language historiography. Now, may I ask you to keep you arguments within the proper sections below specifically allocated for that? --Irpen 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You have brought no source, there's no English-language historiography except your WP:OR. And since you're disrupting this poll with your inapropriate comments and understanding, I think editors are entitled to reply to your harmful comments. Daizus 21:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't bring a source that proves this name is not established in English language historiography. Citing absence of something is impossible. If you want to prove me wrong, you should cite the English-language sources that use this term. It is that simple. --Irpen 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the straw men. I've said there's no English language historiography. You're attempting to create an English terminology out of nothing, hence you're guilty of WP:OR. We're attempting to translate one. Please bring sources from other languages to support your view. You have no source at all. Daizus 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be helpful for respondents to indicate why in particular they support the move, that is, is there a particular aspect in their minds which conjures the term "massacre." We need to document the consensus/bases of exactly why "strong" wording is appropriate so that if/when the move is done, we do not have someone come in 3 months from now and start reverting. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This would have been an OR attempting to show that the term "qualifies". What editors need to show is the usage of the term in English historiography as an established name for the event. --Irpen 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation is not WP:OR. Invention it is. Now please read the sources and see where each sides stands. Daizus 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it was Irpen himself who insisted that a poll was necessary before any page-moving resumed. [7] But now that the poll is turning out against him, he tries to discredit it. Very cynical, sir, very cynical. At least I won't be suffering from any irony deficiency any time soon. K. Lásztocska 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true - a bit like the Algerian legislative election, 1991. Also, let me reiterate that I never told anyone how to vote, but was merely providing information. There may have been a subtle hint at how people should vote (à la Citizen Change), but there was no pressure (not that I have the power to apply pressure, anyway). Remember, voting is compulsory in Australia and Belgium: if the government reminds people to vote there, it's not encouraging them to vote for a particular party, but just to vote, right? Biruitorul 02:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Personal attacks stop here. Discuss article content, not other editors. Please. Khoikhoi 02:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vague reference to a scholar

During the first year of Soviet domination, a Ukrainian scholar puts the number of refugees to Romania at 7,000, but this number could easily have been much higher. What is his name? The article will be better if you add this source. Ştefan44 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă Massacre

I fully agree with the proposal made by Biruitorul at Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania#Additional source: this article should be renamed "Fântâna Albă Massacre". For that's what it was, so let's call it that way. Turgidson 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will also register my support for such a move. Not only because yes, that's what it was, but also because all the Romanian sources linked to in the article use the word "massacre". Be warned though, any move like this is likely to be veeeeeeery controversial.....neutrality police and all.....K. Lásztocska 03:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree with the move. Odessa, Iaşi, Dorohoi, Ip, Treznea were not "incidents" either... Mentatus 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with "Fântâna Albă Massacre".

However, since when a killing becomes a mass killing, a massacre? This figure here seems large enough, but is there any boundary to say - 9 people killed is not massacre, 10 people killed is? If we decide to use an estabilished terminology we can choose the predominant usage from secondary sources. In our case, the references point again to "massacre". But I can imagine a situation when the current usage does not give a clear choice of words, being several concurrent alternatives and when the number is small enough to be controversial. Daizus 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it Stalin who said "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million people is statistics"? Mentatus 11:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dahn 11:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Masacrul de la Fântâna Alba", "Masacrul din Fântâna Alba"--fairly obvious. :) Mentatus, yes, that was Sztalin, probably the most chilling but most perceptive thing he ever said. Daizus, you do raise an important point, but I think trying to define number limits for what defines a massacre could put us on a very dangerous and slippery path. Better to just use the name as it is in common parlance in Romanian--after all, the Boston Massacre killed I think 4 people, but we don't fight about changing that name, because that's what it's always been called. K. Lásztocska 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's the most chilling (and best known) quote from Uncle Joe. Probably the next best known quote is "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?". At Fântâna Albă, they only had wooden crosses -- a poor defense against machine-gun fire. So both Tătuca Stalin's famous dictums applied here, in some fashion... Turgidson 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The pope quote is actually sort of funny, in a sick and twisted way. :) Have we got consensus on renaming yet? :) K. Lásztocska 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why it shouldn't be called a "massacre":

1. It wasn't ethnically-motivated, so it can't be compared with the anti-jewish pogroms, the massacres in transylvania or the massacre that followed the khotin insurrection.
2. Those people were doing something illegal and were aware of it. They didn't just stay in their homes when they were killed (unlike the above massacres).
3. They were directly warned (i don't know the english for "a soma") that they'll be shot if they don't stop, but they consciously decided to continue.(unlike the above massacres, were the warnings, if they existed, were indirect and aimed at a more general group -i.e. jews)
4. Soviet border guards had serious reasons to believe that the group charging at them was armed (previously armed groups had breached the frontier)

Anonimu 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, massacres don't necessarily have to be ethnically motivated, and even if they were doing something illegal and knew it, they still all died...K. Lásztocska 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Justifying the cold-blooded massacre of peaceful, unarmed civilians by armed troops on the spurious grounds that those poor peasants were doing something "illegal" and were "charging" at the border guards is grotesque. I don't know about all the subtleties of wikipedia etiquette, but in my book at least, such speech is beyond the pale. Could we please refrain from rationalizing mass murder on these talk pages? Thank you. Turgidson 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those soviet soldiers should be blamed for not being clairvoyants and using general logic, and ultimately for doing their duty as border guards. and BTW, peaceful civilians stop when they're told they'd be shot if they don't.Anonimu 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The peasants were desperate, of course they didn't behave like proper peaceful civilians at a Russian tea party. Even if the Soviet soldiers were not 100% in the wrong (talk about debatable, BTW), they still killed hundreds of people, therefore it was a massacre. K. Lásztocska 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much the individual soldiers were at fault for shooting unarmed civilians -- after all, they were presumably following orders, though it's debatable whether that's an excuse for commiting atrocities (see, eg, Nuremberg Trials). But the orders (judging from the whole setup of the massacre, as made clear in the article) must have come from on high in the hierarchy of NKVD border troops. Be that as it may, sorry if I repeat myself, but I find this sort of speech fawningly approving mass murder of innocent civilians (irrespective of who they were, what their circumstances were, or what was their nationality, creed, race, or beliefs) appaling in the extreme. Turgidson 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If those unarmed civilians would have stayed at their homes / on their side of the border this would have never happened. period.Anonimu 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Jews had remained in Israel, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened, either. Biruitorul 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

again your ultra-nationalist view according to which everything is ethnically motivated. But Jews were hounded out of Israel. (of course this doesn't justify their attacks on the palestianians). On the other hand, the people who participated in this incident were told to go back to their homes.Anonimu 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with "ultra-nationalism". You're still justifying the killing of innocent civilians. Let's ask another question: would the US Navy have been justified in shooting passengers on the SS St. Louis if it had tried to dock in Florida? What if they had escaped on lifeboats? Should they still have been shot? Biruitorul 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If there would have been a suspicion that the group was armed, they would have been justified to shoot them, after warning them of course...Anonimu 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything could be suspicious, but neither group actually was. Biruitorul 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet border guards had serious reasons to believe they were.Anonimu 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

200 corpses beg to differ. Biruitorul 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say something like that, you beat me to it. :) Anonimu, that is outrageous, offensive and absurd. K. Lásztocska 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Said in the true spirit of the NKVD: people should simply stay home and do what the Communist party tells them to do, huh? You know, mon cher, if that had been the case, we would never had had computers (a "bourgeois" invention, to be sure: see John von Neumann and Alan Turing), or the internet (see Tim Berners-Lee), or wikipedia (see Jimmy Wales). In other words, if the world had stayed true to the spirit of Josef Stalin that you apparently so revere (and that's your privilege, go for it), we would not have had this kind of conversation, would we? Rather, we'd each be cowering in our rooms, afraid the NKVD or one of its successor agencies (or ofshoots) would come down, knocking at the door at 3am in the morning. By the way, do you know how many millions of unarmed civilians simply stayed at home, only to be taken away to those charming Gulag camps, never to return? In fact, as the article says, many more in those villages in Bukovina on April 1, 1941 (66 years ago!) perished that way -- that is, by simply staying home, only to be dragged to forced labor and almost certain death somewhere in the frozen tundras of Siberia. Perhaps, ultimately, those poor souls who were gunned down by the NKVD border guards at Fântâna Albă were the lucky ones: at least, their death came fast and furious. Requiescat in pace. Turgidson 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that. romanian user here seem to be able to read minds... and then you ask why i don't trust romanian authors... BTW, were talking about the incident, not what happened afterwards (and anyway things didn't happen the way you present them)Anonimu 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lux æterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in æternum, quia pius es. Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; et lux perpetua luceat eis. (I love Latin. Who says it's a dead language??) K. Lásztocska 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, the 228 Incident did kill 10,000-20,000 people. But that's what history has come to call it. Fântâna Albă, on the other hand, is always called a massacre. Biruitorul 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Roamataa 09:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the generation born in 2000 will be the first not affected by ceausescu's nationalism...Anonimu 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Ceauşescu, or nationalism. Rather, it has all to do with basic humanity, and respect for human life—and the historical record. Moreover, things did happen the way I presented them—a good deal of those who stayed home (and thus were not massacred at the border crossing) were later picked up by the NKVD and shipped to the Gulag. In fact, I think this point should be more forcefully made in the article — those peasants were not irrationally attempting to cross the border into Romania; rather, they were trying to escape harsh conditions and even persecution. This has happened countless times through history—people fleeing from harm's way, going to another region or another country when conditions become unbearable back home (a romanticized view of the process can be seen in The Sound of Music). But only extremely rarely do masses of people attempting to cross a border get massacred at the border point (I'm not talking about individuals, that of course has happened often, eg, at the Berlin Wall) — in fact, I cannot think on any other example through history, though probably there must be a few (mercifully, just a very few). But this is more reason (not less) to improve the article, and call it what it was, instead of whitewashing what happened, by blandly calling it an "incident" (not to say, rationalizing and excusing the massacre, like some are trying to do here). Turgidson 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. --Roamataa 13:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It has pretty much to do with nationalism. If an important part of that group wouldn't have been of romanian (or moldavian) ethnicity, and if soldiers wouldn't have been of soviet/russian/ukrianians ethnicity, you wouldn't care about it. No they didn't. Trupele de securitate sovietice aveau dreptul sa aresteze pe civilii care incercau sa submineze administratia sau pe cei care incercasera sa face ceva ilegal, cum ar fi trecerea ilegala a frontierei - un principiu in penal este ca tentativa se pedepseste.... When you're told you'll be shot if you move from your home region, the decision to depart is not traditional, is irresponsible... Incident is the only NPOV title here. if the shooting would have been uncalled for we could call it a massacre... but it wasn't.Anonimu 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, speak English. This is the English Wikipedia, and I am not Romanian so if you all start speaking Romanian then you completely shut me out of the discussion, which isn't really fair, is it? Also, it shoots down your theory that it "has pretty much to do with nationalism." I'm not a Romanian nationalist. I haven't got one single drop of Romanian blood (at least none that I know about), so why do I still want to call this "incident" a massacre? Because that's what it was. I don't care what nationality or political party they belonged to, they were innocent civilians and they were all killed. "Incident" is absurd. K. Lásztocska 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing interesting in that fragment. Your presence here is a result of a branch stacking... so your nationality is not relevant. They weren't so innocent, they were trying to do something illegal after all.Anonimu 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "branch stacking"? I am here because Biruitorul suggested that I might like to contribute to the discussion, and when I clicked on the link I decided that yes, I did have something to say and thought it was an important issue. Please assume good faith. Are you saying that since they were violating an unjust law (they were just trying to go home after all, that's an ordinary human feeling) it was justified that 200 of them were slaughtered in cold blood? Don't make me vomit. K. Lásztocska 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's branch stacking... you were sent here just because you opinions about a general subject(Soviets and Communism) and the willingness to support Biru's point. Their home was north of the Soviet - Romanian border. And there's no indication of a cold blooded attack. The soldiers just defended the border. You should leave these discussion if you can't bear it. Wiki shouldn't affect your health (there's an essay somewhere on wiki that say that)Anonimu 20:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not SENT here, I came here of my own free will. I could just as easily have looked at Biru's link and decided to ignore it. Oh, and I'm not his "groupie." As for my opinions about the Soviet Union and Communism, given my own nationality and the history of my country, that's not entirely surprising. K. Lásztocska 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. You could have, but you didn't. Yeah, right. So you admit that you're not objective. Anonimu 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, like you're so objective? You with the big communist symbol on your user page...K. Lásztocska 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm objective enough. More objective that most of the users on this page anyway.Anonimu 22:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your subjective opinion, not objective truth. :) K. Lásztocska 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is revolting. Turgidson 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically all soldiers except those from the Evil Empire defend the border against people trying to come in illegally (but even then never shooting unarmed civilians, except possibly in self-defense), or against invading armies (in which case all bets are off, of course). Those NKVD border guards that you so adore where shooting people trying to escape the "socialist paradise". Is that nuance too hard to grasp? And, the fact that they had orders to shoot unarmed civilians does not absolve them from legal responsibility. Ask those soldiers who shot dead Chris Gueffroy when he tried to jump the Berlin Wall to freedom. Turgidson 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, legally they were trying to illegally breach the frontier, just as drug smugglers do. And, as i already said, they had serious reasons to believe that the group was armed. so they didn't know they were shooting unarmed civilians... some of whom probably were armed.Anonimu 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting argument: comparing those poor peasants to drug smugglers is something so low, that I will not stoop to responding to. And just because someone may try to do something "illegal", like crossing from one side to the other of one's ancestral land, in search of a better life, is no reason for shooting that person on the spot, like a dog. Anyone who thinks that way is a stranger to me. But I see there is no point in prolonging this pointless discussion. I cannot, and will not attempt to find common ground with someone who holds such utterly despicable opinions. Have a good day. Turgidson 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know they were poor? maybe they were some kulaks and that's why they wanted to run away from their homes. "Ancestral land" it's so a romantic concept. And like most romantic concept, it's not a real thing. They weren't shot on the spot, like a dog. They were warned and told to go to their homes, they didn't want to listen. it's night over hereAnonimu 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you've dug a very deep hole for yourself. Biruitorul 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(Just re-indenting) According to the "it's not a massacre" logic so far, Stalin could have saved the expense of transporting to Siberia, working to death, and burying tens of millions of Eastern Europeans and Russians--if they had only decided to stay home and behave.
     Bukovina was never part of Russia, there was no Soviet "reclaiming" of land Russia "lost"--this was plain and simple occupied territory. That gives specific humanitarian rights to the protected occupied populace. You can't just go shooting them. Even if (as alleged here) they don't listen. They did not attack the Soviets.
     Moreover, these were not Soviet troops firing on civilians who they thought were armed. That's an out and out lie. These were NKVD secret police whose actions were organized with forethought and the intent to kill unarmed civilians. The word is "pre-meditated."
     Finally, this whole angle on ethnic/poor/etc. is totally inappropriate and totally immaterial. They could have been little green Martians carrying white flags to announce their peaceful intentions.
     This pre-meditated killing by non-military forces of unarmed civilians protected under the laws of occupation can only be called a massacre. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pēters, good to see you back. Point taken about calling them "poor" peasants -- of course that's immaterial, I was just trying to appeal to some vestigial human sentiment there, but I obviously failed (they were just kulaks, so put them all to death as was done in the Holodomor, blah, blah, blah). But since I'm still learning about the legal aspects of all this, could you please expand on the relevant conventions that cover unarmed civilians protected under the laws of occupation? It seems to me that that goes without saying (at least to anyone not from planet Mars :)), but it's always good to have explicit laws to refer to. Also, it would be good to know whether the Soviet Union, circa 1940-41 had subscribed to such laws, and if so, when and where, and who signed those accords. A readily available (and quotable) reference on wiki would be good to have, just in case it's needed. Thanks. Turgidson 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had not officially ratified the Hague Conventions--the Nazis used this as their excuse for not observing its terms for the treatment of prisoners of war when it came to their Soviet captives. However, representatives of the Soviet Union did testify in post-war trials that the Soviet Union did subscribe to the terms of the Hague Conventions (and had laws regarding such). Whether as the legal successor to the Russian Empire (which was a signatory) or through professing adherence to its terms, the Soviet Union would have been in a position to be bound by these terms of the Hague Convention IV (18 October 1907):

• Art. 45. It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
• Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

On April 23, 1954, the Soviet Union did ratify the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (International Humanitarian Law) with reservations. Nearly a decade later, this ref [8] is from 1963, it appears however that no Soviet laws had been passed in support of the Geneva Conventions. (It might be a while before I get to the library to access the article on JSTOR.)
     Regarding the post-war Soviet testimony about specific Soviet laws supporting the Hague Conventions, that likely needs to be taken with a grain of salt until someone can find them. (And even then, what's on paper and what was Soviet reality are two different things, it's an inspiring and noble Constitution they had.)
    In any event, the Soviets were quite aware of what the rules were and clearly had no compunctions about violating them. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now it comes back to me -- I knew about the Nazis' abominabe treatment of Soviet POW's (including horrible medical experiments and torture), using the excuse that the USSR had not ratified the Hague Conventions. Totally inhuman, and abhorrent. But that, as you say, is in no way, shape, or form an excuse for the Soviets to have disregarded those conventions in such blatant fashion in other instances -- and, at any rate, the Fântâna Albă massacre occured way before the invasion of the USSR, in June 1941. (On a tangent, how about the Katyn massacre, from 1940? How can anyone try and justify that?? By the way, has anyone ever accepted responsibility for it, and/or have there been any reparations or formal apology ever been made? I vaguely remember there were some words mumbled at some point, but was that even remotely enough?)

JSTOR article: thanks, I downloaded it. If you have trouble getting it (or any other article), please let me know, and I'll see what I can do, as long as it does not mess us with copyright laws.

Finally, one more legal question: how about individual responsibility in such cases? As I mentioned at some point above, German courts tried, and in some cases found guilty, individual border guards who shot dead people trying to jump the Berlin Wall. The standard "I was just following orders" excuse held some water (sigh...), but not too much. I'm not sure how good an analogy this is -- after all, this was adjudicated according to internal German laws -- but maybe it gives a glimpse into how the international community views such egregious breaches of conduct. Has anyone been writing about those long-ago breaches of the Hague Conventions, or is it all down the memory hole? Turgidson 04:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On individual acts I cannot claim expertise. However, considering Stalin ordered his officers to shoot anyone caught retreating on Eastern European front I would venture that in this case it probably goes all the way back to the top as one could claim they themselves would have been killed if they did not follow orders. So in terms of the NKVD, I would theorize it would likely be the command structure held responsible, not the individuals--that is, until we can find some specific sources (whichever way they point).

     Copy of JSTOR article would be good. I have access to print at the public library, but it's so totally not convenient these days. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like being bold...K. Lásztocska 23:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Crap, never mind, it wouldn't let me move the page...K. Lásztocska 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for your boldness! It was worth a try. Now, what's the next step? Can we count votes, and decide democratically? Or do we have to go through a more elaborate procedure? Either way is fine with me, but I say, let's get it done, sooner than later, while the discussion is still fresh, and before people go about doing other things. Turgidson 00:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw, to heck with democracy. :) I say we just ask an admin--I know a friendly (albeit Hungarian) one who will probably be receptive to our concerns. K. Lásztocska 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! From my limited experience at wiki, Hungarians seem like a rather friendly bunch, so why not? Turgidson 00:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a move; hopefully one of these strategies will pay off. Biruitorul 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place to register support? I believe a good factual case has been made. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we just have to wait a little till an admin decides what to do, and if he decides against moving, we'll take it from there. Biruitorul 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the name change that includes adding the word like a "massacre" to a title can be done bypassing WP:RM. That said, let me state my view. Judging from the article only, I would have to read the academic sources to be able to judge generally, what took place was indeed horrific. There is no doubt about that and the article conveys all the information to the reader.

That said, I have always object against using strong terms in the titles, be it "occupation", "invasion", "murder" or "massacre" preferring words like "incident", "war", "siege", etc. Again I am speaking of the titles only. It does not preclude the usage of the referenced term in the article's text but the general rule of thumb to avoid strong terms in titles would relieve us from spilling a lot of bad blood. So, I don't understand the urge. Put a well referenced account of this horrific event but it is references and neutrality of the account is what makes the reader convinced and replacing the incident by a massacre in the title would not make a viewer any more convinced than the good article itself. --Irpen 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: I actually noticed your general position on the subject earlier today, at Talk:Khatyn massacre#Requested move (there is a link to that talk page from this article). So let me commend you for holding a principled, consistent position, and for expressing your sympathy with the victims (unlike the only contrary opinion here, which I will not even try to describe, it's so alien to me). Now, having said that, permit me to disagree with your point of view, also on principled grounds. First (though this is not exactly the subject here), I am in 100% agreement to call the Katyn massacre the Katyn massacre: there is absolutely no way to call that monstrosity except that. So, if you are to exclude Katyn, then basically I agree, nothing else can be called a massacre, and so your position is completely coherent. But if you accept that Khatyn was a massacre (like almost everyone does, including wikipedia), then it becomes a question of scale, circumstances, usage, referencdes in the literature, etc. There have been many examples adduced to that effect in this discussion, including the Boston Massacre of 1770, in which about 4 people were killed (are you going to contest that title?) All in all, I think the circumstances, the usage, and the literature on the subject argue for the move -- and so do a large majority of editors who looked at this article. Is there anything that one could say, or any evidence that one could try to produce, that would make you change your mind, at least partially? Turgidson 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I now realize there are two distinct pages: Katyn massacre and Khatyn massacre, and that you referred to Khatyn, not Katyn. Since I do not mean to put words in your mouth, then let me ask: how about the Katyn massacre? Do you find that legitimate usage? Turgidson 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the usage legitimate, which means in the article's body. I objecto to massacre titles, be it Katyn, Khatyn or Khotin events even though those all can be called massacres and are called such in the article's text. Just keep titles free from such terms. Let the reader form the opinion about the subject of the article based on encyclopedic presentation supported by references. The reader will likely find this much more credible if he is not forced to prejudge this by the title itself. The titles should be non-committal and the text and the references should make a convincing case. Partly, because writing articles is more difficult than moving them, we get so many users just eager to create (or move) the articles in the invasion/massacre/occupation names. Another reason why this takes place is that some want to make sure the case they want to build is as strong as there can be. However, slamming such terms into the titles actually alarms the reader and makes one more suspect that, you know, this is one of those Wikipedia article that make it a good starting point but an unreliable reference. --Irpen 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The title must reflect an existing reality. You have renamed the article, it is your burden of proof to show the scholarship or at least the public perception indeed suggests we should entitle this article "Fântâna Albă incident" and not "Fântâna Albă massacre". Lacking such support, you should have started a poll for this move. You should be thankful that some editors actually invest energy in explaining and working towards consensus instead of reverting your move after some brief and dismissive comments.

As for your choice of words, it's a whitewashing one. Killing civilians is not an incident. If you want a change of words, I give you one: "Fântâna Albă mass killings" (there are hundreds of victims!). Sooner or later, someone will, obviously, suggest "massacre". Daizus 09:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daizus. Irpen, believe me, I understand your concern and think it's a quite valid opinion, but in my opinion calling this an "incident" is just whitewashing and watering down a terribly tragic event, which is just as bad as sensationalizing it would be. I'm big on finding the right balance between too much and not enough. Also remember: history is rarely "NPOV". :) K. Lásztocska 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. While, Irpen, I see your point, I don't think we should avoid calling a spade a spade, especially when historiography does the same. Our purpose is not to make people feel good, but to convey a sense of what happened, which was very ugly (to say the least). Plus, it verges on OR to call it an incident: you've shown no sources that call it that. Biruitorul 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian sources prove that it was a massacre, not an incident. History is not always neutral. Thank you for your consideration. NCurse _work 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please never ever move articles in the midst of discussion. This kind of forcing the content one way or the other is highly inflammatory.

Moving the article without a discussion is even more inflammatory. A drop of decency, given the consensus we have achieved here, should make you revert yourself. Daizus 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and only now I've seen your comments from your edits. Have you followed WP:RM? No. Then why your move should stay? Give me one single reason. Daizus 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now back to the issues raised above. Calling the article in a way that avoids the strong terms in the title in no way whitewashes anything as long as the content which shows what actually happened is not weaselized.

If Massacre is renamed to some term that makes it look "justified", like "execution" or "border enforcement", yes, this would have been whitawashing. The word "Incident" is the least judgmental. Such term makes no judgment on what actually happened and is not aimed at prejudicing the reader towards any POV. The reader see the facts, sees that they are referenced and can slearly understand that what to place was the mass killing of armless civilians who tried to cross the border by the armed military personell. This is exactly what happened and the article says so. No need for another precedent of the strong terms in the title where they can be avoided without any POV implications (replacing Massacre by "execution" would have had the POV implications, but this was not done). Otherwise, we promote unhealthy trends of endless discussions of this sort and Khotin massacre of Ukrainians by the Romanian army may very well be next. Keep strong terms within the text, where they can be referenced, and out of the titles. --Irpen 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have the verbs like "kill" and nouns like "dead". "Incidental" is quite judgemental as it chooses the ignore a reality. Please accept the consensus and stop being disruptive. Thank you. Daizus 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Incidental" is not "accidental". It makes no judgment. If we start promoting strong terms in the titles, we are opening a can of worms and a fruitful field for trolling and overall waste of time all over talk pages. Khotin was also a massacre without question. The article says so in the text all right. However, its name does not include such a term and it should not if we want to keep flames low. --Irpen 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Killing a human being is murder in most cases and most legislations. Murder is not just an incident and claiming it's just an incident is a judgement (cynical, biased and trying to cover an own stained past, etc.) and a strong POV.

Look, I don't care what you believe. You have there some sources claiming it's a massacre, you have a consensus of editors against you. You have nothing but an own interpretation of a mass killing and own vision upon how to avoid naming things. Accept it and step back. Rhetoric doesn't help a case, really. Daizus 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore your personal remarls and will only post on the topic.

There is nothing personal. I'm signaling your POV-pushing and original research, i.e. acting against Wikipedia policies. Daizus 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This event does not have an established English name and it can't as it is relatively obscure event in the part of the world which is relatively obscure as well. In such cases, the articles are titled by descriptive names which should be as neutral as possible

The event has a name in other languages, as such the English name can be retrieved by direct translation. "Massacre" is descriptive. The best NPOV description of the event is IMO "mass killing" (do you disagree? if so, why?) and not "incident". As WP:NC tells us to be concise, "massacre" kicks in. "Incident" is vague, whitewashing, POV-ish (you have yet to tell me what's the problem with "massacre"; who claims it wasn't a massacre - i.e. mass killing - out there?) Daizus 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, stop claiming there is a consensus here. Three editors supporting one name and two editors opposing it is nothing but a consensus. --Irpen 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, Biruitorul, K. Lásztocska, Mentatus, Daizus, Dahn, Pēters J. Vecrumba, Roamataa and NCurse agreed so far in this talk page to call it a massacre. That is not "three" but 9 users. Irpen and Anonimu disagreed. That is, as you say, only 2 users. 81% votes is a consensus, don't you think? Daizus 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the discussion is advertised in, say, a Russia portal, the headcount would likely change. Also, it is not clear that all who you listed as supporters would actually support the move. If you insist, start the poll and list the WP:RM request. I really see this persistence with inserting strong terms into names very unhelpful. But I do hope that everyone supporting this article's move will support the Khotin massacre name as well. Because I really believe in AGF and consider all my opponents here as highly principled users. --Irpen 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, I wonder why all the Russians would oppose such a move? For the record, I for one STRONGLY support the move, and I'm pretty sure everyone else listed does too. And I really don't see anything wrong with strong terms in article titles: this was an event that demands to be described in strong terms! History is often a terrible thing, and to water it down in the name of "neutrality" is an insult to the memory of the victims. K. Lásztocska 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop invoking emotional arguments. No one is insulting anyone by keeping the justified usage of strong terms referenced, that can only be done within the article's text. I did not attempt to suppress any of the referenced information from the article. I consistently opposed the strong terminology in all titles, not just this one. I never attempted to drag the massacre onto the title of the Khotin article despite there is no doubt that massacre there took place as well. --Irpen 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also believe in WP:AGF but at the same time I cannot stop wondering why haven't you followed WP:RM and now you send me to do it, why do you ask me to do a poll while you haven't, why do you ask me to follow all the Wiki policies you ignored? You created a situation, why should others work so hard to fix it? If you ask me to believe in WP:AGF why don't you revert yourself facing our opposition and follow all the procedures you invoked

As for Russian portal, that is a very bizarre argument which leads me (if true) to very saddening conclusions.

The supporters I've mentioned made their option very clear either by saying "it should be named massacre" or by saying "I agree" under the replies of others. Which of those positions was unclear to you? Daizus 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When I moved the article, I simply restored the original name. Such a move does not require the WP:RM. It is the move, not the reversal, that should be voted. Start the poll if you insist. --Irpen 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO WP:RM addresses controversial moves, no matter what was the title of the article when it was created. You may had not realized when you first moved it is a controversy, but certainly you realize now and also you noticed the strong opposition (and the consensus which was built). That's why I think an editor acting truly in good-faith would restore the content according to the apparent majority ("least evil" if you wish) and initiates the procedures he sees fit for the situation (if any, and not simply concedes). Editors should be concerned the article to reflect the relative consensus reached in talk-pages, don't you agree? Daizus 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems both me and K. Lásztocska started a WP:RM at the same time :) Daizus 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Romanian sources

Came across this on an Ukrainian page: "In the winter and spring of 1941, Soviet troops have opened fire on many groups of locals trying to cross the border into Romania. When a 3000 to 5000-strong march of civilians gathered momentum in the small city of Storojinet on March 26, 1941, they overthrew the Soviet administration. It was fired upon by NKVD from an well-organized ambush on April 1, 1941 near Fântâna-Albă, a few kilometres from the Romanian border, killing around a thousand unarmed civilians, men, women, children and eldery alike. Only 300 were killed "on the spot", the others, injured, were chased through woods and fields, caught, tied to horses and draged to already digged spots where if still alive were given the last shots. (for more, see: Fântâna-Albă massacre)." [9] —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This web-site is a mere copy of the Wikipedia article. Not an external source. --Irpen 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that as re-reading. One of the reasons "let's check Google for #'s of occurrences of X" no longer works as it becomes self-referential. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.homelandsecurity.com, putting in April 1, 1941: "April 1, 1941 - Ukraine, Moldova, And Romania
Fintina Alba Massacre
Thousands of people in northern Bukovina were heading towards the Romanian frontier. They were fired on not far from Fintina Alba village. Hundreds of people--especially women, children, and old people--were killed. Most of those who survived were tortured and deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Irpen and I are already here, I would agree that we don't want the reader to think "another one of 'those' articles." The reasons for "massacre" in the title (assuming we eventually get there) should be succinctly spelt out (elderly, women, children, killing initial survivors, etc.) in the introduction.

    Speaking of which, the introductory paragraph reads like it was only an "incident" as it does not even mention anyone was killed. That is wholly inadequate as it engenders exactly the reaction Irpen fears. ("Massacre? What massacre? Another one of those...") —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă is part of the curriculum for PhD studies in History and Law in Moldova, as set at the National Council for Accreditation and Attestation. It is referred there as "Tragedia de la Fîntîna Albă". Isn't "tragedy" much more consonant with "massacre" than with "incident"? And, do Moldovan (official) sources count as Romanian for the purpose of this article, or as non-Romanian? Turgidson 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Political decision

II think is would be worth developing in this article some of the political aspects connected with the decision to shoot the mass of people attempting to cross the border. From what I understand by reading the references (such as Lavinia Betea's and Ion Popescu's articles), this decision was not made of the spur of the moment by some low-level border guards, but it was based on recommendations from the political leadership of the Cernăuţi region, which included generals Gheorghii Jukov and I. Galanin, as well as the well-known communist activist, Vasile Luca. The speech given by the latter on March 26, 1941, in the neaby village of Storojineţ seems to have played a non-negligible role in shaping the decision of the villagers to attempt the border crossing a few days later. Furthermore, it is asserted that Gheorghii Jukov is the one who transmitted from on high order to fire, either at Fântâna-Albă, or another of the massacres that occured in nearby around the same time:

La aproape o lună de la „cele mai democratice alegeri din lume”, reprezentantii acestei puteri au dat ordin să se tragă în românii din mai multe sate ale fostului judet Cernăuti, care încercau să se strecoare, pe Lunca-Hertei, în România. La numai două luni si jumătate de la ele au fost masacrati, la Fântâna-Albă, romănii de pe Valea Siretului, fără ca „reprezentantul” lor în forul legislativ suprem al URSS, Gheorghii Jukov, să încerce a-i salva. Ba, dimpotrivă, se crede că prin el Stalin a dat ordin să se tragă în cei ce-si părâsiseră velrele si avutul pentni a-si găsi salvare în România , iar Vasile Luca si-a arătat fata reală în timpul demonstratiei de la Storojinet din 26 martie 1941 numindu-si alegătorii „spioni, dusmani si diversionisti”. Apoi, la cinci luni si jumălate de la „triumful democratiei socialiste în Bucovina de Nord” mii de „dusmani ai poporului” au fost mânati la moarte sigură în Kazahstan si Siberia.

I put some of this info already in the article on Luca. Anyone can help establish a timeline and chain of command in terms of how those orders to shoot (and the politics surrounding them) took place, with a view of including the relevant info in this article? Thanks. Turgidson 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

If this event were not mentioned in English-language historiography, would it cease to exist on English Wikipedia? The lack of English-language attention to Eastern Europe requires the use of Eastern European sources. Editors translate them all the time to provide material. Irpen's POV reasoning regarding English-language historiography is:

(a) only Romanian sources use "massacre,"

(b) it has not been widely written about in English as a "massacre,"

therefore (c) "massacre" is a (primarily Romanian) POV term.

This argument is disingenuous if the event hasn't really been written about in English. Unless Irpen has been searching in different places than the rest of us, I do not believe there is is a "critical mass" of English-language historiography. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no concurrent usage in other sources I don't think there's any problem. Unless there will be several terms in different languages then we can debate how to translate it better in the spirit of NPOV. So far we have only one alternative in sources, so it's no conflict. Daizus 21:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A clarification to the above "reasoning":

(a) Romanian sources call it a "massacre",

(b) It has not been widely written about in English, period;,

(c) Therefore "massacre" is a POV term.

Uh, whatever. Irpen, unless you can provide us with some evidence that this event was not a massacre, your reasoning does not hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. K. Lásztocska 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)