Talk:Kraków pogrom

There is a very interesting discussion on pl wiki; please note that the recent consensus is that there was only 1 person killed and 5 wounded.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent reverts by Piotrus

I'll quote: rv - Onet, a web portal, is hardly as reliable as historians cited, and besides its only a review of Chchopek book. Article in Onet is written by historian Ph.D. Marcin Zaremba and is not only a review of Cichopek books as you say, but is based on author's own research of archives as well. Other source deleted by you, is an article on Polish-Jewish relations during that period, by different historian. So your reverts clearly are under false pretences. M0RD00R 06:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts

In light of all relevant articles in Wikipedia re. post war history of Polish-Jewish relations including pogroms, the inflated number of possible casualties lacking credible source is nothing more than anti-Polish hate mongering. I removed the relevant line from the article. Properly quoted numbers can be inserted again. --Poeticbent  talk  21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Source is Yad Vashem Studies. Volume number and pages will be provided as well. I'm slightly busy right now and will sort things out shortly M0RD00R 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cichopek version

To the best of my knowledge, Cichopek mistankenly took a photo from a random funeral and insisted that it was the one. After reading dr. Libionka explanations I stick to his guns. Cichopek was wrong saying about five victims ->! [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Litwa (talk • contribs) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Now this is getting really disruptive

What was the theme of Cichopek's Master Thesis, when was it published as a book, has nothing to do with this article. It's not about her. And it is not the Master Thesis, nor the book that is cited here. One opinion of Lebionka is cited, another is deleted. Why is that? Clearly some editors have set themselves a goal to disrupt this article by all means. And I feel pity for them. No more, no less. M0RD00R 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that section "Casualties" is not the right place for general discussion. Mynek 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not explain why instead of neutral Polish historian Anna Cichopek you are pushing Anna Cichopek, a graduate student from Jagiellonian University, stated in her Master Thesis (later published as a book). She' not a graduate any more she's Dr. Anna Cichopek. And I'm not citing her Master Thesis look at reference number 6 - so this has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Is that really so hard to understand? If you want to write about Anna's Master Thesis write in Anna Cichopek. And then is this. You put Libionka's criticism of Anna's book in, but delete his opinion that her books is of exceptional value, because as you say this article is not about Anna's book. You can't get any more tendentious than this. M0RD00R 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding Cichopek: The main thesis of this article are Cichopek findings (7 references). They are originated from her Master Thesis and they are included in the article you are talking about. Since the main thesis are Cichopek's findings, it is important to introduce Cichopek somehow. BTW: In 2000, when her Master Thesis were published she was a graduate student from the Jgiellonian Univeristy. In 2003, when she published her article, she was a post-grad student at the Michigan University.

• Regarding removing irrelevant text (in your personal opinion "vandalism") - please keep in mind that section "Casualties" is not the right place for general discussion.

• Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for your personal opinions Mynek 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to introduce Anna Cichopek "Polish historian" is the best, the shortest, the most neutral way. What was her Master Thesis, in what University has no place here. And there were no general discussion in Casualties section until you started to push irrelevant facts from Anna's bio. And manipulation with Libionka's review is still not addressed by you M0RD00R 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please be adviced that your definition of what is *the best* can differ from anybody elses. Describing her as a Polish historian is manipulation. You will not find her name in the database of Polish scientists! We can only say "graduated from the Jagillonian University." Mynek 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

She's a Polish, she's a historian. If you do not like Polish historian, we can leave just a historian. Or historian that got her doctors degree at Michigan Uni. Ant why did you delete Nowy Targ murders with strange edit summary (style)? Please discuss changes beforehand, what this has to do with style, could you elaborate. And my questions regarding Libionka still not answered M0RD00R 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you've inserted all negative opinions about Cichopek, can I insert positives ones and hope that will not be reverted on instance as last time? M0RD00R 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Cichopek did not have doctoral degree when she wrote about her findings. In 2000 when the book was published she was a gradute student. In 2003, when she published her article, she was a post-grad student. It would be highly misleading to describe her as a phd (BTW, where did you find that information?) or even a professional historian in the context of this article. Cichopek was a graduate student from UJ when she published her findings. This is relevant information!
• Your edition regarding "Nowy Targ murders" makes the sentence too long. BTW the information about "Nowy Targ murders" has nothing to do with this article.
• Manipulation? Where? Be precise or stop accusing me! I am not going into discussion with you about your opinions!!! Mynek 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I'm confused about this polish historian thing, if she is of Polish nationality and is a historian, why is this not appropriate? SGGH 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put 'graduate of Jagiellonian University in krakow, poland' is this an acceptable comprimise? SGGH 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mynek 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

She's Ph.D. now, so leaving just 'graduate of Jagiellonian University in krakow, poland' is misinformation. Then we should go with 'graduate of Jagiellonian University in krakow, poland, Ph.D. at Michigan Uni etc.' but this all is irrelevant, because this article is not about her. This is the way I see things. M0RD00R 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not 'attended jagiellonian university in krakow'? SGGH 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but she also attended Michigan Uni, so if we put one Uni, we should put another. And should we do same thing with other historians mentioned in the article? We can't single out one historian, and one uni. Same rules should be applied to all. Then it would be a mess. Polish historian would be simple and logical solution. M0RD00R 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Though it's occured to me, was she there? Why is where she attended important, if you just put Dr. Anna Cichopek at the beginning then doesn't that solve the issue of where she got her degrees? Or are there POV problems as a result of where she came from or something for which drawing attention to her background is important? SGGH 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cichopek was a graduate student from UJ and not phd when she published her controversional findings. I find this relevant in the context of the article which is based on her findings. Mynek 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Only controversial issue about Anna's work is the number of victims. Lebionka regards her book to be of exceptional value, you know it very well. And this work led her to Ph.D. But somehow all positive reviews of her book got deleted as having nothing to do with topic, all negative stayed. Why? Is it one sided a little bit? M0RD00R 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not true, what M0RD00R is trying to impose, that Libionka questioned number of victims only. I inserted the link to the Polish Wikipedia with his opinion regarding Cichopek's findings. In general he claims that Cichopek did not examined/verify sources of information, and she did not described them properly. Mynek 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, isn't this a contradiction? "Anna Cichopek... stated in her Master Thesis.... that all historical sources confirm only one death.... However, based on an archival photo with five coffins taken during the funeral, she ? suggested that there had been five fatalities...." should there be a later where I've put the ? question mark? Also, you might want to expand what IPN is for those who don't know. :) SGGH 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cichopek contradics herself! Mynek 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Cichopek contradict herself, but rather users citing her. M0RD00R 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the sentence certainly does, so I've inserted a "later" to sort that out. I'm still not sure why it is important that she went to that university or got her PhD from Michigan... could someone explain (simply for m :D) SGGH 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's of no importance what Uni she went to. She's respected historian and Ph.D. now. And it is all that matters. There is no need to put any redundant information. This all can be solved simply "Polish historian Anna Cichopek". But if we put one Uni, we must pu another, if we put this information on Cichopek, why not to do the same with other historians mentioned in the article. And then it will be a mess. M0RD00R 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW can Wikipedia talk page be used as a source in Wikipedia? I don't think so. If not this source must go M0RD00R 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, wikipedia content cannot be used as citable references in other articles. An exception to this is of course, wikilinking an unfamiliar or complex term whose explanation isn't necessary or germane to the article. Other wiki articles' sources can of course be explored, and the sources they cited can also be utilized. Arcayne 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will change it simply to Polish historian then, I agree that there isn't really a need for either university to be mentioned as it doesn't seem to have any impact on the article. SGGH 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's go next Anna Cichopek stated in her Master Thesis (later published as a book and quoted in her article). Her Master Thesis is not cited here (I even don't know if that's correct, because this fact is not referenced). Why it should be mentioned here? M0RD00R 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion Forthcoming

I just got here after the request was made. Give me a bit to read the article and the edits histories. If people want to weigh in on what they feel are the major points of contention, please feel free to do so here, but be to the point, and be polite. Working in Wikipedia is supposed to be fun; we aren't getting paid for this, so let's all assume WP:BELLY, and take a moment to decompress. I'll post shortly. :) Arcayne 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am mistaking any of the facts here, please let me know right away, as my conclusions are based upon the article, the Discussion and the edit histories. I am not either for or against the article's points - that is why it is called a Third Opinion. :)
The main points of contention here appear to surround the inclusion (and provenance) of the statements provided in the book pulbished by Anna Cichopek. The prior (and apparently official) reckoning was that the deaths from anti-Semitic activity were one, whereas Cichopek has been cited as stating in her book there were up to five such deaths.
The apparent underlying reason for this contention is that if there was only one death, it doesn't in and of itself constitute the definition of a pogrom, per se. A pogrom requires the massacre and organized persecution of an ethnic group (usually the Jews, as the term was coined druing the Russian pogroms of the 19th century). The murder of a single Jew doesn't constitute a pogrom, while the murder of two or more technically does. As there might be strong feelings (and likely political fallout) about having any town pointed out as being the site of a pogrom, it is clear that most official accounts would downplay the numbers (and significance) of actual racially motivated incidents. Therefore, the need for cited instances becomes paramount.
While there may very well be evidence of the aforementioned 'organized persecution', more cited instances of this need to be added to the article.
As well, a paragraph citing additional instances has been the subject of a revert war - one side including it because they feel it is notable, while the other side removing it because they feel it isn't noteworthy. I tend to agree with the latter, but conditionally so. The paragraph, as presented, doesn't cite its references, and that is vital to inclusion in any article in Wikipedia, and ever more so in this type of article. That said, here are my recommendations, in order of their immediate importance:

• More references need to be found to support the allegations of the Kraków pogrom.
  • Cichopek's alegations cannot be used to support the majority of the article. her provenance as a historian needs to be established (in the discussion page, not the article); the statements of a grad student thesis, or the resulting book thereof, do not carry the same gravitas of noteworthiness as a professional historian does. If she's a grad student, then say that. If she has her doctorate, then she's a historian (having earned the title).
  • References citing other instances of an organized religious persecution need to be referenced and cited within the article so as to actually prove that a pogrom took place, and not an isolated instance of racially-motivated violence. If these cannot be found, the article itself may be subject to deletion or merging with another article.
• All wikilinking to Cichopek should be removed, as she is not the subject of an article within Wikipedia.
• The article suffers from significant English grammar issues. I would suggest that someone have a native English speaker copyedit it, putting articles such as 'the' in where necessary.
• While this topic can be incendiary, the editors contributing to this article do not need to be. No one appears to be trying to screw anyone over here, so Assume Good Faith, and consider talking to (and not at) the editor who's edits contradict/differ from yours. This doesn't mean thay anyone needs to excuse repeated bad bahavior, but jumping the gun and calling people vandals and POV-pushers and the like is simply not conducive to folks working together. It is hard on people's feelings, and it is hard on the article.

-Arcayne 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First note: The definition of pogrom does not require more than one fatality. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. Besides the term Krakow pogrom regarding events in question is used in multiple academic sources, which will be provided. M0RD00R 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second note: the statements of a grad student thesis, or the resulting book thereof, do not carry the same gravitas of noteworthines Her grad thesis is not cited here. The fact that she had written on this subject in her grad thesis and in her book, does not mean that her grad thesis and that book is the same study. If so that should be proven. M0RD00R 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above, if the same information is mentioned in the book, shouldn't that be cited instead? It seems more reliable. SGGH 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

M0RD00R, look at the definition you yourself have provided in your post, and especially the last part of it: "...especially one conducted against Jews". Jews. Plural, not singular. That multiple events are required to define a pogrom, it is great that you are going to add further, citable evidence of such. Just make sure they are RS. I am not sure about the availablility on the Polish side, but the US Holocaust Museum in DC, has excellent resources, and are pretty darn helpful.

The point I was making about Cichopek was that only her statements as published in the book were usable, as they are eminently citable (much more so than a doctoral thesis, which is an exceptionally hard thing to reference verifiably). The book itself should be cited (making very, very sure that the work is not self-published, which is a warning sign of non-RS). That some people confused the matter (myself included perhaps) is natural, as some versions of the article have her making her claims in her thesis, whilst others have it coming from a book. Arcayne 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes multiple victims are required, but there's nothing said about multiple fatal victims. That's the big difference. If people are seriously injured, their property is demolished that still is a pogrom. M0RD00R 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why citations of these instances need to be found. Arcayne 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cichopek provenance as a historian

Cichopek is not listed in the database of the Polish scientists ->[2]

• Cichopek record is empty -> [3]
• Dr. Dariusz Libionka record is there ->[4]
• Dr. Julian Kwiek record is there -> [5]

Do we have the right to call her Polish historian?

The latest record (Wednesday, January 10 06:47:22 2007) of Anna Cichopek I have found at the Michigan University describe her as "GRAD STU INSTR, LSA History GRADER I (TEMP), LSA II: Russian & E. Euro. St Student, Rackham" and "History PhD - Student, Rackham - Student" ->[6].

Her name is listed with a remark "doctoral candidate" among "RECIPIENTS OF YIVO FACULTY AND GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIPS, 2006-07 [7].

Do we have the right to call her "Dr. Anna Cichopek"? Mynek 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

She's lecturing at Jagiellonian University under title Dr. Anna Cichopek now [[8]]. Is she Polish? Yes. Is she a historian? Yes. So she's a Polish historian M0RD00R 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some concern as to her current title and position, it should be verified, the most recent record would be on point. She might not show up in a database, as it would appear that she hasn't been a lecturer long enough for the data to have been entered. Arcayne 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In that source that states that it doesn't trust Anna's work (its talked about after Anna is in the article) what does the author of the source refer to Anna as? We could go by that, he would know... SGGH 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason why Cichopek is actively contested here lies in the fact that - regardless of her academic standing - what she says doesn’t add up. First, there was the misread and misrepresented photograph attributed by her to Kraków pogrom. It’s a serious mistake for a budding historian, that’s why it is important to mention her background in my opinion, especially that that was followed by other mistakes mentioned by Darisz Libionka in his review of her work [9] (which I have read in Polish). And than there’s the number of casualties attributed to Cichopek by User:M0RD00R. In his edit supported by just one and the same source User:M0RD00R changed the numbers from 300-1000 [10] to “more than 1000” [11]. A puzzling move considering lack of additional references in support of statements made by Cichopek. Lack of additional sources forced me to search out and add the name of a Jewish historian Stefan Grajek in order to bring back the balance. Personally I’d prefer that Cichopek university Master Thesis be listed for the record considering that the mistakes atributed to her subsequent book were mentioned by her reviewers. --Poeticbent  talk  23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change the numbers. You have deleted this part because it was not referenced, so I've provided the reference you asked for. The problem is that different sources provide different number of victims for different timelines. I can provide these figures if you insist. But you can do it yourself, most sources are easily available on internet. anyway I will elaborate on this subject on Sunday. M0RD00R 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that if you contest her conclusions, you find better information to contest it. You don't attack the educational background of the person giving the information in question. She may not consider it a mistake, and she might not be wrong. That is not for us to determine; it is for us to report both sides of the issue and present the results. We are not here to present the truth. We are not here to present a 'fair and balanced' article. We present the neutral facts, and let the reader determine for themselves the truth of Cichopek's statements. that is what Wikipedia is. To forget that is to allow traction to the claims of those misguided losers over at Conservapedia. We aren't for sale, either to corporate interests or to any given point of view. (stepping away from the podium)

As I said before, the master's thesis is not nearly as solid a reference as the book subsequently published, in terms of both verifiability and Attribution. I think that if serious doubts to Cichopek's statements exist, it is up to us to find them and present them. If they cannot be found, then we cannot just tantrumize the issue and attack Cichopek instead. Arcayne 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid you might have misunderstood my intentions. I’m not “contesting” Cichopek’s “conclusions” because other editors do it better than I do. I’m merely pointing everybody’s attention to the fact that she wasn’t a professional when she wrote it and didn’t have to meet the standards expected of other professionals. — Just imagine, if you were an outside observer reading an article on an important historical fact, which I am, wouldn’t you want to know that the source of information is a graduate student of history rather than the venerable doctor of history from the later years? Are you implying that revealing such fact means to “tantrumize the issue and attack Cichopek”? I don't think so. I agree with you on one thing though: “it is for us to report both sides of the issue and present the results.” I hope that is our mutual goal. --Poeticbent  talk  04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I have mistaken your intentions, then I beg you to please accept my apology. Perhaps now would be a good time to ask a couple of questions, so as to provide clarification:

• Was Cichopek's book published before or after she received her doctorate degree in history?
• Was the book self-published, or published through an established publishing concern?
• Did the book relate the theory of increased deaths in Kraków during the period in question?
• Were there reviews of the book, or any response from within the academic community regarding her theory?

These would seem to be questions that require answers before we move on. Thoughts? Arcayne 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the information in the book that we are interested in was originally proposed in her thesis, which would have been before her doctorate was received? I think SGGH 10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Arcayne's questions:

• Cichopek's book was published in 2000. At that stage Cichopek was a graduate student without a doctoral degree. In the itroduction chapter of that book (page 10) you will find the following sentence "Książka jest poprawioną i uzupełnioną wersją pracy magisterskiej, pisanej w 1998 roku w Zakładzie Historii i Kultury Żydów w Polsce Uniwesytetu Jagiellońskiego...." what can be translated as "This book is improved and elaborated version of the Master Thesis that was written in 1998 in the Department of Jewish Studies, Jagiellonian University..."
• The book was published by The Jewish Historical Institute in Poland -> [12]
• On page 87 of Cichopek's book you will find the key sentences:

• "Śmierć Róży Berger jako jedyna znajduje potwierdzenie we wszystkich źródłach dotyczących pogromu. O pozostałych ofiarach śmiertelnych nie mamy żadnych informacji" what can be translated as "Roza Berger's death is the only one confirmed in all historical sources. We have no information regarding other dead victims."
• "Jedynym źródłem wiedzy o liczbie ofiar śmiertelnych ofiar pogromu są zdjęcia z pogrzebu, na których wyraźnie widać pięć trumien." what can be translated as "the only source of information regarding number of deads are the photos from a funeral on which one can clearly see five coffins."

• One review of the book was written by Dr. Libionka (IPN journal (page 179-182) -> [13]) Regarding the number of deads he said "Poważny problem stanowi liczba ofiar. Wszystkie źródła mówiły o śmierci jednej osoby. Tymczasem Anna Cichopek, na podstawie zachowanych fotografii z pogrzebu, udowodniła, że śmierć poniosło 5 osób" what can be translated as "There is a serious problem regarding number of dead victims. All sources indicated one dead person. Meanwhile Anna Cichopek proved, based on the photos from a funeral, that there was five victims." He clarified his sentence on Polish Wikipedia saying that the photos (Cichopek was writing about) were taken during another funeral therefore Cichopek's reasoing regarding the number of deads was based on weak assumptions. Mynek 11:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Mynek 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, so according to what is quoted by Mynek above, Anna doesn't really contradict herself... she says that historial sources only cite one death, but that photographic evidence shows five coffins, that could be cited by itself as it doesn't suggest is is making two different conflicting conclusions but rather two observations about the records. SGGH 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered Arcayne's questions ("Regarding Arcayne's questions:") But I can explain you where Cichopek contradicts herself if you want me to. Mynek 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So far this discussion is missing a mark. From historical perspective Pogrom of Krakow is important not because there were one or five fatalities, but because it was first serious anti-Jewish riot in post World War II Poland. There is a tendency in Polish historiography to focus on Kielce pogrom as if it was one-off event. It's not true. There was an entire wave of anti-Jewish violence in the post WW II Poland and Krakow was the first to experience it. There were more than 130 recorded incidents. And the references will be provided hopefully on Sunday if I have enough spare time. And it will not be by Anna Cichopek, whose biography strangely is seen of top importance in this article by some. M0RD00R 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think her background is being screened so acutely (and a bit overmuch, to my reckoning) is that her work is being cited repeatedly within the article. I think that, in order to relieve the scrutiny would be to cite other accounts of the Kraków pogrom, and not just her theory. I think it fairly important to do so. Arcayne 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes VS References

Shouldn't the Notes section be titled References? KosherJava 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally the section with the footnotes is titled notes, and is followed by a section titled references which lists what sources were actually used.

for instance:

notes

1. bloggs p 33
2. bloggs p 39
3. smith p 92

references

Bloggs, Joe, Journey to the Centre of the Earth
Smith, Peter, Office Space

A references section should be set up for this article, I'll go and take care of it. SGGH 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As I didn't write the article and can't speak polish, its a little difficult for me to finish up but I have gotten most of it set up. See Mozambican War of Independence and scroll down to the refs sections at the end to see what I mean. SGGH 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A pogrom of 1

This is the first time I've heard of a pogrom with one fatality. According to Merriam-Webster, a pogrom is an "organized massacre". Appleseed (Talk) 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And the longer you live, the more you will hear things "for the first time". According to Webster's On-line Dictionary ...Pogrom: An... Organized persecution of an ethnic group (especially Jews). Dr. Dan 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Webster's On-line Dictionary different from Merriam-Webster? Do you have a link? Appleseed (Talk) 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you need one, [14]. Dr. Dan 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate of whether it is classed as a pogrom is a key point of the article, maybe it should be emphasised more, however that would probably increase friction around the Anna C. sources, seeing as she seems to be a key proposer of the multiple deaths idea, whereas (according to the article) most sources cite only one death (which would make it an anti-semitically motivated murder? rather than a pogrom. Just like the murder of one racial minority member doesn't make an ethnic cleanse...) A difficult one. SGGH 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Though having said that, wiki does define a pogrom as:

a form of riot directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious or other, and characterized by destruction of their homes, businesses and religious centers. Usually pogroms are accompanied with physical violence against the targeted people and even murder or massacre.

SGGH 08:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at some definitions of pogrom.

An organized persecution or extermination of an ethnic group, esp of Jews Collins Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pogrom)

An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 [15]

Most definitions define pogrom as massacre or persecution [16]. This means that even if there are no fatalities, but persecution of certain group (Jews in this case) takes place, it's still a pogrom. Did persecution of Jews happened in Krakow? Yes, without any shadow of the doubt. Dozens of people were beaten, Kupa synagogue was assaulted and set on fire twice, private Jewish property was also under attack. I'll add more references (not by Anna ofcause) on those instances of violence on Sunday. M0RD00R 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The common theme among all these definitions is that a pogrom is "organized". This appears to be a (disorganized) race riot. Appleseed (Talk) 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if that is going to be the case, let's AGF on M0rd00r, and allow the topic a bit of a rest until Sunday. If they don't show up on Sunday by say, 6pm GMT (Warsaw is GMT+1), then we carry on. Sound like a fair compromise? Arcayne 11:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. Mynek 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean we stop editing? Opps, cause I've been tinkering with wording... :O SGGH 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, copyedit for brevity, as usual, cleaning up sentences. Just keep in mind that new material is supposed to be coming, so - just like moving into a new house, make sure to leave a path to the various parts of the house. :) Arcayne 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And one last quick question - should I also present positive reviews of Anna's book (which itself is cited in this article only once), because all negative ones are already included? M0RD00R 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest remaining neutral in the matter. If you find them, then nclude them, but remember that this isn't the 'Defend Anna Cichopek' article, its an article about the Kraków pogrom. All of your references should directly reflect that. As well, you shouldn't be the only one looking for references. The fellow in the section below just added untransalated Polish, which should be translated (its the English language wiki, after all) by two people (verifiability). You don't have to be the only one doing the work M0rd00r.

Something else I might siuggest: in another article I've worked on, they found it useful to bring the citations here to the discussion page first and iron out what should be added to the article, reaching a consensus, before actually adding it. This prevents edit wars and POV-pushing. You don't have to do this, but it might help things run smoothly. Arcayne 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or a pogrom of 1000?

Just want to say that it is almost incredulous that some editors are trying to down play these events by arguing over a definition. A mob, (at times over a thousand people), setting fire to a synagogue, beating and robbing people because they are Jews (re-attacking hospitalized ones), etc., is definitely a pogrom, even if no one had died. Unfortunately that was not the case, and Roza Berger survived the holocaust only to be killed in this pogrom. Dr. Dan 14:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others (presumably me) of downplaying anything. Definitions are often important, and I will trust a dictionary over your gut feeling any day. Find a better reason to be morally indignant. Appleseed (Talk) 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred a response from you regarding the definition (and link that I provided you with) that I gave you of POGROM, rather than your indignation over my response of your calling it, "A progrom of 1." Maybe to you it seems reasonable, but to me calling these horrible events, "A pogrom of 1", seems to be mocking them. And I think we have not confirmed that there was in fact only "one" fatality. At the moment, I feel very justified being morally indignant over the events in this article. No need for me to find a better reason. Sorry that I can't agree with your advice. Maybe you need to become a little more indignent over Polish anti-Semitism. Best Dr. Dan 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the definition you provided can be applied to the events in this article. As for your other comments, they're off topic and intended as bait (again) so I won't bother responding. Appleseed (Talk) 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreement about the definition. As for who baited whom, I'll let others decide that question after re-reading your comments. Dr. Dan 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, discussion over the definition of the pogrom is redundant because overwhelming majority of the academic sources (Polish and international) use this term regarding the events in Krakow. M0RD00R 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I posed the question because I looked over the references and saw only one source (Cichopek) that uses the term. Appleseed (Talk) 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact all provided references except Mr.Kwiek, from Academy of Mining and Metallurgy who questions usage of the term pogrom, use this term. Including Libionka. If even more sources are needed I can provide it, but what's the point? M0RD00R 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick search at Google books shows the following references using the term pogrom:

• Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post-Holocaust Europe By Alex Grobman Page 6
• Antisemitism And Its Opponents In Modern Poland By Robert Blobaum page 272
• Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present By Joanna Beata Michlic
• Holocaust Testimonies: European Survivors and American Liberators in New Jersey By Preil, Joseph J. page 102
• The Crisis of Socialism in Europe By Lemke, Christiane, 1951, page 77
• Christianity After Auschwitz: Evangelicals Encounter Judaism in the New Millennium By Paul R. Carlson - page 52
• Jews in Italy Under Fascist and Nazi Rule By Joshua D. Zimmerman page 154
• The Politics of Retribution in Europe: World War II and Its Aftermath By István Deák, Jan Tomasz Gross, Tony Judt page 128
• Neutralizing Memory: Jew in Contemporary Poland By Iwona Irwin-Zarecka - page 48
• On the Edge of Destruction: Jews of Poland Between the Two World Wars By Celia Stopnicka Heller page 297
• Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism By Dan Diner, Jonathan Frankel - page 213

This is not the complete list.

The Stalin file

"11 sierpnia br. w Krakowie miały miejsce wypadki pogromu wobec żydowskiej ludności miasta. Okoliczności wypadków są następujące:

Rankiem 11 sierpnia (1945 r. - aut.) w synagodze przy ul. Sudźbowej (Szerokiej?), gdzie modlili się Żydzi, nieznane wyrostki zaczęły rzucać kamieniami w okna. Stróż synagogi zatrzymał jednego chuligana, który zaczai krzyczeć, że go bija. Na krzyk ściągnął tłum z pobliskiego bażant i zaczął bić Żydów. W tym czasie nieznana osoba zaczęła rozpowszechniać prowokacyjne pogłoski o tym, że Żydzi w tej synagodze zabili polskie dzieci i że krew polskich dzieci Żydzi oddają Armii Czerwonej. Po tym, jak pojedynczy milicjanci i nieznane osoby w polskich mundurach zatrzymywały Żydów, winnych jakoby zabójstwa polskich dzieci, pogrom się nasilił. W rejonie ulicy Miodowej zebrał się tłum liczący tysiąc osób. W pogromie wzięła udział milicja, miedzy innymi pracownicy 2 komisariatu miasta Krakowa, którzy wraz z kilkoma żołnierzami Wojska Polskiego oraz osobami z ochrony kolei i członkami polskiej młodzieżowej organizacji sportowej, zatrzymywali żydów, okradali i ich bili (...)

W czasie napadu żołnierze Wojska Polskiego oddali kilka prowokacyjnych strzałów, w związku z czym rozeszły się pogłoski, że strzelanina prowadzą Żydzi. Podczas starcie z uczestnikami pogromu został pobity i ciężko ranny zastępca naczelnika milicji wojewódzkiej por. Ałtański. Przejawy pogromu zostały przerwane tego samego dnia 11 sierpnia przez wprowadzenie w rejon zamieszek oddziałów polskimi, w tym pułku polskich wojsk wewnętrznych, Nasze wojska udziału nie brały.

W wyniku śledztwa, w mieście zatrzymano 145 osób, wśród nich 40 milicjantów, 6 osób z Wojska Polskiego i 99 osób cywilnych. Zatrzymany wyrostek Kijaczki (siei) Anatol, lat trzynaście, zeznał: „U sierpnia jeden Polak dal mi jakieś zawiniątko i powiedział, żebym rzucił w synagogę i dał mi 20 złotych. Kiedy podszedłem do synagogi, był tam tłum ludzi. W tym czasie podszedł do mnie milicjant, powiedział żebym uciekał i krzyczał, że Żydzi chcą mnie zabić, co też zrobiłem. Rzuciłem zawiniątko w synagogę, a co w nim było, nie wiem."

Inny zatrzymany Polak Bades oświadczył: „Bilem Żydów i rabowałem, grozilem rewolwerem, który dal mi jakiś milicjant".

Zatrzymany Kucharski zaznał: „Razem z milicjantami wdarłem się do mieszkania Żyda Opfelbauma i ograbiłem tego ostatniego" (...)

Pod koniec dnia 11 sierpnia (a więc tego samego dniał - aut.) pojawiły się specjalnie wydane ulotki, w których podsycano przejawy antysemityzmu i twierdzono, że Żydzi zabijają polskie dzieci (...) Według informacji, jakie otrzymało Ministerstwo Bezpieczeństwa Publicznego, tego dnia miała wydać ulotki nielegalna partia „Stronnictwo Narodowe",

Jednocześnie próby pogromu miały miejsce w powiatach miechowskim, tarnowskim i nowotarskim, województwo krakowskie. W Miechowie znaleziono napisy wzywające do zabijania Żydów. W Rozwitinowie (sic!) odnotowano wśród mieszkańców okrzyki wzywające do zabijania Żydów. W Rabce w żydowski dom rzucono granat, ofiar nie ma. Śledztwo w toku,

(...) Śledztwo stwierdza, że pogrom był zawczasu przygotowany i prowokatorzy zawczasu wysiali chłopców, którzy zaczęli rzucać kamieniami w okna synagogi, a potem uciekli z okrzykami „mordują!". Kiedy przed synagoga zebrał się tłum, do synagogi wdarło się trzech Polaków w mundurach wojskowych, zatrzymali czterech Żydów i odstawili ich do l komisariatu milicji, dyżurnemu milicjantowi Szewczykowi. Polacy przedstawili się jako żołnierze Krakowskiego Okręgu Wojskowego i podali personalia: Wasilewski Jan, Perek Tadeusz i Gacek Roman. Oświadczyli przy tym, jakoby przyprowadzeni przez nich czterej Żydzi mordowali polskie dzieci w synagodze. Milicjant Szewczyk sporządził meldunek na podstawie słów Wasilewskiego, Perka i Gacka i bez sprawdzania puścił ich wolno, a zatrzymanych Żydów zaaresztował. Następnie wielu milicjantom zaczęło bić i aresztować Żydów. W ten sposób milicja swoim działaniem potwierdziła prowokacyjne pogłoski, co wzmocniło działania pogromowe tłumu. Spośród zatrzymanych ustalono winę i pociągnięto do odpowiedzialności 14 milicjantów, 6 żołnierzy Wojska Polskiego i 70 osób cywilnych, przeciwko których prowadzone jest śledztwo. Wymienieni Wasilezuski, Perek i Gacek nic figurują w ewidencji krakowskiego garnizonu i jak dotąd ich nie ustalono.

(...) 15 sierpnia został aresztowany pracownik miejscowej poczty Bobrowski Albin, nr. w 1883 roku, u którego skonfiskowano drukowana iilotkp dotycząca pogromu. Bobrowski odmawia wszelkich zeznań. W ulotce tej, podpisanej przez Związek Obrony Wolności i Demokracji, mówi się między innymi: „Kraków - ośrodek i kwiat kultury polskiej został w sobotę 11 sierpnia zhańbiony podłym, barbarzyńskim wystąpieniem przeciw Żydom. Sobotni incydent przeciw Żydom jest dziełem prowokatorów. Proluokatorzy zrobili to po to, żeby pokazać światu iż wojska sowieckie i NKWD wciąż są potrzebne w Polsce dla utrzymania porządku i ochrony bezpieczeństwa Żydów. Prowokatorzy wywołali ten incydent w dniu, kiedy w Krakowie przebywali przedstawiciele Anglii i Ameryki - to im chcieli pokazać ten pogrom.

Uchwała z Poczdamu, zv której powiedziano, że w Polsce mają rządzić sami Polacy, musi być wykonana. Nikt nie wierzy w tę źle zmontowaną prowokację i nikt nie zgadza się z tym, że Polsce potrzebna jest pomoc wojska i NKWD w celu obrony Żydów.

Żydom w naszym mieście nic nie grozi, chroniliśmy ich w czasie okupacji hitlerowskiej i nadal mogą żyć spokojnie bez obaw."

I will be short. I hope there will be no objections that information from The Stalin file will be incorporated into this article. This text is taken from here [17] and cites Russian Association „Memorial" publication „Karty" (nr 15/1995). Due to lack of time I can not translate this text to English, so I hope other active participants of this discussion will be willing to help. Thanks.

P.S. The answer to question that the heck "The Stalin file" is can be easily found on Google

P.P.S. Maybe someone has access to original Memorial publication? Your assistance will be very appreciated. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by M0RD00R 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation:

On the 11th of September in Krakow there were the cases of pogroms againts Jewish population of the city. Circumstances are as following:

On the morning of the 11th of August, some unknown teenagers started to throw stones at the windows of the Synagogue on Sudźbowa (Szeroka) street, where the Jews were praying. The keeper of the synagogue restrained one hooligan, who started to shout, that he's being beaten. The shouts attracted a crowd from the nearby market, who started to beat up Jews. In the mean time an unknown person started to spread the rumour, that the Jews in that synagogue had murdered Polish children and gave their blood to the Red Army. Then some milicjamen and unknown persons dressed in Polish uniforms started to detain Jews, supposedly guilty of murdering Polish children, and the pogrom grew in strength. In the area near Miodowa street a crowd of 1000 gathered.Milicja took part in the pogrom, among them employees of 2nd Commissariat of Kraków, who together with few soldiers of Polish Army, and railway guards, and members of Polish Sports Organization, detained, robbed, and beat-up Jews (...)

During the assault, soldiers of Polish Army fired some provocative shots, which started the rumour that the Jews were firing shots. During the fight with participants of the pogrom, the Deputy Chief of the voivodeship Milicja Ałtański was heavily wounded. The Pogrom was stopped the same day on 11th of August when Polish troops including the regiment of the Internal troops entered the riot area. Our troops didn't participate.

As a result of the inquiry, 145 persons were arrested, including 40 milicjamen, 6 soldiers of Polish Army and 99 civilians. Detained teenager Anatol Kijaczki (13 yaers old) testified: "In August one Pole gave me a packet, and told me throw it at the synagogue, and gave me 20 złoty. When I walked to the synagogue, the crowd was already there. Then milicjaman came up to me and told me to run screaming that the Jews want to kill me, and so I did. I had thrown the packet, what was inside of it, I don't know"

Another detainee Pole Bades testified: "I've beaten-up, robbed and intimidated Jews using a revolver, which was given to me by some milicjaman.

Detainee Kucharski testified: "Together with milicjamen I broke into the apartment of the Jew Opfelbaum and robbed him" (...)

In the evening flyers inciting antisemitism and claiming that the Jews are killing Polish children appeared (...) According to information received by Ministry of Public Security, flyers were printed by illegal party Stronnictwo Narodowe.

Simultanously pogroms were attempted in the Mechów, Tarnów, and Nowy Targ counties of Kraków voivodeship. In Mechów written appeals calling to murder Jews were found. (to be continued)

OK, since no one volunteered to translate this text, it seems I'll have to do it myself. I've translated the beginning, and hope to translate the rest soon. M0RD00R 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The file is sad reading. I suspect upon translation into English (personally it's too upsetting for me to do so), there will be less of an objection to calling these events a pogrom. Dr. Dan 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to User:Dr. Dan I didn’t find anything particularly new in the so called Stalin file except that it has been prepared by an apparatchik from the notorious Soviet Secret Service NKWD, which has already begun to tighten its grip on Polish citizenry by the time the events took place. One sentence caught my attention though. “Prowokatorzy zrobili to po to, żeby pokazać światu iż wojska sowieckie i NKWD wciąż są potrzebne w Polsce dla utrzymania porządku i ochrony bezpieczeństwa Żydów” which can be translated as “The provocateurs did it in order to prove that the Soviet army and the NKWD are still needed in Poland to secure order and to defend the safety of Jews.” It is the sort of newspeak that has been mastered by NKWD long before 1945, beginning with the Soviet invasion of Poland. --Poeticbent  talk  02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Appleseed (Talk) 02:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed indeed. I will just note that Memorial (society) has an article on Wiki, and it is usually a reliable source of information.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I see no objections against the usage of the Stalin file I understand that there is a some sort of silent consensus that we all are OK with that. Regarding the content of the Stalin file. I can't agree that there's nothing new in it. As it was noted by some editors before, according to quite a few pogrom definitions, the common atrribute of a pogrom is that it is organized. The Stalin file sheds some light on that question. Also the multiple victims requirement is also addressed. So far the discussion was circling around Anna Cichopek. To end this vicious circle refs other than Anna will be provided, as promised. And I hope that this discussion manages to move on from the irrelevant scrutiny of Anna's biography to the most important question - Why did the pogrom happen. M0RD00R 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why... it is a difficult question. On many levels, but remember WP:V: we are not on a quest for 'truth', only for factual representations of the events.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed, indeedy. Fortunately most people don't find the truth, and factual representations of events at odds with each other. Why do you? Dr. Dan 23:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead

Moved from main page: The Kraków pogrom or Cracow pogrom refers to the events that occurred on August 11, 1945, in the city of Kraków, Poland, when from one to up to five Polish Jews were murdered and many were beaten. Since one death is confirmed in all historical sources, it is questionable whether this event truly falls under the definition of a pogrom.

I suggest to work on the lead, when consensus over the rest of the issues is reached. So far it should stay as neutral as can be. M0RD00R 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you good folks are back on track. If you need anything in the future, don't hesitate to ask; that's what I am here for. We are all in this together.
-Arcayne 07:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)