Talk:Lviv pogroms (1941)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 09:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Can we get a specific page number for Breitman 1991 (if you can't access the paper, I could send you a copy)
The article lede should explain why Jews were targeted

Copyright[edit]

I have concerns about the copyright status of both photos. Both PD-Polish and PD-Ukraine rely on the photo being published by a certain date, but neither photo says when the first publication was. The first photo could be locally re-uploaded under fair use if there are no free images of the event.

Neutrality[edit]

"Manipulation of historical memory" Maybe consider renaming this section "Historiography", I think that would be more neutral.
Sentence starting: "The collection of documents, titled "For the Beginning: Book of Facts" (Do pochatku knyha faktiv), has been recognized by historians..." may be better as: "According to historians including...., the collection of documents..." Is it really appropriate to say in Wiki voice that it's "an attempt at manipulating World War II history"?

Otherwise I have no concerns. It's a very well researched article which overall does a good job with a touchy topic. b uidhe 09:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would appreciate receiving Breitman 1991, as I don't have this source on hand.
I've expanded the lead.
On the copyright, I generally go with Commons - that's the project responsible for ensuring that licensing is proper.
- It would be nice if Commons photos were all free, but sadly there are a lot of WWII photos lying around with dubious licensing. I've nominated the second image for deletion and removed it from the article. If it's kept, it can be added back to the article. The first one may be OK, since arguably it's PD-US under seized enemy property doctrine (assuming the image description is accurate). b uidhe 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On "Manipulation of historical memory", this section was previously called "In historical memory". It was suggested by the contributor who copyedited the article that the section's name be changed to "Historical negationism".

The Discussion is here: [1]; the specific comment was: "Do you think the section header "In historical memory" should have a stronger wording, like "Historical negationism"?" I thought it was too strong and thus settled on "Manipulation..." I think that this describes OUN's and subsequent attempts to whitewash the past pretty accurately.

On the last point, I made the change as suggested.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you clarify why scholars criticized the 2008 release of documents. Is this because they've been falsified, cherry-picked, or some other reason? b uidhe 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded on that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- After looking into the English language literature a bit more, I think this is a fair summation of the views of scholars writing in English. Although I don't think it's a GA requirement, ideally the article would incorporate views of Eastern European scholars. (See, for example, a critical review (Ukrainian) of Himka's work by Сергій Рябенко, who works for Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance. Рябенко claims (p. 327) that Himka relies excessively on postwar Jewish testimonies, without considering German, Ukrainian or Polish sources, and that he is biased against OUN. However, I have no idea what Рябенко's academic reputation is.) b uidhe 05:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article by Riabenko where he critiques Himka's work: Following in the footsteps of John Paul Khimka's Lviv pogrom (Google translate). Some observations:

It would have more weight if it were published in a peer-reviewed setting, just like Himka's article was.
Riabenko disputes Himka's findings and survivor testimony which Riabenko describes as "unproven", "unfounded", "contradictory", and so on. Riabenko seems to dispute that OUN or Ukrainian People's Militia spearheaded the initial pogrom, and also challenges the notion that Ukrainians participated in the pogrom in the first place, referring to the latter as "Ukrainians" (in scare quotes). However, he does not offer much of an alternative explanation, except for vaguely suggesting that Poles were the perpetrators instead. The pogrom is well enough documented in photos and newsreels so that I had to ask: Who were the civilians abusing the Jews on the streets? Another of his arguments is that since Jews did not speak Ukrainian, their identification of Ukrainian participants of the pogroms cannot be trusted. I don't speak German but I surely can recognise it. This would be especially true for anyone who lived in a city where German was frequently spoken.
In another example, Riabenko takes issue with Himka referring to this text in Stetsko's proclamation: The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation. Riabenko argues that to understand this passage one must review other OUN documents that "put the declaration in proper context" (Google translate). This supposedly means that OUN intended for the "cooperation as an organization joint with the German troops against the USSR for the liberation of Ukraine, and this, together with mutually beneficial political and economic cooperation, is a platform for allied relations in which the rights and vital requirements of Ukraine should be respected". OUN's expectations for "allied relations" with Germany sounds deluded since OUN had entered Ukraine with one battalion while Army Group South had roughly 50–60 divisions. Riabenko seems to be taking this nonsense seriously. Etc.
Finally, the Lviv pogrom was not an isolated, unexplainable, and unheard-of event. In fact, similar pogroms (with or without encouragement from the Germans) occurred all along the Axis front in the territories that had been recently annexed by the Soviet Union: Eastern Poland (Western Belarus & Western Ukraine); Latvia; Lithuania; and (IIRC) Bessarabia. The only territory where such pogroms did not occur was Estonia which only had 4300 Jewish people to begin with, three-fourths of whom had time to flee before the Germans arrived. This article by Aristotle Kallis explains the bigger picture well: 'Licence' and Genocide In the East: Reflections on Localised Eliminationist Violence During the First Stages of 'Operation Barbarossa'(1941).

In short, I would not put much stock in Riabenko's criticism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, other serious scholars give credence to Riabenko. Ksenya Kiebuzinski and Alexander Motyl write: The most concerted empirical effort to argue for the OUN’s complicity in the killings, by John-Paul Himka (‘The Lviv Pogrom of 1941’), signally fails to make a persuasive case, preferring to resort to highly circumstantial evidence and dubious inference. Himka’s effort has been the target of a devastating point-by-point rebuttal by the Ukrainian scholar, Serhii Riabenko, who convincingly demonstrates that Himka consistently misinterprets facts, resolves ambiguities in favor of his thesis, and misuses his sources (Riabenko, ‘Slidamy “L′vivs′koho pohromu” Dzhona-Pola Khymky,’ Ukraïns′kyi vyzvol′nyi rukh 18 (2013): 258-328). We need to reflect what the range of historians say, and not pick sides if there is no consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley This GAN is more than three years old. If you disagree you need to either 1) fix it yourself or 2) open a GAR. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to clarify: I am not challenging the GAN, just making an observation about the sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I agree with your point when you were reviewing that we need to make sure we are not overreliant on specific sources, e.g. Himka, who have been challenged in the literature. I think I have fixed this in my recent edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]