Talk:Bukowsko

Untitled
I removed the part about "Ukrainians robbing Bukowsko" because there is no documentary evidence provided here that this occurred, and if it did occur (and it was only Ukrainians), no context was provided to prove that.. As an avid reader of both holocaust and Ukrainian historical literature, I'm well aware that there were such things going on in Poland and Ukraine, but it seems that the placement of this phrase was (a.) something of a non-sequitor; and (b.) not substantiated. It's pretty well known that during the holocaust in Poland, non-Jewish neighbors who witnessed the expulsions of Jews from their homes would often loot the houses afterward - that includes Ukrainians AND Poles. You're talking about poor people who didn't have anything and who knew that the Jews were probably not coming back. (Sad, but true - and something different than implying that Ukrainians were the only ones looting.) So the author is very sure that no Poles or other ethnic groups participated? Highly doubtful. No documentary evidence substantiates that it was ONLY Ukrainians who robbed Jewish homes. Perhaps there's some kind of testimonial evidence - meaning that someone once upon a time said that it was the Ukrainians who did it, and only mentioned the Ukrainians. Not good enough to pass the evidence test. As an ethnographic researcher I can tell you that individual memories are sometimes unreliable when it comes to pointing out perpetrators of war crimes, which is why documentary evidence is needed to reinforce it.

Whoever did that, well obviously, it was a reprehensible action. However, I don't think that unsubstantiated statements like that should be included. Another overall problem with this article is that it was written in passive tense. Other than the unsubstantiated finger pointing at the Ukrainians - subjects (e.g. Nazi Germans) aren't readily identified. Perhaps stating that the Nazi German Einsatzgruppe units were responsible for the killings would be a good start. Corinna Caudill (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Corinna Caudill (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE POLICIES require a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW - I did not inject political bias. I removed it. I look forward to seeing a revision that contains a reputable source. I also intend to contribute the same to this article once my research is complete. -CC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.207.156 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Allegation of Selective deletion of Jewish information
Would the editor who has now twice deleted only Jewish information from the article please explain the reasons for his/her actions? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not delete "Jewish information" from the article-obviously you're trying to inflame this and suggest something about my motivations when the fact is that the information is incorrect and unsupported. I deleted claims that are incorrect based on scholarly sources such as Potichnyj, Shtendera and others.  Perhaps you don't read Ukrainian, so you can't appreciate that the actual movement of UPA in the Lemko Tactical Sector -based on archival records captured by Poles and later compiled by Yevhen Misilo, Potichnyj and others for example - shows another story.  You also wrote that "Ukrainians" robbed Bukowsko Jewish homes.  How do you know that Poles didn't also do that?  You prove that they didn't and I'll concede - but you can't.  Things like that aren't easy to prove.  I didn't turn around and say "Poles robbed the Jews" - I just removed the biased statement that had no legitimate source to back it up.  Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First, in those edits you removed three entries about rabbis, two entries about the number of Jews, and the reference to Bukowsko's name in Yiddish, and did so in a summary fashion without, for example, combining the number of Jews and Poles in this entry: "1899 - 1893 Poles, 833 Jews", which you changed to just "1899 - 1893" without combining the number of Poles and Jews to 1893 + 833 = 2,726. That appeared to be a systematic attempt to remove Jewish information from the article, but I recognized that something else might be going on and that's why I asked about it here. If I had known that it was you and, having seen here your interest in Ukrainian matters, I might have had second thoughts, but those edits were made by a user named Dnbr23, whose only other edits were to remove information relating to Jews and only information relating to Jews from the Ustrzyki Dolne article. I did not suggest motive or potential bias, but only described what had happened. I could only go on appearance, and I would challenge any independent editor to look at the edits made by that account and not come to the same conclusion: that it was a systematic and selective removal of Jewish information. Second, I did not "wr[i]te that "Ukrainians" robbed Bukowsko Jewish homes". That assertion was added to the article in this edit on March 15, 2009, long before my first edit to the article on December 17, 2010 (which can be confirmed as my first edit via the contributor's list). Third, my goal for this and other village articles in the area is to preserve as much information as possible until reliable sources can be found to introduce and verify better information. Much of the information about the Jews appears to come from the Andrzej Potocki book in footnote 2, but since I didn't add the information and don't have access to that book (though I know someone who might; I'll inquire if I have the time) I can't say what it supports and what it does not. Fourth, the New York Times source is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia but I'll be the first to admit that it is far less than ideal and open to question in its details. But it's what we've got at the moment and ought to stay in. I don't feel the same way, even though I didn't add it, about the identification of the Ukrainians as those who robbed the Jewish homes and do not intend to revert that change unless someone can demonstrate that it is, at the very least, supported by Potocki. Finally, please do not assume that I am anti-Lemko or anti-Ukrainian. To the contrary, I truly feel and believe that they got the short end of the stick, just as did the Jews, in this area (and I don't mean by that comment to imply any contrasting or comparing, just acknowledgment). There's also no question that some bad things happened to Poles in the area via the UPA (and again, no contrasting or comparing or engaging in comparative fault or justification or lack thereof, merely acknowledging the fact). Sorting those things out may be very difficult and I welcome any reliable sources or information you may bring to the article and the articles about surrounding villages in the area. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Transporter Man" - I have no problem with you adding back the information about the Jewish rabbis- I didn't realize that I deleted that, and if I did, it was an oversight in an attempt to remove the bias that suggested that Ukrainians were the only group to engage in looting, or something similar. (Note: I'm still waiting for my password back from Wiki which is why I haven't signed this article, so I'm not attempting to disregard Wikipedia rules) In preserving information, it's important to preserve reliable information, especially when it has to do with touchy political topics. Also, I intend to provide some additional sources, but if you're just going to delete them, what's the point? That's the problem. Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SO it seems that you just added back in the bit about Ukrainian nationalists and cited the same source, without even bothering to write that the "article alleges" this. That's a newspaper article that alleges something - it's not an archive. On other pages, there is also incorrect information that is similar, but I clearly don't have as much time on my hands to worry about it. Any open-source encyclopedia is going to have this problem. Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Allegation
Editor "Transporter Man" threatening other editors by implying that they are selectively deleting Jewish information, when what he should be doing is researching and backing up sources. Putting incorrect information out there is no help to anyone, and then implying that someone is anti-semitic because they ask you to provide sources - that's unprofessional and not helpful. If you cite an archival source that proves this, I would never delete it. There is no proof, however, that it was Ukrainians (alone) who robbed Jewish homes, and no proof that Ukrainian nationalists demanded some kind of ransom, as it stands right now. Period. Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I finally found my login and password. I do not agree with the citation of the New York Times article or any language that suggests that Ukrainians were the only group to engage in looting. It is better to say "neighboring civilians" to remain objective. If it's "according to someone" then I suggest putting "according to" if you truly want to act in a way that is cooperative with other editors. Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This notion that UPA was demanding 1 million zloty is highly suspect, because you have to remember that we're talking about a guerrilla force. What were they going to do with money - put it in a bank? Spend it at the Jewish stores that no longer existed? By this point, UPA partisans were looking for food, guns, medical supplies and other provisions to sustain their efforts to disrupt the Polish government's deportation of Ukrainians - that was their mission in the post-war period, according to very acclaimed scholars such as Potichnyj and others. This is my point on why the NY Times article seems very farfetched, and with it being one of the only sources cited on the page, it deserves to be qualified for what it is - "he-said, she-said journalism." (I even hesitate to use the term "journalism" here)Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Corinna, Wikipedia's rules on using terms such as "alleges" go into effect only when the material comes from an opinion piece, such as an editorial, or when the source is obviously biased in a general kind of way. The mere fact that it's old doesn't justify that. This was a news piece from a foreign correspondent in one of the most reliable news sources. That doesn't mean that it's right, only that it's verifiable, which is the minimum standard for inclusion here. Saying "neighboring civilians" or "anecdotal evidence" when the article says nothing about neighboring civilians or anecdotal evidence is prohibited original research under Wikipedia rules. Virtually all news reports, which are considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources when published in high-quality newspapers, are based upon what was said by bystanders and this article says that the reporter visited the town after the raid in the company of the mayor of Bukowsko. The source says what it says. Re what you said in the previous section, please don't assume that I'll delete your sources. Add them, or propose them here on the talk page, when you have the time, and let's discuss them. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, however, I'm fine with your current version which merely sets out the name of the source and the date, except for the anecdotal evidence part, which I hadn't seen when I posted just above. That's fine by me. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, this is Wikipedia - people need to just use common sense and understand that it is what it is - an open source encyclopedia. I looked at the other pages where that other person made changes. I didn't delete any of the "Jewish" information, but didn't realize that someone else had on other pages. On a good note, it's good that you caught that. Corinna Caudill (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see now that this was a double case of mistaken identity. When you replied "you're trying to inflame this and suggest something about my motivations" to my question of "Would the editor who has now twice deleted only Jewish information from the article please explain the reasons for his/her actions?" you presumed, incorrectly, that I was talking about you. When I then replied "in those edits you removed three entries about rabbis," and following, I presumed, incorrectly, from that reply that you were admitting that you did delete the material, but were denying that it wasn't for the purpose of removing information about Jews. Well, I certainly feel sheepish, and thank you for the recognition that I wasn't so far off base in removing it. Perhaps we've reached some common ground along the way, however, so that this hasn't been entirely wasted. I'm still going to see if I can locate a copy of the Potocki book and I'll yank that sentence about the robbery of the Jewish homes if it doesn't support it. No promises, but I'll try as time allows. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I was confused by the whole thing because I knew that I deleted one sentence, but thought that perhaps I had accidentally deleted something else. I looked back through it and I hadn't - it was that other user/whoever that is. I also saw what you were saying about him/her deleting information on the Ustrzyki Dolne page as well. So that part was based on a misunderstanding, definitely, because there is an element out there who will immediately call anyone who challenges any information pertaining to the popular narrative as "anti-Semitic" when in fact, it is necessary to look at the way in which narratives are framed to determine their political infusions. I want to underscore that I'm not against any user or Wikipedia editor putting a stop to that kind of nonsense (selectively editing out information about Jewish history, which are precious bits of information that must be preserved) but you understand now that I'm only questioning the "balance" in the way that the village histories are presented. Corinna Caudill (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps Bukowsko should also be classified as "Galicia", "Habsburg Galicia" and "Austria Hungary" - the history of Polish and Ukrainian villages in southeast Poland is inextricably linked to the larger history of the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian empires. That is one backdrop of why their demography was so multi-ethnic. For surrounding villages cited that were Lemko, obviously, I would suggest that they are additionally labeled with titles of "Rusyn", "Ruthenian", and "Lemko" - labeling them as "Ukrainian" becomes complex because there is no scholarly consensus on national identity for the former Ruthenian villages in Poland in general although the Germans and the Russians viewed all of them that way during World War II regardless of their own self-identifications, and Ukrainians view most of them as "Zakerzonnia" (Ukrainian lands beyond the Curzon line, or Polish-Ukr. border.). Using religious taxonomies - I could also suggest "Greek Catholic villages" as an identifier ("Uniate" is antiquated and it's not what people called themselves - it took on a pejorative meaning) because that is quite useful in separating which villages have a history as being a "Polish" village and which ones do not. 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Corinna Caudill (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All good points. Let me find some sources, but the way things are going in other areas right now it might be awhile. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bukowsko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9141896418224555612&q=schwerd
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222101448/http://www.wolapiotrowa.chsi.pl/ to http://www.wolapiotrowa.chsi.pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)