Talk:Sholem Schwarzbard

Dreadfully poorly written
Parts read like a poor translation by a non-native speaker, there are references to insufficiently explained people and events, the order is confused, there are inconsistencies even in the spelling of his pen name ... a travesty of an 'encyclopaedia' article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Biased Rewriting
User Bandurist keeps erasing the changes made and putting in a non-neutral POV. The attempt is clearly to protray Schwartzbard as an agent of the soviets, without proper evidence or citations. Everyone associated with Schwartzbard is labeled as communist. I added the fact that this is what the Petlura camp tried to do in the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * what are your specific objections? Schwartzbard's lawyer was a communist sympathizer, and I added a source for that.  I left out the part about Schwartzbards brother because it was not sourced, and the same thing about crossing illegaly into Romania.  If you object to other things, please point out the specific ones so we can address them, thanks. Ostap 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Communist sympathizer, the same lawyer who represented the Soviet consul in France." France" is a clear innuendo. It again carries a "guilt by association" connotation and hints that Schwartzbard was a Soviet agent. Such information (about Torres) is best reserved for the entry of Henri Torres (no English page, but there are French and Hebrew ones). So I suggest removing it, or else put it as one of the arguments made by those claiming a soviet conspiracy.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we rephrase it and say "He was accused by Ukrainian emigrants of being a Soviet spy. According to Ukrainian historian Michael Palij, a GPU (Soviet secret police) agent named Mikhail Volodin came to Paris that August 1925, they met, and Schwartzbard began stalking Petlura. They also point out that Torres was a Communist sympathizer, the same lawyer who represented the Soviet consul in France..."? Ostap 01:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * If you are new to Wikipedia, greetings. I noticed that you were not happy with some of the reversions that I have done on articles about Symon Petlura and Swartzbard.
 * My POV differs from yours. This is understandable.

However, just going through an article and deleting all the parts you don't like and adding materials that have little relationship to the original article is also not very correct ettiquette.
 * Not having the time to register a user name, and having you IP address noted for questionable edits is another problem.
 * If you disagree with materials that I have posted, there is a more courteous procedure by which this material can be removed or changed. Put a post in the discussion page. Ask for a citation in the article or fact that you know or think is incorrect, and wait for an appropriate period of time for a response rather than simply immediately removing material that offends you.
 * On the other hand asking for a thousand citiations for every trivial thing can also be quite annoying.
 * I can usually find the documents to cite, but keep in mind most of my activities in Wiki are weekend endeavours. I just got home from work tonight and it is 10.30 and I was up at 6.OO. It takes time to find the citations.
 * There is plenty of room in Wiki for your additions, but offen there are more appropriate ways of writing. In the case of Petlura there are many myths which have been exacerbated by the fact that direct discussion between cultures never took place and that various myths, distortions and were left to spin out of control. We now have a vehicle to correct this. We can either use it for the development of more understanding, or it can be used as a tool for the stirring up of more xenophobia. It also requires somepatience.
 * I would like to know more about the Pogroms in Proskuriv. Perhaps you could start such a project. There already is an intersting one about the Pogrom of Kishinev. Welcome to Wikipedia. Bandurist 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * User Bandurist, your response is to simply erase all the modifications to the article? There were a lot of valuable material and explanations in the version you deleted, including supportive citations for the `Soviet agent theory' by User Ostap. Also in previous versions there were many inaccuracies (e.g. the location in Paris where the assassination took place). A lot of the information in the versions you try to resurrect is either irrelevant (his brother being deported) or inflammatory in nature ('illegally' crossing the border to Rumania). Note that the entry is still far from perfect, in particular it is missing a discussion of Schwartzbard's role in organizing Jewish self-defence in 1905.


 * What I have done right now is is put all the material supporting the soviet connection together, with a clear lableing (it is still not perfect, but better than what was before).


 * About the Proskurov pogrom, you can find material here http://www.west.net/~jazz/felshtin/sitemap.html. Note that Proskurov is called Khmelnitzky today.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.129 (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I know Proskuriv being Khmelnytsk. I gave some recitals throughout that whole area 15 years ago. The area is quite interesting to me - particularly in the way the cultures of the local population in the neighbouring Ternopil differ from that of the population of Khmelnytsk - only because the administration was different.

So our job now is to discuss the following:

1) Add and check the supportive citations for the `Soviet agent theory' 2) Check for the location in Paris where the assassination took place. 3) Discuss the irrelevancy of his brother being deported. 4) Inflammatory nature of his 'illegally' crossing the border to Rumania. 5) Schwartzbard's role in organizing Jewish self-defence in 1905.

Lets see if we can work together to overcome these problems in a mutual manner.Bandurist 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing details about Schwartzbard:

His childhood: he was the first child to survive after three older brothers dying. His mother died when he was young. Afterwards he was an apprentice to a watchmaker.
 * That certainly whould be included - BAN

The 1905 Pogroms: He participated in the the Jewish self defence in Balta. He was wanted by the authorities and moved to a border town, was arrested released and then escaped to Austro-Hungary.
 * This also explains a part of his hitory and should also be included - BAN

1917-1919: Schawtzbard participation in organizing orphanages and in Jewish self defence groups (again Balta).

The assassination: Petlura being in Paris was no secret. A Ukrainian exiles newspaper wrote about it and had his picture with Pilsudsky.
 * Petlura in fact wa the editor of the newspaper Tryzub which he founded and was very active among the Ukrainian exile community in Paris organizing a library of Ukrainian books in Paris, but I don't see anywhere abouthis being in Paris was secret. - BAN

The trial: much information is missing about the witnesses, both for the prosecution and the defence and their cross examination. Without it, it is hard to figure out how the jury acquitted him.
 * This maybe worthy of a seperate article because of its significance and because of the ammount of material to sift through. It is very difficult to understand why an aquittal came about. Often they may find the person guity and sentence him to time served because of a strong reason. He did murder Petlura. It was witnessed. He did surrender and it was reported over and over so there is no misunderstanding that he did it. The problem is in why the aquittal? What was the reason for the aquittal. Under what laws was he aquitted. OJ they couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Here there was no doubt. Why the aquittal and no verdict?- BAN

The Soviet agent theory: all aspects should be covered together. Irrelevant information should be minimized (e.g. his brother).
 * It would be good to put together the Soviet agent information together, however I do feel that the information about his brother is relelvant.- BAN

Petlura's role in the pogroms: this is best discussed in Petlura's entry.
 * Makes sense- BAN

References: an important missing reference is the Book "Pogromchik: The assassination of Simon Petlura", by Saul S. Friedman.
 * An important source particularly if we put together a special article about the actual trial- BAN

Another pointer should be that Schwartzbard papers are archived in YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in New York. http://www.yivoinstitute.org
 * I think they are referenced here. I remember going through them. An amzing job they do inthe archives. _ BAN

Without these changes the entry looks like a piece of Ukrainian Nationalistic propaganda.
 * Note just how biased is the following piece


 * "During the trial Schwartzbard was quartered in the Soviet Consulate."
 * He was actually in prison all along
 * That makes sense if you are on a trial for murder. I wonder why that is there and where it came from? - BAN
 * I noticed that some of the minor details in this article were written a few years ago and have some inaccuracies. Ostap 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The core of Schwartzbard's defence was that he was avenging the deaths of victims of the pogroms. After a trial lasting eight days, and succumbing to pressure from prominent Jewish activists and academics,
 * This is pretty blatant anti-Jewish.
 * To me it doesn't sound anti-Jewish, but maybe I am not picking up the nuances that you are. Who were the people who applied pressure? I think I remember in a Time article Einstein was one person, but who in particular sent letters of support. This sentence may be better to be discussed more on an article specifically dealing with the trial - Bandurist 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bandurist, I removed that line because it does seem to imply that he was only aquitted because of pressure. While it is probably true that there was pressure from Jewish activists and academics, there was certainly pressure from Ukrainian diaspora in France and Ukrainians abroad as well, no? In my opinion, I don't think it should be included. Ostap 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the jury acquitted him.


 * Okay, I read over the trial part and you're right, so I removed the biased "prominent Jewish activist" line. And the part about the Soviet consulate, I take your word on so it is out to. If you want to add more about his biography please do so. I don't see anywhere in the article where it says Petlura's being in Paris was a secret, so I couldn't do anything about that.  As for information about the witnessess, this I am trying to get.  If you read below, we have already come to a conclusion that there should be separate a "Soviet agent argument" section.  Now we are trying to figure out what to put in it. Please refrain from making claims about nationalistic propaganda, it won't really help anything.  And please create an account. Ostap 02:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I added some information about Schwartzbard's archive and ways in which he was commemorated. What is the real source for this : "He participated in a movie living for a time in Hollywood with his family where he played himself in a film made about the Assassination ."

There is no trace of a movie about Schwarzbard in the imbd. Also what is the source that he moved to the US? all the sources have him leaving in France before going on the South African expedition.

I removed this until clarification.

Mashkin 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The source for the part about coming to the US and the movie about the assassination comes from [] the Ukrainian Weekly which is credible. However, after reading this article, you are correct. It doesn't say he lived there, only that he toured or traveled in the US for a time.  And it says he considered playing himself in a movie.  I propose putting it back in, clarifying that he was only traveling in America, and he only considered playing a part in a movie. Ostap 01:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the movie was never made, I don't see the point of mentioning it. Reading the article does not give confidence that it was more than a rumor stemming from a visit by Schwartzbard in the US.
 * I changed Palestine to Israel and it reads better, though it is bit odd since the political entity did not exist.

Mashkin 02:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps saying the Land of Israel? I think calling it Israel sounds better, especially considering the situation.  About the movie, I would consider it notable.  How about this: "While he was traveling in the United States, it was rumored that he considered playing the part of himself in a movie about the assassination." Ostap 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Quotes
Wrong quotes has been used which allegedly were used by Schwartzbard during the assassination. The official transcripts of the trial states:

"Here's my chance, I thought. 'Are you Petlura?' I asked him. He did not answer, simply lifting his heavy cane. I knew it was he.

"I shot him five times. I shot him like a soldier who knows how to shoot, and I shot straight so as not to hit any innocent passerby. At the fifth shot he fell. He didn't say a word. There were only cries and convulsions.

"When I saw him fall I knew he had received five bullets. Then I emptied my revolver. The crowd had scattered. A policeman came up quietly and said: 'Is that enough?' I answered: 'Yes.' He said: 'Then give me your revolver.' I gave him the revolver, saying: 'I have killed a great assassin.'

"When the policeman told me Petlura was dead I could not hide my Joy. I leaped forward and threw my arms about his neck."

"Then you admit premeditation?" asked the judge.

"Yes, yes!" replied M. Schwartzbard, his face lit with fanatical exultation.



1) `Soviet agent theory'
With the fall of the Soviet system the archives were open for a period of time, however, since then the Russian archives have been closed. The Ukrainian ones are still open but they fdo not containe everything the Soviet Union was doing. The current reseach in Ukraine by scholars studying the previous KGB archives is to accept the Soviet agent theory, however, Ukrainian scholars have not found the document that is the proverbial "smoking gun". Bandurist 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be included, but to compromise with the IP, why not include all of the information about the theory in a separate paragraph titled "Soviet agent theory". It is important to note, that like you say, there has never been any actual proof just a whole lot of evidence.  Nonetheless, it is still technically only a theory, and may never be proven. Ostap 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian government portal at http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=36813166&cat_id=32395 that he was a Soviet Agent. I remember reading an article which I downloaded from the Ukrainian State Security Services research centra that also stated it. I will try to once again find the link. Do you really think a seperate section is warranted? I'm OK with the idea but on the other hand am not too keen on it. The current Ukrainian government is firm that he was (although I still can't remember seeing the proof. Maybe have IP decide .Bandurist 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see Yulia's signature under that piece but the signature of Museum director, anyhow I found a source where Yuschenko says Schwartzbard is a SU-agent and altered the article as such. I think Prime Minister Tymoshenko has not taken part in any discussion about Schwartzbard so I think it is a bit idiot to say that Yschenko words are (always) the words of the government. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it does seem very likely that he was a Soviet agent, and I have heard that Ua government considers him such. But there would have to be solid proof, and good citations, to make that claim.  The evidence suggests he very well might have been, but that might is the problem.  If I recall, there has never been an established link between him and the Soviets, and with all the archive and acessibility issues, it would be hard to find proof.  My proposal was just a compromise for the IP, if there are any better ideas I would be for them also. We probably have to wait for IP to see what he thinks.  Ostap 20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole thing about being a Soviet agent is that you hide your identity. We know that Swartzbard's brother was evicted from France for his active communist views. We know that Swartzbard returned to Russia to fight with Kotovsky with the Communists against the armies of the UNR. I assume Shwartzbard left Russia because of some anti-Tsarist action in 1905. His knowledge of Yiddish would have made it pretty easy to live in German speaking countries. His knowledge of Romanian-Moldavian coming from Bessarabia also would have made French understandable. Hiding under a Anarchist moniker can be explained. If he was a Soviet agent his associations withthe Soviet Consulate, his quartering and the use of a French lawyer sympathetic to the Communists is then understood. I can't understand why he was not supported by a lawyer from the Jeish community if he did such a service to the memory of those Jews who perrished? The Soviets wanted Petlura big time and squeezed the Poles considerably. In 1928 those UNR Soldiers who returned to Ukraine under the amnesty all were either executed or interned. the Soviets were big on assassinations. Look at Trotsky, Bandera, Konovaletz and a whole list of others. Look at Kuznetzov and recently Lytvynenko. Bandurist 03:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bandurist, I completely agree. As I said the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it, but as you said there is no "smoking gun", so we can't state definitively that he was an agent.  I believe the situation is covered under WP:OR.  I don't object to any of this material being included, and I don't think the IP does either.  I think what he wants is to have the evidence put under a specific category labeled "Soviet agent theory", and not placed all over the article.  My understanding is that IP objects to having this material in the sections of the trial and so on, because he says it is like guilt by association, and implies that he was a Soviet agent without proof.  I think he has a point. Ostap 03:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Too many articles I have read have this guilty by association thing. It may be better to put all this into one special category and let the reader decide, but how do you write such a paragraph so that the "goat is whole and the wolf is stuffed"? Bandurist 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really don't know. You and I are probably looking at this the same way, and the IP is looking at it from a  different view.  Hopefully we can get it to a point where we are all happy.  You can go ahead and write what you like, especially with all those sources you got, and I am sure our IP will come by and give his view.  Then I guess we can work from there.  I would support a section entitled something like "Soviet agent theory", or "Soviet agent argument" placed between the "The assassination" and "After the Trial" sections that lists out all the evidences that he was one. Maybe also saying in the lead that he was thought to be a Soviet agent by some. Ostap 04:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all very unconvincing. At best guilt by association. Schwartzbard's life after the acquital do not suggest any soviet connections. But given the prevalance of the view by Ukrainian sources it should be covered.
 * We are not trying to make the conclusion he was guilty. Convinving or not it is a widely held theory by some. Information such as his life after trial with no soviet connections can be included also as what is used as a rebuttal to the agent argument. Ostap 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a document published by the Ukrainian Security servoces about Shwartzbart and the GPU [ssu.kmu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog/document?id=42156 ВБИВСТВО�С.ПЕТЛЮРИ�І�ГПУ] Clearly this Government oganization does beleive that Shwartzbard acted on the orders of the GPU. Calls have been made to gain access to the Petlura and Shwartzbard files located in the KGB archives in Moscow but have not been answered. ҃҃҃҃--Bandurist (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

2) Paris location of assassination.
We should let the User IP edits stand regarding this issue, as they seem more accurate. Ostap 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently on the articles it has "a Paris boulevarde".

IP has rue Racine The Ukrainian government portal has rue Racine The edits currently are not inaccurate however IP is more specific, but does the street matter? Does rue Racine have any meaning to anyone in the Anglo speaking world? I agree that IP's edits here are more specific. Bandurist 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Irrelevancy of his brother being deported.
I feel that this information is relevant for a number of reasons. It sheds light on the man and his associations. If his brother was deported from France for having Communist leanings and being an active communist it suggests certain conclussions. a) That his brother may also be a Communist b) That his brother may hide his Communist sympathies in order to not be deported as well. What do you think? Bandurist 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I say it should be included under the Soviet agent theory as evidence. Ostap 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

i am a different person but ban, i think you are obsessed with anticommunism, what if he sympathised with a socialist revolution? it is pretty obvious isn't that? if only from his assasinating a nationalist character. i think your communist-witchhunt has no relevance to the 1917 circumstance and as such has no historical relevance for the article.(even trotzkism arrived after 1917, his brother needn't even have been a communist but may have been just partial to the reds over the whites) the more interesting notion that his resistance against progroms, antisemitism and nationalism got him into the red army as much as the foreignlegion during ww1 is also not made. the question rises, does your awkward relation with communism imply you support the progroms? i wouldn't be surprised. keep in mind that for sympathy with "the" revolution you need not be a communist, it suffices not to want others to be a slave. the whole spectrum of socialists sympathised with that revolution (especially in 1917). ofcourse a communist might sympathise with the elimination of a massmurderer. (that was probably at least part of his motivation to join the red army) 80.57.43.99 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

4) Inflammatory nature of his 'illegally' crossing the border to Rumania.
The fact that he crossed the border illegally (i.e. without passport or visa has paricular connotations. a) He had no money to buy the required documents b) He was escaping repurcussions in Russia c) He (as an Anarchist had no respect for the government and did what ever he pleased.

If we look at b) What was he escaping from in Russia. 1905 was a difficult year. A year of Revolution. Anybody involved in the massive srtikes and revolts initially got the death sentence. Such writers as Hnat Khotkevych didn't participate in any strikes but as a secretary of the railwayworker's Union he was warned to leave the country which he did fleeing to Lviv in Austria-Hungary. 1905 was also the year that the Blacvk hundreds were particularly active and the call by some Russian circles "Beat the jews and Save Russia" went out and a series of massive pogroms were launched. Could this be a reason fr him crossing the border?Bandurist 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see why "illegally" should be included, but perhaps to compromise with the IP it should be written in a different way. Ostap 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Petlura also escaped from Poland to Hungary and then Vienana in 1923 illegally. There was speculation that the Poles were about to cave in to the demands of the Bolsheviks and hand him over. However they write specifically that he escaped. He may have escaped with the help of the Poles in order to release pressure on them from the Bolshevyuks. Anyway, how do you sufggest rephrasing it.Bandurist 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd let the IP propose a different way, he is the one who actually took issue with it. I say include it as it is, but he is obviously against it.  If he has an idea on how to make it less inflammatory, he can say.  I really don't know how to rephrase it. Ostap 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

5) Schwartzbard's role in organizing Jewish self-defence in 1905.
Could this be a reason for him fleeing Russia in 1905? Bandurist 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC) In the link to Shwartzbard's bio there is no mention of his association with the Jewish self-defence in 1905. Maybe this is the reason he fled Russia? But I ask myself, if this was so important why was it not mentioned in the bioBandurist 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

More sources

 * "Petliura, Symon," "Schwartzbard Trial," "Pogroms," Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Vol. 3, 4 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993);
 * Michael Palij, "The Ukrainian-Polish Defensive Alliance," (Edmonton: CIUS Press, 1995); Dokument Sudovoyi Pomylky (Paris: Natsionalistychne Vydavnytstvo v Evropi, 1958);
 * "L'Assassinat de l'Hetman Petlioura," "Un Crime Politique, M. Petlioura, ancien chef du gouvernment ukrainien, a été tuer hier au Quartier Latin," "L'Assassinat de l"Hetman Petlioura," Le Figaro, May 26, May 27, June 3, 1926.

Another iffy section
After reading In 1917, while travelling to Odessa to join the Red Guards, Schwartzbard was reportedly told of Petlura's responsibility for pogroms in the Ukraine, though it is debated that Petlura was ever involved in them at all. I ask 1917 ? In 1917 Petlura had not had any involvement with the Ukrainian army until 1918 and he was not the head of the government until February 1920. Can anyone give a source for this statement? To me the statement sound false, at least the date is inaccurate Bandurist 12:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This part also seems to me difficult to understand "After a trial lasting eight days the jury acquitted Schwarztbard and ordered the family of Petlura to compensate him for his expenses. " Why would the Petlura family be ordered to pay compensation to the murdered after a murder trial? Bandurist 01:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The trial was a civil one as well, not only a criminal one and there were two lawyers representing the family in addition to the official prosecutor. Schwarzbard received compensation for his legal expenses as a result of this prosecution. This facts indicates what the jury thought of the assassination.

Mashkin 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the opening of the article. I don't know how the Publicit was born (Bandurist added it). Did you mean publisher? Anyway, this opening should only be for things that he is really well known, otherwise we will write all the article in the opening paragraph. Poet should stay, since someone may want to check who is the writer of a poem and lookup the name. The fact that he was Jewish and an anarchist should stay as well, since they were defining characteristics of his life. And of course to mention the reason he is known - the Petlura assassination. But there is no need for writing that he was a "twice convicted bank robber", nor that he was a decorated veteran or an encyclopedia salesman and fund raiser. An issue to consider is whether to mention the fact that he was acquitted of the assassination. Perhaps mention it with the trial. Maye something i.e. "known primarily for the assassination of the Ukrainian politician Symon Petliura and the sensational trial that resulted."

Mashkin 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To (ab)User:Mona23653, you have inserted 'convicted bank robber' again, with no explanation, in spite of my above reasoning. As I suggested elsewhere, why don't you start the Mona Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History and leave Wikipedia alone. Mashkin 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen, you know what? why don't you start your own? seriously? why are you defending a Soviet agent so much? Face it, he was a convicted bank robber. Why do you keep on removing it? If you want your own version of history, then go make your own mashkinpedia, or whatever you wanna call it. BUt here, the point is, to lay out trues facts about his life.

Mona23653 03:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653
 * I adhere to the NPOV, the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, whereas you specifically confessed to not doing so. Therefore I recommended that you start your own encyclopedia where you can have just your POV - I am serious, it is not such a bad idea, you can use the material from Wikipedia. (Just as an example for my following of NPOV, I recently added the relationship of Petlura with Jabotinsky, which can be interpreted as supportive of the view that minimizes his role in the pogroms). As for the issue of writing in the opening sentences of the entry on Schwartzbard about the banck robberies, as I wrote above, it does not make sense to write his whole biography in the opening sentences. About the `soviet agent theory' what I admit or not is not the issue. Given that so many Ukrainian outlets stick to the theory it means that it is worth mentioning, but it should me the way the case is presented. Btw, note that this is what the prosecution in Schwartzbard's trial tried to do and failed (you seem to pay a lot of attention to verdicts in trials, so you may want to take this into account). Mashkin 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, lets keep the discussion about the article, not each other. Ostap 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What point of view is there? You're the one here, who denies the facts. Is the fact that he was a repeat offender, who twice escaped from jail a point of view? He commits one crime, is sentnced, and escapes, then goes to Hugary, robs a bank, gets caught, and jailtime, and escapes, then he goes to Paris, and kills a person. He was a dangerous repeat-offener, and a criminal. I don't understand how you could classify that that's a POV.Mona23653 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)mona23653

He had a good lawyer just like OJ Bandurist (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that he never denied killing the Petliura. In fact, he was rather proud of it and quite open about his motives. The dead politician in question had been in charge of an army that was guilty of a great many war crimes, war crimes that Petliura was contrite about sure, but war crimes that he was aware of at the time and did nothing substantial to curb. He didn't like pogroms, but he felt that it wasn't worth the bother to halt them. Whether or not you think it was a fair price- I'm more or less on the fence myself- he paid for that sin with his life. But as Makhno demonstrated, it most certainly *was* possible to maintain discipline in a Ukrainian force while taking a hard line against pogroms.
 * Now there was never a conviction of war crimes, so stop with your groundless accusations. When Sichynsky killed Potocky for murdering Ukrainian nationals the court sentenced that guy to death on the spot, yet the court in Paris found acceptable for conducting acts of self-retribution in the center of Paris. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Soviet agent theory is cute, but there is no hard evidence at all and a simple application of Occam's razor makes very short work of it. It makes exactly as much sense to assert that Petliura was himself an agent of foreign powers because he was anti-Soviet. But just as Schwartzbard was anti-Petliura because he was anti-pogrom, Petliura was anti-Soviet because he was pro-independence. And just as being an agent of a foreign power (as the Bolsheviks asserted he was, if I remember) would have been against everything that Petliura stood for as a nationalist, being a Bolshevik agent would have been against everything that Shwartzbard stood for as an anarchist. What is so difficult to understand about that? 24.146.204.47 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think you're mixing up your trial cliches here. You must be thinking of the one that starts with 'no jury in the world.'24.146.204.47 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't really say that he did nothing to curb the occurrence of Pogroms in Ukraine, because he did, as eveidenced by the numerous announceents and leaflets that were published at the time. Whether he had to power to totally stop them in the 11 months that he was head of the government while on Ukrainian territory is doubtful. considering the fact tht the regon was in a state of civil war with Denikin, The Reds, the Poles and the inteventionists. Yes P{etliura was head of the government from January till December of 1919 after Vynnychenlko's departure, but there is no eveidence of him ordering any Pogroms nor of him killing anyone. Schwartzbard's record hwever is not blemish free. He did kill and he is and will probably remain a controvercial figure.Bandurist (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Peppering the countryside with cheerful and well-meaning leaflets and hoping for the best is as good as doing nothing in such a situation, and I very strongly suspect that Petliura knew this as well as we do. Well-meaning leaflets are meaningless when they are accompanied by a failure to consistently punish murder, rape and pillage by the forces under one's command and authority. In such a situation, the man in charge is duley responsible for the actions of the forces under his command. Consider again Nestor Makhno, a Ukrainian commander who also fought Denikin, the Bolshaviks, etc. His zero-tolerance policy (judiciously enforced by tribunal and firing squad) against wanton antisemitic murder proved successful in ways that Petliura's rhetorical opposition and practical tolerance simply could not. From my admittedly incomplete review of the literature on the subject, it seems pretty clear that Petliura's relationship to the murderous antisemitism of the nationalists under his command was not as clean and simple as you seem to wish for it to be.
 * So to imply that Petliura is not as controversial a figure as Schwartzbard is simply absurd. In fact such a thing is only possible if we judiciously ignore the experiences and perspectives of Ukrainian Jews in particular and Jewish people in general. As you are probably well aware, Petliura just as controversial a figure for Jewish people as Schwartzbard is for Ukrainians. No one denies that Schwartzbard killed Petliura- not even Schwartzbard himself. But whether he was a righteous avenger, a tragically misguided idealist, or an evil robotic exoskeleton endoskeleton disguised in human flesh sent from the future by the Illuminati and the Reds- this is the crux of what makes him controversial. But to pretend that he was a Bolshavik agent is to ignore his entire life of actions and ideas both before and after his assassination of Petliura. To make a very long story short: as a poet and man of ideas, one would have expected his supposed Bolshavik masters to utilize him as a propagandist if he were even allowed to stay abroad. But for some strange reason, he continued to live and write (pretty damned far from the USSR btw) as a Jewish anarchist. This is most likely because he was truly a Jewish anarchist and not some sort of quadruple agent of the Russian state. His reasons for killing Petliura must then be ascertained in light of his actual loyalties and affinities rather than the convenient paranoid fantasies that seem to be so popular today in the Ukraine. As is demonstrated by the writings of both Schwartzbard and others, there were plenty of reasons and justifications for a Jewish anarchist to kill Petliura. 24.146.204.47 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: the statement that there is no evidence that Petliura killed anyone is absurd on its face. The man ran an army, which is by definition an organized force dedicated to killing large numbers of people. If you consider the killings carried out by it (or rather, to be completely fair, just the ones that Petliura did not condemn in his ineffectual leaflets) to be legitimate on the grounds of collective self defense, nationalism, etc, then this is one thing. But to assert that the commander of any army has had nothing to do with the sordid business of killing is tantamount to declaring that the army in question marched forth with handfuls of flowers rather than guns and bayonets. Petliura was involved in killing during the Civil War just as surely and materially as Schwartzbard was involved both in that very same bloodbath and Petliura's assassination in Paris.24.146.204.47 (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Peppering forums with meaningless comments that based on false legends and only will lead the discussion nowhere. You know nothing whether Petliura conducted any actions or not to prevent pogroms, yet have a nerve to judge his ability as a politician. The same way we all should convict now Stalin or Nicholas II of Russia. Wasn't Nikolai II who ruled the country when all the pogroms has started?
 * Your statement that running an army by definition only underlines that you have no idea what you are talking about. And your comparison of terrorist actions with speculative accusations does not fit any sober mind. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Memorial grave plate picture



 * 1) Please take a look at the writing on the stele. It say that when Shalom was two he experienced the first pogrom that took place in Ukraine. Now, Shalom was born in 1886 which implies that the first pogrom that he experienced was in 1888. I have not find any existing evidence that country of Ukraine existed or even mentioned nowhere close to that date. There was a territory of Little Russia of the Russian Empire, which, probably, the plate implies, yet it explicitly uses term Ukraine. Yes there is an association with a modern country, but in that case we may as well consider the Roman Empire as Italy or the Mongol Empire as Russia or China. What is the purpose of that mistake???


 * 1) The next paragraph implies that the Ukrainian instigated riots against Russian Jews forced him out of Ukraine. It also explicitly accuses Petliura of murdering Jews.


 * 1) In the third paragraph has name of Petliura misspelled, stating that until 1925 Shalom never knew that Petliura lived in Paris since 1924. Later the paragraph states that the world public opinion considers him a hero. Now my question, is that with consideration of the Ukrainian diaspora? How is that a world public opinion?

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheesy, isn't it?..--Galassi (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. And in Ukraine, Petlura and Bandera are national heroes. But this is not a Wikipedia issue. Memorial plates are not part of Wikipedia and are not subject to NPOV etc. BorisG (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sholom Schwartzbard. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924200135/http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/1933/013317.shtml to http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1933/013317.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627215210/http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/SchwartzbardSamuel.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/SchwartzbardSamuel.htm

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) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sholom Schwartzbard. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220171946/http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog/document?id=42156 to http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog%5Cdocument?id=42156
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220171946/http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog/document?id=42156 to http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/doccatalog%5Cdocument?id=42156

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) 10:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)