Talk:Sholem Schwarzbard

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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)