Talk:Kishinev pogrom

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yilongmo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge or share

The following piece removed from History of the Jews in Bessarabia. Please merge.

A young Christian Russian boy, Michael Ribalenko, was found murdered in the town of Dabossary (Dubasari in Romanian), about 25 miles north-east of Kishinev; the town is situated on the left bank of the river Dnister, and formally was not a part of Bessarabia. Although it was clear that the boy had been killed by a relative (who was later found), the government chose to call it a ritual murder plot by the Jews. The mobs were incited by Pavolachi Krusheven, the editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper "Bessarabetz", and the vice-governor Ustrugov. They used the age-old calumny against the Jews (that the boy had been killed to use his blood in preparation of matzo). Viacheslav Plehve, the Minister of Interior, supposedly gave orders not to stop the rioters. During three days of rioting, the government-organized Kishinev pogrom against the Jews took place. Forty seven (some say 49) Jews were killed, 92 severely wounded, 500 slightly wounded and over 700 houses destroyed. This pogrom is considered the first state-inspired action against Jews in the 20th century. Despite a world outcry, only two men were sentenced to seven and five years and twenty-two were sentenced for one or two years. This pogrom was instrumental in convincing tens of thousands of Russian Jews to leave to the West and to Palestine.

Mikkalai 21:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Mikkalai: It can be in both articles as long as it's set up right. IZAK 09:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ribalenko and Bessarabetz

For reports on Riabalenko case with quotes from "Bessarabetz" and other newspapers see: www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/137/gordon.htm

Sorry, I don't know Russian. Are you claiming that Krusheven and Ustrugov had not incited the mobs ? bogdan | ^Talk 09:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Krusheven incited the mobs, he published false report on Riabalenko case. As for Ustrugov - he did'not incite mobs. I will add information about Krusheven. --DonaldDuck 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1903 April 19, KISHINEV (Bessarabia)

Riots broke out after a Christian child, Michael Ribalenko, was found murdered (Feb. 16). Although it was clear that the boy had been killed by a relative, the government chose to call it a ritual murder plot by the Jews. The mobs were incited by Pavolachi Krusheven, the editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper Bessarabetz, and the vice governor, Ustrugov. Vyacheslav Von Plehve, the Minister of Interior, supposedly gave orders not to stop the rioters. During three days of rioting, forty-seven Jews were killed, ninety-two severely wounded, five hundred slightly wounded and over seven hundred houses were destroyed. Despite a world-wide outcry, only two men were sentenced to seven and five years and twenty-two were sentenced for one or two years for this. This pogrom was instrumental in convincing tens of thousands of Russian Jews to leave Russia for the West and for Eretz Israel. The child's real murderer was later found.

from jewishhistory.org.il.

Summary: 1. Russian government never called it a ritual murder 2. Bessarabetz published a report that Ribalenko was lost after going to the jewish shop, thus inciting anti-Jewish riots. 3. Boy was killed by a relative (who was later found) --DonaldDuck 08:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting to see some evidence from you that there was no government action, or that Ustrugov awas involved. Ustrugov acted as press censor, and chose not to censor reports. The government was certainly involved: "For three days the mob raged, while police and army stood by and watched. The Governor of the province, von Raaben, who resided in Kishinev, vanished for the duration. He was not seen in public until the third day of rioting[10]. It was not until strict orders were issued from St Petersburg that the unrest was to be put down, using firearms if necessary, that the pogrom was stopped. In the event, no shots were fired. Police and army had previously intervened only to suppress Jewish self-defence[11]. This behaviour on the part of the authorities strengthened the conviction held by the marauding masses - and later to become the common property of all pogromshchiki[12] - that the Tsar had granted them three days to beat the Jews[13].... The rumour, widespread in Kishinev, that the Bessarabets was financially subsidised by the Ministry of the Interior, should not be dismissed out of hand, for it managed to secure such a subsidy after 1905. At any event, Krushevan's second newspaper received financial support from the government[29]. Thus, the prevailing impression among the population was that the government wanted a pogrom[30]. This is also apparent from testimonies, which reached Petersburg in the form of protocols forwarded to the Ministries[31]. The people could not help but see the preferential treatment accorded in Petersburg to individual pogromshchiki, for example Pronin, one of the chief instigators and protagonists in the pogrom[32]. Even after the pogrom, Pronin was able to make use of his connections with Interior Minister Pleve in order to try and apply pressure to the new Governor of Bessarabia, Prince Sergei D. Urusov[33]. " [1]

And, while you are right that the government did not conclude that the events were ritual murder, they did support the accusation before the pogrom: "Pollen, Procurator of the Odessa court district left the Governor of Bessarabia in no doubt as to the undesirable influence of Bessarabets and asked him in future to suppress any further agitatory articles[17]. This was aimed at the censorship which was under the control of Vice-Governor Ustrugov, a violent anti-Semite[18]. The Minister of Justice, too, was informed[19]. Yet nothing happened. On the contrary, I. G. Shcheglovitov and A. A. Khvostov - each destined to become Minister of Justice and at the time working on the staff of the Ministry - drew the Minister's attention to the "interesting case" in Dubossary[20]. The Minister's reaction can only be partially reconstructed from the documents. What is clear, however, is that the Ministry of Justice requested the assistance of the Ministry of the Interior in making enquiries about fanatical Jewish sects apparently thought capable of committing ritual murder[21]. The same judicial officer who, not long before, had asserted that ritual murder could be ruled out, re-opened the case that had been closed earlier[22]. The Minister, Murav'ev, was kept personally informed of the progress of investigations. Certainly he had not displayed any sign of disapproving of the re-opening of proceedings. One official of the Odessa court district actually had close connections with the Bessarabets[23] and tried to get those of his colleagues who were involved in the investigations to pass interesting snippets of information to the newspaper, anonymously if need be. By "interesting" he meant of course information which would support the ritual murder theory. Anyone co-operating in this way was to receive a free subscription as a token of thanks[24]."

--Goodoldpolonius2 14:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please read quotations from "Bessarabetz" (www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/137/gordon.htm)

>And, while you are right that the government did not conclude that the events were ritual murder. That's why I changed the arcticle. There was no statements, ukases, decrees by the government about a "ritual murder". Government didn't call it a "ritual murder".

If your are sure that government called it a "ritual murder" please cite official government document to prove it. --DonaldDuck 14:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't read Russian, but I did not state that the government called it ritual murder, but the sources above indicate that there were open investigations into ritual murder by the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior. I clarified this in the article. You keep deleting more than just this one point, by the way, and have now been reverted three times. Hopefully, the latest clarifications will appease you, but, if not, do not make changes before discussing on Talk. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can't read Russian, why are you editing wiki articles about russian history? Wihtout knowledge of russian you can get only very distorted understanding of it.

Well, I will try to make a short summary of Riabachenko (in some sources he is called Riabalenko, supposedly just a typo) case.

1. On Feb. 13 , 1903, corpse of 14-year old Mikhail Rybachenko, bruised and covered with stab wounds was found.

2. "Bessarabetz" published misleading report on this murder. Quote from "Bessarabetz" :" ...Two boys returned to Dubossary. One of them, Rybachenko, entered a jewish shop on his way to home. Another waited outside of the shop. Some time later, jew went outside the shop and asked the boy what he was whaiting for. Jew told boy "Go home. Your friend will follow you..". Thus Pavolachi Krushevan insinuated that boy was killed by the jews and incited riots.

3. Police investigation found that boy was killed by his relative. Rybachenko was one of the heirs of the big inheritance and this inheritance could not be divided between heirs until Rybachenko reached his adulthood.

4. On March 19 , "Bessarabetz" published refutation of its earlier articles.

My sources: www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/137/gordon.htm www.sem40.ru/anti/history/1559/

About your link: Pogrome in Rußland 1903-1905/6 Heinz-Dietrich Löwe

Löwe makes reference to Dubnov [19][20][21], but Simon Dubnov is heavily biased historian. He called for organising armed jewish groups to kill anti-jewish rioters. So your link should not be taken into account. --DonaldDuck 11:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Many, many problems with your response:

• First, you have violated the WP:3RR, do not revert again.
• Also, you don't need to speak Russian to edit articles, espcially since many historians have written on this subject. English Wikipedia relies on English sources.
• As for your objection, this makes no sense - the material is a scholarly essay that quotes many people, and you object because he cites Dubnov. This is silly because the article also cites other sources. It is also silly because Dubnov is very well respected, he is well-regarded by the International Congress of Historians (an essay about him begins "Simon Dubnov (1860-1941) was a great Jewish historian") and many other sources. Besides you have not indicated that anything is factually incorrect in the essay.
• Your article (as you translated) merely give a chronology, from what I can see, you have not engaged with ANY of the information I provided above. Of course Riabalenko was involved, but all the above information is also true, so why do you keep removing it?

You need to engage with the information presented, and refute it, rather than simply substituting your own timeline or smearing a source for now reason at all. In line with Wikipedia guidelines, please find some English-language sources that back up your view, or at least address the facts presented. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• First, you have violated the WP:3RR, do not revert again.

You have also violated WP:3RR.

• Also, you don't need to speak Russian to edit articles, espcially since many historians have written on this subject. English Wikipedia relies on English sources.

Well, you don't really need to speak russian to edit articles, but your edits will be distorted and heavily biased. If you are not able to read inciting passages from "Bessarabetz" you have to rely on secondary sources.

• As for your objection, this makes no sense - the material is a scholarly essay that quotes many people, and you object because he cites Dubnov. This is silly because the article also cites other sources.

Did you read my objection? I have pointed to references concerning government involvment [19][20][21].

• Your article (as you translated) merely give a chronology, from what I can see, you have not engaged with ANY of the information I provided above. Of course Riabalenko was involved, but all the above information is also true, so why do you keep removing it?

I will try to make compromise version. --DonaldDuck 09:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

DonaldDuck, I appreciate the attempts at compromise. The issue of government involvement is still important, though, and it is important for you to provide outside sources saying the government was not involved, merely smearing Dubnov is not enough. At the same time, I will wait before adding more material about Ustrugov until I get a chance to read something defininitive (Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom by Edward H. Judge, for example) so I will stick with your compromise version for now (although I might clean up the language a little). --Goodoldpolonius2 14:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I've recently reverted this anonymous edit. I can find no other online mention of a "Jaacov ben Menachem HaLevi" and no source was cited. If this is legitimate, please restore with a citation. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent page move

I reverted the recent page move to Chisinau pogrom. The most commonly known English-language term is "Kishinev pogrom". If someone disagrees, please present your arguments.Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In most if not all research I have come across in reference to this pogrom, it has always been referred to as Kishinev(or Kishineff).Coffeegirlyme (talk)· 20:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It also has to be said that the mayor of Cisinau Schmidt - he was a member of the German community - retreated from his post three days after the pogrom took place. This was his form of protest against the riots. --92.206.13.110 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Old or new calendar dates?

It is not made clear in the article whether the dates are referenced to the old or new calendar dates (October 17 O.S. = October 30). That has important bearing on whether the following statement is accurate:

"This Pogrom was part of a much larger movement of 600 pogroms that swept the Russian Empire after the October Manifesto of 1905."

If the dates of the pogrom are O.S. dates, the statement is (barely) accurate. If the dates are under the current calendar system, they are not. My understanding is that the October Manifesto was a response to, not the cause of, the 1905 uprising. If someone interpreted the October 19-20 dates of the pogrom as O.S. dates, that could explain the impression that they occurred after the October Manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.11.42 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary NYT is WP:PRIMARY

And quoting it verbatim without WP:RS social, political, economic context is UNDUE.

First thing first, this NYT piece got the number of the victims wrong (understandably so, see the dates).

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/23877915 and more for details. I have added this caveat. Zezen (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times report is referred to by later sources, for example the one you added. The text added was a perversion of the source that writes: "On April 28, 1903, the Times reprinted from the Yiddish Daily News a report smuggled out of Russia which stated that "the anti-Jewish riots in Kishinev, Bessarabia, are worse than the censor will permit to publish."--Astral Leap (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock

Undiscussed move

There's no discussion nor consensus for the change in article's title. The overwhelming majority of sources refer to the "Kishinev pogrom", back then the town was an integral part of the Russian empire. Somebody please revert the unilateral move. I don't know how to do it properly.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, please start a move request. If the result is to move back to "Kishinev pogrom", I'll respect it. But note that there were two in Chișinău. The name "Kishinev pogrom" is ambiguous. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you make a move request before changing the article's title? Because I think there was no previous discussion in talk page, not even a basic explanation.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I gave a short edit summary. I still don't see a reason to use the Russian name of the article instead of the native Romanian/Moldovan one which is used anywhere else in Wikipedia. No other articles apart from this one used "Kishinev" in their titles, not even historic ones (with the exception of the Jassy–Kishinev Offensives). Super Ψ Dro 17:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but maybe you should have opened a discussion before moving. An edit summary is not necessarily enough.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was a rather controversial action. That's why I am not opposing a move request now. Super Ψ Dro 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, all the other Wikipedias use the name "Kishinev" for this pogrom (Pogroms de Kichinev, Pogromo de Kishinev, פרעות קישינב), because that's how sources name this event, both contemporary and present. Could you please consider moving it back to 'Kishinev'?--Watchlonly (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedias use this name, there are some others that use Chișinău (Pogrom de Chișinău, Chisinau-pogromen, Pogrom di Chișinău, Pogrom Chisinau, Chisinau-pogromen). Also, Kishinev pogrom has more than one edit in its history meaning that my edit perms don't allow me to move it again. That a name is more used does not always justify a move. This can be seen for example in Kyiv, named "Kyiv" although "Kiev" is still more common [2]. Super Ψ Dro 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. Sorry for overreacting at the beginning. Please clean up the mess that I left when I tried to move the article's name back.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC) strike sock

No problem, it is fixed already. Thanks for understanding. Super Ψ Dro 17:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Chișinău pogrom (1903) → Kishinev pogrom – Overwhelming COMMONNAME; the name "Chișinău pogrom" doesn't even register on Google NGRAMS (see below). Likewise, the overwhelming primary topic of this name is the 1903 pogrom rather than the 1905 one, which could be a hatnote if an article existed (Google Scholar results below, the 1905 pogrom is not mentioned in the first three pages of results). Although I respect User:Super Dromaeosaurus as an editor, they should be trouted for making this undiscussed move which has no basis in Article titles policy and has caused unnecessary work for other editors. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ngrams[3] Google scholar[4] (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I assume responsability over this so I am not going to oppose it, but I think that the "(1903)" should be kept. Although most sources refer to the 1903 pogrom, "Kishinev pogrom" is still an ambiguous name. To put an example (I can't think of a more international and well-known one), there were three Battles of Oituz, but the vast majority of sources talk about the third and most important one. Still, its article isn't just titled "Battle of Oituz", but "Third Battle of Oituz". Super Ψ Dro 14:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no separate article on the 1905 pogrom and consequently nothing to disambiguate. Even if there were, I believe WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would still apply. (t · c) buidhe 14:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, great. I love wasting my time and working for nothing! Now we'll have to revert all the following changes we made once the article's name is changed back to "Kishinev pogrom":

User:Super Dromaeosaurus, did you change the title of this pogrom in any other article?--Watchlonly (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Jewish_history&diff=prev&oldid=1004456223, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Jewish_history&diff=prev&oldid=1004456223, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Korolenko&diff=prev&oldid=1004456253, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Aliyah&diff=prev&oldid=1004456328, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Evans-Gordon&diff=prev&oldid=1004456587, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaim_Zhitlowsky&diff=prev&oldid=1004456647, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Territorial_Organization&oldid=1004456773, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephraim_Moses_Lilien&diff=prev&oldid=1004456857, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=1004457894, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1004456973. Don't just directly revert them, I did some fixes on the pages (such as removing "Kishineff", which is an invention, or disambiguating between the 1903 and the 1905 pogroms). You should do this once this RM ends anyway. Super Ψ Dro 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support a move with the spelling Kishinev but also with the year. I'm generally happy to use modern Romanian/Ukrainian etc spellings but as people have said this historical event is known by that name in English. And I would include the year, even if there is no article about the 1905 one at the moment, IMO the fact that there are multiple ones means it helps clarify to say the year in the article title. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per buidhe (talk · contribs) and Dan Carkner (talk · contribs). When I saw the first notices I had no idea what progrom this was referring to. But once here one realizes that this is one of the most famous (city) names of pogroms in Russian Jewish history. The addition of the year also helps avoid future confusion. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support since the overwhelming majority of sources refer to the "Kishinev pogrom", back then the town was an integral part of the Russian empire.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all preceding. Name of town at time and name by which the event is most commonly known Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Policy preference for "Kishinev" is overwhelming. Zero^talk 10:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I don't understand why is the ambiguity of this term being completely ignored. Nor the year in the title nor the disambiguation page were kept. Super Ψ Dro 21:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Disambiguation pages may only be created if there are multiple articles to disambiguate. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So, if the article about the 1905 pogrom existed, the disambiguation page would have been kept and this page would have been renamed to "Kishinev pogrom (1903)"? Super Ψ Dro 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, It's not clear to me if the 1905 event meets WP:NEVENT. Assuming that it does, then the 1903 pogrom would be the primary topic, and "Kishinev pogrom" would either be that article or redirect there. There would be a hatnote to "1905 Kishinev pogrom". (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am still doubting whether PT would apply on these historical events (as I stated with the example with battles I gave above), but since the 1905 pogrom does not have an article (and after looking rapidly about it in Google Scholar, might not even be that notable), I have nothing to complain about. Thanks for the clarification. Super Ψ Dro 22:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)