Talk:Babi Yar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial

Removed "Green line" regarding metro route to the site. The line's official name is "Syrets'ko-Pechers'ka", while a color on the maps is up to designers of those.AlexPU 09:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed "The Soviet government used this site for the Stalinist purges of Kievites by NKVD in late 1930s.". Babi Yar was never used by NKVD. It used the village Bykovnya for that. Vervin 10:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not sure, Vervin. I'll check this thoroughly. Anyway, Bykivnya wasn't the only place for such massive executions, otherwise there would be a mountain of corpses there. BTW, your recent remarks to talk pages are supposed to be beneath, not above. Regards, AlexPU 12:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the "Before the Massacre" section there were single square brackets around every instance of the word "Jew". I removed them, since they didn't seem to belong there. If I've inadvertantly committed a great offense, accept my apologies. Plantagenet Palliser 21:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Commited by?

I guess every each soldier of einzatzgruppen was the murderer, and none of them is free of guilt. And all the above chain of command are also murderers. Thus, I see no reason to state that one person is to blame. Going to delete the passage if nobody opposes AlexPU

AlexPU, I empatise with your thoughts that "everyone was to blame", but I think in this case is important to mention the name of the commander, for several reasons:

• He was in charge for the Jewish problem in the Baltics.
• I think it is important to mention so people could start writing an article about him as well.

--Pinnecco 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

http"//judicial-inc.biz/Babi_Yar.htm gives all the original sources for Babi Yar - except for the Ein.. Report.

Supposedly the leader was Paul Blobel. He has a wiki article - not a real leader looking/resume kind of guy , but he was the one hung for it.

As far as I know it was only the Germans who took part in the executions. The auxillary police only took part in the rounding up, but not in the actual killing. It is in my opinion incorrect to also ascribe the kiling of the Kievan Jews to others who did not directly participate in the executions.Bandurist 09:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the sources prove you wrong. Second, even if you were correct, participation in mass murder doesn't mean only pressing the cock of a gun. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus is right here. The first book I checked (Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust) reports an eyewitness saying 'Ukrainian policemen formed a corridor and drove the panic striken people towards the huge glade' and formed them up in columns to take them to the ravine (p 202-3). Delivering people up to be killed like that is participation in mass murder. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The Jews who were marched to the ravine did not know what the true intension of the Nazis was. The Auxillary Police would also not have known. There task was not to execute but to round them up and deliver them to the ravine. As far as they would have known, it would have been for transportation, and that does not make them into killers. In order to do that you have to show that they knew what was going to happen, and this has not happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 10:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I think their not knowing their task was extremely unlikely. Especially on the 2nd day of the massacre, and thereafter...Galassi 14:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Shameless denial nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is point me in the direction of some historic document that shows that the auxillary police in Kiev were directly involved in the murders of sept 29-30. with your knowledge regarding the research of this event it should be relatively easy. Otherwise, IMHO what you are doing is distorting historic fact in order to give this tragedy a spin which it never had. Keep in mind that I am not denying the tragedy. I am specifically questioning one of your statements. --Bandurist 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Squiddy earlier provided Gilbert's quote, and I added a few more refs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you trust that Gilbert, after all, he, as a Jew would support your side of the story, and so would the so- called witness. Killing, means shooting a person, not lining a group of people up. Show me one REAL document that provesthat Ukrainian policemen participated. I'm not Ukrainian, so don't say I'm standing up for my side, but I see that all this about Ukrainians killing is bull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smythe03 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) There were also thousands of victims shot at Babi Yar, all Ukrainians, by Stalin, before the outbreak of the Soviet- Nazi war. I hope their bodies don't get mistaken, or don't get counted as some Jewish victims Adolf23653 14:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)adolf23653

If you source it properly.Galassi 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo of memorial

If someone have idea to put photo of one of memorials, you can get it here (photos taken by me). --Yonkie 23:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now documented and proven

I recall reading about the "Ukrainians collaborators" in a reliable source and will not question the validity of this fact. However, i.m.h.o. the following sentence is not a good statement as it requires further information:

The participation of local collaborators in these events, now documented and proven, is a matter of painful public debate in Ukraine.

Where, when and by whom it was "documented and proven"? Without proper references such an statement sounds more emotional than factual.

There is reasonable doubt, whether this alleged incident took place at all. http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndbabiyar.html What is by the way the factual evidence that ~30.000 were killed and burried in the ravine?!

There isn't _reasonable doubt_ that Babi Yar occured. For one piece of evidence, we can refer to the Nazi's own report of the event, http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/osr/osr-101.html. Although there is a mass of speculation on the part of deniers/revisionists, this does not mean there is _reasonable_ doubt about the veracity of the event. 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Any source for the 700 psychiatric patients? Beware of einsatzgruppen reports. I remember one that was signed by an officer who had been dead for about 6 months - I would guess that particular report was a forgery.

My understanding was that the Ukranians were a constant source of problems for the USSR. I have heard that many fought for the Germans during WW2 and for the White army before WW2 ( they have never been on friendly terms even today). Is there some overlap between Babi-Yar and these other conflicts - confusion as to counts etc over time.

Oh I love this quote "Concerning Babi Yar, Elie Wiesel stated "Eye witnesses say that for months after the killings the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood." Yeah ok. That about sums up how realistic not to mention reliable the so called eye witness reports are regarding Babi Yar. The picture in the article does not show any corpses being burried or exhumed, only people who cannot be indentified, although it certainly appears they are not wearing German uniforms or overcoats. Its also interesting that hunderds of thousands of blood gushing corpses werent dug up or washed away by the subsequent mud slides and urban development. --Nazrac 05:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that SS commander Eichmann testified to something along these lines. But, he's either lying or was tortured to say this... right?

It would really help if you knew a little about the history you were trying to deny. Even a _little_, so you wouldn't make a fool of yourself.

I'd like to know how you overlooked the massive exhumation and cremation operation at Babi Yar, which would explain the fact that there weren't many "blood gushing corpses" left when mud slides and development happened. But, why consider troublesome facts when you can just ignore them, right? Cantankrus 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm denying anything, I merely have difficulty with the above claim, can bodies physically gush blood out of the ground days after being shot? I don't suppose thats an experiment that can be reproduced, however it raises some questions about what exactly is being added/invented in such testimony. I seems expressing doubt about one detail means I deny the entire Holocaust according to you? Is there a complete list of exactly what is covered under the Holocaust or is it simply a blanket term that can be invoked, added or subtracted from whenever those who promote it decide it is convenient to do so? I certainly don't deny mass shootings at Babi Yar, a sad tragedy indeed. More sad still are people like you who cheapen such tragedies by using it as a vessel of criticism and propaganda. In my above post I merely critisize the photograph and the above eyewitness testimony, which I consider suspect. Does that mean such a massacre absolutely did not occur? certain not. As far as Eichmann is concerned, imagine Iran kidnapping former Israeli intelligence officers and putting them on trial for crimes against Islam or something similar. That would be on about the same level of legitimacy as the Eichmann trial. If Eichmann felt he really had something terrible to hide you would think he would have had the sense to change his and his families last name in order to elude capture by his persuers. I suppose it would be fair to conclude he never saw it coming, dont you think?

Perhaps I should take this moment in time to explain my family members also fought against the 3rd Reich, saw incredible suffering and many terrible things. They also had the wisdom to recognize the futility of war, and that no person or group of people can (morally) benefit at the expense of others. Those who deliberately start war and conflict and sow discord among people will ultimately be held accountable for their actions, I suppose if Eichmann was guilty of such things he had it coming. Therefore any others on the world stage guilty of the same actions also can legitimately expect to be kidnapped and hanged by their adversaries? --Nazrac 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'who cheapen such tragedies by using it as a vessel of criticism and propaganda -- as opposed to those who "express doubt" and "question.. what exactly is being added/invented"?

putting them on trial for crimes against Islam -- I see the parallel. Exactly which Israeli intelligence officers were in charge of an Islamic genocide. Sorry, but only THAT would be somewhat similar to what Eichmann did.

For all of your blather, your intentions were adequately disclosed with your first "Oh I love this". And as your edit history documents, your "doubt" seems only to be with the holocaust. Again and again. And only with things that reflect badly on the Nazi part of the war. But, that's not part of classic denial, is it? Cantankrus 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be terribly paranoid. You keep making inferences everywhere about hidden anti-semitism lurking around every corner, hidden in every criticism or comment. I guess Eichmann being responsible for the deaths and suffering of countless people is different than Israeli aggression against its neighbours because its only a crime if Jews re the victims? Further, it seems the Holocaust is like a get out of jail free card that is immediately invoked the moment criticism is made. You would think lessons would be learned from the Holocaust, apparently not. Being the victim of one does not give a people the right to act like the same aggressors who victimized them in the first place. Such incredible arrogance and hypocracy can only cultivate anti-semitism rather than discourage it. There are a great many Jewish people who also echo those exact same sentiments, and I admire them greatly for having the courage to say it knowing they will face harassment and persecution from their own people. Keep finding hidden anti-semitic conspiracies and motives everywhere, eventually you may realize you are the one who keeps fanning the flames and keeping it well stoked. --Nazrac 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazrac, you have violated way too many WP:RULES: WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, etc. Please stop now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid at all. I never said anything about anti-semitism, or for that fact anything about Isreal -- it was you that related (as an example) something that Isreali intelligence agents did with Eichamann's prosecution of the Holocaust.

I'll note that this article is about the Holocaust, so your point about "the Holocaust being used as a get out of jail free card" is kind of mute -- how can one invoke something to defend itself, exactly? Except for that point -- I'll leave the rest of your political rant alone. Cantankrus 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Myths and historic dustbins

The entire Babi Yar story I thought had been consigned to the dust bin of history. Wat-time aerial photos - and post-war photos - and on-site surveys - and ground radar - etc came up with zilch. Isn't there any myth that can be abandoned - folks stick with a few good ones, not ones you have already lost. Embarrassment should eventually lead to accuracy, at least in this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Amazing how there are lots of conjecture but no citations or meaningful evidence to back up that Babi Yar is anything but fact. Nothing like wild speculation to try and advance your political agenda. 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have such kind of discussion (i.e.: personal attacks, claiming that people have hidden agendas, claiming wild speculations, etc.) I suggest you take this discussion elsewhere. Do a search on google for aryan nations or revisionism. --Pinnecco 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"anything but fact" - Can we assume that the US aerial photos were found to be forgeries?

From the above, a person might conclude that you would rather publish propaganda than "facts". Dispute "facts" - ie aerial photos, etc - if you want to but ranting about "personal attacks"etc makes you look like a personal who engages in "personal attacks"etc.

Revisionism

--Sean 06:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Revisionism has its own article in Wikipedia. So does Holocaust Denier. Kindly keep comments about "reasonable doubt," "alleged incident" and "myths" confined to those pages. Einsatzgruppe Operational Situation Report 101 claims 33,771 Jews killed September 29 and 30. I'll take the words of the group responsible, thank you very much.

Are you advocating paralell truths. Is this a code word or a supercode word. Who writes the denier article - it appears not to be deniers?

Sorry to contradict you but the Holocaust Denial article has been totally taken over by proholocaust writers, if you didn't know.159.105.80.141 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) It's almost funny to read the discussion page, had forgotten it for some time. They work on it almost everyday, they are totally convinced by their own argument, of course they don't want to hear any denial stuff.159.105.80.141 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath and Remembrance

This section starts with the sweeping statement: 'The Soviet Union was anti-semitic'. Could someone outline (and source) what form this took and what the justification for not creating a memorial was? Ashmoo 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Current version (29 Sept 2006, 7:35 AM Eastern Time) has "hilarious" in first paragraph that is probably vandalism or remnant of past vandalism.

As far as the motivation for not wanting to place any memorial whatever at the site, I am unsure. However, with regard to the refusal of Soviet authorities to recognize that the Jewish population was specifically targetted, it comes down to the authorities not wanting the surviving Jews -- and other minorities that were victimized -- "stealing" the spot-light from the Soviet state, as it were. Recognizing the Jews, or the poles, or the gays, or whoever as being the targets of the Nazis instead of the Soviet people as a whole would have undermined the attempts by the authorities to frame the mass murder that accompanied the War as noble "Soviet sacrifice". If specific minorities were seen to be the ones who had paid the heaviest price for the War, the Soviet government would not very well be able to claim that they had sacrificed out of loyalty to communism. It's entirely about propaganda potential. (You'll find this in any serious historical-political treatment of post-war USSR.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can see the rationale of the Soviet authorities behind refusal for a separate monument to Jews. The official policy of the Soviet state was "internationalism", that means that every nationality should be treated equally. In that light erecting a monument to only 1/3 of the victims (Jews) would pose a lot of unanswered questions as it does in present day Ukraine. Yes, the Jews were targeted specifically, but so were the Romas. A monument to them is not warranted because of the low numbers? Than if that rationale is applied universally a monument to 37,000 out of 100,000 overall killed is in need of explanation as well. I guess the Soviet government was afraid of what has happened now: almost total monopoly on sufferenig of one ethnic group over all the others. In any site about Babi Yar on the internet you would be hard-pressed to find any mentioning at all about non-Jews (75% of the victims killed). It simply comes down to a question of fairness. --Hillock65 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union was anti-Semitic? You have got to be kidding. A very large number of the Communist leaders were Jewish I believe. In later years other ethnic groups became more equally represented. but I don't think anti-Semetic could ever be applied to Communist Russia - currently that is not so but then Russia is now capitalist, with a small favoring of mobster thrown in.

translation/intention

I do not believe that "hilarious" is the correct or intended adjective in the introductory sentence. Perhaps horrific or horrendous would be more appropriate?

                     Mark Woermke

• That was a result of vandalism, it was quickly removed. Mieciu K 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

names of victims

The article includes the name of one victim. I'm thinking that that is sort of PoVish, and should be removed. (the text mentions Jews, of course, Roma, Soviet prisoners, and mental patients. Should it mention Ukrainians or Ukrainian activists as well?) Jd2718 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, what is the deal with Ukrainian activists? What is meant by that? Is someone afraid to mention that those activists were actually members of OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). By the way the link in 'activist' leads to a page about OUN. So what is the deal with hiding the real name of victims behind that vague "activists"? How about NPOV and naming things as they are?
• Second of all, among the victims was a famous Ukrainian poet Olena Teliha. There are plans in Ukraine to erect a monument to her as well.[1] I think it should be mentioned as well, as it corresponds to the truth and is in full compliance with the guidelines. --Hillock65 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence I rewrote originally said: "Among the other victims was Olena Teliha, a promising poet and Ukrainian activist." The link was to the OUN, but it was piped to "Ukrainian activist." I didn't change that.

• As it is supposed to be about neutral point of view and be true to facts, mentioning of Ukrainian nationalists who died there by name is warranted. They did die there, so it belongs in the article and should have a link. There should not be any secrets.

The little bio I found for her on line I can't read (it's in Ukrainian) but the best I can make out makes it sound like she was more significant as a Ukrainian Nationalist than as a poet.[2]

• What kind of poet she was is beyond the scope of discussion. The fact remains that she was executed there and for some people (notably the President of Ukraine) it warranted considerations to erect a monument to her. Irrespective of what people might think of her, her death and attempts to commemorate her are a fact, and as such are definitely worth mentioning.

In the end I think that her name is being used as a counterbalance to 33 thousand Jews killed in 2 days. It is quite POV, but the initiative is not from any of our editors. To go along with it, though, would be to make this article not be primarily about the massacre. That would be wrong. Jd2718 05:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, it is about NPOV. If it is a fact (which it is) it should not be excluded because some people are afraid that mentioning one name (!) or a few for that matter, are going to counterbalance 33 thousand Jews killed. There were other people who died there. If you want to write an aricle exclusively about Jews who died there you may write another article and title it accordingly. As of right now, this article is about ALL VICTIMS of Babi Yar. This is not about likes or dislikes it is about OBJECTIVITY.

Contradicting myself: I kept her name, but made it less prominent. It is well-sourced. Is there an update on the memorial? Jd2718 05:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why it should be less prominent? What are you afraid of? Is this article about Jews only or about the tragedy of Babi Yar? I am going to research on her and write a separate section. There is no and never will be a monopoly on human suffering, including in Babi Yar. --Hillock65 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes Babi Yar notable is the magnitude of the killing on September 29 and 30, 1941. Is this the largest machine gun killing of civilians in European history? The article is primarily about the massacre, as it should be. Most readers coming here are coming to read about the massacre. I've moved the other killings to the next section. Jd2718 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is about massacre and it should be true to facts without preferences one or the other way. Is mentioning victims other than Jews makes it less significant? This approach is racist, as all victims of that tragedy deserve mentioning, not only some that suit you. No one who died there should be made less prominent! Please follow the NPOV and stick to the facts irrespective of your likes or dislikes!--Hillock65 06:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The massacre that people come to this page to read occurred on two days in 1941. Yes, there were other killings there, and the article mentions that. No one has tried to hide that. But the historical significance comes from the large massacre, and yes, that massacre deserves the center section of the article. Jd2718 06:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you desire to structure the article according to dates of the massacre it could be done. However, all victims should be mentioned on the dates they were killed, even if in your view it counterbalances something. Truth has to be told in its entirety. --Hillock65 06:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look. I think it is close. Jd2718 07:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have a list of prominent people who were murdered in Babiy Yar, particularly those who have articles about themselves in Wikipedia. It would give a human dimension to the tradgedy and some understanding as to why these particular people were murdered.Bandurist 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some other civilians?!

Wouldn't it be more respectful to the dead at least to mention that they were Ukrainians and Russians, not "some other civilians". --Hillock65 03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of terms such as Soviet citizens is also somewhat misleading. During the massacre the people were not Soviet citizens. Also among the dead were people who arrived in Kyiv from other countries who were not Soviet citizens before the war. They include Olena Teliha and her husband Mykhailo who lived in Prague and then Poland in the mid war years. Residents of Kyiv would be possibly more accurate. Bandurist 13:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the aricle

I do agree the article needs improvement. In my view in its present form it is one sided and does not correspond to NPOV. While this tragedy is undoubtedly is one of the worst in Jewish history it should not exclude other nationalities and should not present unjustified and unsubstantiated accusations. In my opinion there is an obvious attempt to smear Ukrainians as a whole along with the perpetrators of this tragedy. What I have in mind is the following:

• mentioning "Ukrainian perpetrators of the Holocaust and similar genocide operations by Bogdan Khmelnitsky" is completely out of context. If other genocide operations should be mentioned than the role of Jews in NKVD and atrocities of Trotsky and Kaganovich should not be excluded either. This article is not about smearing Jews or Ukrainians, it is about the tragedy of Babi Yar. While I do not object to mentioning about Ukrainian collaborators as such - for which citation is needed - I strongly believe names of Khmelnitsky and Petlura do not belong here.
• In my view separating Jewish and "other" victims is racist, it has no place not only here but anywhere in Wiki. If the article is to be structured by periods of executions than again ALL victims should be mentioned without exclusion with equal prominence.
• As well if there is going to be mentioning about debate in Ukraine about collaborators and that "these events, now documented and proven", than documents and proofs have to be presented otherwise it is violation of NPOV policy and should have been taken out long ago. Hillock65 07:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking this article. I think that most of your concerns have been addressed. There is one of mine that is still open: Babi Yar was used by the Nazi's as an execution site. They killed many people there, including Jews, but the majority were not Jews. This is what the article says, and it is true.

But Babi Yar is also the name by which people refer to the massacre of September 1941. The body of the article reflects this; the lead does not. Perhaps a one sentence addition to the lead? Let's not take away from what is already there - it accurately reflects what happened. But let's find a way to put both meanings up top. Jd2718 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought this sentence in the lead "The massacres at Babi Yar were among the worst of the Holocaust" accurately reflects what happened. Is that not enough? Tragedy of Babi Yar is not exclusively an event of two days, it continued for two years and the article should accurately reflect so. --Hillock65 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Babi Yar" as a name is both: the place where 100,000 were killed, and, as part of it, the place where 37k were killed in 2 days. I'll come up with a reword or an extra sentence, and I will put it here. Jd2718 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember once reading in the Soviet press of the 1980's about an individual Anatoliy Kabayda who lived under his mother's surname in Australia who was involved with the massacre. (A member or head of the Ukrainian Auxillary police if I remember correctly). What information is there about the perpetrators of this crime? Are there any sources? Bandurist 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaflet translation

I think putting kikes or zhids in the article is over the top. Besides, the question which word is derogatory is very subjective. As far as the word "жид" goes it depends on where it is uttered. It is a literary norm for "Jew" in Poland, Lithuania and a few other countries. In Ukraine in different regions the use of it was different too. Shevchenko always used it, the old version of the Bible almost exclusively uses this word too, because there were no other in the Ukrainian language. Some people didn't think it derogatory as for example did volunteers of the Ukrainian Galician Army who formed the Жидівський курінь(Zhydivs’kyy Kurin’ UHA) in the Ukrainian Galician Army. Now it is derogatory because it is derogatory in Russian, but it was not always the case in Ukraine as it is also not derogatory in Poland. Was it meant to afflict additional pain to the victims? It is hard to say now, but being so particular about that word I think is petty. Is it adding insult to injury? I think the injury was big enough to go into pieces over linguistic peculiarities.--Hillock65 04:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you correct the translation? Jd2718 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock65, your examples are from another century and/or region. In Kiev of 1940s "жид" was definitely an offensive ethnic slur. An alternative (Yevrei) was widely used. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In Ukrainian the word does not have the same connotation as in Russian. In the Dictionary of Ukrainian Language published by Naukova Dumka/Scinetific thought, Kyiv 1971 Vol 2 p.528 it states ЖИДИ (одн Жид, а ч. Жидівка , и ж, Те саме що Євреї. А жид старий ніби теж знає, Доньку свою одиноку в хаті замикає. (Шевч., ІІ 1953, 158 - Zhydy (sing. Zhyd mas. Zhydivka fem.) The same as Yevreyi. The old Zhyd knows, his daughter by herself in the home he locks up - Shevchenko vol II, 1953 p 158) The ethnonym "Yevrei" was intoduced into Ukrainian usage only after the 1933 spelling reform. The spelling reform was considered by many as a step towards the russification of Ukrainian and it was opposed by many. With the German occupation the Soviet spelling reform was cancelled and language style reverted to the 1928 spelling rules which did not have the ethnionym "Yevrei". It would be interesting to study the use of this ethnonym "Zhyd" in the context of other spellings used in the passgaes quoted - whether they use the post 1933 guidelines (i.e. russified) or pre. It should be noted that the ethnonym "Zhyd" continued to be used in Western Ukraine (then under Poland where the same word existed in Polish). The ethnonym also continued to be used after the war and in the diaspora who did not acknowledge the spelling reforms of 1933. The 1998 dictionary states that it is a derogatory term, but during the the German occupation there can be doubts. I feel that translating it as a derogatory term is using a current interpretation to a word which was in normal usage at the time. It is however right on the border. Interesting article to review about this is ЖИДИ ЧИ ЄВРЕЇ? or the publication in Israel of link title --Bandurist 06:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another translation into English of the same passage - (www.deathcamps.org/occupation/babi%20yar.html Babi Yar). The Ukrainian_English Dictionary compiled by C H. Andrusyshen and J. Krett Published by the University of Saskatoon and the University of Toronto Press Original printing 1955 have for the word Zhyd - m Jew, Hebrew with a list of 32 words that use this ethnonym as its root. No mention of the word kike in any of the translations. Bandurist 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between the usage of the word in Poland (where Zhyd = Jew) and in Russia/Ukraine (where Zhyd is offensive slur). One of your own sources mentions a letter written as early as 1860s pleading to stop using this word. While some regions of Western Ukraine belonged to Poland before 1939, Kiev was not one of them. The fact that our dialog takes place in this particular article is telling. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At another site I saw the same proclamation only published in Russian. The text is almost identical, but the implications of the text are somwhat different because of the differences of usage of specific words in different languages. Is this worth while persuing? --Bandurist 15:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the same text in Russian and Ukrainian languages. Different "implications" are in your head. The word is a well known ethnic slur. Even the source you gave (thank you), "Stolen Name" by Yevgen Nakonechny (National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) says that in 1861 (80 years before 1941!!!), there was a public polemics in the national-patriotic periodical "Osnovy" regarding the usage of the word "zhid", initiated by a letter (published under title "Недоразуменіє по поводу слова "Жид") by V. Portugalov who strongly pleaded not to use the slur because it is highly offensive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You write about the Russian text as if you have seen it. Have you? What we do have, and can see with our own eyes, are the words in Ukrainian and German. The German we know is not a slur. The Ukrainian we need a RS for. Insistence is no substitute. Jd2718 03:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This announcement is well known document of the Holocaust. Here it is in both Russian and Ukrainian: [3]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Jd2718 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I provided a link to an image, but I understand if you distrust flickr. As I said, the four infamous words "Все жиды города Киева" became a part of the Holocaust history. Here are a few articles referring to them, in Russian: Обращение германского командования к жителям Киева, К ВОПРОСУ ОБ АНТИСЕМИТСКОЙ ПРОПАГАНДЕ НА ОККУПИРОВАННЫХ ТЕРРИТОРИЯХ СССР: НОВЫЕ ИСТОЧНИКИ, Молчать – опасно, НИКОЛАЙ ЗАСЕЕВ-РУДЕНКО, Вячеслав Кантор: Бабий Яр дал толчок шести тысячам «бабьих яров», К ИСТОРИИ УСТАНОВЛЕНИЯ ПАМЯТНИКА В БАБЬЕМ ЯРУ. This info is easy to find. Let me know if you need more. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Osnova magazine was published in Petersburg (i.e. in Russia and not in Ukraine or Ukrainian ethnic territory) and although a letter was published in the magazine at that time, from what I understand, no further discussion took place. The ethnonym Yevrej was only introduced into the Ukrainian language officially in 1934. The word was introduced in Eastern ie Communist Ukraine. In Western Ukraine no such spelling reform took place and they continued to use the ethnonym Zhyd just as it was used by all the other Slavic peoples (Poles, Slovaks, Czechs) apart from the Ruissians and considered the dictionary and spelling rules of 1934 an attempt to Russify Ukrainian. Your incistence attempts to make Ukrainians into anti-semites because they didn't accept the Russification of their language is quite perplexing and in my opinion borders on hate.--Bandurist 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, your own evidence proves you wrong. Let me know if you need translation:

• About widespread usage of the ethnonym “єврей” after 1918:

Уряд Української Народної Республіки 1917–1921 років офіційно вживав слово “єврей”. Після 1918 року це слово реєструється у всіх словниках на східноукраїнських землях. Зустрічається воно і в галицьких виданнях, наприклад, “Словничок української мови і головні правописні правила та замітки до відміни Костя Кисілевського” (Станислав, 1927) має “єврей” із відмінковими формами, а також “єврейський”, “євреїзм” (с. 95), “Український правопис із словничком”, що його впорядкував Михайло Возняк (Львів, НТШ, 1929), реєструє “єврей” і “єврейський” (с. 114). Мають ті слова “Українська загальна енциклопедія” (Львів, 1931, т. І, с. 1259) та “Українсько-німецький словник” (Ляйпціг, 1943) Зенона Кузелі, Ярослава Рудницького й Карла Маєра. У цьому ж таки словнику є й похідні слова, а саме “єврейка” і “єврейство” (с. 213).

• The argument that Ukrainian ethnonym “єврей” (yevrey) comes from Russian is ridiculous. Note the same root in Hebrew: עברי (ivri), Greek: Ἑβραῖος, English: Hebrew, etc. - see Jewish ethnonym for more. Do they all come from Russian as well? LOL. Again, you are contradicting your own source:

Парадоксально, але за такою ж точнісінько схемою аргументації, як ми бачили, українофоби заперечували можливість визнання етноніму “українець”. Російські, польські, угорські шовіністи здіймали лемент, що, мовляв, етнонім “українець” антиісторичний, бо в давніх історичних пам’ятках його немає (наводились приклади). По‑друге, це чужинецький мовний неологізм, якого не сприймають їхні мови. У Росії етнонім “українець” вважали польською інтригою, в Польщі — австрійською, а в Угорщині та Румунії — галицькою. Одностайно заперечувалось проте його таки українське походження, так само, як не визнається, що термін “єврей” аж ніяк не російського, а таки єврейського походження. “Хто як хто, але українці, — які з таким трудом змагалися і ще досі змагаються, щоб їх означували назвою “українець” (а не “русин”) — хіба найкраще повинні б розуміти, що про свою назву має право вирішувати народ, до якого ця назва належить; і що ми бачимо культурність та доброзичливість з боку тих народів, які називають нас так, як ми хочемо, щоб нас називали. Це повинен мати на увазі кожен у справі національної назви Єврейського народу.

Please remember that we are talking here about a Nazi announcement in Kiev (not Lviv) in 1941 and please remember its immediate result. As for your insinuation that someone "attempts to make Ukrainians into anti-semites", please review WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. At this point let's assume you know our policies, in the future expect to be held responsible for your words. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

HS, when you write "The argument that Ukrainian ethnonym “єврей” (yevrey) comes from Russian is ridiculous. Note the same root in Hebrew: עברי (ivri), Greek: Ἑβραῖος, English: Hebrew, etc. - see Jewish ethnonym for more. Do they all come from Russian as well?" you may be trying to make a point, but ridiculing Ukrainian for heavy borrowing from Russian is really not acceptable. Jd2718 12:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read more attentively. The usage of the term was introduced from Russian into Ukrainian and Byelorussian in 1933. It would be more beneficial if you actually read what was written instead of jumping to conclussions. It demeans your agument considerably.--74.97.231.8 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about: I did not ridicule Ukrainian for heavy borrowing from Russian, and it would be silly to do so. Back to the topic: the ethnonym עברי (Ivri) is thousands years old and doesn't come from Russian. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (online version)Jews in Ukraine They give current usage as (Ukrainian: zhydy, ievreï) with zhydy being used first. Niniowskyi's Ukrainia-English and English-Ukrainian dictionary (1990) Edmonton on p. 407-8 for Jew gives Жид, (єврей) and for Jewess жидівка (єврейка). secondary terms are given in brackets.No note is given about it being an ethnic slur. --Bandurist 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This source does not support your claim that "Zhyd" is not considered to be an ethnic slur in Ukrainian.

Even if it did, this source does not cancel the others that we have discussed earlier. In particular the differences between its usage in Poland/W.Ukraine vs. the rest of Ukraine, Kiev included.

This source does not "give current usage" as you claim above. Since you keep pushing this pejorative ethnic slur against every evidence that it is offensive, and since you chose nothing better than an article describing mass murder of Jews by the Nazis, I find your behavior as uncivil and cannot assume good faith towards you anymore. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

death-camps.org vs. deathcamps.org

Both point to the same website, AFAIK. Please explain the edits. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Counterfeit ARC website online! Beware!

All,

Please be advised that there are currently several counterfeit and completely bogus versions of the genuine Aktion Reinhard Camps website which can only be hound here: deathcamps.org

These counterfeit websites are utilising various twists on the URL: deathcamps.org

In order to fool people they are hyphenating the url and or substituting letters and domain suffixes.

It appears that some of the counterfeit websites are linked to forums and websites sympathetic to Nazi and Supremacist groups.

If you read the following WHOIS listing at this link or from the text below you will note the original registration date of the genuine DeathCamps.org ARC website

WHOIS information for: deathcamps.org:[whois.publicinterestregistry.net] NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. Domain ID:D90771355-LROR Domain Name:DEATHCAMPS.ORG Created On:30-Sep-2002 19:44:33 UTC Last Updated On:05-Jan-2007 07:51:51 UTC Expiration Date:30-Sep-2007 19:44:33 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Schlund+Partner AG (R73-LROR) Status:OK Registrant ID:SPAG-31769436 Registrant Name:Chris Webb Registrant Street1:22 Wellwynds Road Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Cranleigh Registrant State/Province: Registrant Postal Code:GU6 8BP Registrant Country:GB Registrant Phone:+44.1483272054 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:chrisrwebb1954@yahoo.co.uk Admin ID:SPAG-31769436 Admin Name:Chris Webb Admin Street1:22 Wellwynds Road Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:Cranleigh Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code:GU6 8BP Admin Country:GB Admin Phone:+44.1483272054 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:chrisrwebb1954@yahoo.co.uk Tech ID:SPAG-35545918 Tech Name:Carmelo Lisciotto Tech Organization:Action Reinhard Camps Foundation International Tech Street1:N/A Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City:Boston Tech State/Province:MA Tech Postal Code:10012 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.1111111 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:info@deathcamps.org Name Server:NS19.1AND1.CO.UK Name Server:NS20.1AND1.CO.UK

We everyone to avoid counterfeit websites. Thank you ARC

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ARC-deathcamps.org"

Vandalism

Hello. Some idiot erase some paragraphs and wrote this at the middle of the page: = World War II

Fixed, thank you for watching. BTW, next time you can do it yourself, see WP:RV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A History of Babyn Yar Investigation

I have been digging up anything and everything regarding Babyn Yar in Ukrainian sources for the past couple of weeks. Here is some of the material I have found which I think maybe worthy of discussion. I don't know if this could be included in the article. Rather than spoil it, here is what I have put togther

Babyn Yar is considered by some to be the greatest Jewish tragedy of WWII.

At the time in 1941 it was reported that the Nazis had herded thousands of Jews to an unused part of an Orthodox Cemetery in occupied Kiev. They commanded those who did not hand over their precious possessions to strip. All gold was removed from their clothes and that these Jews were deported from Kiev.

The truth however, was somewhat different.

Soviet scholars avoided mentioning Babyn Yar because it was also the place where in the late 1930’s hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens were buried – victims of the Ukrainian Famine and NKVD executions..

In recent times however, interest has been once again turned to Babyn Yar and primarily the events that took place there during WWII.

Immediately after WWII Soviet Colonel and investigator O. Smirnov pointed out the matter of Babyn Yar at the Nuremberg trials. At that time it seems that the information was poorly presented and as a result was summarily dismissed by judges Murray Bernice and David Marcus who looked upon the Babyn Yar tragedy as one of secondary importance. As a result the tragedy was also not picked up at all by the Western Press.

During the Nuremberg Trials the tragedies of Lviv, Crimea and Odessa took precedence. At that time Babyn Yar only had approximately 100 thousand victims, whereas Lviv was reported to have had 600 thousand (according to the report of the Special State Commission of December 23, 1944), Crimea 200 thousand victims who were drowned, and Odessa 200 thousand were reported to have been burned alive. In Kharkiv, it was reported that 195 thousand Jews were killed, and the town of [[Slavuta lost 150 thousand “Soviet citizens”. (These numbers are taken from the 48 volume collection of materials regarding the Nuremberg Trials for 14 November, 1945 and 1 October, 1946 which were published in 1947. Currently these statistics are rarely mentioned as they have been shown to have been over-inflated.)

With the formation of the State of Israel the Soviet Union intensified its anti-Israeli policies. For 15 years no mention was made about any Jewish tragedy in Babyn Yar or in any other centre. In 1960 however, the babyn Yar matter surfaced once again.

Joseph Schechtman, a delegate from Odessa to the Ukrainian National Council in 1919 and later the Secretary for Jewish Nationalities under the Petlura government in Kiev in 1921 had emigrated to the United States where during WWII he worked with the OSS and later the CIA. In 1960 Schechtman visited Ukraine and upon returning to the United States published in 1961 his book «Star in Eclipse» which gives an account of the Babyn Yar tragedy.

Schlechtman’s book however, did not at the time do much raise awareness of the Babyn Yar tragedy. In 1966 during a period of anti-German and anti-Ukrainian campaigns in Ukraine, the Babyn Yar tragedy was once again brought to the forefront. In 1968 criminal proceedings were launched in Darmschtadt where 11 executions were ordered. At this time the New York Times published an article which awakened the American Jewish diaspora to the happenings at Babyn Yar.

In 1987 in a cinema documentary film by Vitaly Korotych, the editor of the influential Ogonek magazine, also brought the tragedy to the forefront.

In the 1990’s the Babyn Yar massacre began to be associated with the largest single massacre in the history of humanity. --Bandurist 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman is an author guilty of really serious, unpleasant and blatant untruths, as I've noted below in my response to JPGordon. He may have produced something useful about Babi Yar, but some of his writing is at the level of David Irving, if not worse. PR^talk 11:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The mystery in an enigma

The Head of the Jewish Council of Ukraine Illiya Levitas states that Babyn Yar is “a mystery wrapped in an enigma”. In an article “Undecyphered secrets of Babyn Yar “ published in the weekly newspaper “Yevreyski vesti” in 1993 he wrote about the killing of Jews in Babyn Yar, however he also stated that there were some 15 conflicting items in the history which have not been adequately explained and which troubled him. He stated that “the number of Jewish victims is constantly rising, despite the fact that the special commission for the study of criminal acts done by the Fascists on occupied territory, which began to work immediately after Kiev was liberated from the Nazi’s, gives a precise number of 33 771 people. How this number came into the hands of the Special Commission is also unexplained. The exact same number was in both Soviet and German documents and this is what he called a “mystery wrapped in an enigma”.

There is a suggestion that the secret report of the Einsatzgruppen where this number appears could possibly be a forgery created by the Soviets. This however has not been proved either way. http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr101. htmlhttp://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/einsatzgruppen/osr/osr-101.html

There are also numerous discrepancies from eye-witnesses regarding such mundane things as the weather during this time period, which also attested to some distortion of information. --Bandurist 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian text discussion from HS, jd talk pages

I removed the note about Zhyd being a slur in Ukrainian, except for those areas under Polish control (1920-39). user:Humus Sapiens reverted me. We exchanged these notes, which may be of general interest: Jd2718 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to read Russian and Ukrainian links provided at talk? FYI, I have lived in Kiev for decades and I know what I am talking about. Imagine someone trying to prove that the n-word or any other ethnic slur is not offensive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim that the term in Ukrainian is or is not offensive. But there has been some dispute.

FWIW, we have, as of 1940, a non-standardized or semi-standardized Ukrainian language, we don't know if our translator (German to Ukrainian) is a German, a Kiev Ukrainian, a Western Ukrainian, or something else, and we certainly don't know his dialect. We do know, or should know, that the vast majority of Kiev's Jews read Ukrainian as a third language, if at all.

The signs in Russian carry the slur, the German versions do not. The Ukrainian version, the only one that has been subject of this low-level edit war, is essentially irrelevant. The article loses nothing by its absence. jd2718 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not about the "translator" or "his dialect" but about a historical announcement/document published in Kiev. Since you do not seem to be familiar with the subject and do not speak the language, why do you think you are qualified to judge? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You've introduced the issue of dialect by excepting Ukrainian-under-Polish-rule from your explanation of the translation. This talk page (above) includes dispute over what meanings the word carried, when, and where. Even were you a professional translator, we recognize no such credential here on WP (ty, Essjay). So all we have is two editors who disagree (three if you count Bandurist). I offered that the detail is unimportant. Who really cares about the tone of the Ukrainian? Its primary purpose was likely to warn Ukrainians against looting; Jews would have read the Russian, about which all agree. So why not just drop the commentary on the Ukrainian altogether? And while the question is quite irrelevant, out of curiousity: I am assuming you do not claim Ukrainian as your first language? Jd2718 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I speak the language, I know the culture and I know some history, but my personal data does not matter. I consider this bit of factual information important. I am open to some rewording if needed, but not removal just because some deniers (no matter how many) want it removed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider this piece of information important? (for the moment, let me ask just that question, and leave questions of accuracy aside).

It is a matter of civility. Imagine someone insisting that the N-word or any other ethnic slur is not offensive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But certainly we don't mention every detail of every Nazi slur? There is no encyclopedia large enough. What makes this instance notable? Jd2718 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No one offers to list "every detail of every Nazi slur" - anything rational can be overblown to absurd proportions. I already showed that the first 4 words of this announcement became emblematic, here are more links: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]...

Given today's pseudo-patriotic attempts in the ex-USSR to rewrite and glamorize history, a better question would be: Why pretend that an ethnic slur is not offensive to its target and mollify deniers? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I read slowly, but so far all of the links are in Russian (I would go faster in Ukrainian, since I can only guess at meanings). I still disagree, but would like to drop the point (from discussion; leave it in the article) Jd2718 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The last one is in Ukrainian, but it cites Kuznetsov's original Russian. Languages aside, I was simply trying to prove that the announcement is notoriously infamous. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rememberance

HS, thank you for improving this article. I am a bit puzzled by the Kuznetsov citation. What is it telling us? And why is it significant? Not really related, but that last bit on vandalism (introduced, if you'll forgive me, in a way that annoyed one group of editors) and the notation about the official Ukrainian government response (really, a response by the offended editors to the reference to vandalism), is that piece of information and the official response notable in the context of this article? Jd2718 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 1) Perhaps I should have brought the Kuznetsov citation here at talk first. I do not insist on its inclusion. 2) I cannot comprehend how the sourced info concerning desecration of a memorial of the largest massacre in the Holocaust could be considered non-notable in the article about it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Had there been one act of vandalism, perhaps 15 years ago, I am not so certain what the answer would be. But this incident is fresh; it stays. That is reasonable.

Is Kuznetsov himself prominent? That might justify the inclusion of some quote. But the citation itself was rambling - it feels almost stream of conscious. Was there a single point or small group of points that you were using it to illustrate? Or just that it had just been published? (in which case perhaps mentioning it, but not citing it, would be the better option) Jd2718 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know how Kuznetsov is prominent, my suggestion would be to learn more before you proceed. I added this quote to reiterate the point that Babi Yar is an "international grave". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was the same Kuznetsov cited as an eye-witness. That, the eye-witness part, seems to be his notability - and the suppression of his writing based on it. I'm going to suggest that the quote be cut down to the last few sentences, to add emphasis to the "international grave" point. Jd2718 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've shortened that quote. Also found a ref for the murder of the mentally ill. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; the point is well-made. Jd2718 00:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

street name

One of the local streets was renamed for a Ukrainian poetess who killed in the ravine. I don't know when the renaming happened. I wonder if it was an attempt to (there is no way not to put this badly, I do apologize) claim a share of the victimization? Personally it bothers me (why should 37,000 Jews be anonymous while one non-Jew is honored) but the article is not supposed to be about personal feelings. Should the connection between the streetname and the site be mentioned? How? Jd2718 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, first of all, 2/3 of people executed at Babin Yar were non Jews- mostly Ukrainians, some Russians. So do you really think that their names should be kept silent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smythe03 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I may share the feeling, but I think it should stay here at talk until we find a reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Olena Teliha is well known in the Ukrainian community as a talanted poetess. She spent most of her life during the mid war years in Prague and Warsaw. Because of this and the fact that her poetry and community activities were Ukrainocentric she was ignored or downplayed by Soviet scholars. She actually knew that she was going to be executed at Babyn Yar and left a note about it before being executed.

Her husband, who was also executed in Babyn Yar was also a prominent musician and composer. I have a number of his solo recordings (produced in Poland in the 20-30's) and also books in my library. He was originally from the Kuban and was one of the founding members of the Kyiv Bandurist Chorus. He had the choice of not accompanying his wife to be shot, but chose to be at her side.

There is a monument specifically dedicated to Olena on the Babyn Yar site. There was a sentence or two about her, and her execution, in Babyn Yar in Wiki article earlier, however it was removed a number of times.

There were many prominent Ukrainian victims executed in Babyn Yar such as Professor Makhynia, Yevhen Forostivsky and his wife, I. Romanov the head city engineer, Professor Lazerenko the rector of the Kyiv Medical University, Ivan Rohach the editor of the Ukrainian literary newspaper "Slovo", his author wife, numerous other less prominent writers, such as Ivan Irliansky, Ivan Roshko, Ivan Koshyk, Vasyl Kobryn, Yuri Ihnatenko, Roman Bitsa, Petro Oliynyk, Yaroslav Orshan-Chemerynsky (newspaper editor), I. Sychenko, the rector of the Kyiv Politechnical Institute Teodosiy Cherednychenko, the head of the oblast union of food workers I. Bondarenko with his wife and children, the football players M. Trusevych, O. Klymenko, I. Kuz'menko, M. Korotkyj, a couple of dozen Ukrainian orthodox priests, monks and nuns among them Bishop Vyshniakov and Archbishop. Pavlo. To them there is a huge oaken wooden cross erected on the memorial site.

Why their names were removed from the Wiki site? One can only speculate, however these people did exist and they were executed there.

They were however executed there on February 22, 1942 some 6 months after the reported mass Jewish extermination --Bandurist 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move?

Obviously the main focus of this article is the massacre, as it should be. Should we perhaps rename the article to Babi Yar massacre, just for accuracy's sake? K. Lásztocska 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is unnecessary, as the toponym became synonimous with what occurred there, much like Treblinka, Auschwitz etc.Galassi 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a very good point. K. Lásztocska 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

nonsense

I see an edit of mine was reverted and called nonsense. I removed the the phrase "of whom a significant number were Jews" from the following paragraph:

In the months that followed, thousands more [Jews] were seized and taken to Babi Yar where they were shot. It is estimated that more than 100,000 people, mostly civilians, of whom a significant number were Jews,[4] were executed by the Nazis there during the Second World War.[1][5]

The reference [4] links to a source which says:

In the months that followed, many more thousands of Jews were seized, taken to Babi Yar, and shot. Among the general population there were some who helped Jews go into hiding, but there were also a significant number who informed on them to the Germans and gave them up. After the war, the officer in charge of the Sipo and SD bureau testified that his Kiev office received so many letters from the Ukrainian population informing on Jews - "by the bushel" - that the office could not deal with them all, for lack of manpower. Evidence of betrayal of Jews by the Kiev population was also given by Jewish survivors and by the Soviet writer Anatoly Kuznetsov.

Babi Yar served as a slaughterhouse for non-Jews as well, such as GYPSIES and Soviet prisoners of war. According to the estimate given by the Soviet research commission on Nazi crimes, 100,000 persons were murdered at Babi Yar.

The first sentence in the para clearly links to the first sentence I have extracted from the source, referring to Jews. The next sentence seems to link to the second para about non-Jews. The phrase "significant number" is extracted fron the first paragraph, and refers to informers, not to victims. No indication at all is given in the source as to the proportion of the "more than 100,000 people" who were Jewish - though it was obviously more (and presumably considerably more) than 33,771 out of 100,000. That this is a significant number is not in doubt, but that the source does not say that is also clear. There is no need to have this phrase, since the information is already given - making the phrase "significant number" virtualy meaningless. I suggest that this whole sentence be rephrased to avoid the impression that a source is being misquoted, since the expression "significant number" in the source clearly does not refer to victims. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Ukrainian nationalist victims

The list of Ukrainian Nationalists in the article is inappropriate. The singling out of a small, non-representative sample of victims, esp since the group would be the political allies of the current leaders in Kiev, and when most are non-notable, is irredeemably POV. The list should be deleted. Jd2718 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The tragedy at Babi Yar is not just a Jewish tragedy but one that also affected ethnic Ukrainians and other nationalities. Prominent Ukrainian cultural leaders, writers and musicians and clerics were murdered there. They deserve to be remembered and mentioned in the article. --Bandurist (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to list the Ukrainian victims of the massacre, beyond the few most prominent (if such judgment can be made). Babi Yar is inherently a Jewish tragedy, albeit it affected other nationalities as well. So perhaps a compromise can be found around condensing the "further executions" section. For example, leave everything up to the Teliha couple, and then There were many other prominent Ukrainian victims executed in Babyn Yar such as Ivan Rohach the editor of the Ukrainian literary newspaper "Slovo", I. Sychenko, the rector of the Kyiv Politechnical Institute, and a couple of dozen Ukrainian orthodox priests, monks and nuns among them Bishop Vyshniakov and Archbishop. Pavlo. To them the, and yetre is a huge oaken wooden cross erected on the memorial site. The rest of the names can be moved to an article about the wooden cross memorial dedicated specifically to them.--Riurik^(discuss) 06:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about the list because I wouldn't want it turning into either a long set of lists of different "sets" of people murdered here, or a lopsided set with one "group" discussed and not another, causing constant friction among editors on this page. I'd look for some compromise that ensured that neither happened. Relata refero (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata, how will you start listing the Jewish victims? How is it possible to list 10 of 600, and none of 50,000? And how does a list of a few names help the article? How would knowing a name better explain what Babi Yar was? Jd2718 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you know of any prominent Jewish cultural figures amongst those executed please add them. I know that Olena Teliha and her husband Mykhailo Teliha have their own separate articles on wikipedia and indeed one of the streets on which the memorial complex lies is named after Olena Teliha. With this in mind, I do not think it is fitting to remove her name only because she had Ukrainian nationalist aspirations or because many of the victims cannot be named. Bandurist (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist, your username makes me suspect you might not be entirely neutral on the subject of Mykhailo Teliha :)

Seriously, though, I understand your point, but do you feel the omission of a few prominent cultural figures from the article is worth the problems of balance that will follow?

I note, however, that there is no fixed approach in matters such as this. Auschwitz and Buchenwald have lists of prominent inmates/victims, but Treblinka and Belzec do not. Katyn does, 1941 Odessa massacre does not. Relata refero (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)r

Bandurist, do you mean as prominent as "a couple of dozen Ukrainian orthodox priests..."? Jd2718 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Obviously that sentence could be improved and could be made more specific. How would you rephrase it?

I do feel strongly however, that mentioning the fact that Ukrainian orthodox clergy were killed at the site is important. Keep in mind that under the Soviet regime they would not have been allowed to practice their religion, particularly if they were Ukrainian Orthodox rather than than Russian orthodox. This also sheds light as to who actually was killed. Both of the Telihas emigrated to Kyiv during the period of the occupation and were not Kyivites. I suspect that the orthodox priests may have also emigrated to Kyiv possibly from Volyn, but that cannot be backed up by any sources as yet. There are many questions as to why this happened, and the mechanism which it followed. Much of this has not been answered yet, but undoubtably will be in the near future as more light is shed on the massacre and wevne more questions asked. Bandurist (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't if this is going to help or cause more problems, but there is now List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. I would suggest organizing it by profession and then by nationality, but if nationality seems preferred, it's there. It's massively incomplete, so I hope everyone works there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with everyone here, but i suspect the request is also, since (almost) the whole ukrainian antifascist/ antiracist movement (and a few tolerant uncollaborative clergy) of the time was also murdered there.. can we examplify that by just telling it in the other massacres at babi yar or some such chapter.

Map showing sites location

I thik one of th3 things missing from the article is a map showing the location for the site and directions how people can get there to visit the memorials. I also think more should be done to present and expose the extent of collaboration of OUN members not only at this site but also at other sites of jewish massacares in Western Ukraine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.243.157.204 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We give the streets. Is a map available? And are you saying OUN members participated? We'd need the source. Jd2718 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OUN-M. See below. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Participation of Ukrainian Police

...is not in dispute. But a user is attempting to remove it from the lead. Comments? Jd2718 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In the lead it states:

a special team of German Nazi SS aided by Ukrainian police murdered 33,771 Jewish civilians.ref name="USHMM">United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia

1) The link http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ Holocaust Encyclopedia which you give as a source comes up - "The page cannot be found".

2) The statement is written in such a manner that implies the "Ukrainian police" were aiding directly in the killing. I cannot find any evidence of this. Which "Ukrainian" police are you referring to?

At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum site I found - German authorities stationed at Kiev killed thousands more Jews at Babi Yar

[http://www.ushmm.org/shared/search/searchresults.php?cx=008795841384874293445:jtbtbquu4k8&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&q=babi%20yar

] There is no mention of "Ukrainian police" taking part in the killings.

Among the most extensive massacres perpetrated by members of the Einsatzgruppen, along with SS and police personnel, was the systematic murder of 34,000 Jews at Babi Yar, a ravine to the northwest of Kiev, on September 29-30, 1941. Another massive operation was the murder of more than 25,000 Latvian Jews from the Riga ghetto in two short periods, November 29-30, 1941, and December 8-9, 1941.

[http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005518 ]

EINSATZGRUPPEN AND OTHER SS AND POLICE UNITS IN THE SOVIET UNION

Once again no mention of "Ukrainian" Police taking part in the killing.

Although I understand that Ukrainians took part in the rounding up of Jews and directing them to Babiy Yar, I have not come across any evidence that they participated directly in the killing.

Note also that there were a number of different types of Police groupings during the Nazi occupation often grouped around ethnic lines. There were even Jewish police in most of the cities. The Hilfspolizei formed to keep order in the cities initially did not have uniforms and only wore arm bands to distinguish themselves. They did not have guns but were armed with had rubber truncheons. There was also an auxiliary police force made up of locals known as the Schuetzmannschaft Ordungspolizei (Schuma). These were armed but were used primarily against partisans. Which were the ones in Babiy Yar? From the photographs to me it looks like they were the first group.

Bandurist (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a good US Holocaust Memorial Museum link. Either the site was internally reorganized, or the WP editor who added the refs used search result urls instead of permanent links. In any case, here is their Babi Yar page, with reference to support by Ukrainian units: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005421 . I will adjust the refs in the article, as necessary. Jd2718 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The USHMM links in the article were ok. Jd2718 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Police claim (it is not come from USHMM, which does not specify what sort of Ukrainian units were involved) comes from http://www.zchor.org/BABIYAR.HTM and is currently footnote #4. That link is activeJd2718 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On their identity: German sources as well as local witnesses confirm the presence of non-German auxiliaries; various accounts suggest that the victims were "marched down a corridor" of these police, or were undressed, "kicked and shoved" towards the execution squads by them.

It is likely that these auxiliaries - as well as the Ukrainians at the checkpoint and those who shouted about waiting trains - belonged to units created and commanded by Melnykites, namely the "Bukovinian battalion" and a company of what was then called the "Ukranian Police".

From Berkhoff, Karel Cornelis (2004). Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine Under Nazi Rule. Harvard University Press. p. 68. This can be added if necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is that the current wording implies that they contributed members to the firing squads, which is not generally considered to be the case, then it can be changed. I however think that "assisted" seems reasonably accurate. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree it is biased. Read the lead: a special team of xxxxx aided by Ukrainian police murdered It is implied that they aided in murdering. This is implied by this statement included in the lead. If it were placed in the text, where more context could be aided, it would be OK. But this bare sentence right of the bat levelling an accusation is indeed POV. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reword it in a satisfactory manner, then. were murdered by a special team of x assisted by y doesn't say the same thing to me. I don't think there's any reason to exclude it from the lead, though. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bukovynian Battalion

Regarding the Bukovynian Battalion. According to Ukrainian historians the battalion entered Kyiv between the first days of November, being documented in Kyiv by the 23rd November. As a result they could not have taken part in the mass executions in Babiy Yar in September.

So where does the myth of the inclusion of the Bukovynian battalion and Babiy Yar come from? The first mentions come from a book by film director Alex Shlayen written in 1981 and published in 1995.

An article about the conflicting dates of the Bukovynian Battalions stay in Kyiv appeared in the Ukrainian Historian Journal by Vitaly Nakhmanovych - the secretary of the Babiy Yar Committee.

For further information a shortened web version of the article appears here. See БУКОВИНСЬКИЙ КУРІНЬ І МАСОВІ РОЗСТРІЛИ ЄВРЕЇВ У БАБИНОМУ ЯРУ - The Bukovynian Battalion and the mass shootings of Jews in Babiy Yar (in Ukrainian) Bandurist (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata Refero's source identifies the police as Ukrainian, and guesses that they were Melnyk's. It is certainly possible for the source to have the unit wrong. And units were formed and merged. But no source questions the presence of Ukrainian units. Jd2718 (talk)

Guessing is not very encyclopaedic. The auxillary police was officially formed in Kiev in November from the soldiers of the Kiev battalion. That's 2 months after the massacre. Bandurist (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are at least five sources indicating Ukrainian police were there. I regret we do not seem to know the commander's name. Jd2718 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many, many sources, yes. The way that the source I have found - a Harvard University Press book that explicitly deals with the occupation of the Ukraine - deals with the issue is to establish what is known about these individuals and then deduce their most likely affiliation. That, if attributed, is certainly encyclopaedic. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't mean to question the source, only to express disappointment that we are not certain of the name of the Commander. I did find the edit introducing the quote with the name (see below), it's Humus Sapiens from last Summer, and I asked him to take a look. In the meantime I have commented out the section about which we have doubt, and replaced it with an older version that has not been disputed. Jd2718 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The photographs depict "police" in from what I can see Soviet army overcoats with police armbands. The origins of these "police" at the time of the atrocity IMHO points in a different direction than "blame it on the Ukrainian nationalists".

From informants I have spoken to, those who the Soviets had previously branded were "neblagonadiozhni" (unreliable) (they may have been from families of Kulaks etc.) were given the task of digging anti-tank traps around Kyiv. They had a stamp in their passports on the page dealing with their military obligations stating that were not reliable, and as a result they were not given guns. The Germans came around from a different angle. Those that had the stamp in their documents "unreliable" were not taken as POW's and were released. This could be the source of these initial police detachments - but then this is only conjecture. Bandurist (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Petro Zakhvalynski

You have:

The implementation of the decision to kill all the Jews of Kiev was entrusted to Sonderkommando 4a. This unit consisted of SD (Sicherheitsdienst; Security Service) and Sicherheitspolizei (Security Police; Sipo) men; the third company of the Special Duties Waffen-SS battalion; and a platoon of the No. 9 police battalion. The unit was reinforced by police battalions Nos. 45 and 305 and by units of the Ukrainian auxiliary police (under command of Petro Zakhvalynski).

The Russian Wikipedia gives: Занимал должность коменданта полиции г. Киева с ноября 1941. The Ukrainian Wikipedia tells us: That he took on the position of commаndant of the Kiev police from November 1941, which is the time when the auxillary Police force was officially formed (from the Kiev battalion), in September there was no Ukrainian Auxillary police in Kiev. It had not yet been officially formed. Zakhvalynski arrived in Kyiv in October. How could he participate or command the Ukrainian Auxillary police for an action that took place in September? Bandurist (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All the on-line sources, including the one that is attached to the quote with the number and commander of the unit, confirm the presence of Ukrainian police. However, that source, and none of the others, seems to include that quote in full, and none name which Ukrainian police unit, or which commander. I am trying to locate the diff where this was added. In the meantime I am deprecating it from quote to text and commenting out the material that seems unsourced. Jd2718 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous version, naming only the German officer in charge of the Ukrainian auxilliaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babi_Yar&oldid=90552563

More detail and source were added in this edit. I will ask HS to comment. The source is Spector. It must have gotten mangled in later editing.

But it is this edit which introduces the quote naming the Commander. I cannot find where in the source this quote occurs. I will ask HS to comment. Jd2718 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that HS combined the fact that Zakhvalynski indisputably helped set up the auxiliary police - and assumed official command in November - with the fact that they were there. He may just have got his dates mixed up - Bandurist has produced a source suggesting that that is not a problem unique to him! --Relata refero (disp.) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I am not stating that Ukrainians were not involved in the rounding up of the Kyivan Jewish Community. It is just that in the rush for "credibility" people tend to assume various things which do not accurately portray the historic time-line. As a result inaccuracies "pop in". The subject matter is very delicate as it relates to relationships between ethnic communities. It is also difficult to accurately depict the period because of the distance in time. It is also difficult to accurately portray the events because of the fact that it has been a political football for the various groups. What is interesting is that as allegations are published they are addressed by scholars. Wikipedia is strong because it can provide a meeting ground for the various sides and wit the aid of the internet can be current. IMHO however it is far better to err on the more conservative side than to "push" particular POV and escalate matter-s.

I do apologise if I have offended anyone. That was not my intention. Bandurist (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Commented out sections

Why are so many things commented out in this article?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

I removed this map:

Map of the Holocaust in Ukraine. Babi Yar and other massacres marked with red skulls.

The idea of including a map to locate Kiev is a good one, but this was not the right choice:

1. Babi Yar is not central
2. lack of geographic markers
3. lack of political markers (the German occupation borders existed on paper only)
4. lack of time identifiers (when did the marked events occur? where was the front at that time?)
5. no consistent sense of which events/places are marked, scale, etc.

Does the map inform? Absent context, this map does not inform this article.

Some alternatives, which might work:

• A map of Ukraine, with Kiev marked,
• A map of the Eastern Front, with Kiev marked, and the front marked
• A local map of Kiev, with Babi Yar marked

Jd2718 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Babi Yar / Babyn Yar

Someone has systematically changed each reference to the modern Ukrainian spelling, in preference to the common name in English. Further, they have changed the name in references. I will change all back to Babi Yar, except where the Ukrainian name is explicitly given. Jd2718 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection, the massive breaking of links and altering of book and webpage titles should be considered vandalism. Same result, it was all reversed. Jd2718 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are being presumptuous.--Galassi (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And you're being an ass unhelpful. Why did you restore the wrong title to dozens of links? Why did you move good links to redlinks? It's because you reverted without reading. This is petty nationalist warring, not editing. Jd2718 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, don't call other editors "an ass". That should go without saying. Now, Babyn Yar may be the Ukrainian name, but this is the English Wikipedia and by far the most common and recognizable name is Babi Yar. From raw google hits, Babi Yar has 128,000 g-hits as opposed to Babyn Yar having 3,950. AniMate^draw 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Frustration. But you're right. He had just lied in an edit summary ("undiscussed" means not discussed) and then instead of engaging left that obnoxious "presumptuous" comment - on top of reverting 45 minutes of work, including tedious reference checking, with a single, thoughtless, warrior's click. But no, the bad word was a mistake. Jd2718 (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, and I agree. Simply speaking stylistically, the article needs to be uniform. We can't switch between Babi Yar, Babyn Yar, and Babiy Yar. I'm going to wade back in and correct things. AniMate^draw 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Be careful with the references, some sources use Babiy, most use Babi. Later Ukrainian stuff may use Babyn (but I didn't find any). I'm annoyed enough now that it is better that I just sign off. Jd2718 (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the edits I made. Where the websites and citations used "Babyn Yar" I left "Babyn Yar" in place. AniMate^draw 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Faked image of notice

This file: File:Big-babijar14.jpg.jpeg

Public announcement of September 28, 1941 in Russian, Ukrainian and German.

appears to have been altered. It does not match the source given. The uploader was user:Bandurist. The original has only the Ukrainian and German - the uploader appears to have either created the Russian or taken it from somewhere else and combined it into a single image. My question from months ago on Meta has gone unanswered. Jd2718 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

According to all russophone sources the announcement was in fact TRIlingual.--Galassi (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But Bandurist listed a source with only Ukrainian and German, even as he uploaded a trilingual version. There's accuracy questions and there's ethical questions here. Jd2718 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific as to what's inaccurate and unethical here?--Galassi (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/B-Yar/Images/d-2.jpg So what are you driving at?--Galassi (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Driving at? Please, just read what I wrote: "the uploader appears to have either created the Russian or taken it from somewhere else and combined it into a single image." It's been doctored to appear to be a single image. That's bad. Jd2718 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I updated the description of sources at the image page. - Altenmann >t 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the site that you supplied (www.deathcamps.org/occupation/babi%20yar.html) I noticed that it has been updated considerably, especially with the colourful maps. It also seems that they have doctored the poster there, by cutting the original in half and retaining just the Ukrainian and German versions and remiving the main announcement in Russian. Not very nice of them. They seem to be pushing a particular POV. You will notice that I posted the image in Commons two years ago and only one change has occurred since then where someone else change the catagory from Ukrainian to Russian.

Your allegations and innuendo are outrageous, improper and disgusting. Bandurist (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, as we only have sources for the separate images, the composite presents a problem. The article presents it as a single artifact, but we have no source of it as such. And Bandurist, it is you who supplied that site, not I. I did what someone should have done long ago - check your sources. Jd2718 (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please cool down you both. This is a generic problem with external websites: we have no control over their content. Bandurist, for this reason it is recommended to use a comment "retrieved on <date>". Jd2718, there is no reason not to believe Bandurist that he uploaded what he saw. Also, since the website in question does not cite their source (museum, etc.,) you may as well assume that they doctored the image one way or another.(I updated the Russian-text image with archival info). At the moment I don't see the usage more problematic than it was before: the imporant content is the text, not the picture. Someone eventually may upload the two separate images in their spare time, no big deal. (bandurist: hehe: "remiving" is it Khokhlenglish? :-) - Altenmann >t 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the joke, but it really is just a typo. --Bandurist (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know. (for those who don't know why it is a joke: quite a few Ukrainian words differ from the corresponding Russian ones by letter 'i' instead of 'o' or 'ё', e.g. ox-> вол->віл), and this is sometime used in some stupid jokes to fake the Ukrainian accent. - Altenmann >t 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Found some interesting info:

The Jews of Kyiv and its environs were informed via placards that they had to assemble with all their belongings at a specific place. This placard was not ready until the day before.

The 'placard' was printed in Russian, Ukrainian and German and allegedly read [translation of German text]:

"All the Jews of Kiev are to gather until 8 o'clock on Monday, September 29, 1941, at the corner of Melnik and Dokteriwski Streets (at the cemeteries). Bring your papers, money and valuables, also warm clothing etc.

"Anyone failing to comply with this order, and found elsewhere, will be shot.

"Anyone breaking into vacant Jewish homes or appropriating items from the same will be shot."

No issuing authority is given? Name and rank of the issuing commander? Date of issue?

Regarding the German text:

8 o'clock in the morning or 8 o'clock in the evening? 'Until' 8 o'clock? The original German text was printed using "oe", "ae" and "ss" instead of "ö", "ä" and "ß". Did the printer for the 6th Army not have any umlauts in his fonts? "Dokteriwski Street" is incorrect. The street was called "Djegtjariwskoi", ie. Tarburner Street. "Melnik Street" is incorrect. It is correctly called "Melnikowa Street". It is named for a Mr. Melnikow. "An den Friedhöfen" (the original German wording for "at the cemeteries") is incorrect German. Aside from that, the Russian text has only one cemetery. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust claims that the purpose of the order was "resettlement". What is the source of this insight? The placard makes no mention of this. What is meant by "found elsewhere"? When people converge on a location from everywhere else, everywhere is "elsewhere". How likely is it that a military propaganda division and an army printer would do such sloppy work?

Regarding the Russian text: The term used for Jews ("schidy") is contemptuous Russian gutter jargon. What sort of results can one expect when even the order to assemble bodes ill? Did they actually want to run the risk of having a large part of the Jews not show up at all, and go into hiding? Perhaps they even intended that in such a case they would put all armed conflict on hold, and employ their forces in locating the Jews instead...?

Here, too, the street names are incorrect. Moreover, the declension of "street" and that of "cemetery" are both wrong. The Russian text specifies 8:00 a.m. No mention is made of resettlement! In the list of things to bring, what does "etc." mean?

Regarding the Ukrainian text: Again, incorrect street names, and no hint as to the purpose of the assembly. Whoever may have been responsible for this 'order' - what were they thinking of: after the occupation of Kyiv, and with an anonymous placard, with name-calling and threats of execution, to order perhaps 100,000 or even more Jews to assemble literally over night and with potentially all their belongings, at a street corner at 8 o'clock the next morning?

Bandurist (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever, but the Russian piece is taken from Ukrainian state archives (З фондів ЦДАГО України, ф. 1, оп. 23, спр. 121, арк. 2, 2а, 7). If someone is willing, they may request the autentification of the document. - Altenmann >t 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To Bandurist- 8 oc'lock is in the morning. The evening hour in Europe would be 20. Where did you see the German text without unlauts?--Galassi (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is 3:20 AM in California. No umlauts in the origin: www.deathcamps.org/occupation/pic/bigbabijar14.jpg (unlinked because of spam filter for this site). - Altenmann >t 10:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

August 1 rewrite

I rewrote this to focus on the massacre itself and spun off most of the historiography and memorials into a separate article. I brought in the fairly good discussion from the main article on The Holocaust which seemed pretty good to me. One of my criticisms of of The Holocaust was that it was so long that it was impossible to check and verify facts and sources. The memorial section I felt was overlong and had enough notability to justify a separate article. Also, there was a forest of external links, that was one way to pare down on them.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Image removal

The image in the infobox turned out to be most likely from the Mizoch ghetto liquidation on October 14, 1942. I replaced it with the announcement image.Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The image clearly is from the Mizocz ghetto shootings. It has been used all over the place with claims that it is this or that atrocity. I was taken in by this at first when I used it in the article. The entire provenance of the image is set out now in the image file, which is derived from USHMM. So, to repeat, it does not belong in this article.Mtsmallwood (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Letter to the editor

Bandurist has attempted to link a "letter to the editor" as an external source. The letter, written in 1991 to a Toronto newspaper, is from a Ukrainian nationalist who denies, by arguing lack of evidence, that Ukrainian police were in any way involved in the massacre. The link itself is to a Canadian hate site.

There is nothing in this letter that would tend to make it valuable. It could not be used as a reliable source. It should not be used as a reference.

Further, I do not know why the editor linked a hate site. Jd2718 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor guy. A link to a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star - you call a hate site. I pity you. Bandurist 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't link the Toronto newspaper; you linked a Canadian hate site. Jd2718 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link I gave. It comes up as a clipping from the Toronto Star. Toronto Star letter to editor re Ukrainian participation in Babi YarBandurist 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't link to hate sites, and that's exactly what freedomsite.org is. Letters to the editor are not reliable sources, so we don't link those, either. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to link to hate-sites and sources all over the project - astonishingly, we often even use "facts" they argue. I don't believe that that is the case with this letter, which provides (undisputable?) evidence that Babi Yar has been used as a weapon against Ukranians, and some/nationalist Ukranians very much resent the implication. The letter could even be wilful denial (I'm going by gut-feeling here, I've not examined the case), it would still belong (perhaps criticised?) as important background. Only if "Wasyl Veryha" is a convicted war-criminal and/or universally condemned by other Ukranians should we gloss over this little bit of history. (If he is a war-criminal, then I'm sorry and I'll delete that part of my little rant - but there is also a much wider point here and it's time we got our head around it - read onwards).

Evidence that we use a hate-source (for "facts"), guilty of both "gross historical fabrication" and ethno-specific abuse is right in this very article: "In his 1961 book Star in Eclipse: Russian Jewry Revisited, Joseph Schechtman provided an account of the Babi Yar tragedy.".

How do we know we're using hate-sources? Because another of Schechtman's books ("The Arab Refugee Problem") states: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed." (Note the bolded portion, the part that shows both faults I've identified).

I'm absolutely behind you in removing hate-sources - but lets make it clear what it is we're opposing. It's not (or should not be) glimpses of the torment of people like Ukranian "Wasyl Veryha", whose people suffered enormously in the war. It's aimed at people like Schechtman, who is/was a Jewish Ukranian - but from Odessa, a long way from Kiev. He left there in 1920 and "Star in Eclipse: Russian Jewry Revisited" is (presumably) "historical" and full of "gross historical fabrications" against other suffering people, just like his Palestine book. PR^talk 11:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman's opinion apropos Arab-Israeli war is absolutely irrelevant here, and his book is merely mentioned but not cited in this article. Take your poison somewhere else.Galassi 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As to Weryha, he IS a historian. However although he seems to have been a participant in the Ukr. nationalist movement during WW2- he has a clear agenda ~(contradicted by all historical evidence), and there is no proof that that is his real name.Galassi 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman poses as a historian - while he fabricates history and incites hatred against other ethnicities. The clip I've posted you above is far worse than anything I can see at the "Freedomsite". On top of what I've pointed you to, Schechtman was pretty much discredited by Childers in 1961, accused of fabricating great chunks of evidence about the "Endorsement to Flight".

What do we know about Babi-Yar? Well, it turns out that the utterly unreliable and unpleasant Schechtman himself seems to be the first significant reporter of it, 20 years after the event. A further 15 years passed before the Soviets raised a memorial, even they were in a state of shock and disbelief and amnesia about what the Nazis had done.

It's possible that Wasyl Veryha is as bad .... but our article doesn't actually suggest that it was Ukranian policemen who massacred the Jews of Kiev - so he's not denying anything we've got anyway. He's trying to put down school-ground taunts - if we're opposed to his voice being heard then it's not for any of the reasons I've seen here. Let's root out real hate-sources, not muddy the water with these other accusations against "Freedomsite" and Ukranians. PR^talk 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1. This article is not based on Schechtman. 2. Babi Yar is sufficiently documented without S. 3. Stop wasting our time.Galassi 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, you've wandered off topic. Bandurist tried to add a (non-noteworthy) link to a rightwing, racist, anti-immigrant website. It doesn't belong. It's gone. Done. Feel free to examine the sources used in this article; if there are problems, we should correct them. But that's a different matter. Jd2718 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wind up this educational exchange with policy based statements - we're (quite authoritatively) informed, twice, that "Freedomsite" is a hate-source. (I think you're asking me not to further explore the strange and slightly disturbing argument that we therefore exclude it as a source for "evidence" as to the existence/content of an artifact).

A quick scan of this now accepted "hate-site" tells me it defends potential racists and anti-immigrants from prosecution (in the US this would not arise, there are no such laws to break). It also seeks to smear a controversial war-crime investigator, but the same individual is at odds (on grounds "don't censor the Internet") with the director of the world-leading, highly respected Nizkor "expose Holocaust Denial" web-site, so this is hardly a federal case. The "smearing" of Littman appears to be carefully fact-based and relatively restrained - although he's called a liar, there is no attempt to apply even the kind of personal abuse Littman himself uses.

If that's the "hate-site standard" we're now operating to (ie much tighter than the previous standard of "not David Irving territory"), then Schechtman is right out there in the lunatic fringe.

There is no chance of me becoming an expert on Babi Yar, so I'll pass on your kind invitation to correct the (likely serious) problems introduced by giving Schechtman any credibility whatsoever. If people insist on having him here, then the integrity of this part of the project is seriously compromised. Obviously I cannot be sure, but if he was really the first outside, English speaking investigator to reach Kiev (20 years after it happened), then it's highly likely he's contaminated every secondary source we have too. PR^talk 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

that is the "not shooting is less evil" argument we see at the trials (48) already. could here be the result of a person (werya) trying to excuse himself.technically the newly reemerged east european nationalisms lived up to many expectations.24.132.171.225 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Zhyd in Ukrainian Means Jew

Zhyd in Ukrainian Means Jew The Encyclopedia of Ukraine, published by the University of Toronto Press, says that the word Jew has two Ukrainian equivalents: Zhyd and Yevrei. Zhyd is the common and correct word in Western Ukraine, as it is in Poland, while Yevrei is more common in Eastern Ukraine due to Russian influence. Some Jewish scholars such as Solomon Goldelman insist that Zhyd is the only correct word in Ukrainian for Jew. In the Ukrainian language Zhyd (Jew) and Yevrei (Hebrew) mean simply Jew and neither is pejorative. However, it should be noted that the Russian language uses Yevrei for Jew and does use Zhid as a pejorative.

When I asked Rabbi Bleich in Kiev which was the correct term in his opinion he answered that both Zhyd and Yevrei were acceptable in Ukrainian. --Bandurist 03:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The response is in the previous section. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

P.Kulish was heavily in favor of YEVREY, because the word ZHID has already assumed its derogatory quality by 1850-60, under Russian influence.Galassi 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. "Zhyd" is used as an insult in east Ukraine and Russian language.--Oleg Str (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add this into "In fiction".

In film "Apt Pupil" made by Stephen Kings book ex-nazi character is saying that he was in B. Yar and took part in the events that were here. That was pretty brief scene but important for the film, because there Artur sad smth. like "It wasn't good, but it should be done" showing for the first time in the film that he was supporter of such politics and didn't change his mind. If this is enough of a reason please add this in article.--Oleg Str (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Raul Hilberg - this is a quote from Hilberg - could be included in the article. "The wartime aerial photos of Kiev provide incontrovertible proof that the so-called historic documentation of the Babi Yar massacre represents fabricated wartime propaganda and post-war martyr mythology. Perhaps the Nazis had, as promised, deported the missing Kievans away from Kiev. If so, their remains and burial sites should be sought elsewhere." I just tripped across it - maybe everyone did. Maybe this quote should be in Holocaust Denial and/or Hilberg,s biography also/instead.159.105.80.141 (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read that the Russians evacuated the Jews from this area before the Germans arrived - Russian wartime documents. Is the consensus that the Russians falsified their contemporaneous records - for what purpose. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All views that are credible should be included in the article, not only the pro-Jewish one.--Львівське (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation and Hijacking of Article

The article claims thousands of Ukrainians were killed at Babi Yar? How? Were they too drunk after shooting the Jews and fell into the ravine by accident breaking their necks? This article is slowly trying to show Ukrainians, not as collaborators who happily informed on their Jewish neighbors, but as some kind of victims who were also shot at Babi Yar. I can put up 10 refs showing that Ukrainians murdered Ukrainian Jews while singing and dancing and kissed Germans for helping them kill Jews.

This article is being hijacked in an attempt to rewrite history and make Ukrainians victims instead of collaborators. I already found 2 statements with references which say nothing as is claimed. Can we get some consensus, any admins out here? Cheers? I dunno. Meishern (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, 100,000 refers to the TOTAL cumulative number of victims, of whom roughly 1/3 were Jews. Read the paragraph. And yes, Ukrainians were victims there as well.-Galassi (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainians were guards of every death camp. More Ukranians participated in exterminating Jews than any other nation but Germany/Austria. Yet somehow a claim is made that for every Jew murdered at Babi Yar, 2 Ukrainians were murdered there. Did they do such a poor job at Sobibor or Treblinka that Germans sent them to Babi Yar to be shot a few years later? Meishern (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please dont use about.com as a reference. i can write an article there too that 1 billion martians were killed at babi yar, and they will approve it. Please use primary sources. If you read primary sources like [11] you will see "Soviet accounts after the war speak of 100,000 dead. Research does not substantiate such a number." So if you are relying on Communists who wanted to minimize the mass-murder of Jews and instead wanted to paint the Nazis as killing everybody (not true), you are doing a good job for them. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you something. I have a friend, whose grandfather was one of the Ukrainians who participated in the fun, as he called it still in 1995. With anger boiling within me, I listened to him freely describe what happened in Kiev and Babi Yar. I wish he was alive today still so I could have asked better questions. Yet one thing he knew is that every bullet he fired was executing Jews. He considered Germans the liberators and an honor to kill so many Jews. A despicable person who i hope burns in hell now. I still remember his gold toothed mouth smirk describing the killing of the zgids. Meishern (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be true (as well as WP:OR...), but this is an encyclopedia that has an explicit rule against WP:SOAPBOX. It also has a WP:NEUTRALITY rule. Therefore we equally avoid judophobia and ukrophobia here, FYI.-Galassi (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You stated that only 33% of people murdered at Babi Yar were Jews and the rest were Ukrainians, Gypsies and POWs. You reverted me. I added citation needed. You also LIE in your citations. Example 1 (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005421): "In the months following the massacre, German authorities stationed at Kiev killed thousands more Jews at Babi Yar, as well as non-Jews including Roma (Gypsies), Communists, and Soviet prisoners of war. It is estimated that some 100,000 people were murdered at Babi Yar. " Please show me where Ukrainians are involved in your citation. Your second citation (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/israeli/yad-vashem/yvs-camps-02-00.html) states "Babi Yar served as a slaughterhouse for non-Jews as well, such as GYPSIES and Soviet prisoners of war. According to the estimate given by the Soviet research commission on Nazi crimes, 100,000 persons were murdered at Babi Yar." Please point out in this article anything about Ukranians. So you basically lied, and used 2 citations to manipulate history to your own way of thinking. This is why I state this article is hijacked by POV pro-Ukrainian apologist. Prove me wrong. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

HAve you ever heard of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:SOAPBOX? Get used to those rules. If you know how to read in English you would see that the total number of victims (broadly referred as Ukrainians (of all ethnic backgrounds)) is usually estimated at 100-120K, and the total number of Jewish victims is estimated from the initially documented 40K (by Germans themselves) up to 50K. Thus you would get 50-70K non-Jewish victims, and some of them are even known by names. -Galassi (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word Ukrainians in this context is an anachronism. The more proper and neutral term for the generic local population would be "Soviet citizens" or, if you prefer, "citizens of the Ukrainian SSR". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not realy. People like Olena Teliha and her husband Mykhilko Teliha who executed there were never Soviet Citizens. They lived in Prague in the 1920's and in Poland in th 1930's. What their exact citizenship was I do not know, but their ethnicity was definitely Ukrainian. Bandurist (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Weasel word

I have reverted a recent edit to change "execution" back to "murder", in describing what was done at Babi Yar. Murder is unlawful killing, whether by an individual or by the state. To suggest that the word execution is legitimate applies a euphemism the Nazis themselves would approve. Peterlewis (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It was not unlawful, and was committed in accordance with the Nazi laws, in organised matter, which makes it a lot more evil.--Galassi (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What nazi law or laws? Can you cite a reference? If not you must replace the term by the correct and most accurate usage. Peterlewis (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nazi anti-Jewish laws and policies are well-cocumented in their respective articles and require no excessive citations. Mass-murder of Jews is essentially extrajudicial execution, and as such it fits the requirement of neutral wording, per WP:NPOV.--Galassi (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Describing these mass-murders only as murders grossly understates the historical significance of these tragedies. Nor were they (only) war crimes, but rather part of a deliberate state policy of the Nazi regime, which even if lawful (by detestable Nazi standards), were illegitimate, and in fact atrocious. They were certainly executions, and use of that term cannot be considered a weasel word (but just calling it "murder" would be weaselish). The more apt term would be "atrocities" (and genocidal at that). By the way, the scale on non-Jewish victims should also not be understated, but rather this article should correctly reflect the scale and proportionality of different kind of victims, as well as the particular significance it had for what became the Jewish Shoah.Kvitlach (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet it is very hard to find balance here, precisely because an article which should be about an extraordinary massacre, genocidal, and the largest of the second world war, is instead an article about THE PLACE, and all of the killings, murders, executions, etc, etc that occurred there. This needs to be addressed. Jd2718 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You may address that issue, but the fact remains: Babi Yar IS a PLACE, and making it into anything else would be unencyclopedic POV.--Galassi (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Babi Yar was a massacre, named for a place. Over 30,000 Jews in 3 days. The article, above the lead, indicates that this is the subject. But several editors have turned the body into something else, and it may be a long time until that is corrected. Jd2718 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the article?? What part of the entire article's body ISN'T related to the massacres?--Львівське (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's merit of a sort in these foregoing various perspectives. I would just add, yes Babi Yar is a place, but its noteworthiness vastly stems from the horrendous massacres that were perpetrated there by the Nazis and their collaborators. As such, Babi Yar has also become a metaphor for massacre-with-impunity. Kvitlach (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Metaphors are not very encyclopedic. Hence the dry style requirement on Wikipedia.--Galassi (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk about the article, and the noteworthiness of the place, not on metaphor, nor POV on encyclopedic, or others non-sequitur. Kvitlach (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"using local headstones as bricks" - Please check some of this garbage out with a mason, or anybody from a woodstove factory...... Constructing a crematorium with stones - wow this really shows wiki's lack of scientific knowledge. Where are these stones today? Did they lug them far away to a distant land where stones disappear?159.105.80.220 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)I should be clearer - stones would make a low temp thingy - for cremation you need a little more high tech material and design. It's the difference between a cookstove ( if you want to eat the bodies) or a kiln ( if you want to reduce them to ashes ). Heat a stone with a propane torch - Tiger Torch - and see what happens ( stand far far far back). If you want a fire hot enough to cremate send the guy with the stone idea out for beer.159.105.80.220 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

main point missing

There seems to be no mention of the notorious fact that during Soviet times, Jews were not allowed to be mentioned in memorials and commemorations... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Repetitions, chronological order

Regarding my recent undiscussed and unhelpful edit: the section on the Massacres of 29-30 September has the following problems:

• The sentence "All were driven down a corridor of soldiers, in groups of ten, and then shot." occurs twice.
• The sentence "The crowd was large enough that most of the men, women, and children could not have known what was happening until it was too late: by the time they heard the machine-gun fire, there was no chance to escape." occurs twice.
• The quote from the report "Because of 'our special talent of organisation', the Jews still believed to the very last moment before being murdered that indeed all that was happening was that they were being resettled" is given once in the running text and basically repeated in a quotation box.
• The reports by the truck driver are out of order: first he describes how the people are shot, then how they are forced to undress.
• The two quotation boxes by the truck driver repeat the phrase "remove their luggage, then their coats, shoes, and overgarments and also underwear"

AxelBoldt (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

This sentence:

Axis forces, mainly German, occupied Kiev on 19 September 1941. On September 26 Maj. Gen. Kurt Eberhard, the military governor, made the decision to exterminate the Jews of Kiev, claiming that it was in retaliation for guerrilla attacks against German troops.[3] and SS-Obergruppenführer Friedrich Jeckeln, the SS and Police Leader at Rear Headquarters Army Group South.

seems to ignore basic rules of grammar, but when I tried to edit it, someone reverted it (along with another of my edits) with no explanation other than "2 unhelpful edits" which, I doubt he would be able to understand himself if he used that summary reverting his own edits. (Perhaps he's confused in some hurry like I sometimes am...) I might redo the edits if no comprehensible explanation arises. The reason for my 1st edit, btw, is because "retaliation", especially in war times, implies an instantaneous counter attack at the direction enemy fire comes from. If there was a crowd of civilians next to the Nazis with gunfire going somewhere from the crowd to the Nazis, "retaliation" would be a possible, although nowhere close to justifying, excuse for a massacre. Systematically massacring a population of Jewish civilians by deceiving them to gather at a murdering field doesn't seem to fit with the word "retaliation" extremely well. The reason for my 2nd edit, of course, is to fix the obvious sentence fragment: "and SS-Obergruppenführer Friedrich Jeckeln, the SS and Police Leader at Rear Headquarters Army Group South." That sentence also begins with "and" with a lower case "a." 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No explanation was given for a long time, so I have temporarily redone the edits until I get some explanation. The redo will be permanent if everything stays silent. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Revenge is not an encyclopedic term. Please don't waste our time.--Galassi (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And please keep the discussion civil. The IP asked a question at talk, and only made the change after several weeks of no response. That's a reasonable approach. Further, he made an editorial change, and corrected grammar. Disagree with the editorial change if you will, but the query above deserves a response, not a dismissal. And certainly do not undo grammatical corrections. That wastes everyone's time. Jd2718 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that "revenge" is not encyclopedic? If you don't recall, at least state why it regarded "revenge" as non encyclopedic. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only the term is unencyclopedic, it is also inappropriate in this article. The massacres were committed not in revenge for any misdeed, but on the PRETEXT of RETALIATION for a purported misdeed.--Galassi (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think so? I doubt those who, systematically massacred a population of Jewish civilians by deceiving them to gather at a murdering field, lacked any guilty mind and sincerely believed they were acting in retaliation to stop guerrilla attacks, so you'd need some sources to convince me. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Revenge implies emotion, retaliation conveys the meaning better seeing as this is war and it was calculated. I'm going to side with Galassi here, but I wouldn't say it was unencylopedic, just not the best wording.--Львівське (говорити) 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point(finally, a point for the discussion), but I not quite sure that these Nazis were just saying "this is war and it was calculated," because, you know, the Nazi Party mostly focused their propaganda on appealing to emotional hatred of groups such as the Jewish people, and exploiting fears of letting its enemies get away without revenge. Where did you learn that these Nazis thought differently? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that people who only look at the history and not the talk page would expect me to use editing to start any discussion. I guess there's nothing actually wrong with that at all, just making the state of the article more liquid, which is a good thing. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for this wording, sorry.--Galassi (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that sentence is not quite enough to hop right over the needed discussion about what exactly is tight for this article. I understand that your time is not valueless, but neither of us came to Wikipedia not expecting any discussion to come with the editing, and delaying any discussion will never really save any time. True enough, I don't care as much about this detail of the article as I had tried to appear to, and indeed I wont find the patience to think of this forever, but it is still way faster for everyone if there is a discussion to end this long disagreement. I don't just magically disappear the way that's expected from someone who's ignored. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Revenge implies a previous misdeed by its victim. Is that what you drive at? 2. You would have to source that word in this context.--Galassi (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the word "retaliation" does not imply a previous misdeed by its victim? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think 'retailiation' reads better than 'revenge', because we are describing the claim of the German officer, and should thus use terms more suitable to a public announcement. I've reverted, because three editors (counting myself) prefer 'retaliation' to one who prefers 'revenge'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I know most of you editors want that, and that is why I am discussing, obviously. If discussion's only purpose was to convince the remainder once majority already supports an action, how is it gonna improve Wikipedia's content? And I only really wanted to discuss the issue, except no one talks back lol so sometimes I ought to edit. Yes, maybe if I was some Nazi officer I may prefer the word retaliation, but we cannot make assumptions to what probably would have happened when it comes to history. I would not write in some history text book that Hitler had dreams of killing Stalin just because it would be reasonable to assume so: I need historical fact. Of course, I don't have any evidence they preferred the word revenge either, but when things are uncertain, I think revenge would be a safer assumption, don't you agree? If they tried to justify their actions by suggesting revenge, as in deluding people to think of how bad and deserving their victims were, saying they claimed retaliation (self defense) would be pure fiction, while if they really did claim they were retaliating, saying they claimed revenge would still make half sense, as retaliation is often partly revenge. Nevertheless, this would be a lot simpler if someone who has the books used as sources just clarify this for us. Meanwhile, I am not convinced why we should use whatever word that would make the Nazis look better, even if it's about their own self justification. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there's a significant difference between the meaning of 'retaliation' and 'revenge' - no difference in immediacy is given in the OED definitions, anyway. The former is more formal, the latter more lurid - hence my preference for the former in an encyclopedia. I also disagree that using 'retaliation' makes the tone more sympathetic to the Nazis, and resent the implication. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the official definitions. Every story I've heard that talks of someone being assaulted fighting back uses the word "retaliate," and I never see the word elsewhere. Whenever someone I know hears the word "retaliation," they think of someone defending himself. I doubt it would be any different elsewhere. When I saw this article at first, I definitely did not expect the word "retaliate." Also, if I imagine an argument between two people, one saying a house should be painted blue, and another saying it doesn't make any difference if it's blue or red, so the argument it should be blue is wrong, therefore the house should be red, I don't see who would side with the red argument. I know that is not YOUR logic, but it does mean that there's nothing wrong with debating the meaning of the words for anyone who cares about which is used. Also, I don't think everything can be written with every word revenge replaced with retaliate and still have the same meaning, even if the official definitions aren't changed much. For example this sentence: Alice wanted Bob to think revenge is wrong by showing him a video of a man who fell off a building when trying to get revenge on his enemy who punched him, gives a different meaning than this sentence: Alice wanted Bob to think retaliation is wrong by showing him a video of a man who fell off a building when trying to retaliate against his enemy who punched him. In fact, I think using 'retaliation' makes the tone more sympathetic to the man who fell off. Why wouldn't the same apply to this article? Why do you say

I also disagree that using 'retaliation' makes the tone more sympathetic to the Nazis

173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion REVENGE makes the wording way to sympathetic to the nazis, as it implies an emotional reaction to an action. Retaliation is cold and calculated, just like it was in real life. Period.--Galassi (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, where did you get the "Retaliation is cold and calculated"? It seems really off... I've only ever seen the word "retaliation" in stories that talks of someone being assaulted fighting back before I came across this article. People on the news also often used the words "they would be forced to retaliate if...", when they talk of self defense. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that no one ever replies in the talk page but always edit in the article page? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the discussion has run its course, really. You're in a minority of 1 about the nuances of the two words. The arguments are getting repetitive, and you haven't persuaded anyone else. Time to drop it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because some random guy agrees with you doesn't mean you're correct, and the obvious reason I have to repeat comments is because you forgot them, just like now I have to repeat my comment, about why it would be the most idiotic thing to stop a discussion on the basis most people disagree, when the reason of discussion is to get majority agreement: If discussion's only purpose was to convince the remainder once majority already supports an action, how is it gonna improve Wikipedia's content? You obviously didn't take my other point into account as well: if I imagine an argument between two people, one saying a house should be painted blue, and another saying it doesn't make any difference if it's blue or red, so the argument it should be blue is wrong, therefore the house should be red, I don't see who would side with the red argument. As unfortunate as it is, I'm afraid your only chance to win this debate is to continue using reasons instead of ad hominem arguments. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey! We're talking about mass murder here. A wholesale massacre of 33,771 people. Why are you debating the nuances of the words retaliation, revenge and reprisal? IMHO this linguistic issue is very petty. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

apparently you are 100% correct. nevertheless, debating the wording on other articles instead of talking of this massacre isn't more justified debating about the wording on this article, considering the mass murder does not disappear the moment you're looking at another page. I really don't know if it is possible for us Wikipedia editors to ever give reasonable priority towards what to deal with first-- now that I think about it, many editors, especially me, have given more comments to the talk page on the Occupy Movement than to the much more serious talk page on World War II. guess it's no lie that indifference commands us who have yet been victims, I once read a horrible true story[12] and felt bad but moments later sat on the couch under the TV, and even I have been accused of caring too much about the rest of the word very often instead of being viewed the other way. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"retaliation" implies provocation responsible by the victim too?

Perhaps the reason it feels so correct and obvious to see revenge as inappropriate because it "implies that victims were somehow responsible for what was done to them" is because none of us were examining how retaliation also implies so. Dictionary.com, [13], does show the requirement for a provocation by the victim during an instance of retaliation. I think another point can be made before I am convinced. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

" In 1943, after the German surrender at Stalingrad, Grossman was with the first Red Army units to liberate the Ukraine. He learned about Babi Yar, where 100,000 people, most of them Jews, were massacred.

"With the support of the Soviet Jewish Antifascist Committee he with the equally great writer, Vasily Grossman, enlisted some twenty-four reporters to gather eyewitness accounts of the hideous torture and murder of Soviet Jews, captured Red Army soldiers, and communists."

source: Black book of Soviet Jewry, Ehrenburg & Grossman. "This present edition, the English translation of the original 1993 edition was first published in 2002." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyspring (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazis, Ukrainian collaborators

user:Lvivske has replaced Nazis with "German forces" (without explanation or edit summary), and Ukrainian collaborators with "Soviet collaborators" (without explanation or edit summary) and then with "local collaborators" (claiming "considering many more ukrainians were killed, seems a POV push to emphasize ethnic background"). Is there any reason not to call the killers Nazis? Is there any claim that the collaborators at Babi Yar were not Ukrainians? A large group of people were murdered precisely for their ethnicity; doesn't that make ethnicity here quite relevant? Jd2718 (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

a) they were german forces, no explanation needed, b) they were soviet citizens, i was being ethnic neutral c) "local" is even more neutral so i dont know how you see that as a POV push - do you know for a fact no ethnic Russians in the city took part? Or others?

Also I find it odd that you want ethnicity involved but don't want the word "Germany" used to describe the country that invaded. --Львівське (говорити) 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Using the word "Nazis" would imply that every participant was a believer in NS-ideology. Would you agree to refer to all American, British etc. troops that were in Iraq as "Neocon-imperialists"? Not everyone in the Red Army was a Communist, not every soldier in the Wehrmacht a Nazi, not everyone in the US Army an Imperialistic Capitalist and so on. I think events should be described as accurately as possible without more or less concealed attempts to influence the reader. The facts presented (as accurate and honest as possible) should be enough. Readers might even start to doubt the content if such propaganda language is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.119.133 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass graves

Where are the mass graves of the 33.000 to 150.000 corpses? --165.165.83.226 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To the uphill side of Olena Teliha.--73.13.88.76 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Language

"The most notorious" massacre had 34 000 victims, while "other massacres" had 150 000 victims... Is that event which causes the most loss of life not consequently the most notorious? Are all human lives really equal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.189.139.145 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The event which causes the most loss of life is not necessarily the most notorious. Perhaps you should review the meaning of the English word notorious. It has nothing to do with severity, scale, etc. General Ization ^Talk 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring the main section

Some changes were made to the main section of the article about the massacres of 29-30 September 1941:

• Added details of the explosions of 20-28 September 1941. These were caused by the NKVD and used by the Germans as the excuse to kill the Jewish population. Although the Einsatzgruppen killed people in rural areas as soon as they arrived, in major cities there was usually a ghettoization phase. This did not happen in Kiev.
• Restructured the content about the meeting of 26 September and the other preparations for the massacre. The result, although not by any means perfect, describes those responsible for Babi Yar more or less from the top down. By stating that Rasch was Blobel's superior, it's hoped that it will be somewhat clear that Sonderkommando 4c was part of Einsatzgruppe C. If it's not, then Einsatzgruppen and Paul Blobel will help. "Sonderkommando" was unlinked, because that article is about the Sonderkommando at Auschwitz-Birkenau, not the subunits of the Einsatzgruppen.
• A sentence about Wehrmacht responsibility was added. This is stated in the lead of the German article, and should be stated in the English article as well.

Roches (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Babi Yar. 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://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2007-18.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandeis.edu/gsa/gradjournal/2004/khiterer2004.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/hofer.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://litakcent.com/2009/02/27/babyn-jar-dolja-tekstu-ta-avtora.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113132258/http://www.day.kiev.ua:80/130699/ to http://www.day.kiev.ua/130699/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Babi Yar. 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/20070814045451/http://www.cym.org/archives/olena_teliha.asp to http://www.cym.org/archives/olena_teliha.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/04/ussr.asp?WT.mc_id=wiki
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916093716/http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/barbarossa/index.asp?WT.mc_id=wiki to http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/barbarossa/index.asp?WT.mc_id=wiki

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Babi Yar. 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/20061207163856/http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr101.html to http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr101.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083508/http://shoa.com.ua/php/content/view/84/9/ to http://shoa.com.ua/php/content/view/84/9/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/ie/show/555/50608/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051104004022/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/555/50608 to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/555/50608/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926223355/http://shoa.com.ua/php/content/view/106/9/ to http://shoa.com.ua/php/content/view/106/9/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Has any real research on the ground ever been done here. Modern forensics would be very helpful. 2601:181:8301:4510:A1A2:DFA0:42C9:E160 (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Split to Babi Yar massacre

The following discussion 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.

---

• To split between location and massacre. 94.179.245.243 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose article is not very long, the location is mostly known as the site of the massacre. buidhe 10:21, 30 May 2020 (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 believe the first introductory paragraphs to this article need to be more objective. They center around the Jewish experience, yet it appears as if the total numbers of humans killed were two or four times the number of Jews killed. And for instance it makes lengthy comparisons between the severity of this Jewish massacre compared to other Jewish massacres, yet it ignores a comparison among, say the Romano massacres. Why such an emphasis on Jewish deaths, and how significant are the numbers of deaths when the fact is all those deaths were due to false philosophies among the Nazi leaders?

I suggest that the first paragraph give the overall picture, with the total numbers killed, with other details that do not narrow down to the deaths of any constituent group. It's certainly okay to mention all those facts with respect to the Jewish deaths later on in article, but again, I hope to see similar treatment of other groups. As the article begins now, it appears we are concerned more about Jewish deaths than we are about the deaths in other groups.

Thank you. Iwasathought (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The three Death Match players shot (section Syrets Concentration Camp)

The name of the third player mentioned is given as Putistin but it is not supported by the citation which names him as Kuzmenko. Putistin according to the wiki article on the Death Match escaped from the camp in 1943 and was living as late as 1966 when (apparently not wishing to endorse Soviet propaganda) he declined to receive Soviet honours for his part in the Match.Cloptonson (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata Q106880623 and Q48766

Hello folks, just asked the two items present on WD to be merged, as there is one only event. Best, et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Historical Background

In the historical background section, why is there no mention of, outside of the Holocaust, the largest mass slaughter of Jews in history in the pogroms in Ukraine at the turn of the century that lasted periodically through the First World War? If not the pogroms of the early 1900s then I would think the massacres by Petliuris forces after WWI (50,000-100,000 Jewish victims) would be appropriate to discuss when talking about historical context, especially considering Ukranian police and local participation in Babyn Yar and the long standing history of anti semitism in Ukraine at the time of the massacre... 2600:1009:B01C:6320:B19B:B131:3DD0:5EFF (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian collaborators?

I don't claim particular subject knowledge, but I do note that this article changed dramatically shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022. The article now includes Ukrainian collaborators (not soviet). It may be correct, but it seems like while Putin was claiming that modern Ukraine is filled with neo-nazis, suddenly this article adds blame to the Ukrainian people. I won't edit the article - but would be interested in other's views. 108.30.115.193 (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Language of title of the article

The article is about Ukrainian city, place in Ukraine and about Ukrainian victims in the list of all victims from there. Why does the name of the article is transcription from russian language? I mean in ukrainian we call it only "Бабин Яр" (Babyn Yar) and even for some Ukrainians who talk in russian that is Banyn Yar, not Babi Yar. Can y'all please change it? Ask for that as ukrainian. Thank you. Artekimus (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It is English Wikipedia, so whatever it is called in Ukrainian is irrelevant. The WP:COMMONNAME is clear.[14] Mellk (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OUN

The lead says: Victims of massacres at the site included members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The source used[15] says: "Several dozen OUN members fell victim to the Germans in Kyiv. These were mostly Melnykites, who up until then had coexisted and cooperated with the occupiers." In page 216 it says: "The shootings were carried out in an anti-tank ditch, as well as in pits that were dug in the open area in the Babyn Yar district (but not in the ravine itself)". Also the same source says: "Although successors to the OUN(M) in modern Ukraine and in the Ukrainian diaspora state that the Germans killed as many as 621 activists of the movement in Kyiv between 1941 and 1943, careful calculations show this number to be incorrect. A shorter list, of 62 names, mentioned on a memorial cross placed in 1992, also requires verification, as at least some of these OUN members were not victims of Nazism." Also the section in the source is called "Ukrainian Nationalists as Victims of Nazi Germany", not "Ukrainian Nationalists as Victims of Babyn Yar". Meanwhile in the body it says: Among those murdered were 621 members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). While it links to this source. It also raises the question of WP:DUE weight. Mellk (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of colorized image

I really think this article should go back to using the previous image. Right now, it's a colorized version of a photo taken by the SS. It's credited to Johannes Haehle and listed as being created on 1 October 1941, but the coloring is ex post facto. I know that colorization can bring the past to life and make it more "interesting" to modern audiences, but its accuracy and authenticity is always questionable. Since the original image was black-and-white, we should use that image. Are we going to colorize every other image of the Holocaust, too? `Sacxpert (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The colour photographs are the original images; they have not be colourised. The entire collection can be downloaded via this link: The “Hähle Photos”: The Mass Murder of the Jewish Inhabitants of Kiev and Lubny as Seen by a Wehrmacht Propaganda Company Photographer, from the Hamburg Institute for Social Research. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sacxpert: I clarified the provenance of the image with this edit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then I have to unreservedly apologize. I just assumed, having seem the same image in black-and-white, that it came first and the colorizing came later. Thank you for the clarification! Sacxpert (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the image currently used, I don't know if it's a particularly clear representation of the actual massacre, as opposed to its aftermath. Kiew_Babyn_Yar_7_Bild_008-005 in the collection K.e.coffman linked in this thread also isn't an exact representation of the massacre itself, but appears to be in the more immediate aftermath of the massacre (i. e. before the Nazis undermined the wall of the ravine). File:Massacre de Babi Yar.jpg is a more clear depiction of actual shootings at Babyn Yar, but it was apparently taken in 1942, after the initial 1941 massacre. I'm not sure which photograph we should use, but I'd be most in favor of using Kiew_Babyn_Yar_7_Bild_008-005. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Name change

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): The page name should be changed to Babyn Yar
• Why it should be changed: Babi Yar is the Russian spelling in English; Babyn Yar is the Ukrainian spelling in English. This is an area in Ukraine, therefore it should be named according to its country of origin.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): the very page on which I’m requesting an edit.

Macarter85 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Please read WP:RM. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Samchuk

I added this part in the article[16] but I think a new section is needed. Maybe "Legacy" or "Controversies"? Mhorg (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have been directly involved with the Babi Yar massacre, other than praising it in the press after the fact. I don't think a "Legacy" section would be a good fit for this. However, if there were a section about contemporary views about the massacre, then Samchuk's statement could possibly be included there with an adjective clause mentioning that a street was later named after him. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I'm moving the text to the Samchuk article for now. Mhorg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2023

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Babi Yar → Babyn Yar – Babyn Yar is located in Ukraine, a country which in recent years and for obvious reasons has consistently sought to prioritize the use of Ukrainian for place names, rather than Russian. I note that Babyn Yar is located near Kyiv, and that Kyiv is the primary name for that page, not Kiev, which is a redirect. I therefore respectfully ask that this page be renamed to Babyn Yar, and Babi Yar be turned into a redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Russian transliteration would be "Baby Yar" or "Babiy Yar". Mellk (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I second this request.

Even if in the context of centuries of russification policies from Moscow people have become accustomed to not see entire countries and cultures colonized, bad practice does not turn into good practice. Wikipedia can honor politically independent states and not call places after occupyiers and colonialists, especially when political realities have long changed. Ukrainian is an independent country for over 30 years and the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. I also request to name the place in Ukrainian and place a redirect for those who are lost in the past. JPGather (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

:Why do we have to acquiesce to the revisionism of Ukrainian nationalists - especially on articles such as this?!

Kiev is the long established English spelling; using it is no more partisan than calling Moscow Moscow.

The traditional English spelling and pronunciation sound nothing like the Russian or Ukrainian pronunciations.

Ironically, the new, affected pronunciation of "Keev" is more similar to the Russian than the Ukrainian anyway!

Pathetic and dishonourable. 2.29.203.33 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Strike as off topic (Kiev is a different article). RegentsPark (comment) 00:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Babi Yar is how contemporary Kyiv Jews said it. Stop trying to erase the Holocaust! 142.126.146.27 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Must be disregarded per WP:RUSUKR--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Ngram data shows that "Babi Yar" is more widely used in sources. Looking at the references listed in the article, it seems the majority of them use this transliteration. — MaterialWorks 17:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME; Google Ngrams shows that usage of the current name far exceeds that of the proposed alternative. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Don't acquiesce to Nazis, especially when talking about their crimes— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.187.17 (talk • contribs)

  Must be disregarded as invalid and per WP:RUSUKR--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Ted52 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (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.