Talk:History of Christianity in Ukraine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Distinguishing between church bodies

Something should be done about this section. In its current form it is a story of Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) which is rather marginal in modern Ukraine. I think this section should be replaced by a brief history of UGCC vs. Orthodox rivalry and UOC-MP vs. UOC-KP rivalry. (Fisenko 04:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I entirely agree. This section is very raw. "The current divided and fluid situation traces its roots", as the article puts it, to much earlier events than transfer of Metropolitan to ROC in the end of 17th century. See also my comments at Talk:Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church#General_Article_problems. Much material from UGCC article needs to be moved (not copied but moved in my opinion) and reworked here. It's just too difficult and too much beyond the scope of my knowledge. I wanted to take this article upon myself but later realized how difficult this would be and never got to this.

As for Greek-Catholic vs Orthodox vs Catholic relationship, Kostomarov's book (available online) could be a good source to start with, though he is very biased towards Orthodoxy. As for the UOC KP-MP rivarly, I wrote something briefly in Filaret's article about how this all started (needs expansion for this article of course). Wilson's Book "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation." writes a great deal about what followed after that. On most recent events reputable papers (like Zerkalo Nedeli which has a full archive search) could provide the info. The only problem is to work though all this and put it all together.

The info you wrote about protestantism is very valuable. I think, there is a good chance" History..." will evolve into a good article with time. So far, there were no strong POV disruptions. Regards, -Irpen 23:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

There is a discussion about some fragment been a Copyvio. Can somebody elaborate the charges (for mine and other user's sake)? abakharev 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I found it. The reinserted text about Filaret was taken verbatim from claming by User:Bryndza. Unless we have a formal permission from RISU to use their material, we cannot use the fragment, unless completely rewritten. Please do not insert it (it has nothing to do with the POV). abakharev 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This text was will take me. He wholly NPOV. This paragraph can be rephrased (This work for 10-15 minutes for person well having english). My english is insufficient, but User:134.84.5.107 started rewriting the article. However this page is semiprotection for unregistered users. Possible he can place rewrited text on talk page or You unprotected this page. --Yakudza 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is still a very bad habit to copypaste text (except certain quotes), with or w/o permission; this damages the quality of encyclopedia. Thanks for intruding. --Kuban Cossack 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The contributor who inserted the text may have received the copyright release. Let him respond. Mark the page with the tag "possible copyright violation", but blanking is not good. 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment above yours; And no check article history he reverted it twice after I pointed out to him. Such neglictance to WP rules is absolutely disgusting, reported.--Kuban Cossack 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First, you don't know whether this material is copyrighted or not. Second, it may be actually copied from Wikipedia. Third, if it's in fact copyrighted, the contributor who inserted it may have received copyright release. Again, let him respond. 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No read the link, there is a copyright tag, and all of it is copypasted from there. That is plagiarism regardless of how one looks at it, Bakharev is right on that topic. As for Yakudza read our discussion above. He admits he copypasted it.--Kuban Cossack 09:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If the website does not expertly said that it release the material, then it is copyrighted. Even if a material is not copyrighted copying it verbatim without explicit acknowledgement is called plagarism and is a form of vandalism. The material could not be copied from Wikipedia as it was put there one day ago. We can not allow a suspected copyright violation to be displayed on Wiki, but we can easily restore the paragraph if we would have permissions to do so. Again, please do not restore the material of suspected copyvio, if you have some spare time, maybe you could rewrite the material in question to remove the problems with the copyright? abakharev 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's sarcastic. Juggling with recently obtained administrative power, you imposed semiprotection on the article (claming sock puppet issue - not a single fact provided!), thus users like me, who don't wish to use a wikipedia account, cannot edit it, and now you are asking me to rewrite it. Well, I probably have less free time than you, but I may start to rewrite it. Actually, you probably didn't pay attention, but I started rewriting the article. You reverted that edition in addition to the suspected copyrighted text. That was discouraging.

On what I agree with you that wikipedia should respect all copyrights. 04:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonim, if you promise not to insert the copyrighted material again I will unprotect the article abakharev 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand I would strongly recommend to register an account abakharev 07:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not clear in the first place why you rushed to protect it, especially given that yourself you were confused for the protection reason: "to stop sock-pupeeting vs. "insertion of copyrighted material".

Like every user I'll do my best not to insert any copyrighted material.

I've taken your strong recommendation of registering an account under strong consideration. I've previously used an account, but I actually want to leave wikipedia at this point of time. Persistent POV attacks against historic and geographic pages related to Ukraine (recent example) is the only reason I've not left. 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Development proposal

Please all stop revert warring over the article now! This article has a great potential. It could use much improvement, but hastle changes in order to POV alter it is the wrong way. The old stable version was proofread and was here for months. I will restore the stable version and lets work out the differences at talk, section by section. Please no sloppy fast hand changes. Kazak, you started this mess, btw, but it doesn't matter. I regret adding a ref to the article that brought this all here. Please all, lets discuss things at talk, hammer out the solutions and add them to articles. Please no rushy acts. --Irpen 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, this article remained dormant and nobody approached it for over a few months. I offered to really have it achieve the potential that it can have, yet people began first blanking out information then putting silly weasel words into the article to justify something. The paragraphs require a major copyedit, but the factual information in them is referenced and correct.--Kuban Cossack 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets avoid blaming people if possible, and discuss the article at talk. Let's introduce changes patiently and proofread them. This is not a Polonophobia, Polonization, Russophobia or Russification articles that for obvious reason are destined to be edited hastly just to dramatically alter their main message. People have problems with the 20th century coverage? Let's discuss the 20th century section here. Problem of transfer from Contsantinople to Moscow? Let's discuss it here too. These issues are related loosely enough, if at all, so that they can be discussed separately. And so on. --Irpen 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well for starters I propose that the article be restructured currentely it is a bit of pre-20th century history...and then a lot of modern information then 20th century history and then Protestatns. I simply tried to start copyediting.--Kuban Cossack 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Wait for others to express their conserns with current version. I also have some but at least it was somewhat proofread and stable. Everyone, please join. --Irpen 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Right then, archiving looks to be compleate, shall we begin, or will the opposite party take no part in the discussion whatsoever.--Kuban Cossack 21:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Whose party is the "opposite"? You could also use some patience. Please take a look at my plea and lets get to work but carefully. Besides, this article is indeed POV. I suggest we fix it slowly and step by step. Hey, usual suspects, do you hear me? --Irpen 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Напишу по-русски, т.к. большинство участников последних редактирований меня поймут, и не думаю, что конфликт зайдет так далеко, что придется приглашать польских (или румынских) посредников. Я просматривал эту страницу несколько месяцев назад, она была более или менее нейтральна, однако только вчера обратил внимание, что туда была добавлена User:Kuban kazak ом довольно противоречивая секция. Я ее заменил текстом, описывающим теже события, как я полагаю, с нейтральной точки зрения. Если есть какие-либо сомнения в этом - можно обсудить. Но полагаю, этот текст можно оставить как основу для дальнейших редактирований. User:Kuban kazak вносит довольно много правок в статьи об истории Украины, и в частности, христианства, но у большинства из них имеется весьма существенный недостаток, что они либо опираются на жизненный опыт (ощущения, переживания), либо не подкреплены источниками, либо источники крайне ненадежны. Часто это сайты различных православных организаций, братств довольно экстремистского толка. Безусловно, довольно сложно ожидать нейтральности от сайтов, публикующих Программу Союза Русского Народа (Черной Сотни) рядом с главным источником User:Kuban kazakа . С этой крайне тенденциозной книги им перенесено уже много непроверенных фактов, жаргонных терминов и антиукраинского POV на страницы википедии, в частности в статью Pochaev Lavra. Я не возражаю против редактирований User:Kuban kazakа, если они будут подкреплены надежными и нейтральными источниками, а не только "Православной энциклопедией". В противном случае, если не будет достигнуто согласие и понимание, я полагаю следует рассмотреть эти редактирования на RfCom, потому как конфликты из-за использования таких источников возникают у User:Kuban kazakа с завидной регулярностью и формальных поводов более чем достаточно. Удивительно, что на русской википедии подобный POV довольно активно пресекается вики-сообществом, а на английской нет, хотя, как мне кажется, людей разделяющих подобные крайние взгляды среди "русского сообщества" на англопедии очень немного. --Yakudza 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version was copypasted from here [1], that is plagiarism and will be removed.--Kuban Cossack 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This not problem possible to rephrase or arrange as quoting. This only small fragment --Yakudza 06:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What? A quote would be a sentence, two at the most; you inserted paragraphs of information istead of taking your time to neutralise and wikify my paragraph (I NEVER said any of my edits are 100% perfect and are no way subject to no modification) - go for it take my paragraph (which actually repeats all of the facts you plagiarised from RISU - also a non-nutral source) and change what you think it needs. That is the difference between constructive and destructive editing.--Kuban Cossack 09:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Now for my replies, all of my data is referenced and sourced (RISU btw is also not-neutral, it is owned by the UGCC, and there will certainly be a POV with it as well) Secondly, if you want a mediation fine, file one, but maybe it is worth to compleate the article first, because currentely it requires massive expansions. Now the Pochayiv Lavra (despite being Russian, I prefer to stick with correct titles in talk pages and articles) was an article also written with sourced information form the cloister's official website. --Kuban Cossack 00:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

I made a few changes to wikify the opening paragraph. Wiki style calls for the the opening to include the name of the article in boldface and describe the nature of the article briefly and succinctly. As a matter of grammar, I also changed "the legends" to "legend," as specific legends are not cited in the opening.

It would also be much better if the following paragraphs could be "below the fold" (i.e., below the TOC). This can be assigning a subhead to these paragraphs or possibly adding them below. Do they qualify under the subtitle of "Early History." Thanks for your help in promoting style and readability! Cheers, Cecropia 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much this article has been neglected for so long it is nice to see people strarting to take notice. --Kuban Cossack 09:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Kiev Patriarchy vs. Moscow Patriarchy

I don't think we have to give special treatment to one church vs. another. Both of the churches claim to be the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Both of them have their supporters. Both of them are equally recognized by the government, and separated from the government like any other church. 17:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet one is not recognised by the whole eastern Othodox communion, whilst the other one is fully supported by it. --Kuban Cossack 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Church is separated from the government (which is the only authority that acts (or suppose to act) on behalf of all people) and the government equally recognize both churches. The issue of recognition by eastern Othodox community (which has never claimed to represent all people or authority) is mentioned in the article. 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So what is it you would like to see? Which parts do you think are biased and need NPOVing? Feel free to do so, before the trolls reinstate that text. (I am not joking I will file an RfC on them if they do it once more).--Kuban Cossack 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, with respect to UOC-MP vs. UOC-KP now the current version of "modern time" subsection describes the situation about right. It's still biased in part describing Patriarch Filaret, however.

I rewrote the part which was claimed to be copywritten to the best of my abilities. 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I took out the facts from the orignal version and reinstated them into your one, also to best of my abilities. --Kuban Cossack 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see. There is something to keep working on. :)

Actually, may I ask you to work on your English. I know, it's not your native language. It's not my either, but what you wrote is hardly readable in English. I don't want to revert it, but someone may, claiming that you actually decreased the quality of the English wikipedia.

Austrian Galicia and World War I

I am familar with Austrian persecution of Russophiles: my family were among those persecuted (two of grandmother's older brothers escaped being hanged by studying in St. Petersburg). However by 1914 Russophilism was a minority movement mostly popular among some very conservative clergy/nobility families. I would estimate their support among the general population was no more than 20%. Virtually any history of the area supports this (I provided references when I made the edits). Russophilism peaked in the mid-1800's and was eclipsed by the Ukrainian national movement. The article shouldn't imply that Orthodoxy was a popular movement in Galicia in 1914. I am doubtful that it was popular in Volyn when the Uniate church there was abolished in the 1830's, but am not sure and so will not change that other section now. regards Faustian 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, here is an excellent soruce on Unia's disestablishement [2] and here is the official site of the Pochayiv lavra [3] whose history gives a clear indication of Volhynia. (You seem to have more luck with references than I). --Kuban Cossack 14:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The new stage of editing of this artilce (the neutral one)

OK, ladies and gentlemen, I'm back to editing of this article after a long break. User:Yakudza and others invited me months ago, and here I am.

This long and rich article is a result of a great effort done by User:Irpen and User:Kuban kazak. Unfortunately, it is also full of small details (and few important issues) reflecting pro-Russian/anti-Galician POV of those users. This will be changed in one way or another.

I'm ready to discuss my objections at talk as always. However, I can hardly recall occasions when the Russian Group compromised to a discussion with me. It almost always takes an edit war, sometimes a scandal.:( So this was a kind of disclaimer... Ukrained 10:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you are a bit too late, User:Faustian managed to NPOV and expand on almost all of the points, and as you can see I did not oppose him. Also what is so anti-Galician here, on the contrary I have my sympathy with those that perished under hundreds of years of foreign occupation, and pity them. In fact most of the gastarbaiters we have are Galicians and I know they are good people inside. --Kuban Cossack 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Kuban Cossack. I would like to add with reference to Ukrained's switch of Russia to Muscovy inthe article (which was reverted) - although Muscovy may be a slightly more correct term, because Muscovy = Russia the latter term is probably more usefull due to its greater recognition. People not intimately familiar with eastern European history might be confused by references to pre-1708 Russia as "Muscovy." Faustian 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you manage to open the file I sent you with winrar (see talk above)? --Kuban Cossack 16:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatley I can't install such programs at work, my source for the internet. But I've recently purchased a new computer and will try to look at the map this weekend. Faustian 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at map.

Besides, the word Muscovy can be linked to the corresponding article so that everybody could clarify for her-/himself what it means.--AndriyK 16:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, using a little-known term can be unnecessarily confusing. Imagine if all references to Galicia/Galicians prior to the mid-1800s was to Ruthenians/Rusyns, or if instead of Ukraine the term Malorus' was used in articles describing Ukrainian history prior to the time of Taras Shevchenko. Obviously we must be accurate - thus no Russia or Ukraine substitution for Rus (event hough the latter term is arguably less innacurate than the former)- but Muscovy/Russia sounds like the most reasonable choice.Faustian 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about "Muscovy (the predecessor of Russia)"?--AndriyK 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Or how about Muscovian Ruthenia in that case? --Kuban Cossack 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not invent terms [4].--AndriyK 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with Muscovy as presented by Faustian ("confusing for people not familiar with European issues"). This is an encyclopedic article, so it should be correct and informative, and not artificially simplified. Muscovy has its own article, where the term is thoroughly explained and can (and should) be linked. The problem I see with "Muscovy" is that the term is considered politically incorrect or dyslogistic by some of the contemporary Russians. Nevertheless, I don't think it has such negative connotations in English language and should be used where appropriate, as the correct term. Some Russian editors might object, though, because of their different understanding of the word. --Lysy^talk 06:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I maintain my position (although a phrase like AndriyK's: "Muscovy, the old name for Russia" or the "Russian state of Muscovy" might be good although it's a bit clumsy). Wikipedia as I understand it is encyclopedic but it is meant for general readers, educated laypersons, and not professional academics (unless they will be so kind as to provide their knowledge to the rest of us) for whom the journals one finds in universiyty libraries are more important vehicles of information-gathering.

I think that parallels can be drawn elsewhere: as I had mentioned, prior to the mid 18th century the word Ukrainians was not widely used for the Ukrainian people. Does that mean we change all references to Ukrainian cossacks, Ukrainian haidamaks, etc.? Early Polish history lies well outside my area of competance, but wikipedia suggests that the word for Greater Poland first appeared in 1257; does that mean that the early Polish kings such as Mieszko or Boleslaw should be referred to as Mazovians, Kujabs or whatever depending on their origins rather thna the less specific but still essentially correct term, "Poles"? Should any Germans prior to the second reich be listed as only as Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons, Prussians, Hessians, etc.? Was Goethe a Hessian or Holy Roman writer rather than a German one? It would all be unecessarily confusing. Faustian 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am back. The response elsewhere is coming. To this narrow issue: this has been discussed by myself and Piotrus a while ago and we agreed on the following:

• • Introduce the term as [[Muscovy|Muscovite Russia]] in the text.
  • Keep it "Russia" from that moment on. "Muscovy" strictly speaking applies only to the times of the Moscow Principality. It was used later occasionally, but the Rus-rooted term has always been a self-appelation. Modern books use both terms and Russia is a more frequent and a more recognizable one.
  • The idea that Muscovy isn't Russia and it later "stole" the name is an old Russophobic tale. --Irpen 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • The officiail title of Russian Tsar was introduced by Ivan IV in 1547. Look into List of Russian rulers or any book of Russian history. In 1796 (250 years after!) the Muscovy Grand Duke or whatever was a complete archaic misnomer. Still some neighbors might internally use this title for the political reasons. abakharev 06:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Official title of Ivan III: Князь Московский и всея Руси. Ivan IV:Царь Московский и всея Руси. As for latter emprors well [5]. --Kuban Cossack 10:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Transcarpathia and other changes

I am reverting the article back to what it had been prior to multiple unreferenced changes for several reasons.

With respect to the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo, it is NOT part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. It has its own history, entered Union in a different way on a different date, etc. from the UGCC. It is as separate from it as, say, the Romanian Orthodox Church is from the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore it needs its own heading. Because it is a minor church when considered nationally (about 200 parishes) it probably belongs among "other" groups, unless someone has an argument not to put it there.

Fully agree, but it should be expanded as it is extremely misleading presentely. --Kuban Cossack 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the Czechoslovakia portion, I had already corrected with a reference to Magosci's research the previous claim that all of those churches have become Orthodox before world war II, to the correct figure of only 1/3 converting at that time. Now there reappears the claim that there are virtually no more Uniates in modern Zakarpattia. But Magosci [6] claims that right after independence 209 parishes returned (compared to 289 existing before ther 1940's).

Agree as well, however, I remember that in almost every place there is an old wooden Uniate church and a newer, stone/concrete/brick Orthodox church back to back. (Most were built in 1930s if I remember correctely, that should mentioned).--Kuban Cossack 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there reappears the claim that over 90% of the churches in Zakarpattia belong to that Church. Maybe, maybe not. The I reference I had is to 1993, in which only 40% were. I found another reference showing about the same figure in 2004 [7]. If indeed "thousands" of churches have been built there I would like to see a credible source.Faustian 23:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right, but should we count Protestant groups in percentages, without them, and based pn your second source it is about 50%. However the biggest fact is that of the Orthodox parishes, the UOC is dominant in all aspects. --Kuban Cossack 14:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that in terms of parishes the UOC is the largest Church in Ukraine. At the same time this correct figure may be somehwat misleading when considering religious afficiliation, because the western parts of the country are more church-going than the eastern parts, so that among the general population the UOC is by far the largest Church, while among very devout people (those going to church every week) this may not be the case (see the stats in the "protestantism in Ukraine" section above). I think that Protestants should be included in any figures. Particularly in Transcarpathia, where they are quite common and have old historic roots (about 75% of the Hungarians, making up 12% of the population there, are Protestants). Regards Faustian 13:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. The problem is that for Hungarians Protestantism is their "mother-religion" whilst elsewhere in Ukraine this is mostly a result of missionary work. So how do we apply this is a good question. Do check your e-mail in the process as it will have complete relevance to the maps I am trying to draw. --Kuban Cossack 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Talerhof massacre"

This term seems to be invented by a wikipedian. The only reference found by Google is to the present WP article: [8].

Subtelny and Magosci mentioned it in their history of Ukraine. They didn't refer to it as the Talerhof Massacre, but noted that there was a concentration camp where 20,000 or so Ukrainian Russophiles were sent, thousands of whom died from exposure and poor nutrition/medical care. The Austrian government eventually shut it down due to outrage. There were also numerous cases of executions of collaborators following the Russian withdrawal.Faustian 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not disputed the fact, but the term. Now I chaged the text. Please have a look, whether you agree.--AndriyK 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this [9]. --Kuban Cossack 09:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Or at this:[10], if you know some German. It does not only mention Thalerhof but also 30,000 executions of Russophiles in Ruthenia (during the summer and autumn of 1914), most of them without any semblance of a trial. In the notes, the author promises to write a monography on this. His name is Hans Hautmann. Better watch out for this name in future, I suppose. Evan though he is probably a communist. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A google check of Hautmann indicates that he is a communist. Is he a reputable historian? If not, that figure is not credible and may be an exaggeration. Among reputable histories of Ukraine I have not come across such a high figure of executions...Faustian 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the guy is an Austrian historian, a professor from Linz of all places (shows you definitely cannot judge people solely on where they come from), and has already been able to talk about this at a congress in Atlanta in 1999, and at Oslo in 2000. [11] He gives sources as well: Friedrich Austerlitz (a social democrat, too left-wing too, I suppose?), Karl Kraus, Jaroslav Hasek, Egon Erwin Kisch and Fritz Wittels. Some of these books are novels, of course (meaning they can easily be gotten at) but if they all tell the same story ... The guy is or was also president of the "Verein zur Förderung justizgeschichtlicher Forschungen", an institute that deals with war crimes committed by Austrians or in Austria between 1938 and 1945. By the way, if you read his article, his figures on Thalerhof itself are lower than the figures given by some people here.[12] User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

He seems somewhat political, like one of our American leftist activists who give conferences about genocide of "millions" of Natives, etc. I have two history books about Ukraine written by the top scholars/historians in the field of Ukrainian history, both published by the University of Toronto press: Paul Magosci and Orest Subtelny. The former doesn't give exact numbers but states that the Austrians interred tens of thousands, of whom "thousands" died and mentions Talerhof. Subtelny menntions "hundreds" being executed without trial and that thousands died in the Talerhof concentration camp. So the figure of 30,000 executions seems outlandish and the fact that both of those other guys missed it is significant. regards Faustian 12:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)