Talk:Defiance (2008 film)

Release date

An editor changed the release date from November 7 2008 to December 26 2008. I feel that this was changed in good faith, but I was not able to find a citation to back this up. Could anyone find one? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another "Controversy" controversy

Why is the Aron Bielsky incarceration controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.240 (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"one of the three Jewish brothers"

There were four brothers. One was erased by the film-makers like the other things politically incorrect (crimes by the Bielski brothers during the war) - Aron is now in the US jail.[1] This should be said in the article instead of just saying "three brothers", which is, simply, bullshit. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Swearing on the Talk Page is, simply put, not cool. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have heard that all four brothers are in the film but Aron's role is just diminished. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the IMDB page, Aron Bielski has been cast. In fact, there were 12 Bielski siblings, several of whom were murdered by Nazis. Aron was 11 years old when the Bielski's formed their group, and thus probably has a relatively small role within the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.192.143 (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding by a quick search on the internet that the more serious charges against Aron were dropped and that his case is still in litigation. There are other extenuating circumstances, so saying he is jailed and is facing 90 years is sensational and not well researched over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.129.133 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Zwick made them actively fight the German military forces"

Have you seen a preview film? How do you know what Zwick "made them" do? Do you have a source that states that the Bielski's never engaged any German soldier? I'm new to Wikipedia, but can we get this comment deleted? Judging by the above post, it seems that this could be an emotionally heated topic for some people. I feel like its a bit premature to begin a criticized the historical inaccuracies of a film that hasn't even been released to the public yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.240 (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all sources I know stated Bielski's were mainly occupied by survival. If they engaged German soldiers, this was accidental and not typical for their activities. Szopen (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but how does this conflict with the depiction in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.240 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. Seems to me that the "zwick made them" etc is a quote, about criticism received by movie. WIkipedia notices there is controversy and criticism. Wikipedia does not say whether criticism ia valid or not. Szopen (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I edited it so that it that it reads as an opinion and not as a statement of fact.

I am pretty sure that a Gazeta Wyborcza review criticized them for actively fighting the Germans, up to blowing up the tanks... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I just saw the movie and personally wouldn't criticize it for showing them as "actively" fighting the Germans... there was one tank that as taken out at the end of the movie along w/ a platoon (or however many) Heer soldiers... but this was the climax and they were being pursued... so I took the point of that scene to be either run & be gunned down, or die fighting. Guess it depends on your definition of "actively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.164.51 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"American war film"?

Why the heck does it say "American War film"? This movie has nothing to do with America! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.209.203 (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an American film that involves war. It is "American" in that it is made by an American studio.24.21.168.8 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It was funded from the UK, and made outside of the Americas. So I removed the claim prior to seeing this discussion (and before the second comment was made). If somebody wants to put "a film made by an American studio", or more precisely "a film made by a studio from the United States" then that might be more accurate, although it'd also be a bit unnecessary given that the point is made elsewhere, and by the fact that the reader can click on the studio's link and read its article. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it not Hollywood? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it was filmed in Lithuania. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But it was made by a Hollywood company with Hollywood actors, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, define a "Hollywood actor"? Does Hollywood somehow lay claim to everyone who has made films there? Many of the actors in this film have spent the majority of their careers filming elsewhere, and certainly aren't from California. The notion of "Hollywood-ness" is an interesting question for film industry journalists, perhaps, but I suggest that it's not relevant here: a dubious or disputed minor point like this may as well simply stay out of the article. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aron Bielski controversy

If this can be verified, it may be indeed somewhat relevant, although perhaps more to the article on Bielski brothers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While the Bielski brothers are portrayed as heroes, the only living brother, Aron Bielski, a.k.a. Aharon Bielski a.k.a. Aron Bell, was arrested in Florida in 2007 on suspicion of stealing about $250,000 from his Polish Catholic neighbour Janina Zaniewska. Zaniewska was a victim of Nazi imprisonment during the war.

Update: I found a large article discussing this in Polish Gazeta Wyborcza. I think two references are enough to add another controversy to the appropriate section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That should get a quick mention at the most. Substantive discussion of the Bielski brothers belongs in the article on them, not the fictionalized movie portraying them. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Location section phrasing

The section is written in the style of a blog post, with statements like "which is not surprising given [...]" "Around the time", "about 50%" "(these figures are very rough and suffer from usual biases in surveys of ethnicity in that era).". Can someone with more knowledge on the subject please re-phrase it? --Nezek (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pure WP:SYN. In addition to that, the section is just too long. I also have a problem with the excessive amount of space devoted to inaccuracies in the movie. This is Hollywood, people. Movies always take libery with historical truth, and sometimes "true" stories are sheer fiction. Take a look at The Two-Headed Spy if you don't believe me. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I've placed a "neutrality" tag because of the length of the "insaccuracies" section, which seems excessive. There is certainly controversy, and judging from the sources it seems to be largely in Poland. It should certainly be mentioned, but in proper proportion. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stetsonharry. Focus is drastically shifting form the movie itself to the controversies surrounding the brothers. Perhaps some of the info regarding their real life activities should be linked to the Bielski partisans page or their individual pages.--Jacurek (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the info could be moved here ?[[2]]--Jacurek (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC

Yes. This is an article on a film, and as currently written it is more focused on the actual events and the extent to which the film deviates from them. While some film articles (such as (A Night to Remember) go in the opposite direction and don't properly distinguish truth from reality, in this one the pendulum is too far in the other direction. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis in "Location" section

I also wanted to go into a bit more detail about the problem with the "Location" section. As currently written, it consists of links to various reviews and Wikipedia saying that they are mistaken in discussing the location of the movie. That's not allowed by WP:SYN, which prohibits "synthesis."

That's when "an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Either a source needs to be found saying that reviews have been wrong on the location, or this section needs to go. I removed the section but it was reinstated. Please don't "edit war" over something as clear-cut as this. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a recently released movie. The chance of finding scholarly articles about its reviews is basically zero, as it is much too early for that. Does that mean that no review of the film can be discussed at all? After all, should we not first have a scholarly article to tell us which review is significant and which is not? The purpose of this article is to provide some useful information for someone who might be going to see the movie tonight. Anything that helps them understand it is probably useful. Sticking to WP:SYN here too religiously is probably overkill. I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies here perfectly. 76.64.217.83 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not applicable in this context. There is no need to have a section attacking how some reviews got the locations wrong unless this has been a problem noted by reliable sources. Wikipedia only reports what has been published elsewhere, so we cannot personally analyze such reviews for their merits. Besides, the only way reviews should be implemented in film articles is to assess what a film critic thought of the film, not to identify technical details. I'm removing the section since it is original research in making a novel conclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if somebody wrote an article in a reliable source making that point, it would deserve a sentence or two at the most. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done as far as requested reference, but I beg to differ with regards to the importance of the added info. All Wikipedia readers would find it quite helpful I'm sure. --Poeticbent talk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference relates to a Polish language article, which cannot be verified by English speaking editors, and as written the section is unclear as to whether the protest relates to the critics or the film. As previously noted, the section is grossly overlong and is written in a non-neutral tone. Considering that this relates not to the film itself but to its criticism, my objection stands and I still believe the section should be removed or, at most be incorporated in one sentence within another section. Right now, this article is far overweighted on the criticism of non-U.S., and specifically Polish, commentators and critics, even after my trim of the "historical accuracy" section. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about various criticism, perhaps disproportionate (I don't know, I haven't seen the movie) but please remember that the movie is about Poland (that's what I'm trying to stress here) so the commentaries originating from Polish viewership are of critical importance for the understanding of its historical context especially that the movie is based on real-life events. I don't see how the section can be trimmed, but I'm glad to have these facts on-hand before I head off to the theatre near me. --Poeticbent talk 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your concern about the historical accuracy of the movie, and I suspect that when you see the movie you will feel even more strongly about it. However, given Hollywood's track record in that regard, I think it is a mistake to begin with the assumption that a historical movie will have much historical fact. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

From my reading, there are massive problems with this section. The entire "Location" section needs to be scrubbed in the following ways"

• The first sentence, Some reviews of the film are confused as to where the action takes place, which is not surprising given the complex history of the area. is POV commentary and should be rewritten or removed.
• The next three sentences describe some controversy about accuracy and should be moved into the historical accuracy section. The sentences themselves have some POV problems and need to be whittled down to only the significant facts per WP:WEIGHT
• The rest of the section is a long explanation about a national dispute that can be significant in a history article but has no place in an analysis of the film. It should be excised.
• The term Location is used in all film analysis to describe where a movie is filmed. The addition of the See Production section for information on where the movie was shot. at the bottom is inaccurate. If location info is in the production section, then there should not be a Location section.

— CactusWriter | ^needles 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have been ripping my hair out over these same issues! To me, what makes this section irreparable is that it does not relate to the film at all, but to the criticism of the film. Even if written and sourced perfectly, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to include it in the article at all. The article has other issues, but this is the most pressing one. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand. The placement and size of that section alone goes against NPOV policy because of providing undue weight. And that is without even considering all the POV and OR problems. And, as you say, the entire section is merely a criticism of the criticism. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The synthesis was re-inserted as final paragraph of the "historical accuracy" section. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The referenced portion was moved into the historical accuracy section while I looked at the significance of the references. It became obvious that the refs to the film reviews were nothing more than synthesis (and I'm being generous by calling Gossip.Net a reference) because they mention nothing about geographic problems. Those sentences were deleted. That left only the single sentence about Polish moviegoers objecting to historical accuracies. Because that is already covered in significant depth in the preceding paragraphs, the sentence became redundant and was deleted. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Polish reviews very heavily discuss various historical inaccuracies, I think they should be mentioned. Gazeta Wyborcza is a leading Polish journal (think Polish NYT) and as such, a rather reliable source (not to mention that due to the views of its editor, Adam Michnik, if it is to have any bias about the movie, it would be pro-, not against).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To be moved.

Why the director should mention this in the movie?

The movie is silent about the fate's of two of the four brothers, including the controversial death of Asael who enlisted in the Red Army. Even more controversial is the fate of the only living brother, Aron Bielski, a.k.a. Aharon Bielski a.k.a. Aron Bell, was arrested in Florida in 2007 on suspicion of stealing about $250,000 from his Polish Catholic neighbour Janina Zaniewska. Zaniewska was a victim of Nazi imprisonment during the war

Please discuss where this should be moved because it does not belong here.--Jacurek (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this and other original research from the section, trimmed back its excessive length, and changed the title to a more neutral one. However, I am troubled by the overreliance on Polish-language sources, which cannot be verified by English-speaking editors and presents a possible problem under WP:V. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bielski's until now were known mostly to Israeli and Polish historians and this is why it is hard to find English references. Also, Aron Bell should have it's own page.--Jacurek (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read about the legal troubles of the younger brother and would love to learn more. I searched Google News and found nothing post-2007, when he was arrested. That belongs in the Bielski article and not here. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GW discusses this in their reviews, so it is not OR. They imply that the director on purpose marginalized the role played by Aron, as compared to the other brothers, due to the controversy of his recent arrest. This seems notable enough to be mentioned (if briefly). Perhaps we should create an article on Aron Bielski with the full (removed) content? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If GW makes a dubious connection (OR on their part, if you will), we don't have to repeat it here. Aron was the youngest of the brothers, so his role was not surprisingly minor.

Anyway, if the movie's title was "The complete life history of the Bielski brothers", then we could complain that some aspect of their life was not included in the film. However, this film is about the 1941-1944 period, so complaining that it does not cover something that happened in 2007 is just silly. 70.48.219.185 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone point to where in the article the statement that Aron's role is minimised due to his later life controversy is? The article mentions both the controversy and his diminished role in the film, but it does not explicitly make the link between the two. The closest it comes is a one-line statement from the filmmakers along the lines of his relative unimportance to the events depicted. Steve ^{T • C} 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading something along those lines in one of the reviews I browsed through, but I am having troubles finding it now. Hopefully somebody will find the right one... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Aron Bielski should have his own page so the info on his recent trouble with the law could be linked there instead of being included in this article. Is there anybody up to the challenge of creating "Aron Bielski page ?--Jacurek (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've stubbed Aron Bielski. Please help expand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I am disappointed but not very suprised that there are now attempts to delete that article and censor any mention of Aron's criminal record out :( See Talk:Aron Bielski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was all for placing that in a separate article until I realized that it would result in an article that largely focused on that. Sadly, that is what we are dealing with now. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bielski Brothers article can also use expansion. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-English sources must be replaced or removed

A number of the sources used to support material in the "Historical Accuracy" section are in Polish and therefore must be replaced with relevant English sources, or the material they are supporting must be modified or removed. Since this is English WP, the sources must be in English as well so that readers and editors can judge the verifiability of the cited material.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

English sources are of course preferred, for the greater ability of en.wiki editors to verify the text, but where no English sources exist for material that has been determined relevant to the article, I see no problem with including non-English sources. The section could use some pruning, especially the second paragraph, but I don't believe the Polish sources should be removed wholesale; should the text be in question, a request at the relevant noticeboard for a trusted Polish speaker to verify/disprove would be the step to take. Steve ^{T • C} 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference, non-English sources are explicitly allowed by WP:V, albeit with the caveats I mention, here. Steve ^{T • C} 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you have a valid point, but with so much OR cropping up on this article, I'm leery about sources matching up with article text or the content straying from an article focus. I suppose I can google-translate some of these and see if there are any real concerns. Good point.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right too; some of us should have been more vigilant towards the original research and synthesis in the article, especially in the section you just removed from the Critical Reception section. For my part, it was because the inclusion/exclusion of this information has been subject to several reverts so far, and I was unwilling to enter an edit war on it, hoping it would get thrashed out on this talk page (see above) before it entered 3RR territory. Unfortunately, the conversations appear to have gone stale, so in an attempt to move towards consensus on this (and in the hope others might weigh in, one way or the other), I endorse these removals. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Jim raises a good point about the non-English sources and persistent efforts to insert OR. Jim's recent edits surprised me because I had thought that the OR had been removed, but apparently it was reinserted. This seems to be about the fourth or fifth time that has happened. There are English language sources about the reaction in Poland and those are preferable under WP:V. Perhaps those should be used. Stetsonharry (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But most or all of the PL links are empty, one contains only a link to a Youtube video. If someone can recover their content with whatever mechanisms, their content could be posted/ translated/discussed here. Novickas (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Needed to update my browser. Novickas (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed whole passages which were completely unsupported by the sources attached to them (English sources, no less), as well as one paragraph which really had nothing to do with the article itself and also misrepresented the theme of the source article. This makes checking of the Polish language sources against the article copy even more important.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In view of this, I would suggest that any remaining passages sourced by non-English sources should be removed.Stetsonharry (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? The reception of this movie in Poland is an important issue, as that is the country to which it is most strongly related. Obviously, it will be easy to find Polish language sources for this, while English ones will be much harder to come by, at least in the short term. Still, if you want an English language source that explains some of the controversies, try this one. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that non-English sources are ordinarily permissable. However, English sources are given preference in the English Wikipedia because they are more easily verifiable by English speakers. It seems wise to apply this policy strictly because of the problems that JimDunning found, in that sources were not properly quoted. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RSUE, non-English sources are acceptable. Please mind WP:BIAS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, there seems to have been a problem with the English sources utilized for large sections of this article. That would seem to emphasize the need to verify, and non-English sources cannot be verified by English speaking editors. Given the recent issues and large amounts of text that Jim had to remove because the sources did not support them, I think it is best to include only material that all editors can verify. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try Google translation service. It can translate Polish to English, and actually does a pretty good job. Maybe this is a way to alleviate some concerns. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I was going to use http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Polish&to=English but I haven't had a chance. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I compared them, and the Google one is infinitely better. Try that one. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Polish sources

I went through the sources in footnotes 14 and 19, using Google translator, and was discouraged as the translation is poor. However, I came away with the feeling that these sources are not being used properly. The article in GW[3] is a rambling feature article with a main focus on Aron Bielski, and the other [4] is a blog post or article by someone who doesn't like the movie, but as best as I can tell has not seen it. It is from one person, not several moviegoers. I question why this person's beef is included in this article. Is he a notable critic or just some guy? That is not clear.

The GW article does mention omission of the massacre, but does not reflect the opinions of anyone other than the author of the article, and his opinion is not clear in this translation. Unless this journalist is notable in some respect, I don't believe his view of the omission of the massacre should be in the article.

Both these sources predate general release of the movie, so we have criticisms of the movie that do not actually reflect the content of the movie, such as criticisms that the partisans are shown in combat, when in fact one of the themes of the movie is that the partisans avoided combat and people had to quit the group to engage in combat. I am not happy with the use of these sources, particularly the moviegoer letter, and I am puzzled why they are given such prominence in this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with the Google translator I'd be happy to translate (relatively short) pieces from the articles. As to the two sources you mention, the GW article is relevant and legitimate, even though it does mostly deal with Aron Bell. The description of the omission of the massacre references IPN documents and statements. The authors (Gluchowski and Kowalski) of the article, from my understanding, are authors of a new book on the Bielski partisans that has recently come out or is about to come out, which makes them notable. The question of how much anti-German combat took place is one of stress and extent. The other source is a film related website (like Rotten Tomatoes maybe?). It is only really relevant here for the part about "A group of Polish moviegoers forwarded a letter of protest...". So the cite itself is sort of a RS (particularly for this specific info) and hence the question turns on whether the fact that some people send in a protest letter is important or not. Personally I don't think it is so I tend to agree with you here. As an aside the actual movie review from that site [5] (sorry, also in Polish), while noting some of the shortcomings of the movie (the Naliboki question, the extent of fights with Germans, etc.) is a lot more sympathetic/favorable to the film than the letter the same cite quotes (i.e. the opinions of the letter writers don't necessarily represent those of the film site people, who are just noting the letter's existence).radek (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The film will be released in Polish theaters on January 23. Hopefully this will generate better-informed reviews from Poles who have actually seen the film. I agree that the current material backed up by GW references discussed is less than ideal. Furthermore, the Aron Bielski case has been settled and the charges have been dropped - meaning that he is innocent and one of the main springs of this whole controversy has gone away. It would be good to see articles from the Polish press that take account of that fact. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Both these sources predate general release of the movie...". Aren't you forgetting about advance screenings and such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have such screenings been held in Poland in 2008 when those GW articles were written? That is rather unlikely. Here is a fresh review of the film from GW that has just come out, and the reviewer has seen the film. Why don't we take advantage and base our "Polish reaction" segment on it? 70.55.2.210 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Advance screenings" which left out one of the brothers? I noticed that some of the articles kept mentioning the omission of one of the brothers, which was confusing since I clearly saw four in the release I sat through.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I question the reliability of the sources used as supposed notable criticism of the movie and the weight given to them in the article. The entire section is not written in a neutral fashion, stating criticism as fact, which I've tried to correct, but I wonder if what we are really dealing with here are fringe opinions that are being given excessive weight in this article. For example, this movie is quite explicit in its depiction of the poor relations with villagers. That is an acknowledged plot point noted in the reviews and obvious to anyone viewing the picture. Yet here we have people saying that the poor relations with villagers was not "given sufficient attention". Again, this seems to indicate that the critics we are giving so much space to here either did not see the movie or represent a fringe viewpoint that is overweighted in the article, or perhaps that the sources are not being accurately quoted. I'm tagging that section for neutrality until we can be sure that there is no weight problem there. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is the largest Polish newspaper and as such is notable. It is also considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, pretty much in the same way that the NY Times is considered reliable. It is not fringe by any means nor are the views expressed in the newspaper. The criticism made in the articles is/was attributed to the newspaper and not stated as fact. It is/was also sourced to investigation by professional historians at the IPN (who are also considered a reliable source on Wikipedia). There really is no reason to object to this source or the material based on it.radek (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We have to clear up this confusion. Here is basically what happened, as I see it. The Bielski brothers are a somewhat controversial group in Poland. In 2007, when "Defiance" started filming, a "buzz" was generated in the Polish press. Some newspaper articles raised criticisms of the movie without any clear understanding as to what was in it. Some of those criticisms may remain valid, but some clearly are not. The unrelated but juicy case of Aron Bell added fuel to this little fire and generated additional speculation about the movie. To me the whole thing was rather juvenile. Nevertheless, the whole brouhaha was notable and we may have a few sentences about it, maybe in section "Polish response to production" (see Valkyrie (film) for where I got that idea).

Not quite. It seems from the text of the article that at it was written after viewing a pre-screening. Some of the other articles were written sort of as a 'historical supplement' - when a historical film comes out, usually interest in its topics rises and media outlets begin covering the topic to a greater extent. I agree that the Aron Bell thing is fairly irrelevant to the movie. I wouldn't go with "Polish response" though. And I do think that there's a difference between "Critical reaction" which is basically a judgment on the part of the critics at how entertaining the movie is and "Historical accuracy" which is a judgment on the part of historians on how factual the movie is. One can have a good movie with atrocious history (most movies made about English/British history these days) or vice versa or both. So the section that was merged should be re-split (this is in reference to the comment below by JimDunning).radek (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek. Discussion of Aron Bell is not that important, particularly now that he has his own article. But discussion of historical accuracy is a major part of the criticism, and I don't think its only the Polish reviewers who are discussing this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we can then also have a "Historical accuracy" section containinig only statements backed by references which are clearly aware of what the film actually contains. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable explanation and suggestion, providing that reliable sources can be found. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<-- Indent. Per above, GW is a reliable source. It seems the writers of the articles viewed the movie. The section really was fine the way it was after the removal of Aron Bell stuff and the 'letter of protest'.radek (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've very carefully weeded out anything in the section not clearly supported by the sources. What I think was happening is that some of the source articles went into detail about the controversy surrounding the events and this has been interpreted or presented as controversy about the film itself. Or incorrectly characterized as criticism of the film. With the inaccurate statements removed, I think the section moves nicely in the direction proposed above. Also, the material should nicely fit into the Critical Response section now rather than a Historical Accuracy section (the controversy doesn't seem to be so much about the film's depiction of the events per se, but the real-life views of the events). Consequently, I'm merging the two sections.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

radek, thanks for weighing in on this. I am at a disadvantage since I'm looking at non-human translations, so your perspective is very helpful. I disagree that there should be a re-split at this point; maybe down the road if more significant criticism of the film's depiction of historical events is generated or found. Right now, from what I can see, the bulk of the writing about any controversy is about the real world questions about the brothers, not about how the film depicts them and the related events. Is this a fair assessment? If so, since the film's role here may be only to put some focus on the existing controversy, then a separate section is inappropriate. If, however, the film is actually criticized (in the pejorative sense) for inaccurately portraying events, then a separate section would possibly be necessary.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait and see since the movie just came out in Poland and hasn't been out that long in US.radek (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much better now, thanks to JimDunning's hard work. I've added a paragraph from the Times article on the reaction to the criticism from Zwick and from Bielski's son, which is needed for balance I think. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote by Tuvia Bielski's son was out of line. He has no credentials to issue such sweeping personal opinions to make them notable. Let's not turn this article about a Hollywood movie into another battlefield. 74.14.26.18 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Robert Bielski's comment should stay out of the text as it really doesn't serve the purpose of adding balance. Firstly, I think the Times article pretty much disputes his anit-Semitism claim anyway, plus it seems to ask a rhetorical question - "Is it anti-Semitic for Poles to even ask these question?" (i.e. of course it isn't anti-Semitic to ask a question). Secondly, it says GW has a Jewish editor, and while one may criticise journalists for sensationalism, I don't think we can go as far as accusing GW, with its Jewish editor, of anti-Semitism. Consequently I really think we should cut the Nechama Tec comment as well. And in general, if JimDunning has done such a great job of cutting criticism of the true-life Bielskis, then why (with respect, Stetsonharry) should we add content that defends the Bielskis? That is an equally bad swing back to bias in favor of the Bielskis when it was biased against the Bielskis. Lets cut the comments from Zwick, Tec and Robert Bielski and let readers who are interested check the source material themselves - thats what our links are for. JimDunning? Anyway, thanks all for your contributions to this interesting subject. Banjojojo (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Naliboki issue

Why don't we just adopt the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and decide that until IPN or some reputable historian unquivocally concludes that the Bielski brothers or people from their unit were involved in that event, we need not mention it here? This whole business about "alleged participation" makes me uneasy. Most of those allegations are rather flimsy, and could be motivated by the anti-semitism of those who make them (sad but unfortunately true). 74.14.26.18 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)