Talk:Bielski partisans

Further edit for NPOV

There may be POV problems with this article, see Talk:The Bielski Brothers. -- Ranveig 14:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes there will be, but I think Deborahjay will try to come with NPOV version. Right now the article is from apologetic POV and does not mention any of controversies which are with Bielski brothers. --Szopen 10:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've held off on further editing till I can do some substantive library research. However, since that's being delayed by other projects' priorities, I'll at least do a rewrite to tone down the POV. Keep this one on your watchlist, please! -- Deborahjay 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have bought two books about partisans in Nowogrodzkie; I think that at least one of them, by Zygmunt Boradyn has some relevant info. e mentions both Zorin and Bielski few times, though quite never in positive lights. Both books also mentions memories ==of Anatol Werheim (sp?), which I saw also earlier in www posts, which I think would be VERY important, but I couldn't find it anywhere to buy. I will translate some interesting parts and put them here within few weeks. Sorry it took me so long. Szopen 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Way to Palestine

The Bielski Brothers article contains another version.Xx236 08:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Books & Film' this sentence is ambiguous and should be finished: "The brothers also published a book in Israel." 173.57.26.204 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"War crimes"

These war crimes allegedly commited by the Bielski partisans actually were not commited by them, but by Soviet partisans wanting Poles from Naliboki to join them, at least according to the IPN article put in references. What the eck is that? Did the author read the article s/he put under the text? The section "War crimes" should be removed or supported with some more convincing materials. Howgh.Bianconera 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Bielski partisans, though not sure whether Bielski were with them, were there. They participated in Naliboki massacre. Bielski partisans are also accused in all Polish books dealing with Polish-soviet partisan war in Belarus of robbing and murdering. They even are dismissed as band of common robbers, who didn't do much in terms of fighting, but rather were shooting local people and burning their houses. It's just most of info is in Polish.

Look here, if you can read Polish: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai.php?serwis=pl&dzial=82&id=1291&poz=2

"Wśród atakujących byli również partyzanci żydowscy z oddziału dowodzonego przez Tuwię Bielskiego." "Amongst the attackers were also the Jewish partisans from unit commanded by Tuvia Bielski"

Szopen 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC) http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1924 The info there is quite outdated, since IPN has already confirmed participation of Jewish partisans in Naliboki massacre, but at least this is in English. The key sentence is "The post-war testimonies of Jewish partisans show that Bielski was ordered to assign 50 armed partisans."

Right. My mistake. Bianconera 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"band of common robbers, who didn't do much in terms of fighting, but rather were shooting local people and burning their houses" - yeah right, those wicked bloodthirsty Jews are nothing but robbers and cowards. Typical shameless antisemitic accusations. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was long time since I was last time called anti-semite and I really needed that. However, there is a simple fact: in memories of most local Poles and in memories of most Polish partisans Bielski's brothers are noted only for robbing local population. The another fact is that they didn't do much fighting. Now, I've never said that this was because they were wicked bloodthirsty bats or whatevers. I can put you some quotes if you want. Szopen 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let's acknowledge that those were very hard times for most people there. Second, I did not call you an antisemite, and let's try to be above a primitive strawman argument. Also let's try to avoid double standard. Back to the subject: the claims above are undeniably typical antisemitic canards. As a matter of fact, Duffy writes about the Soviet investigations that confuted these accusations. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know this were hard times. In fact, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that Bielski's had no choice. Peasants neither could, nor they _wanted_ to share with them (this area was one of the poorest in prewar Poland). Bielski's needed their food. The only way they could get this food was by robbing the population. It's not the problem limited to Bielski'sm either - all soviet units did the same. The problem was that there were far too many partisans in the area. And in addition to that, soviet partisans in the very beginning burned many main food providers, boasting that in doing so they are sabotaging German actions.

Second, is all claim that someone did something wrong automatically anti-semitic? I tend to not agree with that. If I will say "Xski, as all Jews, was a coward" - this is clearly antisemitic. If I would say "Xski, because he was Jew, was a coward": this is also cearly antisemitic. If I would say however: "Xski is considered to be coward" then the sentence in itself is not antisemitic and in fact may be true, even if the sentence was uttered by antisemite.

In case of Bielski's we have simple and easy to verify facts: that they were "robbing the population" and that they "rarely engaged in figth with German units". Another simple fact is that they participated in Polish-Soviet partisan war on Soviet side. These are not antisemitic accusations. They can be easily verified. Szopen 09:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me: "far too many partisans in the area" is one thing, but accusing the Jews is another. I am yet to see similarly heavy accusations so easily made against any other group. Duffy talks about the investigations, and also mentions the confrontations between Jewish and other partisan groups. There was no love lost between them and the Soviets. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But no one is accusing exclusively Jews. You can read the discussion in Soviet partisans. Polish authors I've read are accusing most Soviet partisans for robbing population (and killing Polish partisans, and treating these areas as if they were part of USSR). And indeed, they also mention that though formally Jewish survival groups were formally under soviet umbrella, many Soviet partisans murdered Jews and antisemitism there was quite strong. Szopen 07:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Soviet partisans were despised by local populations, as they engaged in plunder and terrorised the inhabitants.[8] Bogdan Musial also suggests that the Soviet partisans preferred to assault the poorly armed and trained Belarussian and Polish self-defense units rather than German military and police targets (military transports, other hard targets).[2]

By the end of 1943, the Soviets could claim a significant victory in their war aganst the Poles: most large landed estates owned by the Poles had been destroyed by the Soviet partisans.[2]" The quote from Soviet partisans in Poland Szopen 07:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to engage in one-sided excuses and denial. Anti-Sovietism does not cancel antisemitism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ, Humus. Once again, could you point me exactly why accusing Bielski brothers about war crimes and about robbing local population as well as avoiding fight with German units is anti-semitism? I have the feeling as if I am talking to a wall. To clarify things, I do not consider myself antisemite nor I consider the historians, who worked on the topic of Polish-Soviet partisan war antisemites. I do consider some of people (in fact, majority of them) who are using the works of mentioned historians antisemites. As I wrote before, I perfectly understand _why_ Bielski's did what they did and I am not sure whether I would do better under similar conditions. I don't think that their activities are somehow tied to the fact that they were Jewish (or not). Of course, being a Pole, I am already loser in such discussions. I am Pole, so I am either antisemite or I should never touch the subject.

Similarly, when someone says that there were Polish bands which mostly robbed population and killed people (mostly unarmed, many of them Jews), I do not consider that anti-polonism, because I am perfectly aware of the fact that there were such bands (and they were actively hunted by AK).

Finally, what's the point of this discussion? Do you want to change something in the article? Say it and let's discuss it, instead of engaging in pointless discussion about whether people robbed by Bielski's were antisemites. I hope you at least noticed that the phrase "they were common bandits" is not in the article, and in fact I am not even trying to put it into the article.

BTW, Bielski's partisans participation in war crimes, including massacres of civilians, is well documented and pretty much beyond any doubt. Szopen 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW2: Humus, you removed the sentence that "crimes against population are not discussed in Duffy's book". You mean Duffy wrote about massacre in Naliboki? If not, you should revert to the previous version of the article. Szopen 07:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who you are, and it does not matter who you do (or do not) consider yourself. They fought and killed the Nazis and saved Jews and tried to survive, therefore "band of common robbers, who didn't do much in terms of fighting, but rather were shooting local people and burning their houses" is a vile antisemitic accusation that you were spreading - before engaging in silly strawman argument. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They didn't do that much in term of fighting the Nazis, at least if one is to believe to the sources i saw. It seems that they choose to figth locals and AK. BTW, you didn't answer my question. Does Duffy write about Bielski's participation in Naliboki massacre and about robbing local population? If not, I will revert to the last version. Szopen 11:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotes from monography of Polish-Soviet partisan war. I've written it down some time ago for the purpose of some other discussion. The vile antisemitic lies, as you call it. The problem with them is that most of the claims from the book is quite well based on the contemporary reports nad witnesses testimonies. I will just put it here as a memento. I didn't read Duffy's book, but if he does not mention this, then his book is apologetic crap not a serious work. I guess he probably only mentioned the "gold affair" because it was, AFAIK, resolved in Bielski's favour.

Zygmunt Boradyn: Niemen, rzeka niezgody: Polsko-sowiecka wojna partyzancka na Nowogrodczyznie 1943-1944 (Niemen, the river of disagreement/conflict: Polish-Soviet partisan war on Nowogrodek region 1943-1944) Warszawa 1999, 1st edition.

Page 84-86 Quote:

The most brutal requisitions were done by Jewish units and groups. In the Baranowickie group there were two so called "siemiejne" Jewish units: of Bielski (named in the honour of Kalinin, named of Ordzonikidze) and Zorin (nr 106). In the end of June 1944 the first one fo them had 941 people, from which 162 were armed, and the second 562 (73 armed). Those units were created by Jews hiding in forest and escapees from ghettos in Minsk, Nowogrodek, Iwie and other towns and townlets. There were also numerous groups of Jews in the forest of Nacka, Lipiczanska and Bytenski woods. Those units were not included in soviet group, that why in the archives there are no documents about their activities. It was those units which were most impacting the population, since their main tasks were "economical operations"

In the raport from military operations since beginning of German occupation to the 12th 11.1943 Bielski reported that his unit killed 14 Germans, 17 policemen, 33 German spies and provocateurs, burned 5 wooden bridges, blown up 1 rail bridge, destroyed 8 state estates and one (tartak: place where wood is cut.. forgot the name.) About the requisitions there is no mentioning in the raport. And in reality in the beginning of the december this year partisans of Bielski amassed 200 tons of potatoes, 3 tons of cabbage, 5 ton of (buraki: red large vegatables), 5 tons of grain, 3 tons of meat and 1 ton of kielbasa.

Also unit of Zorin was not suffering the hunger. Ex chief of HQ of this unit (AD: Anatol Werthejm, "Jewish partisans on Belarus", "Zeszyty Historyczne", Paryz 1986, z.86 page 144) wrote: ".. The food was in the abundance, we have even gathered the surplus. In the day of joining with the Red Army we took from the lake sunked few hundred of bags with wheat (...) The food surplus was even sent to Moscow. Once a week a plane landed in field air landing in the forest- it brought newspapers, propaganda materials and took back the alcohol, (slonina) and kielbasa which we were making in the camp (...)". In Jewish camps there were manufactures for making weapons, boots, clothes, mills, bakeries, hospitals, which were working for neighbouring soviet brigades.

The commanders of mentioned units received from their work material gains. Bielski was getting rich at the cost of his compatriots, from whom he took the money on the pretext of buying the weapons. In this case Stiepan Szupienia wrote the letter to gen. "Platon": ".. Bielski is not concerned with military actions, he was speculating in units. He was taking the gold from his partisans for buying the weapons and then he was keeping it for himself, while he had not giving any weapons. I would sugest to propose Bielski to giving the gold to the state (he has few kilos of tsarist golden coins) and then arrest this Bielski and put on trial...".

The greedy nature of Bielski is underlined in his memories Jozef Marchwinski (AD: Polish communist which was temporarily in the camp): "... Bielski loved the money and good life more from his compatriots, whom he govern in the camp. Lusting for power, and even more for money, he was robbing his compatrios without any scrupples for all small savings they have when coming to the camp ... this money were getting to the private pocket of Tewje Bielski and his company... " From the words of Anatol Werthejm describing the "breakfasts" and "weddings" of commander it seems that Zorin also lived quite well (AD: weddings according to the once read interview in newspaper were the raids to neighbouring villages, were ZOrin picked up the prettiest girl, "married" her and lived with her for few days before returning to the camp).

The behaviour of Jewish groups in the terrain was creating the dislike not only from local population, but also amongst other soviet partisans. Cpt Kowalow, sent from Moscow, in June 1944 reported to Czernyszow: "...Population does not like the Jews. When Jewish group passes the Niemen there were accidents of disarming them by our partisans, who were giving the taken weapons to the peasants and they are beating the Jews screaming >>Beat the Jews - save the Russia!<<"

Describing the attitude of commanders of soviets partisans from southern part of Nowogrodek region to the Jews, author of the "Partisans. General overview" writes, that in some units they are accepting Jews, while in other they are expelling them or even shooting.

After capturing again Icek Rubiezewski from unit of Bielski after robbery, commander of Frunze brigade, (some soviet military rank: st. lejt.) Kluczko wrote a letter to Tewje, threating him with shooting in place bandits and robbers if they will appear again on the territory controlled by his unit. Sometimes there were even armed conflics. When June the 1st 1943 accidentaly partisan from diversion group from Zukow brigade was killed by Jew from unit "for soviet Belarus" from Nalibocka forest, in revenge there was raid to Jewish camp, during which it was burned and 7 people were killed.

The commanders of Baranowicka group many times tried to regulate the methods of providing the foods to their units. Regions of supplies were appointed to brigaes and units. In case of proper attitued to local population gen. "Platon" 20 June 1943 issued an order, and March 6th 1944 order of (pplk of national security?) "Donskoj", in which there were warnings of most severe punishments for robberies, rapes and drinking. It seems however that this was carried on only on paper. The behaviour of soviet partisans had not changed. But the situation of inhabitants of Nowogrodek region was steadily worsening. The number of Soviet partisans, the amount and the method of taken food threatened the biological existence of the peasants living in territories controlled by Soviet units. Local peasants had to working the miracles, so for example in winter 1944 hide the pork from the robbing partisans. Helena Kapciuk living in village of Olchowka (county of Lida) brings back the memories of how she was hiding the pork behind the wood. To not allow the animal to be summoned by Soviet partisans, the hand-made stoppers were put into the ears of the pork. (The author continues with the examples of the robberies and rapes of soviet partisans)

Page 89 (Naliboki massacre is mentioned twice in the book. This is first mention, second, more detailed is given later..) Quote:

one must be warned that statistics given by gen. Platon (AD: about the numbers of killed Germans - supposedly 70.000 Germans were killed by soviet partisans in his region) must be treated with care. The example may be Soviet action in Naliboki. The destruction of local "samoochowa" (AD: Belarusian word for self-defense units?) armed with 26 rifles and two automatic rigles, joined with murdering of 128 civilians, was presented by commande of Iwienieckie group like a great military operation, in which 250 "samoochowcy" were killed, four heavy machine guns and 13 automatic rifles, 4 grenade rifles 260 rifles and 20.000 of ammo. In the memories of Czernyszew the garrison of "Samoochowa" counted already 500 people, and amongst the spoilts he enumerats 8 heavy machine guns, 6 smaller artilery pieces, 23 automatic rifles, 40 automatic hand pistols and 100 rifles.

Page 223: (AD: author gives one of examples of local negotiations between AK and soviets) Quote:

As it is reported by ex-commander of the "druzyna" (AD: no idea how to translate it. I think it is the smallest part or one of the smallest parts of a military unit either below or just above the platoon level.) from this unit (AD:5th batallion of 77 pp of AK) Ryszard Kiersnowski, soviet units which were garrisoned there (AD:in Rudnicka forest) were organising raids for robbing the north-western part of the county Lida, which was controlled by batallion of cpt. Stanislaw Truszkowski "Sztremer". During those raids they robbed and burned villages of Koniuchy and Niewoniance, murdering part of their inhabitants. As a revenge Poles (AD: AK soldiers) have organised the raid to the forest and burned the settlement of Wisincza. (AD: later author discusses the agreement according to which Poles were giving the food for 2500 soviet and Jewish partisans in exchange for stopping the robberies and giving some ammo and weapons)

Page 58: Quote:

First partisan groups appeared in summer and autumn 1941. One of the first partisan units, which were acting on the territory of Nowogrodzkie voivodship during German occupation, was Jewish unit of Tewje Bielski. Bielski reported, that in July 1941 already, he together with his family members and collegues organised the 20-people strong group, with which he went to forests near Nowogrodek.

Page 60: Quote:

Small units of "okruzhency" and "wostoczniki" (..) thought rather about the survival than about militaru actions. It is clearly stated in quoted already history of brigade of Lenin Komsomol: In the period from November 1941 to November 1942 all groups basing in forests were not carrying any military or diversion activity". Similarly the situation was also in the unit of Bielski.

Page 72: Quote:

Unfortunately we have no full informations about the nationality of the members of Baranowickie group. Only the mentioned data from May the 15th 1944, according to which there were 11185 partisans, from which 6732 were Belarussians, 2552 Russians, 988 Jews, 556 Ukrainians, 150 Poles, 217 others. Belarussian historian Jaugien Siamaszka stated, that in whole group of gen. "Platon" there were 500 POles. There were just 2% of soviet partisans acting in Nowogrodek region. (AD: in the region Poles were from 40 to 50% of population; and majority of Belarussians in Soviet units came from eastern Belarussia, not from local population)

Page 100: (AD: earlier author gives numerous example of murdering AK members and their whole families, as well as common Polish civilians by Soviet units) Quote:

The greatest tragedy in Nowogrodek region was May the 9th 1943 in Naliboki, when partisans from Brigade of Stalin and from unit of Bielski, under the pretext of liquidation of local self-defense forcefully created by Germans, murdered 128 person, mainly men. It must be stressed that Soviets were perfectly oriented that large part of so called self-defense was part of Polish conspiration and was preparing to leaving with gun in hand into the forest. From the discussion, which Waclaw Nowicki carried with one of commanders of Naliboki "samochowa", Eugeniusz Klimowski, it seems that in half of April 1943 there were negotations between that self-defense unit and Soviet partisans. Soviets proposed the posored destruction of the self-defense, and then, after taking the oath, incorporation of its members into partisan soviet units (AD: common way to protect the families of partisans. Sometimes for example the volunteers were beaten in front of whole village to create impression they were no volunteers, but forcefully drafted, so Germans or Soviets would not execute their families). Poles accepted first condition, proposing carrying the action May the 3rd, But they refused taking the oath and starting the open fight with Germans. So massacre in Naliboki may be treated as activity of Soviet partisans openly directed at destruction of local AK conspiration. (Later description as Polish AK finally organised units and started to kill or disarm Soviet robbing bands)

Page 152 Quote:

In October-November 1943 actions of AK were more often, because more often were "economical actions" of Soviet partisans, which were nothing more short of robbery. In those actions especially were active the Jewish units of Bielski and Zorin. Poles were disarming the robbing groups and giving them to Soviet HQs. But this, just as giving the informations about the incidents of robbing the population, was bringing no effects. (...)

Page 166 (AD: Mentioning, that some of Polish AK soldiers from destructed group of Milaszewski were forced to join Bielski unit.)

The reliability of this "memento" is questionable. Most of the testimonies would be self-serving. "Beat the Jews - save the Russia!" is an infamous pre-1917 antisemitic rallying cry. Your POV seems to be that the populations lived in perfect tranquility - until cowardly and lazy Jewish robbers came out of the woods (where they lived to fatten up) to murder Polish civilians. BTW, who decides what is "The greatest tragedy in Nowogrodek region"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not _my_ POV. My POV is that Jews lived more or less peacefully amongst mildly antisemitic population. The antisemitism was strengthened by the actions of the very few renegades during both Polish-Bolshevik war and Soviet occupation. The already antisemitic population exxagerated the extent of the collaboration, and, what's worse, attributed the actions of the few to the whole group (which was _bad_). When Germans came, the sympathy to Jews and Soviets was almost non-existent (which was _bad_). When Jewish hided in the forests, only few people (probably) were willing to help. As I wrote earlier, I am quite sure that I perfectly understand Bielski and that I myself in such situation would probably start to take food by force. There are few facts here:

1. there were far too many partisans in the forests
2. Germans took already a lot of food
3. Population was already mildly antisemitic
4. Population didn't have much food to share
5. Bielski's needed their food

The effect is that Bielski's (as well as other soviet partisan units) started armed robbery. And then they started to kill anyone who tried to oppose them, no matter whether he was collaboteur or not.

As for greatest tragedy, it was obvious from the context in the book, which maybe is missing in the passage. The few pages in the book treated about fate of Polish peasants, and Naliboki was the greatest massacre of Polish peasants in the region.

It seems to me, on the other hand, that your POV however is, that the Bielski's were saints and should be free from critic and any peasant who tried to hide the food for his own family was vicious antisemite. Szopen 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's that strawman again. My POV is that nobody's an angel. I may agree with your 5 premises, but it is wrong to deduce from them accusations promoting typical medieval antisemitic stereotypes such as Jews are murderers, cowards and robbers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody claimed Jews are murderers, cowards and robbers. Such accusation appeared only in your imagination, it seems. I am personally accusing Bielski's partisans (not sure about the Bielski's themselves) about murdering civilians and committing robberies. I do not consider them cowards, nor I am not accusing them because they are Jewish. It's you who constantly try to prove, that saying that Bielski's partisans were "cowards, murderers and robbers" is the same as typical antisemitic stereotype that "Jews are murderers, cowards and robbers". Szopen 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish. It wasn't I who accused them of being "band of common robbers, who didn't do much in terms of fighting, but rather were shooting local people and burning their houses". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. If you will call me stupid, it's just personal attack against me, but not antipolonism. If you will say "as all Poles, you are stupid" or "You exhibit typical Polish trait of stupidity" then it would be antipolonism. Similarly, if you will say "NSZ band murdered ZOB partisan group" it's not antipolonism. If you say "As typical for Polish partisans, NSZ band murdered ZOB partisan group", then it's antipolonism. So, saying "Bielski's partisans are considered by some people band of common robbers etc" can not be considered antisemitic in itself. On the other hand, if someone would say "typically for Jews... Bielski's were common robbers", then it would be antisemites. I don't know what's your opinion, but I refuse to judge people basing on their nationality or religion. That's why, if I write that Bielski's partisans (not sure about Bielski's brothers itself) committed the crimes, I do not care whether they were Polish, Jewish or Tamils.

But you are still trying to draw a connection between labelling Bielski's criminals and antisemitism Szopen 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And my question reiterated: does P.Duffy mention Naliboki massacre and robbing local population, e.g. reports of AK which had to turn soviet partisans (amongst them also people from Bielski's unit) to their commanders with threat that next time they will shoot them? If not, I will reinsert the sentence that "P.Duffy book does not deal with alleged war crimes committed by Bielski's partisans". I don't want to revert before I will get clear answer, but I am starting to feel tired of you trying to avoid that question. Szopen 09:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Last example. Kuras "Ogien", "fire". He fought against both Germans and Soviets. His family was burned alive, hence his nickname. He saved few Jews, and he supposedly murdered few. Is saying "Some say that Kuras murdered few Jews" an example of typical antipolonism? Is he hero, or a criminal? Szopen 09:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Duffy describes many engagements and conflicts by and within the group, and deals with war crimes accusations. I don't know whether he lists them all or not and right now I don't have a book with me to cite it, but the sentence is simply untrue.

I didn't miss it. What you are doing is spreading typical antisemitic canards about a Jewish group, then you pretend that it's dandy because the words "typically for Jews" are not there. Do not expect to be able to use WP to continue to spread hatred. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

HUmus, you are oversensitive. Also, you continue to accuse me about doing something, which only you see. You are either deliberately missing the point, or maybe you were too much discussing with someone else. I will repeat several points again:

1. Bielski were not heroes.
2. I am not trying to change the article as current version is fine
3. I will defend the mentioning of war crimes, since WP is NPOV and pretending Bielski's were saints is not POV
4. Do not push a baby into my belly. I am refusing to prove that I am not a camel.
5. If saying someone, who happens to be Jew, is bastard, is antisemitic, then call me antisemite. I was for years engaged with many kinds of fundamentalist - Polish nationalists, German nazis, Jewish fundamentalists and I am quite used to such calls. Again, I refuse to judge Bielski's on the basis of their nationality or religion. I am presenting sources which saying that they commit war crimes.

Szopen 08:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

All I ask for is to be careful about making sweeping accusations that have long and sad history. We are not discussing whether 1000+ of Holocaust survivors - against all odds - were heroes or not, and I do not think you or I are qualified to judge. When it comes to Jews, so many fearless critics and brave judges appear suddenly.

Finally, we are not talking about "someone, who happens to be Jew" - see strawman argument. BTW, I did not see similar accusations in Talk:Soviet partisans. Genocide is a sensitive matter, and some tolerance would go a long way. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, because they were Jews, they couldn't kill the children? The fact is is that children died in Naliboki, though majority of killed were males shot in cold blooded executions, only because they were suspected of beingpart of Polish self-defense or even suspected of sympathize with self-defense. You stand here, if I understand you correctly, is that this massacre didn't happened and Bielski's partisans weren't robbing local populations, because Bielski's were Jewish and to claim otherwise is antisemitic canard. I find it extremely offensive, just as your earlier remarks that i am "continuing to spread hatred". Bielski were not saints, period. Their partisans were robbing population. Whether they had any other choice, is totally different thing.

Also, you didn;t look hard enough. Some quotes from archive: "Why nobody disputes that Germans murdered milions. But this doesn't mean that the fact that Soviet partisants persecuted Poles and turned to robbing and murdering civilians should be deleted. --Molobo 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)"

I am not sure what we are discussing right now. Strawman argument is to fight against deliberately twisted someone's else opinion. For example, your behaviour. You presumed I am guilty and put some other meaning into what I've said, and then you continued to fight against supposed "antisemitism". E.g. you accused me about "spreading hatred", added "typical antisemitic canard" and remarks about "bloodthirsty Jews", none of which can apply to my sentence that "Bielski's are sometimes even deferred as band of common robbers" (which isn't even in article).

Similarly, if I understand correctly "antisemitic canard" is spreading of false facts about events which never happened. But Bielski's partisans did robbed the population and they did participated in massacre in Naliboki (not sure about Bielski's themselves). What's more, I stated repeatedly that I don't give a zilch about their nationality of religion. I do not think their behaviour was exceptional and resulted from them being Jews. I gave you a comparison which you ignored: Kuras "Ogien" is commonly called a hero by many. But some accuse him about spreading anti-semitic pamflets and killing innocent Jews. This accusations are being refuted and none can really say whether they are true or not. Those accusation are also quite typical for Soviet propaganda which presented most NSZ and AK fighter as antisemites and bandits. Is the sentence "Some consider Kuras simple robber and antisemite, whose main task was killing Jews" anti-Polish? I may consider it blatantly POVed and unjustified, but I would never claim it's anti-Polish.

Similarly, is sentence "main task of NSZ was killing the Jews" anti-Polish? This accusations are very typical in many Jewish sites teaching about the shoah. Is this sentence sign of polonophobia and anti-Polish feelings? I do not think so. I may say the claims are sometimes exxagerated and POVed, but I would never claim they are anti-Polish (even if sometimes person distributing such claims may or may not has serious problems with Poles in general).

Humus, I spent a lot of time here. And I still don't know even why. You have simply enfuriated me by suggesting that I am dishonest, spreading hatred and typical antisemitic canards, while at the same time accusing me about doing exactly the thing YOU ARE doing. My questions is will you continue to put into my mouth something that I didn't said? Are you arguing about some change into the article? If so, suggest concrete change. If not, let's move this discussion into our user talk pages or even better to private email exchange. But I warn you that I won't write anything more to prove that I am not a camel. 10:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Killed enemy fighters

Does the number of 300+ enemy fighters includes 128 civilians killed in Naliboki? Szopen 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation was referenced, and the source points to archives. Civilians are not fighters and vice versa. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Civilians are nto fighters, but they were counted as fighters in reports of Soviet partisans. As in report of gen. Platon, who reported that in Naliboki in fierce battler partisans killed 250 fighters. Similarly, in Koniuchy they reported fierce battle and a lot of killed enemy fighters (some of which were small children) - even in books published in the west, as I've heard, still massacres in Naliboki and Koniuchy are presented as battles. That's why I ask. Szopen 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know. Jews were accused in killing small children for centuries. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with you that once again you are hardly trying to make me angry without answering the question. Murdering of people in Naliboki and Koniuchy happened. Those were massacres, not battles. Nevertheless, Soviet commanders reported both massacres as fierce battles and reported hundreds of killed enemy "fighters". What's more, I've heard that memories of some partisans, which were published in the west, openly boast with participation in those massacres, presenting them as great victories. The question about the number presented here is then completely valid.

I have the feeling that I face the wall now. The only option for me is probably back out and pretend I didn't read anything about Bielski's - no matter what source I will present, I will be accused once again about spreading antisemitic lies. Humus, is accusing Poles about Jedwabne "antipolonism"? Is researching the Kielce pogrom antipolonism? Why then accusing one of the many Jewish partisans, Bielski, about committing war crimes, "antisemitism"? Can you explain that to me? i don't care whether Bielski's were Jews, Poles, Russians or Marsians. I don't know why you are so obsesses with that. I care about the sources, witnesses testimonies, documents etc. The ones i've read uniformly accused Bielski's (and other Soviet partisans, but in this case we discuss just Bielski's) about participation in robbery and massacres. Explain to me, in simple words, why criticism of Bielski's is antisemitism and how it compares to blood libel. (I wish some of my ancestors would be Jewish. At least I could have some chance in such kind of discussions) Szopen 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Soviets pacified Naliboki village when local villagers decided to form self-defense unit. After first negotiations, Soviets entered village and shot most of the people suspected of being members of self-defense. Few in fact were, and few in fact had arms - but most of people were simply shot without any investigation in executions in cold blood, and between victims were also three women and several kids. According to witnesses, most of the killed were murdered by partisans from Bielski's group. Were those killed "enemy figthers", "nazi collaborators" ? Szopen 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Jews are very predictable and defenseless target for such atrocious accusations. Nobody's saying they are all angels, of course, but "Jews murdered children"? Please, don't make it difficult to assume good faith.

You chose a curious place to express your grievances against Soviet partisans. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you didn't assume good faith but from the very beginning started an attack which recently turned into personal attack. Also, for God's sake, first I explain that I am not targeting Bielski's but this was typical for all Soviet partisans (and Bielski's were Soviet partisans), and now you are suprised?

The situation in Nowogrodek area

A quote from a webpage I have archived on my HD:

"This was not the case with the Jewish fugitives. The latter found themselves in the most tragic predicament of all the ethnic groups under the Nazi occupation. First of all, the Nazi policy of extermination liquidated practically every Jewish support center, including the ghettos, where the fugitives could have counted on aid. So Jewish fugitives were unable to rely on “their own” as far as their supplies were concerned. Jews attempted to deal with this challenge in a variety of ways. Their activities to procure supplies usually reflected the profile of the fugitive group individual Jews were involved with. There were at least four distinct categories of Jewish fugitives who escaped extermination and strove to survive in hiding.49"

"First, there was a handful of Polonized Jews and assimilated Poles of Jewish origin in the Wilno region. These persons were mostly passing as Polish Christians. Their supply problems were practically akin to those of an average Polish Christian. At least in some instances these fugitives had links to the Polish underground. They took advantage of its protection and a few of them even fought in its ranks in the forest.50"

"Second, young, athletic people fled the ghettos in organized groups, often equipped with arms they were able to acquire through various channels. Some of them quickly formed separate Jewish partisan outfits in the forest. Their leaders were usually involved with some segment of the Zionist movement: from the extreme left to the far right. It seems certain that almost from the very beginning these Jewish fighters used force to capture food, clothes, and weapons from the peasants. It cannot be excluded however that they also paid or even begged for the supplies in some instances. After a while, almost all Jewish units became tactically subordinated to the Soviet partisan movement, which already earlier had incorporated some Jewish Communists into its ranks."

"Initially, at least some of the Jewish partisans, particularly the largest outfit, Tuwia Bielski’s Brigade from the Naliboki Forest, enjoyed proper and even cordial relations with individual units of the Home Army. The underground Poles sometimes saved Jews and later escorted them to the Jewish partisan camps. Both sides also cooperated against the Germans, for example during the great Nazi pacification action in the Naliboki Forest in the summer of 1943. Unfortunately, mutual relations kept deteriorating because of the increasingly frequent and brutal supply raids of the Jewish partisans which prompted the AK to intervene at the request of the desperate local peasants who were being robbed mercilessly.51 The increasingly fierce brutality and radicalization of the Jewish partisans stemmed mainly from the fact that their families had been murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators, and they had escaped from the ghettos with the thought of revenge. Jews were sentenced to death; they had nothing to lose. This attitude manifested itself, among other things, in “open hate and hostility towards the local population,” according to Dov Levin.52 The principal reason for the flare-up in the mutual relations between the Jewish partisans and the Home Army however was the conflict of the Polish independentists with the Soviet partisans who tactically controlled the Jewish partisan units. The Soviets were physically destroying Polish partisan outfits and also strove to provoke Nazi wrath toward the civilian Polish population of the Wilno region. Thus, by the fall of 1943 the struggle for supplies and political supremacy in the Borderlands pitted the Jewish partisans squarely against the Home Army.53"

"Aside from the organized Jewish partisan units, so-called “wild” groups appeared in the forest. Making up the third kind of Jewish fugitives, these groups consisted of persons of diverse ages, both male and female, including children, the elderly, and often entire families. The “wild” groups were the least organized entities. At least initially, they lacked any funds and arms. Therefore they were rarely admitted into the affiliated Jewish or Soviet partisan units. Members of the “wild” groups were forced to beg or steal food from the peasants, some of whom they had been acquainted with already before the war. Sometimes the fugitives would force the farmers to surrender their hidden weapons to them. The “wild” groups lacked military discipline. They treated matters of security with insufficient vigilance. Encumbered by the elderly, women, and children, they were unable to change their whereabouts frequently, and often lived in dugouts in one location for extended periods of time. These features of the “wild” groups – in conjunction with the expropriation actions they carried out, which prompted the peasants to denounce them – resulted in those Jewish fugitives most frequently of all falling victim to German expeditions, village self-defense, and AK retaliation. Further, the “wild” groups were targeted by common bandits and Soviet partisans (it was often difficult to tell these two apart). Next, Jewish girls and women hiding in the dugouts fell prey to the sexual appetites of degenerate Soviet predators. The Soviet aggression against the “wild” groups also stemmed from the paranoid suspicion that Jews who were able to escape to the forest were agents of the Nazi police. Moreover, the Soviets resented the fact that the “wild” groups, through their carelessness, revealed the whereabouts of the Soviet partisan bases, did not fight the Germans, and supplied themselves from the same meager sources that the Communist partisans did, and additionally antagonized the local population. Thus, the “wild” groups of Jewish fugitives were in the most precarious situation and were practically besieged from all sides."

"Fourth, a much more lucky category, some Jewish fugitives, both individuals and groups, found shelter with the local Christian population in the countryside.54 Thus, they solved the problem of supplies. Those Jews were usually well heeled. They did not only have reliable Christian acquaintances, but also the funds to maintain themselves and, at times, even to buy the good will of their hosts. Sometimes Jews in hiding robbed the peasants in remote localities, returned to their shelter, and shared the loot with their Christian hosts in lieu of payment for their upkeep. Of course, such activities exposed those in hiding to denunciations to the Nazis or the retaliation by the peasant self-defense, Polish underground, or Soviet partisans – depending on who had fallen victim to the Jewish supply raids."

"It has to be stressed that, because the Soviet partisans were most numerous in the Wilno region, they were also responsible for the greatest number of acts of violence perpetrated in the course of the expropriation and other actions directed against the civilian population. In any event, the expropriation actions of the common criminals, Soviets, and Jewish fugitives were facilitated by the fact that the Nazi authorities often ignored banditry so long as it was aimed at the non-German civilian population. Sometimes the Germans punished the usually innocent locals for the acts of banditry (or resistance) carried out by their antagonists from other local groups. It was safer and more convenient to “pacify” a Belorussian village or a Polish gentry hamlet than to chase armed bandits, Soviet partisans, or Jewish fugitives around the sylvan wilderness and swamps. This attitude stemmed in part from the indifference of the Germans to the plight of the local population and other groups.55 It was also attributable to the lack of sufficient security forces to patrol the area and conduct massive anti-bandit sweeps. The efficiency of the Nazi security force was also conditioned by its ethnic make-up (for example, Lithuanian auxiliary policemen were rather unwilling to risk their lives to defend Polish or Belorussian peasants). Nonetheless, the indifference of the German authorities toward the predicament of the locals was tempered by the prerogatives of the Nazi economic policy of total exploitation of the Wilno region. After all, the success of the policy required the maintenance of order if, for no other reason, than to ensure the steady delivery of agricultural products." Szopen 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Szopen do not talk to the idiots because first of all they will bring You to their level and after that destroy thanks to huge experience ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.12.157 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of kidnappings

One thing is, what do the accusation of kidnapping in 2007 have to do with the artcile about partisans in 1944? Second thing is beware, by quoting such article you will be soon accused by some special "assuming good faith" guy to be be typical antisemite Szopen 11:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the heading needs to be changed if that kidnapping thing, which is barely relevant, is to be included. It comes right under the topic of "war crimes" and a simple glance would have one thinking that kidnapping was something the group participated in regularly-SF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.201.106 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything that even smells as the promotion of false history, one way or another, should be eliminated

Belarussian or Polish?

I think we should categorized them Polish Jews, because they were living in Poland, it's today Belarus. But then it was the II Polish Republic. Also, Tuvia Bielski served in the Polish army, and I suppose they spoke Yiddish, not Belarussian. We usually call Jews, especially Yiddish-speaking, who lived in Poland, whatever part of Poland it was, Polish Jews. Kowalmistrz (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Died

Died in gulag?

I read somewkere that the brothers were later arrested by the KGB, AND SENT TO sIBERIAN FORCED LABOR CAMPs, where they were worked and starved to death.Anybody know about this?

Use of the Phrase Bielski Partisans and Soviet Partisans is Questionable

Soviet Citizens, on Soviet Soil, with the Acknowledgement of the Soviet Government = A Soviet Partisan

A combination of Former Soviet Soldiers and Non-Soviet Citizens (Including all groups), opperating in the foriegn terrtory of a nation (Poland) that had been subjected to an an overt act of war committed by said government, which included an occupation that rivaled the Nazi occupation of Western Poland, while conducting operations that included the robbery and massacre of Polish citizens <> A Soviet Partisan. It does however = War Criminal.

After the Soviets broke of relations with the Polish Goverment-in-Exile (Following the discovery of the Katyn Massacre), the situation deteriorated to the point where Soviet backed war criminals were ordered to kill members of the legitmate Polish Partisan movement (AK).

Groups such as the Bielski Brothers and other Jewish groups were in a very difficult situation, unlike AK members who held regular day occupations, Jews were the target of Nazi Genocidal policies. In this sense notion of "collaboration or co-operation" create a difficult grey area. However, a larger question remains: Why did the Soviets make no attempt to exvacuate the Jewish people? They were certainly aware of Nazi intent, yet chose to use them in their further subjugation of Polish citizens.

The pardon of General Kesselring after the war, was related to the fact that numerous "partisan" groups operated in Italy without the acknowledgement of the Italian Government. Raising arms against an occupier sounds heroic, yet it also raises the spectre of military reprisals against civilians, and whether these reprisals constitute war crimes. Hence the "governmental acknowledgement requirement" of the Geneva Convention.

While the Bielski group (or some subsequent members) may or may not have been involved in robbery and possibly the Naliboki massacre is clearly disputed, even Bielski members acknowledge the possibility that some Jews may have participated in the Naliboki massacre, while clearly denying it was there group. Again the line between "co-operation and collaboration" with repsect to Jews, is a very grey area. There are certainly mitigating factors, namely Nazi Genocidal policies. As such labeling them "war criminals" is a strecth. They lacked the choices that others did.

However, to reiterate, without the acknowledgement of the Polish Government-In-Exile, with respect to the Bielski Group, the use of the word "partisan" is technically incorrect. This is not to get overly picky, it uneccessarily conflates "Bielski Partisans" with "Soviet Partisans". Regardingly the latter (In Poland) they were clearly not "partisans" but war criminals. This combines to render an uneeded harshness when viewing the struggles of Bielski and other Jewish resitance groups. RandyRP (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aron Bielski controversy

Please see: Talk:Defiance_(2008_film)#Aron_Bielski_controversy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to his arrest under WP:NPF.Stetsonharry (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

War crimes section

I've removed material that constitutes original analysis by editors and synthesis of published material, per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Opinions of and analysis by editors is not allowed by these policies. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

fought against the Nazi German occupiers

The summary omits collecting food and goods, which was the main activity, and claims that they "fought against the Nazi German occupiers".Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

combat group - later another opinion.

No one was turned away?? Any sources? Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't inform about rapes.Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet documents as sources - very doubtful. Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark sides of the life in the camp

I run into an interesting article (in a Polish mainstream journal): "Bielski pomagał Żydom, ale też ich wykorzystywał". The article discusses the less known and less glamorous side of life in the camp: the vast inequality between the partisans and the common people, how partisans collected contributions from the wealthy Jews and mistreated the poorer ones, executions of those who lost the struggle for power, quarrels over loot (ending in murders), and even rapes ("the Bielski's harem").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The interview with Nechama Tec in Rzepa that ran a day or so later is a partial reply to the above [1]. According to her there were two murders committed by Tuvia, one of them justified the other not (she ascribes it to him loosing his cool under stress and it being something that occasionally happens in wartime conditions). She also addresses the other issues (no rapes, but lots of cheating and a bit of a 'voluntary' harem, and she admits that there was big gap between the partisans and the common people in terms of basic sustenance). radek (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pietrus, and Radeksz, could we trouble you for the relevant key parts in English translation. The non-Polish speakers here need some way of judging DGG (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go DGG : Article Nr. 1 [2] Article Nr. 2 [3]

Not perfect but something.--Jacurek (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Here is photo of the partisans; I recall reading an article where they were identified and included most if not all of the Bielski brothers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some translations (Tec article)

Here's the Tec interview, I'll try to do the other one later. Original text (bold text interviewer, regular text Tec) then my translations in parentheses. If this violates some kind of copyright laws, then I'm not aware of them and someone should delete it.radek (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Rz: To na podstawie pani książki nakręcono film „Opór”. Podoba się pani?

Nechama Tec: Na początku byłam zaszokowana. Szczególnie scenami bitew z Niemcami. Gdy ktoś mnie pyta, czy partyzanci Bielskiego rzeczywiście walczyli z czołgami, muszę szczerzę przyznać, że nie. Tewje sam powiedział mi kiedyś, że najważniejsze dla niego było przetrwanie.

„Wolałem uratować jednego starego Żyda, niż zabić 20 Niemców”. No ale cóż, Hollywood rządzi się swoimi prawami. Reżyser Edward Zwick musiał zrobić z tej opowieści film sensacyjny, bo inaczej nie pozyskałby funduszy. Po tym jak obejrzałam film kilka razy, muszę powiedzieć, że coraz bardziej mi się podoba.

(Rz: The movie "Defiance" was based on your book. How did you like it?)

NT: At first I was shocked. In particular the battle scenes against the Germans. If someone asks me if the Bielski partisans really fought against tanks then I have to say in all honesty that no. Tuvia himself told me once that for him the most important thing was surviving.

"I would have rather saved one old Jew than kill twenty Germans". But what can you do? Hollywood has its own laws. The director Edward Zwick had to make a sensational action movie out of this story or otherwise he'd never have gotten the money. But after viewing the movie a few times I have to say that I'm liking it more.)

Zwick nie tylko wyolbrzymił bojowe zasługi Tewjego, ale przemilczał ciemne strony jego działalności.

Proszę pamiętać, że to była brudna, partyzancka wojna. Leśne oddziały musiały jakoś przetrwać, musiały jeść. Dlatego partyzanci zaopatrywali się u chłopów, nierzadko zmuszając ich siłą do wydania niezbędnych produktów. Tak samo działała AK. To byli młodzi ludzie, którzy mieli broń i mieszkali w lesie. Nie ma się co dziwić, że doprowadzało to do pewnego zdziczenia. Tewje nie był jednak okrutny. Zabijał tylko, gdy musiał.

(Zwick not only magnified the combat actions of Tuvia, he also was silent about the darker aspects of his actions

We have to remember that this was a dirty partisan war. Forest units had to survive somehow, they had to eat. This is why the partisans got their provisions from the peasants, often using force in order to get the products which they needed. AK did the same thing. These were young people, who were armed and who lived in the forest. It's no wonder that eventually this led to a certain amount of 'becoming feral' (not sure of best word here - basically the opposite of becoming domesticated). But Tuvia wasn't a cruel person. He only killed when he had to.)

Musiał zabić swoich podwładnych Keslera i Połonieckiego?

Keslera musiał, Połonieckiego nie. Sam zresztą opowiadał mi o obu sprawach. Kesler chciał rozbić oddział i Tewje nie miał innego wyboru, jeżeli chciał, żeby Jerozolima przetrwała. Jeżeli chodzi o Połonieckiego – chciał przywłaszczyć sobie zabrane chłopom skóry. Tewje powinien mu je odebrać i zakończyć sprawę. Ale był bardzo zdenerwowany. Dzień wcześniej Niemcy zabili kilku jego ludzi, on całą noc pił wódkę. Gdy Połoniecki zaczął się z nim kłócić, stracił nad sobą panowanie i go zastrzelił. Sam Tewje po latach powiedział mi zresztą, że tego żałuje. Ten człowiek miał młodą żonę i niemowlę.

(He had to kill his followers Kesler and Poloniecki?

He had to kill Kesler, but Poloniecki, no. Actually he told me about both incidents himself. Kesler wanted to break up the unit and Tuvia didn't have a choice if he wanted Jerusalem to survive. When it comes to Poloniecki - he (Ploniecki) wanted to keep some furs that had been taken from the peasants for himself. Tuvia should've just taken them from him and end the matter there. But he was too stressed (Polish word is nervous but stressed is a better translation here). The day before Germans killed a few of his people and after that he stayed up all night drinking vodka. When Poloniecki began fighting (arguing?) with him, he lost control and shot him. Tuvia himself, years later told me that he regretted this. That man (Poloniecki) had a young wife and an infant)

Tewje dużo pił?

W ogóle w obozie dużo pili. Żeby się rozgrzać, żeby zapomnieć o otaczającej ich śmierci, i dla kurażu.

(Did Tuvia drink a lot?

Everyone in the camp drank a lot. In order to warm up, to forget about all the surrounding death and for courage (that one threw me off for awhile. I thought kuraż was some archaic Polish word but it's just a Ponglish of courage) )

kuraż is an old Polish word coming from french, not ponglish.

Czy to prawda, że terroryzował mieszkańców swojego obozu?

To wszystko są bzdury. Wiem, że w Polsce pojawiło się kilka atakujących Tewjego artykułów. Mamy do czynienia z antysemicką nagonką.

(Is it true that he terrorized the inhabitants of his camp?

All that is nonsense. I know that in Poland there appeared several articles attacking Tuvia. We have to deal with an antisemitic witchhunt (not sure how to translate nagonka))

W obozie wiodło mu się jednak lepiej niż innym.

Na to pytanie odpowiem jako socjolog. W każdej zbiorowości ludzkiej, szczególnie w tak trudnych warunkach, są ludzie, którzy wydają rozkazy. To normalne, że ich sytuacja jest lepsza niż reszty. Także pod względem warunków mieszkaniowych czy jedzenia. To zjawisko naturalne i robienie z tego powodu Bielskiemu zarzutu jest niepoważne.

(In the camp he lived much better than others though?

I will answer that question as a sociologist. In every human congregation, and especially in such difficult circumstances, there are people who are the ones who give orders. This is normal that their situation turns out better than that of others. This also includes their living and eating situation. This is a natural occurance and making it into an accusation against Bielskis is not serious.)

Czy wykorzystywał kobiety?

Tewje nie musiał nikogo gwałcić. Kobiety same do niego lgnęły. Był niezwykle przystojnym, pociągającym mężczyzną. Znałam go, gdy miał 80 lat, a nadal robił świetne wrażenie.

(Did he take advantage of women?

Tuvia didn't have to rape anyone. The women went to him on their own. He was extremely handsome, an attractive man. I knew him when he was 80 years old and he still made an impression.)

Jego żona Lilka, którą również pani dobrze znała, opowiadała pani o tym?

Tak. Bardzo to przeżywała. Zdradzał ją w końcu na każdym kroku. Kiedyś powie- działa mi, że toczyła wówczas dwie wojny. Jedną z Niemcami, drugą z kobietami. Jeszcze raz podkreślam jednak, że Tewje nie był gwałcicielem.

(His wife, Lilka, which you also knew, did she tell you about this?

Yes. She was very much affected (upset). He cheated on her on every step. Once she told me that at the time she had to fight two wars. One with the Germans and one with all the women. But I wish to emphasize again that Tuvia was not a rapist)

Dostrzega pani w nim same plusy.

Nie. Zdaję sobie sprawę, że na pewno był zbyt impulsywny. Już przed wojną miał z tego powodu kłopoty. To, co jest jednak dla mnie w tej opowieści najważniejsze, to ocalenie tylu Żydów. 1200 osób! Wyobraża pan to sobie? Dziś łatwo nam go oceniać.

Ale to właśnie on pokazał, że – wbrew stereotypom – Żydzi wcale nie szli jak barany na rzeź, że byli wśród nich tacy, którzy przeciwstawili się Niemcom. Zapytałam go kiedyś, co go skłoniło do działania. Powiedział, że Niemcy nie robili różnicy i mordowali wszystkich Żydów. Biednych i bogatych, starych i młodych. – Postanowiłem wtedy, że też nie będę robił różnicy i będę ratował wszystkich – odpowiedział.

(You see in him only the plus side

No. I am aware of the fact that he was too impulsive. Even before the war he had because of this problems. But for me what is most important is the saving of so many Jews. 1200 people! Can you imagine it? It's too easy for us to pass judgment on him today

But it was he who showed - despite the stereotypes - that Jews didn't go to their deaths like cattle, that there were those among them who stood up to the Germans. I asked him once what convinced him to take actions. He said that the Germans didn't differentiate and murdered any and all Jews. The poor, the rich, the old and the young. "I decided then" - he said - "that I will also not differentiate and try and save everyone".

BTW, the charge of rape in the camp AFAIK was originally made by the wife of Tuvia's cousin, Yehuda, who's name I forgot at the moment.radek (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory info in sources

Currently we have this:

"The Bielski partisans were affiliated with Soviet partisans in the vicinity of the Naliboki Forest under General Platon (Vasily Yefimovich Chernyshev). Several attempts by Soviet partisan commanders to absorb Bielski fighters into their units were resisted, such that the Jewish partisan group retained its integrity and remained under Tuvia Bielski's command. This allowed him to continue in his dedication to protect Jewish lives along with engaging in combat activity, but would also prove a problem later on. ... The Bielski partisan leaders split the group into two units, one named Ordzhonikidze, led by Zus, and the other Kalinin, commanded by Tuvia. According to partisan documentation, Bielski fighters from both units killed a total of 381 enemy fighters, sometimes during joint actions with Soviet groups.[9] 50 members of the group were killed.[1]"

But this source [4] contradicts some of the details at least.

Here's a translations/synopsis of the relevant parts: "The Bielski partisans operated independently until August of 1942 when they made contact with Soviet partisans under Lt. Panczekow and carried out several joint actions. By the spring of 1943 the Bielskis' unit, which by that time numbered around 400 people, was placed under direct command of the Soviets (in the partisan group "Baranowicze") and renamed as the "Ordzhonikidze Unit of the Kirov Brigade" with Tuvia Bielski as official unit leader. In October of 1943 the commander of the Kirov Brigade removed Tuvia from the command of the Ordzhonikidze unit and instead made him a leader of a "family unit". Until January of 1944 this unit did not carry out any combat operations. Partly for this reason, at this time the commander of the Baranowicze Group, Czernyszow (Platon), once again assumed control of the Bielski unit and ordered Tuvia to organize a group of 180 fighters with the intent of carrying out combat operations. The combat diary from this period has survived and has even been published although much of the information consists of exaggerations (as was typical for Soviet partisan units), unconfirmed by other sources. In particular reports of blown up trains are contradicted by German source which usually did note such occurrences in their reports. After the Red Army entered the Nowogrodek area in July 1944, Bielskis' unit was dissolved."

The main differences are that in fact the Soviets did absorb the Bielski fighters or at least placed them under direct control, that Tuvia commanded Ordzhonikidze at first (the "family unit" the text is referring to is probably Kalinin) and that while head of this family unit Tuvia did not engage in combat activity. Additionally the source notes that the reports of combat based on the partisan documentation are exaggerated. The article also notes that Platon/Czernyszow was not a general but rather a communist party aparatchik.

The two sources should be reconciled to the extent possible or differences noted.radek (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TVN

TVN presented yesterday a short documentary about B. partisans. They mentioned that the recent book may violate copy rights. There was a series of massacres 1943-1944, not only Naliboki massacre and Koniuchy massacre, some Jewish partizans were ordered to participate in them.Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary (in Polish) http://uwaga.onet.pl/15588,news,,krew_plynela_ulicami,reportaz.html Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but the IPN historians are saying now (in Rzepa and other places) that it was a different unit of Jewish partisans, one much more directly under Soviet command, not the Bielskis.radek (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious: how the recent book can be violating copyrights? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Duffy - what's new?

According to Polish news agency PAP Peter Duffy has used Tec's book as a source. Does Duffy's book deserve to be quoted here?Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that the book meeets the criteria of WP:RS. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Duffy, claiming that Bielskis visited Naliboki destroied by Germans, meets different criteria. Xx236 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When writing an article about his book some time ago, my impression was that is was a very one sided "hero-worship-like" portrayal.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

what do the reviews say? (including reviews from non-Jewish non-Polish sources.) Our own impressions of the book are irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That was what the reviews were saying, I haven't read the book.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Which reviews would those have been? The only reviews that I could find were favorable. They were from book publications in the United States, where the Duffy book was published. While I am aware of articles in publications in Poland concerning that book, those were not book reviews. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Communist"

There's no evidence that I know of that the Bielski partisans were "Communist." We need to keep that out unless there is reliable sourcing. --Stetsonharry (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

?? They were Soviet-aligned. Hence they were communist-affiliated (on paper, at least). It doesn't work any other way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

During the war, Churchill and Roosevelt were both aligned with the Soviets, and they certainly weren't Communists. We had a lend-lease program that send millions of dollars worth of airplanes to the Soviet Union. To call the Bielski partisans "Communist" requires more than just affiiliation with the Soviet partisans, but an ideological stance. From all I've seen, their primary if not only mission was the rescue of Jews, and was not ideological at all. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as we agree that they were part of the Soviet partisans, I don't particularly care whether they are described as communist. In fact my reading suggests that Bielski's payed only an appearance tribute to the ideology, and didn't care much for its implementation, which later was one of the accusations used by NKVD against them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, most Jewish partisans in those areas allied themselves with the Soviet partisans for many different reasons including the fact that AK did not welcome Jews in their ranks due to (among other things) mistrust. Behavior of some members of Jewish community during the Soviet Invasion of Poland was one of the reason but another reason was also pure anti-Semitism among some AK members. Bielski's partisans however were not communists.--Jacurek (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But the Bielski brothers had to pay the lip-service to communism during their meetings with their Soviet allies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct.--Jacurek (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the above stated facts are true but I still don't think this is enough to refer to them as "communist" - true, they did have to pay lip service to the ideology in order not to get arrested and deported or killed by the Soviets but this was true of a lot of people who got caught up in all the mess. The way I remember (I don't have Tec's book handy), Zus had some communist leanings but actually spending time with the Soviets cured him of most of that, while Tuvia was somewhat Zionist but mainly concerned with saving Jews (non-ideological).radek (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Jacurek, while it's true that often AK was reluctant to take in Jews, this didn't have that much to do with anti-semitism. Rather it was the result of the fact that they had lost of potential volunteers and few weapons (in economics we'd say "labor abundant, capital scarce), so they only accepted able bodied men, preferably ones who already came with weapons and ones who could be vouched for by reliable acquittances (this meant that it was much easier for "assimilated" Jews, who had pre-war Polish contacts, to join). They turned down a lot of Polish "civilians" as well. Note that this was something that initially the Bielskis' also struggled with - whether or not to accept non-armed civilians. In the end the Bielskis decided to accept everybody, but then their purpose and orientation was different from that of the AK (saving people vs. armed insurrection).radek (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

James Bond or reality?

Any partisans, AK including, inflated their successes. The goal of the Bielski partisans was to save many Jews. To survive they had to collect food (sometimes by force). They weren't able to fight Germans near their partisan camps, because Germans would have answered with pacifications. They probably reported killed peasants as collaborators. Compare several descriptions of the Koniuchy massacre: 30-300 victims. Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bielski partisans. 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/20110718023830/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/61991,256256_Bielski__w_puszczy__niedomowien.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/61991,256256_Bielski__w_puszczy__niedomowien.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 22:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

partisan activities were aimed at the Germans ?

Very strange, the German Wiki (very similar) text doesn't say at the Germans, which is probably true.Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone's pushing a POV a bit.

in the new government set up by the Soviets - the Soviet administration was illegal, based on Nazi-Soviet treaties, The new administration robbed, imprisoned and deported. .Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So what's your point? Was a new government set up? Yes, it was. Did the Soviets set it up? Yes, they did. The expression seems to correctly describe the facts. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bielski partisans. 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://www.rp.pl/artykul/61991%2C256256_Bielski__w_puszczy__niedomowien.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009458-defiance/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220210329/http://www.citinet.net/ak/polska_66_f2.html to http://www.citinet.net/ak/polska_66_f2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718034701/http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html to http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611155759/http://www.ushmm.org//museum//exhibit//focus//antisemitism//voices//transcript//?content=20090312 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20090312

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bielski partisans. 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/20110310092322/http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/37115 to http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/37115/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016210705/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=198&id=3376&search=35098 to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=198&id=3376&search=35098
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414201448/http://www.geschichtswerkstatt-europa.org/project-details/items/bielski.html to http://www.geschichtswerkstatt-europa.org/project-details/items/bielski.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129084948/http://www.courageandcompassionexhibit.com/ to http://www.courageandcompassionexhibit.com/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"Further reading"

In and out has gone:

• Musial, Bogdan, Sowjetische Partisanen 1941–1941: Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009.ISBN 978-3-50676-687-8

Leaving aside the error in the title, it seems unlikely to me this merits inclusion. It is not as specific to the Bielski partisans as the other items, but more importantly the author might politely be described as not entirely mainstream; more frankly, involved in thinly veiled anti-Semitism. "The Holocaust is a supplementary religion for Judaism.", or here p.87 where "he insists that his evaluation of events constitutes the 'the truth', which is hidden from the public because influential communist circles in the post-1989 government wish to suppress it", or in plainer language, he's a conspiracy theorist. Likewise Der Spiegel is distinctly dubious about Musial - "Unkritisch übernimmt Musial die antisemitischen Klischees von Zeitzeugen".

I don't think a book with a lesser connection to the Bielskis of dubious provenance merits inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Musial's work has been widely criticized (this work included), and there are quite some flags around Jewish topics per Commentary. Add to that that the book is not about the Bielski partisans and is in German (this being the English Wikipedia) and we can readily see this is not something one would suggest as further reading.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed Musial as in foreign language and not helpful to readers. I also removed some of the excessive / dead links. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Musial's book is in German so it would not be generally useful to en.wiki readers. Also see WP:NOCONSENSUS; materials in ext links and Further reading sections are generally removed if there's no consensus to keep them. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

”Musial’s work has been widely criticized”? I would suggest to look at this first [5] and remind you about the recents attempts to purge Mark Paul, initiated by the same user.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: ""Commented on a talk page" is an insufficient justification for a revert. I pointed out WP:NOCONSENSUS; the book is not used as a source, so it's reliability is immaterial to the present discussion. Please consider self-reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see further discussion about it. I’m sorry but my experience with one of the editors involved instantly raises a red flag and questions grounds for removal. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but I demand input from others. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Well, you could demand input from others after self-reverting, since relevant guidelines have been pointed out, such as WP:FURTHER & WP:NOCONSENSUS. In any case, two other editors support removal at this point, not just the editor you disagree with. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got input from others - right there, above. It says this should be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that not liking an editor is not grounds for reverts, or for entering WP:SPS to Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have clear opposition to remove this material. Please gain wider consensus instead of deciding among yourself.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way here. WP:ONUS on you to show a reason to include. I will note that regardless of this being a very criticized work (by an even more criticized author, in particular in relation to his views on Jews and Jewish history) that is fairly off topic for this group of partisans (reasons enough to exclude), the WP:NONENGEL content guideline is fairly specific on external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. - which would have us exclude this German language book merely for being non-English.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is 180 degrees opposite to what you are saying.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that Icewhiz is citing policy to support their position. You've also been pointed to WP:NOCONSENSUS. The onus is now on you to persuade us this item should be included. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This squirreling away of reference materials is nothing else than a way of rendering useful sources of information unavailable to readers who might benefit from it. Nihil novi (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A good way to include it is to use it as a reference. Does Musial mention the Bielski's? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

100.000 RM

Reward information is sourced now. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As it already was, both to the link you incorrectly removed as dead and - as you know - to the very first cite in the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it was dead. I linked it properly.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. This edit of yours removes this link with the edit summary "dead link to ref". The link was and is not dead, although it does require Javascript, and it also contains the information pertaining to the reward, so that information is not "sourced now" since it always was. You have subsequently edited another link which actually was dead, which perhaps is what has confused you. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"War Crimes" - UNDUE

I removed the section. The whole section is based on innuendo in Polish media reports (to a large extend, around the movie release), and on an IPN investigator replying to questions and saying they were also looking into this possibility (on the early stage, at the time, Naliboki investigation - which has since been closed been on-going, but some 8+ years ago they concluded there was no link) . Even the IPN, a political agency, decided in the end there was was no connection (based on the rather clear evidence that the Bielski group only arrived in the area several months later). There is no credible source that actually makes this connection. The section, as it was, was refuting an allegation that wasn't substantiated in the section itself.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Modified to reflect case is still open (the link to Bielski has been dismissed years ago).Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not based on "innuendo in Polish media reports" as the provided sources make clear. Why are you making false statements about the sourcing? And you are also repeating the completely false assertion that IPN is a "political agency" (sic). You've been corrected on this point multiple times, yet you persist on repeating this falsehood. Apparently you're doing this on purpose. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - IPN appointments are political, and the reports here are from the prosecutor/lustration department. HOWEVER - what is lacking here is any source actually making the connection presently. The IPN initially (back in 2003 or so) said it was looking into it (as one of many possibilities) - it has since dropped this possibility - for the past decade or so. Do you have any contemporary source making this connection? A peer reviewed journal article? An academically published book? Coverage of the IPN's differing accounts on various matters may be DUE for the IPN article, but not for a very well studied and covered subject such as this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not. You are puling claims out of thin air. I, nor Wikipedia, doesn't really care what your thoughts on the subject are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note, that the IPN's prosecution/lustration motivations, role as a "memory policeman", and the controversies surrounding them, is a matter of academic study - Histories of State Surveillance in Europe and Beyond, Routledge, pages 106-107 - however that is neither here nor there in this particular case as the IPN itself is not longer making a connection to the Bielski partisans.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note also that there is a WP:BLPCRIME issue here, as one of the Bielski brothers is still alive (and possibly also lesser known members of the group) - this is particularly an issue given the article's name, and given that the connection here is based on a preliminary investigation (akin, perhaps, to a police investigation) that mentioned this as one of several possibilities - that has led to no actual charges, with the investigators since dropping this angle.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What the hell does lustration have to do with the Bielski brothers??? You're stretching things just to attack a source you don't like.

And no, there's no freakin' BLPCRIME issue. Stop making stuff up. First, the text explicitly states that the Bielski brothers themselves were not involved in this massacre. Second, even if that wasn't the cases, sources are sources and this still wouldn't be a BLP issue. Holy cow, you really pull random stuff out just to try to get your way. Ridiculous.

Also, as to the merits - the results released later (in 2016?) in no way contradict the earlier results. They mostly repeat them and add a couple details. To pretend that because there were newer results, the old results no longer apply is to be extremely disingenuous. It would helps us all if you refrained from these kinds of misrepresentations of sources (which you've also done at other articles) and stopped trying to misuse policies or make up random reasons for your WP:TEND edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no "results" - the investigation, as of Feb 2018, is ongoing (ODDZIAŁOWA KOMISJA W ŁODZI (STAN NA LUTY 2018 R.), IPN, Feburary 2018). The IPN has dropped the Bielski possibility (and it was only ever one of several possibilities they would investigate - they never concluded anything regarding this angle, merely said they were looking into it) years ago. Do you have a scholarly source, or alternatively a current IPN document making the connection?Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "The IPN has dropped the Bielski possibility"? What the hell is the "Bielski possibility" anyway? The "results" are obviously there - your own link shows that (!??!!???!!!!) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Plagiat

The quoted book is a plagiat, says Grabowski's center. [6] Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC) The GW text isn't available under existing link, I have corrected it. Is quoting a legally problematic source acceptable? Especially when someone declares his high academic demands. Th ebook isn't academic. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of this issue, we should avoid this book (and other non-English sources) per WP:NOENG. The English language Defiance is available, as are other works.Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing, conflict with the Home Army

Per WP:NOENG we prefer English language sources of equal quality - this is all the more true when a source of lower quality (a government agency with reputation issues and stated WP:BIAS towards communist forces) is presented. There is no lack of high quality English language sources on the Bielski partisans and they should be used here per WP:NOENG which is policy. When adding disputed material - one is expected to follow WP:BRD - this has not happened here in regards to this content.

In terms of English language sourcing - this revert removed high quality content from Joshua D. Zimmerman's well regarded English language book on the topic, published by Cambridge University Press. The collaboration of the Home Army forces with the Nazies in the Nowogródek is directly on topic - Adolf Pilch's battalion operated in the Naliboki forest, and as stated in the reverted section - engaged in warfare against the Bielski partisans and the Bielski partisans participated in the arrest of some of Pilch's battalion in December 1943. Certainly a section on the Bielski/AK angle can not be written without covering the AK's specific local area collaboration with the Nazi forces in the Naliboki forest.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We've been over this. WP:NOENG is not about this issue. IPN is fine as a source. Please cut it out with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's disruptive. As is your constant slow-motion edit warring to remove reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What is that “government agency with reputation issues” can you please name that agency? GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN, coverage of which has been decidedly negative in academic publications in the last decade, e.g. the overtly nationalist of its mission led to ots over-politicization. "memory+politics"&source=bl&ots=YfVHILvCmH&sig=XTjXYIMXExiyPDDfVeLqdyEkq0k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiS5oOdsObbAhWGKVAKHb_tAmIQ6AEwAXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=ipn%20"memory%20politics"&f=false. Besides the reputation issues of this non-academic institution, as the source is not in English, and we have several better and much more detailed English sources for the same content the WP:NOENG policy clearly excludes this source in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The 200,000 story doesn't come from the IPN, so not only the IPN is controversial.

There was no one IPN during the last decade, but three:

• Patriotic under Kurtyka (who died in 2010).
• Liberal (Gryciuk, Kamiński).
• Szarek rules since 2016, so his influence has been limited. He may be allegedly replaced.

The quoted Janine Holc is American. She quotes Kozubal, a journalist who writes about everything and Behr, I don't know who is Behr. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The book contains more than 600 pages. Icewhiz selects individual pages WP:Cherrypicking.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

He demands also Please discuss rather than edit warring in content. You may be reminded the words some day.Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It has 600 pages, should I have quoted them all? Most of the book is not abouttheIPN's memory politics.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. You're not convincing anyone of your little crusade. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to show it is a RS - something which has not been done. I have actually convinced a few editors this is a questionable source, and to date there has been no serious discussion on the IPN (particularly following its political shift to PiS leadership in the IPN, which occured IIRC around 2007) - that has closed with a consensus either way. WP:NOENG is policy - and Zimmerman and Tec cover this topic at much greater detail (and in a mainstream academic setting) than the IPN. Why are you excluding content from Zimmerman? Finally, introducing material in Bielski's conflicts with AK units and villages while excluding well sourced information (Zimmerman) in the murder of Jewish partisans and the collaboration with the Nazis by the AK unit headed by Pilch that was in the Naliboki forest and in direct conflict with the Bielski units is a serious NPOV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No, since it's primarily just you who's running around claiming it's not RS, since no, you haven't convinced anyone as far as I'm aware, and since these publications are written by professional historians, the ONUS is actually not on me. One intransigent editor cannot hold consensus hostage, that's actually disruptive. On top of everything else, you yourself tried to use IPN (with regard to Piotr Smietanski [7]) when it happened to fit in with your POV. Just like, in a reverse kind of way, you tried to use far-right anti-semitic sources when it supported your POV (on Marek Jan Chodkiewicz). I'm starting to think you don't really care about reliability of any given source, only whether or not it supports your WP:AGENDA. Convince me otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, where am I excluding Zimmerman? Your edit summary suggests that it's YOU who's removing Zimmerman (though I'm not clear on what you're referring to).

Also, why are you POVing the Background section by changing "occupied by Soviet Union" to "administered by Soviet Union". Is this another one of your attempts to provoke other editors? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is preferable to a blog post, which is what your diff shows. It is also a PRIMARY source as to what the IPN says. It is not a reputable secondary academic source. Per NOENG, even if we were to consider this a reliable source, it would be excluded anyway when we have equal academic sources covering the same content - which in this case we do.

As for the Soviet Union - this area was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939 and remained in Soviet control after the war - and is presently in modern day Belarus. People in this area were considered Soviet subjects by the Soviets (and several other countries, and eventually all countries), we should not take sides here.

As for Zimmermam - you wholesale removed diff a section on Relations with Polish Home Army which Zimmerman covers in detail, and contains both positive relations (prior to Pilch), Pilch arriving, Pilch's incident with the Jewish band, the Soviet arrest (with 50 men from Bielski's unit in the 400 men unit) of most of Pilch's men, and Pilch's turning to the Nazis - all this in regards to the AK unit Bileski were in conflict with! An attack on a Stolpce strongpoint is currently presented without context on who the Stolpce battalion were.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is fine. Sorry, get over it. It's not PRIMARY (lol!)

Re: Soviet considering the people they conquered their subjects - so what? Again, are you purposefully trying to be offensive?

Re: Zimmerman. Ah yes, you tried to insert an off topic POVFORK about Plich into the article. Only the first paragraph of that text is relevant (and I think there was a version of it in the article until you got on it and screwed it up all to hell).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing offensive is refering to historical reality. The entire section I entered in Pilch wass relevant - the Bielskis had a unit in the arrest of most of Pilch's men, and Pilch's unit was the main AK unit in the sector - that following receptions of German arms - continued fighting the Bieslskis and the Soviets.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"There is nothing offensive is referring to historical reality." whatever man. The historical reality is that it was a brutal occupation not a freakin' "administration".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Stalin was generally brutal in areas he ruled (and Western Belarus and Ukraine in 39-41 are hardly the "most brutal") - you won't find me defending Stalin (nor the Second Polish Republic - many of the residents here welcomed the Soviets due to repressions under Polish rule in 21-39 and atrocities in the preceeding war). However, this area was annexed to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, and was adminstered as part of the Soviet Union - the residents treated in a manner similar to the rest of the Soviet Union. As the area was annexed (and remained part of Belarus till present day), it was not technically occupied. The Polish government in exile claimed it was (with some support till 44-45) - however we should ascribe to a NPOV description, and not take sides.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Two reverts?

Volunteer Marek Please explain the following:

1. Why is this undue? I would think the group's relations with other underground groups, whether solid or strenuous, are relevant to this article.
2. Much of this edit is from a single Polish sources which requires translation. In the same edit:
   1. The phrase their record wasn't significant... their group of 1000 partisans managed to kill only 17 Germans is either OR or POV, as it assumes their goals were similar to others partisan groups, but they weren't: Don’t rush to fight and die. So few of us are left, we need to save lives. It is more important to save Jews than to kill Germans.. Growing from four to 1,200 - the largest partisan group in Europe - in three years is remarkable, not insignificant.
   2. The whole paragraph about "stealing from peasants" is extremely biased. It looks like a repetition of the "bandits" stereotypes (which we discussed elsewhere). If you want to include that I've no objection, but you have to give the context - they weren't plain "thieves".
   3. The whole "relations quickly worsened" paragraph is just short of using the word "persecution". We need more material on that - mainly on the motives of the Soviet authorities and communications between villagers and the authorities.
   4. The "allegations of war crimes" section is problematic for several reasons - mainly because it looks like a pile of "some say"s - but also because it's exceedingly hypocritical and partial (in both senses of the word) by claiming they attacks AK forces without mentioning them being attacked by AK forces, painting a false picture of undiscriminating one-side violence. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I will note that partisans, in general, mainly fought other irregular groups (partisans) and local collaborating forces. This is true for almost all of these groups (Tito might be an exception, maybe, late stage) - and also for the AK Polish elements - whom per one very notable historian killed more Jews (100-200k) than Germans (less than 30k). In this particular region, the Bielskis' main rivals were collaborating or unaffiliated Poles and Belarusians.Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Clarify.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz Armia Krajowa killed 100-200k Jews and 30k Germans? Who was that notable historian you claimed that? GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross, the most coted historian in the topic in the past two decades.[8].Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you have just shot in your foot. Gross hasn't mentioned the Home Army. Do you understand the subject or you want to dehumanize the Home Army or Poles in general? It's the first step to any genocide, wtrites Zimmermann.Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I indeed struck AK above - 16 minutes after writing it - to match Gross - who does say The perpetrators were sometimes Polish peasants, members of guerrilla organizations, or people who held roles in the local officialdom, such as village heads or employees of district offices, said Gross, quoting historians’ papers with witness testimonies..Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

IPN Bulletin as a source + misrepresentations

This is not a suitable source, for a number of reasons -

1. Per my reading this sources has been misrepresented in our text several times. The most glaring is the replacement of "kill" with "murder", however there are additional problems as well.
2. WP:NOENG when far better sources are available in English for each assertion - considering that the Bielski partisans have been covered in whole length books in English, as well as shorter segments in other works - we have more than enough English material.
3. The general reputation of the IPN - As covered by RS, the IPN has a poor reputation and is highly biased: (overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization[9], Who has been promoting the anti-semitic fascist NSZ as "heros",[10], and recently has been ordered by the government to popularize history as "an element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation.[11]).
4. Irregardless of the reputation of the IPN in general, the IPN publishes a wide variety of a material. Some material purports to adhere to scientific standards (e.g. Wokół Jedwabnego would be an example). However other material, such as press roundups, press releases, or a music CD featuring skinhead nationalist bands[12] is not scientific. The Bulletin itself, is a popular audience magazine, distributed in post offices. Many of the writers in the Bulletin do not hold a PhD, the entire staff is IPN - with no independent editorial control of review.
5. The article itself does not comport to scientific standards. A minor issues is that the author doesn't have a PHD(seems the author did receive a PhD in 2012), however more significant is the hyperbolic tone, the focus on anecdotes (e.g. sausages), and the lack of any citation of sources.

Please discuss here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Can be included, but should be represented accurately.
2. Per local policy that would be correct. We're not exactly covering cutting-edge research here, so English secondary sources should be enough. That being said, where there's special value in some IPN publication an editor should be required to include an English translation or summary in a note.
3. This changes by period and IPN chair. I don't think it precludes IPN entirely as an RS on specific findings of fact from before 2017, but I'd be very careful citing it for conclusions. A harsher standard should be employed for publications from 2017 onwards, when the new law passed, at least until its reliability in light of the new law is established.
4. We need a better understanding of the range of IPN publications. On more than one occasion someone cited a brochure or some sort of light introductory text where a solid scholarly work was due. Also: Seriously?
5. Formal education is not strictly a necessity nor something we should ignore completely, but that depends on the field - in some fields it's not uncommon for an author with little or no post-secondary education to be highly notable; in history it's relatively rare AFAICT, with the exception being the odd journalist. Hyperbole, non-representative anecdotes and lack of citations, however, are clear hallmarks of poor-quality work.

François Robere (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No.

1. If a source is being misrepresented, then we fix the misrepresentation, not throw out the source. What kind of logic is that???

1. As has been explained to you on numerous occasions (even at RSN i believe), WP:NOENG does not say what you claim what it says. It says "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. ". The way you are saying that WP:NOENG reads would mean that anyone can remove any non-English sources pretty much any time any English source on the same topic (but which is about a different aspect of the topic) can be removed. This is just absurd. You are basically claiming, erroneously, that WP:NOENG gives you a blanket license to remove any non-English language source you don't like, presumably because you have not been able to convince ANYONE that this source is not reliable. That's not how it works and this persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS. If you must, you can inquire about the proper interpretation of the policy over at WP:RSN or at the WP:NOENG talk page. Barring that, please desist from continually bringing this fallacy up.

1. This is a false assertion on your part. You are mistaking your own personal idiosyncratic opinion for consensus. You have not been able to convince anyone - not on any article talk page, not at WP:RSN, of this assertion. Unless you can get consensus for this notion of yours at WP:RSN please desist from continually bringing this fallacy up.

1. Your assertion that IPN published "music CD featuring skinhead nationalist bands" is false. Even according to the source you quote, which is very biased (the author is a director of an advocacy group which has had numerous conflicts with IPN and who represents a fringe political movement, although on the left (basically Polish version of Antifa)).

1. You actually didn't even bother to link to the text or the article you're referring to. Who is the author? What article? What are you talking about? It's impossible to verify your claim, regardless of whether it's actually relevant.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The source in question is Kazimierz Krajewski – „Opór”? „Odwet”? Czy po prostu „polityka historyczna”? nr 3/2009 - Instytut Pamięci Narodowej. As for RSN consensus - it works the other way around - there has been no serious discussion regarding the IPN Bulletin on RSN AFAICT. Per Rafal Pankowski - a dr. in Sociology, and published by Routledge - "the IPN advertised and promoted a music compilation CD in tribute to the NSZ featuring, among others, various skinhead and nationalist bands" - that is a WP:RS saying that. And there's not lack of sources regarding the IPN's recentish role in the commemoration and lionization of this fascist organization. Most of the articles in the 2009 bulletin do not have citations (some have some - this one doesn't), and this is a mass market publication distributed in post offices. Per google scholar (where this does show up - but so does crud from various unreliable think tanks) - this has been cited 0 times by anyone else.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"it works the other way around" - no it doesn't. It's a source by a scholar in the area. No one except you has questioned this source's reliability. IPN has come up on RSN several times and several editors commented it's reliable. You're the only one who didn't. This is you ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. I also note that when you found something in an IPN publication which aligned with your views, you were happy to use it (like on Piotr Smietanski). So apparantly, EVEN YOU regard it reliable... sometimes, when it suits your purpose. This is sort of how apparently you also regard far-right anti-semitic publications as reliable (like on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz) when it suits your purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bulletin is available online - here, and this is a self-description. If anyone wants to pick up the latest edition - it is available at these post offices, advertised along side this and this.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

While not perhaps treated as a scientific publication, the IPN Bulletin has been the subject of scientific study. per The Post-Communist Condition: Public and private discourses of transformation (chapter - Power, knowledge and faith discourse), some snippets:

1. Scholars from the Institute of National Remembrance constitute a bastion of conservative historiography. I deliberately use the word “bastion”, but perhaps it is just an “island”?
2. The audience of its message is mostly the youth and its teachers: 12,000 copies from the 15,000 circulation go (for free) to all types of secondary schools throughout Poland. The rest of the circulation is available at a moderate price and can be found in bookshops among the social-cultural journals. (seems the post office thing is new).
3. The image of the Institute performing the mission of satisfying the social desire for truth about the history of Poland, which, until now, was being falsified, is outlined in these two sentences.
4. A number of similar examples of the IPN’s missionary struggles for the truth can be found in the Bulletin;
5. It should be emphasised that in the discourse of the debate to define the Polish historical policy, references to the figure and texts of Pope John Paul II (Pamięć i tożsamość – “Memory and Identity”) appear very often
6. since at least 2006 , it "has been full of the language of moral values", it promotes heros, "language characteristic of a religious discourse appears in the Bulletin".
7. Together with the radicalization of the state authorities’ attitude towards the communist past, the image emerging from the IPN’s publications sharpen. The notions of the recent history of Poland, created by the IPN discourse represented by the publications of the Bulletin in the last years, is a sharp, black and white image of a fight: the clashing of a Christian nation, in the name of the eternal value – freedom – with the repression apparatus of a communist regime, imposed by strangers. There is no room in this discourse for greyness or nuance, or for the suspension of the moral assessment of the events, people and their deeds.

A semi-religious tract for schools.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol. I have no idea what that is. Anyway, you can take it to WP:RSN... again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, even if all these things were true (though frankly, this reads like some po-mo jibberish rant), that would not make the source non-RS. The good folks over at WP:RSN can explain this to you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on those who wish to include.Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This may be better discussed at Talk:Institute of National Remembrance (since we don't have a separate page for the Biuletyn). But first, John Benjamins Publishing Company is a minor publisher, reliable - but not more then IPN. The publication is Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, which is a book series ([13]), not an academic journal, AFAIK. And in my experience, book series have lower peer review standards then academic journals. The quotes above are from the chapter 'Power, knowledge and faith discourse: The Institute of National Remembrance' by pl:Marta Kurkowska-Budzan, a seemingly reliable Polish historian. Still, this is one historian criticizing an institution that employs dozens if not hundreds of academics. Her criticism may be relevant and worthy adding to the IPN's page, but it is hardly a relevant here - her (sole?) voice is very much a WP:FRINGE view at this point. PS. pl:Kazimierz Krajewski is at least as reliable as her, and more likely to have a higher academic profile, being older and having more publications. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

She is criticizing the Bulletin specifically (as opposed to the IPN generally) - which factually is not a scientific publication (no citations, no semblance of independent review (e.g. from outside the institution)) - the Bulletin is described in this RS --Behr, Valentin. "Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland: a sociological approach to the narratives of communism." European Politics and Society 18.1 (2017): 81-95. as Research at the IPN differs from academic work in several respects (Behr, 2011). First, researchers do not only conduct scientific projects; they are also required to take part in educational and public outreach initiatives such as exhibitions, short publications designed for lay readers and youth (like the monthly IPN bulletin), websites, and even board games. The purpose of this deliberately synthetic history, reduced to a playful and attractive format, begs the question: does it seek to popularize knowledge about the past, or to turn it into a political tool?. The IPN does have publications that purport to be scientific - this one however doesn't.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In my experience it's likely fair to compare it to a popular science magazine/portal. Still reliable, though, unless exposing controversial/fringe views, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of what is sourced from it is controversial, and doesn't appear in this form in other sources. At best this is a popular audience magazine (if we ignore the negative coverage of the IPN at large and the Bulletin specifically in RS). If you add to this a bit of misrepresentation of this source (e.g. at present we have a 75 year old district-wide (from a rather notorious (in this respect) district command - which included Bolesław Piasecki of the National Radical Camp Falanga) anti-Jewish tract (towards Jewish partisans at large) that doesn't mention the Bielski group at all - presented as if it does) - the point of WP:NOENG becomes rather clear.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"The entirety of what is sourced from it is controversial, and doesn't appear in this form in other sources" - that is not true. It just doesn't appear in sources which you have unilaterally decided to use. The same info can be found in several other sources, some of which are already in the article, though with different details.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

This is a misleading edit summary. The information that the unit's primary goal was survival is NOT included in the organization section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should - but most of the paragraph is duplicated in the organization section and it better sourced - you do not need a questionable source such as the bulletin for this. This diff contains a misrepresentation of the unreliable source you are citing - as does this.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree on both questions. There is a difference between "activities" and "organization". But please suggest appropriate text which addresses both.

Icewhiz, on my talk [14] you said that the source is being misrepresented. Putting this invented non-reliability fantasy aside, what is suppose to be misrepresented? Please point it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already pointed this out (in edit summaries and at the top of this thread) - I will not repeat myself - you would do well to swiftly correct this - you own this content you described as "well sourced". As for the IPN bulletin - there clearly isn't a consensus this missionary-moral tract distributed mainly in schools and post offices is reliable - and besides assertions - you have not pointed out to a discussion indicating otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you will have to repeat yourself, otherwise, I can't address your concerns. None of your edit summaries actually address any "misrepresentations". One edit summary references duplication. Another only claims it's a misrepresentation but fails to explain how or why. Similarly at the top of this thread you actually fail to link to the material which is suppose to be being misrepresented in your first point and your other four points don't say anything about misrepresentation (despite your misleading section title).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page (VM), statement by Icewhiz: "You would do well to check your introduction of several instances of murder, war crimes (OR), a singular witness stmt that became a generalized one, misreprsentation of what two year period is discussed in the source. You have also chosen to remove actual RSes (in English) describing the same events in the NOENG source, duplicated Platon's investigation (based on the non RS) in a manner that misrepresents the investigation and makes it appear in our text as if these were two. Oh, and you also removed a RS describing revenge killings. I am not sure what is worse here - the non-RS being introduced or the misrepresentations -I surely have missed a few here - however, you are reaponsible for this edit.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 18:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)"'' <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Volunteer Marek|contribs]]) </small>

Alleged "duplication" is not a misrepresentation. And the source is RS. Here is a link if you believe otherwise: WP:RSN

Regarding the word "murder" as opposed to "killing" - the source specifically uses "murder".

Regarding the word "war crime". The investigation was indeed into whether a crime was committed.

I have no idea what "a singular witness stmt that became a generalized one" means. Presumably it refers to the testimony of one of the partisans and an eye witness, Esther Gorodejska. What does "became a generalized one" mean though?

I have not introduced any non-RS, please stop making stuff up. You are always welcome to go to WP:RSN and try to make your case (again, since last time no one agreed with you).

I have not introduced any misrepresentations.

And if you feel that you "surely have missed a few here" (no kidding), well, I can't help you with that.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"misreprsentation of what two year period is discussed in the source" - can you please explain specifically, by quoting the exact text from the article that you have a problem with? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"You have also chosen to remove actual RSes (in English) describing the same events in the NOENG source" - every source which was used in your version of the article is used in the present version of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, this is a personal attack and a false allegation [15].Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

1. WP:ONUS on you to show that a source without any citations, described as missionary and religoius in a RS, and aimed for indoctrinating school children is a RS. It is clearly inappropriate, and you have not established consensus.
2. A duplication of the same investigation - without mentioning the result the second time and making it read as if this occured twice - is a misrepresentation.
3. The IPN's "investigation" into Naliboki (from which the Bieslki group was removed almost a decade ago) perhaps fits under "allegations" (though it is surely UNDUE to describe these allegations with this language per coverage in actual IRS of this). However, the content introduced (from a missionary text for schools) of other events - are not. You have also mangled Musial - who is referring to Naliboki and not to the introduced paragraph.
4. "strip naked" (sourced to a newspaper) is a singular account - misrepresented as several.
5. Besides being a highly BIASED non-RS (as evident in the description of Pilch) - in several cases the source says killed, not murdered.
6. As for removing a academic English source and replacing it with non-English newspaper, the this was removed here in violation of WP:NOENG and general RS policy of prefering higher quality sources. It has since been returned, but now we have poor Kessler executed twice, the second time misspelling his name. So no - this is not a "personal attack" - but a factual description of an English academic source being replaced with Rzeczpospolita.Icewhiz (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
7. The non-RS is referring to an internal Bielski action report ending in Nov 1943 (a period of low conflict (and the Bielski group was quite small in 42), on all sides, in this area that was deep behind the German front line - things got "hotter" end of 43 and 44) - even the non-RS makes this clear. At the very least the time period needs to be clear. It would also make sense to place this non-RS addition next to other assessments at the end of the "Activities" section.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1. No. You're the only one who holds this belief (and of course your characterization of the source is... strange, to say the least). So no, it's on you. WP:RSN is that way. Why are you so afraid of actually bringing it there? You've been told/requested/asked to ask at WP:RSN numerous times. Yet you have generally failed to do that. Perhaps... you know that nobody will agree with you?

2. No. A duplication is not a misrepresentation and this wasn't even a duplication. It was two different people. Anyway, I've combined the text, so this shouldn't be an issue. Drop it.

3. ? Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Please be specific about the text you have problem with. Can't help you otherwise.

4. Ahhh! Here you are finally being specific, so we know what it is you're going on about. So it's not the Esther Gorodejska stuff. It's the Tuvia's cousin stuff. See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Please continue this practice of cooperation with other editors in the future. Anyway, it's a singular account but it says it was a common practice.

5. No, it's RS, and no, it says "murdered". Please reference the sentence in the source which does not say "murdered" unlike our article.

6. Can't answer this except in the same way as I already did - those sources are in the article. And poor Kessler is not being executed twice. The first sentence says he was executed. The second sentence describes the circumstances of his execution. And stop it with WP:NOENG. If you truly believe in your extremist, radical and idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NOENG that no one else actually holds, then go to the talk page of WP:NOENG and inquire about it. Not that difficult.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

7. Since all the sources currently being used in the article are reliable, I don't know what you are referring to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

More generally, Icewhiz, you have made numerous and repeated false accusations against me, here and on my user talk page. I've tolerated them in the interest of cooperation but there's only so much good faith anyone can muster, especially when you force others to repeat the same thing over and over again. Likewise, I've tried my best to placate and address your concerns over content. Hell, in many instances you forced me to have to guess what your own concerns were, rather than doing me and others the courtesy of actually articulating them. I've bent over backwards here. You sincerely might wish to consider whether yours is a collaborative approach to editing. From numerous discussions across this topic (other topics you're involved in as well) it's evident that I'm not the only one who wishes you took that advice to heart.

I think all your concerns have been adequately addressed. If you wish to pursue these matters further, the following pages are appropriate: WP:RSN, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:DRN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You haved failed to gain consensus for use of this non-RS. The non-RS is used with a dose of OR (e.g. war crimes - which it does not say in regards to the event inserted to the section), and some of the "kill" in the source are replaced with "murder" (which is a NPOV issue in any event to a conflict betweeen enemy forces, particularly since this is a BIASED source). And Musial's blurb on "stealing" (yet another npov issue) is still in the wrong paragraph in the "allegations" section - and since it does not say Naliboki, it is misrepresented as occuring in Lidzkie. Responsibility for not misrepresenting a source is first and foremost on the editor editing it in, see WP:CIR. In any event WP:ONUS here has not been met for inclusion of this biased non-English, non-RS, that has been cited 0 times by anyone else and which has a widely divergent interpretation than other widely cited works - making most of the use of it UNDUE regardlesss.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Boys, please. Calm down. Can anyone explain exactly what this is about? What is misrepresented and why? Also: Marek, I asked [Two reverts?|some questions]] above, at least one of which (about the Bielski's record) seems relevant here as well. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The non-RS and UNDUE IPN Bulletin (e.g. user of "murder" instead of "kill") - but frankly since we should not be using such a source at all, I prefer we discuss that.Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources uses "murder".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN bulletin, in another indication of its low standard, does used murder in instances of combat deaths. However, our article, at least in some of the past versions, used murder, citing the Belletin, also when the source used kill.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

" in another indication of its low standard" - lol, so if a source says something you disagree with it, then it's automatically "low standard"? I don't think that's how it works Icewhiz.

"does used murder" - thanks for finally acknowledging that. Now, why did you deny it so many times previously?

"at least in some of the past versions, used ..." - and once again, this is just a vague and general claim that it's impossible to address it. Be specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"used murder in instances of combat deaths" - and this is also completely false. What combat deaths? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek do you have any other source? Presumably if this isn't WP:FRINGE there would be some. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Another source for what? It's not fringe. It's a historian. Who specializes in the topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying he is or isn't, I'm asking if you have another source. Icewhiz has several arguments here that would be resolved if you just find another source. Also: that statement about the Bielski's "record", as stated earlier, does seem awkward for a supposedly unbiased source. Can you provide the quote? François Robere (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Kazimierz Krajewski is a highly notable and reliable source. He is a distinguished historian who received in 2009 one of the highest awards in Poland the Order of Polonia Restituta in recognition of his work on researching Polish history[16]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a political award. Looking at him in google scholar he not cited kuch by others.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not a political award Icewhiz. And certainly a better source for describing history than a zoologist you tried to use[17].Anyway if you believe this historian is not RS take it to the noticeboard--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

ONUS on you.Icewhiz (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, that's not a magical incantation you chant at other editors which then magically gives the user Icewhiz the power to do anything he wants on Wikipedia and ignore its policies. User:MyMoloboaccount is correct and his statement further illustrates that you have not been able to convince anyone of your position. Consensus cannot be held hostage. What you are doing here is called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which is a form of disruptive behavior. What makes it worse is that you have recently threatened me with going to AE unless I let you do whatever you want, based on some ridiculous pretext. This is a content dispute - a content dispute in which you are in the wrong - and I have neither misrepresented a source nor broken any other rules. In fact I have bent over backwards to accommodate your concerns and please you. Yet you keep findings new things to (falsely) complain about - so this actually starts to look like you're not interest in improving the article or finding agreement but rather finding a pretext for launching another bad faithed AE report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

And please keep in mind User:Icewhiz that several administrators have warned you or express concerned with your editing practice, including in the last AE, including User:Vanamonde93 and User:NeilN. Your threat on my talk page, combined with your behavior on this talk page really suggests that your participation in this entire discussion was not actually meant to find common ground and consensus but rather as a way of getting to a point where you have some new excuse for a spurious WP:AE report. Please be aware that a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "I don't want to find agreement with someone I disagree with, I'd rather have them banned" is very unfortunate. So don't succumb to that temptation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not make a threat. I informed you of two serious misrepresentations of a source entered in an edit (that reverted a clearly marked rationale explaining the misrepresentation + a TP section) The correct response to that would be either to self revert or alternatively fix the introduced text so that it matches the source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Interjection of POV stmts

@Volunteer Marek: - you've added an "anti-Nazi" qualification here and here - please justify this from the cited sources. The units in this particular region (which had its own peculiar set of arrangements jn late 1943-1944 - truces with the Nazies, coordination, and arms supply) are not generally described this way in RSes for this period/place.Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously questioning that the Home Army was an "anti-Nazi" organization? This qualifies as common knowledge and provides important background. Your original research is interesting but out of place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally, the Home Army was opposed to the Nazis as the Nazis were opposed to the AK's overall aims. However we are discussing a particular time and place - in which the AK entered into "arrangements" with the Nazis and received supplies from the Nazis. Relevant sources for this time and place do not describe them as "anti Nazi". Anti-Soviet is used - as they were indeed engaged in anti-Soviet fighting in coordination and help of the Nazis. Common knowledge is not a source - do please remove this OR and misrepresentation of the language actually used by RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of defamatory misrepresentation

I removed this, as the source discusses a general anti-Jewish screed/demand by the AK district command towards the Soviets addressing Jewish partisans at large in the district. This is a very large district that had several independent Jewish groups in 1943, as well as many Jews integrated into Soviet units. The source does not refer specifically to the Bielski group (while our text was). Please discuss here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Why do you call it a "screed"? Is there any basis for this?

2. The text clearly attributes and explains that these were allegations and demands made by the Polish partisans. And indeed they were. Whether they were based in reality or not is a different question, but our text doesn't say anything about that.

3. The source specifically refers to the Bielski group and the Zorin group

Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The source, prior and after to this section, does indeed also discuss Zorin and Bielski. In this particular passage - the AK's district command is addressing Jews at large. Taking a defamatory generalization, which does not name this particular group, and saying that it does - is a defamatory misrepresentation of those falsely named.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The source refers specifically to Zorin and Bielski groups. The district command is referring to these groups. This is clear from the source - you seem to be saying that unless every sentence in the source says "Zorin and Bielski did this, Zorin and Bielski did that" then it's a "generalization". No, it's obvious what it's talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No. The source quotes the AK command, and the AK command says Jews - not Zorin nor Bielski. That the source discusses Bielski and Zorin elsewhere is irrelevant - this is a seriously defamatory misreprrsentation - as is placing material in "war crime allegations" without any basis in the source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph preceding, the paragraph it's in, and the subsequent paragraph are all about the Bielski and Zorin units. Oh, and the paragraph right after that. You're saying that just because one particular sentence doesn't specifically reference Bielski and Zorin - even though all the surrounding sentences do - it's a "generalization". It's a strange argument to make but you are welcome to convince others of it by opening an RfC or inquiring at WP:NPOVN, which are the appropriate venues for such things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your statement "without any basis in the source" is clearly false. Even your own argument is that there is some but not enough "basis in the source". Please refrain from using hyperbolic and misleading language.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Again - without any basis. This rather poor newly added highly biased source presents various anecdotes (sausages included), and then presents what the AK district command said, which is "Jews". Misrepresenting sources to such a degree is a conduct issue, not a content issue. The source does not state what was entered into pur text - plain and simple.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Duffy

Peter Duffy's book is a hagiography and as such is not a reliable source for statements of fact. Just like we wouldn't use the Daniel Craig film we shouldn't use this for claims of fact either. If something is true it should be easy to find it in a more reliable story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Duffy is a serious non fiction writer - and this is definitely a more reliable source than various newspapers in the article or a missionary text for school children (cited 0 times - all assertions I sourced above). Duffy's work has been cited some 38 times per scholar (including in well regarded journals) - which is a stronger indication that an editor's unsourced opinion. While certainly a cut below Tec, this ismuch more reliable than a newspaper of the Bulletin, even before we consider NOENG. We should be consistent in sourcing policy.Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad he's a serious non fiction writer, rather than a non serious non fiction writer or a serious fiction writer. If some work cited Duffy then we can cite that work. But Duffy's work itself is a hagiography rather than a serious scholarly work. I'm surprised, kind of, that you simultaneously are trying to remove sources by actual specialists and historians while trying to insert this "pop-history" into the article and at the same time make pronouncements about "consistency in sourcing policy". Sorta. Doesn't. Jive.

We don't use the film Defiance as a source and same here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting, but unsourced, opinion. Duffy's work is a popular history work. Yes, this is a notch below an academic text, but a notch above newspapers and the IPN Bulletin (which is not cited by anyone, and is a missionary popular history magazine for school children). You can not on the one hand support lower quality sources while rejecting this higher quality work, Your assertions this is a hagiography is not sources.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's pop history, just like the movie it's based on. It is most certainly not a "notch above" a publication by a professional historian in a journal. The fact that you are making this argument is disturbing, as it shows that you are either unwilling to follow or unaware what WP:RS says. It's even more disturbing in light of your statements demanding "consistency in sourcing" - can you please explain how you justify removing an article by a professional historian and specialist while including a pop-history book by a journalist and how that constitutes "consistency in sourcing"?

BTW, Zimmerman quotes Krajewski several times, approvingly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman quotes Duffy. And Duffy's book preceded the movie by several years - he does not have a time machine. Duffy's book is popular history in English, generally well received and cited by scholars. The IPN Bulletin piece (by a non-phd at the time) is also popular history- though full of hyperbole and without citations or a bibliography - has been cited 0 times, and is published by an organization with an exceedingly poor reputation. In short - we are comparing two popular history works, with the second one having a number of flaws.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right with respect to the timing - the movie was based on the book not the other way around. Perhaps that's why it portrayed such a fantastical portrait of the Bielski (tanks and airplanes!) The IPN Bulletin piece is written by a historian specialized in the area. The Duffy book is written by a journalist. The reputation of the organization is fine. Again - WP:RSN is over that way -------> Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The movie was actually based on Tec and is a-historical (Tec however is academically published), Personally I would prefer if we stuck to WP:HISTRS - and avoided newspapers, the IPN Bulletin, and Duffy - however if we are using popular history - Duffy is definitely better than most newspaper columns (and the IPN missionary magazine for school kids). The reputation of the IPN, as covered by multiple memory politic sources is appaling. You know the way to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to remove a source by a specialist historian. And since you keep evading the question, let me make one more attempt at getting this straight:

1. You want to remove a source by a specialist historian from this article.

2. You want to use a source by a journalist.

3. You claim that you want "consistency in sourcing".

Now - how do you reconcile 1), 2) and 3) into a coherent whole? Can you explain? Cuz I'm at a loss.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No - a source by a government agency employee published in an exceedingly low quality venue (popular history for school children - in a highly BIASED and criticized venue) and cited by no one else. The author in question, at the time, did not have a PhD - and his works in general are not cited by others. Duffy is cited quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSN is <---- right here. The source is fine. It's not low quality. It's completely false that "his works in general are not cited by others" - go to Joshua Zimmerman's The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 and type in "Krajewski" into the search box. Wait. I already pointed this out to you (21:30, 6/28). So why are you repeating it if you know it's false? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman does indeed quote an IPN hagiagrophy for some primary material - he does not however cite the popular history magazine for school children in which Krajewski wrote an entry (without citing any sources). Krajewski in general, per sxholar, is not cited and the piece in the magazime intended for schools has been cited exactly 0 times.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, is there any reason why you're copying me here? Is this some kind of a game? I said Duffy's book was a hagiography (which it is). Now you decided to start calling Krajewski's work a "hagiography" as well. Man, find your own adjectives. And the Bulletin is NOT a "popular history magazine for school children". Lol. You're making stuff up. Silly stuff. Weren't you just running to admins because I poo-poo'd some sources you like? Well, here you are doing exactly that, without backing it up. Sooner or later this kind of behavior is gonna get you a WP:BOOMERANG.

And let's see. You first claimed that Krajewski was not cited by others. Even though I've already pointed out that Zimmerman cites Krajewski a bunch. But you repeated the claim. So I pointed it out again. Now you're making excuses for saying a false thing twice - something about "it's primary material" (whaaaa???) and "well, IN GENERAL he's not cited", whatever that's suppose to mean.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Plich

The info added about Plich is mostly off-topic and UNDUE. Furthermore it contains false information - for example:

• it suggests that the Soviet attack on the unit was a reprisal for the shooting of several Jewish or Soviet partisans. This is not true. The dispute over this shooting had been settled by end of November. The sneak attack on the Poles occurred in December
• it omits the info that the partisans who were apprehended were caught in the act of robbing local peasants
• it omits the fact that the men who shot these partisans were acting against Plich's explicit orders and after the shooting disappeared (i.e. deserted, probably afraid of punishments from Plich)
• In a total violation of NPOV, the text tries to describe the incident as some legitimate attack by the Soviets on the Poles. In fact what happened is that the Soviets and the Poles at that point still had decent relations. The Soviets then invited the Polish leadership for "friendly talks" and when they showed up, had them surrounded. Simultaneously Soviet units launched surprise attacks on Polish units which had remained in the field. The present text completely misrepresents this situation.

Overall however, especially in light of the last point, this is given way too much detail and is only barely related to the Bielski partisans (the partisans who were shot for robbery were from the Zorin, not Bielski, unit). This info belongs in some article about fighting between Polish and Soviet partisans, not here.

What we need to say here is the following: 1. Initially good relations with the Poles under Milaszewski. But then Milaszewski gets demoted. Plich takes over. 2. Soviets began attacks on Polish formations. As a result since by this point the Bielski unit is part of the Soviet partisan formations, they take part in the fight against the Poles under Plich.

That's it. The other stuff is superfluous, UNDUE and POV. And some it is plain false.20:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This long tract is interesting - however RSes, such as Zimmerman, disagree. Zimmerman points out that AK high command reports mention this as the start of the conflict. In short - an editor disagrees witha Cambridge book by Joshua D. Zimmerman - Zimmerman wins. And, I will note, this can be sourced from Tec, Duffy, and other actual RS - augmenting Zimmerman.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite true. Zimmerman says that the start of the conflict was due to a change in Soviet policy regarding Polish units - to confrontation. Zimmerman doesn't mention it but this had to do with the discovery of the Katyn massacre and the Soviet repudiation of the Sikorski–Mayski_agreement.

Anyway, it's UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The killing of Jewish partisans, mentioned in several sources as the immediate trigger to this is quite DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

One more time - Zimmerman says that the cause behind the conflict was the change in Soviet policy.

And here's another thing. Up above you object to the inclusion of some OTHER text [18] because the source, according to you, doesn't reference the Bielski partisans explicitly. It actually does, but you're arguing (somewhat strangely) that it doesn't and on that basis you want that text removed. Well, guess what? This text - the shooting of the partisans who were robbing peasants - also does NOT involve the Bielski partisans. The Bielski partisans weren't involved here. It was men from Zorin's unit. So... why should this be included? By your own logic, we shouldn't include this since it didn't involve the Bielskis. Come on please, some "consistency in sourcing".

Regardless, it's UNDUE because it's not about this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Zimmerman, The Soviets, including the Bielski detachment, went to arrest Pilch and his men - due to this incident. Thus - it is relevant - and Zimmerman (as well as Tec, I'd add, who covers this in her Bielski book) - makes it clear that it is relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Zimmerman says that the beginning of this whole series of events had to do with the change in Soviet policy, from "from toleration and cooperation to confrontation". Page 275, second paragraph.

If you really insist on including this text (on account the fact that Bielski partisans took part in the ambush on the Polish units) then we also need to include the info that this wasn't a combat operation but a trick - very often employed by the Soviets - where they would sign an agreement of cooperation with the Poles, then invite them to "friendly talks" and then arrest them, usually murdering some of the officers in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Both Tec and Zimmerman cover this in academic sources - including to the killing of multiple Jews by this group. If you have a non-newspaper source for the combat ruse (and ruses are often employed) - then bring one. The ruse was indeed successful- but was still a battalion level combat operation in response to the killing of Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"White Polish"

Using this Soviet propaganda phrasing in Wiki voice? Really? Come on let's keep the POV out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Poor sourcing and misrepresentation of sources

I reverted, as acadmic sources published by well regarded publishers by scholars in the field (Tec and Zimmerman) whose account is quite clear and detailed are clearly preferred per RS policy to non-English sources in newspapers and magazines. In addition, the Polish mass market magazine was being misrepresented - a defamatory stmt made towards Jews at large surviving in the district was presented as if it were directed towards Zorin and Bielski in particular, while the source does not say that. Furthermore, as we have ample sourcing on antisemitism in the AK at large and this district in particular (including in Tec and Zimmerman) - which in this district included Uderzeniowe Bataliony Kadrowe (headed by the leader of the fascist and highly antisemitic National Radical Camp Falanga), inclusion of primaryish demands from such people regarding surviving Jews if highly UNDUE - we should prefer to use secondary sources analyzing their position towards Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As discussed EXTENSIVELY above, this is false. That's not what you did. That's not the situation here. Rather you removed well sourced material under phony pretexts: your wacky interpretation of WP:NOENG which you appear to think gives you the right to remove any non-English language source you don't like - it doesn't, and your false claims about sources being misrepresented - they're not.

(edit conflict) There's is NO "defamatory stmt made towards Jews". There is statement, properly attributed and sourced, made about specific partisan units. It's not made in Wikipedia voice. It's not even defamatory since there's no evidence that it is false (you just assume it must be false because you don't like what it says). The fact that such a statement was made is not under dispute - it meets WP:V. If it's problematic and reflects badly on the people that made it, then so be it. Readers can judge that for themselves. The source does indeed quote this statement in reference to the Zorin and Bielski units and your continued claims to the contrary are, to put it plainly, completely false and obstinate. It's obvious in the source. Why are you denying something which is obvious?

I have no idea what the UBK and Falanga have to do with the Bielskis or anything to do with this article. I don't even know if your claim about it are true - it was such a miniscule and insignificant organization.

We ARE using secondary sources, stop pretending otherwise.

This is running in circles. You are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. How about you offer some constructive way out of this impasse? If you don't want to do that, you always have the option of pursuing legitimate forms of dispute resolution. RfC. NPOVN. RSN. Etc. The fact you haven't done ANY of that, suggests you anticipate that your views are very unlikely to get much support.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus runs both ways - you have not achieved consensus to include this material which was recently added - WP:ONUS on you to show that the AK district command's statement about Jews in general (misrepresented to be about the Bielski group) from a very poor quality non-English source is fit for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. You haven't convinced anyone. It's by a professional historian who specializes in this topic. You've had plenty of opportunity to ask at WP:RSN, yet you've consistently refused to do so. The stable version is from March 2018, so according to your own argument, any changes from that version require you to get this WP:ONUS. And stop misrepresenting what the source says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: please discuss rather than reverting.Replacing academic sources with a newspaper/magazine account in Polish is not based in policy. Furthermore, the revert introduced highly defamatory mosrepresentations of the Polish language source which does not say what is presently in our article.Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been discussing. This whole page is me discussing and you not listening. And seeing as how most of your reverts are blind reverts, you really got no business lecturing me about reverting. When I make changes, I explain them. When I make changes, I go through all the edits you (or others) have made and figure out which ones are good, which ones not so much, and try to accommodate as much as I can (this is actually quite time consuming and it's especially frustrating when you start jumping in with blind reverts when I'm obviously editing an article, just so you can insert your own edit in between mine, so that you can claim I "reverted" and then go running to AN/3RR with BS reports). You on the other hand have NOT showed me this courtesy. Just revert wholesale. Revert wholesale. Revert wholesale. Not even an attempt at compromise or even pretend that you carefully look at what you're reverting. Quintessential WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

There's no "highly defamatory mosrepresentations of the Polish language source". You're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

UBK/Falanga was a significant part of this district. The source quotes a statement by the AK district - the statement by the AK district - refers to Jews in general in the district. This is a serious and gross misrepresentation. Replacing academic English sources with a Polish newspaper (and preferring the account of the Polish newspaper) in regards to the incident on 1 December 1943 - has no basis in policy.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No it wasn't. UBK operated near Bialystok, then Lida, about 100 km west of the Naliboki forest. They never had any interaction with the Bielski partisans. This is all completely irrelevant. The only reason you brought them up is to muddy the waters here.

Nothing is being misrepresented. The AK made this statement. This is verifiable. This statement is quoted in reliable secondary source written by a historian. It referred to the Bielski and Zorin units. This is all attributed nothing is said in Wikipedia voice. Nothing. Is. Being. Misrepresented.

I don't know what you're referring to about "replacing academic English sources". You're being opaque and vague again. There was some undue material which had nothing to do with the Bielskis. There was some, well, misrepresentations of sources (Zimmerman). So yeah, I changed that. We've been over this.

Overall, I actually think this whole Pilch thing is UNDUE. Bielski's are barely involved. The Soviet partisans that were shot on November 18 were from Zorin's unit. The matter was resolved by a joint Polish-Soviet commission (which included Bielski's friend, Miloszewski, as well as Zorin) by November 21 st. An agreement of "cooperation" and mutual aid was reached on November 29th between the Polish and Soviet partisan. On the 30th, the commander of the Soviet partisans, Dubov, announced that he was going to visit the Polish camp on Dec 1st to brief the Polish units about a joint Polish-Soviet action against the Germans. Instead on that day, the Soviets attacked the Poles. Pilch got away, but this is irrelevant to this article.

The Bielskis hardly figure in this story. Apparently some men from their unit participated in the sneak attack on the Poles - which is not surprising since by that point their units were under full control of the Soviets. I don't even know if the Bielskis themselves were involved. So basically, this whole episode has barely anything to do with the Bielskis.

Like I said, all we need to say here is that initially the Bielskis had good relations with the Home Army. Then when the Soviets changed their policy to confrontation, these good relations fell apart, because at that point the Bielskis had come under full control of the Soviets (how much of say they had in the matter and to what extent this was voluntary is subject to dispute - my understanding is that Tuvia didn't want to, Zus did, eventually Tuvia thought he had no choice). That's about it.

However, since you've been insisting on including all this stuff about Plich's unit (and btw, he wasn't even the commander when the sneak attack on Dec 1st occurred. That was a different guy, Waclaw Pelka. Likewise, it's not true that Miloszewski was "demoted". He was "replaced", because Plich, then Pelka, had arrived. They just simply outranked him so they took over Plich became leader of the unit AFTER Pelka and Miloszewski were swept up in the Soviet sneak attack - this is all sloppiness in Western source, but it's a fairly minor point), then we do need to include the relevant information about the nature of the attack by the Soviet on their Polish allies. This is simply a question of WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. And NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And also btw, the relations between the Polish and Soviet and Jewish partisans were good even after Pilch's arrival. Basically up to the sneak attack. The Soviet and Jewish partisans would come visit the Polish camp and vice versa. They'd hang out and drink together. There was some tension - each side tried to convince rank and file soldiers of the other to switch to them. The Soviets also "intercepted" some deserters from the Wehrmacht, Belorussian Czech and ... French, conscripts who wanted to join the Polish partisans, and forcibly incorporated them into their units. There were disputes about villages could be used for provision by which group. But all of this was generally worked out (though unknown to the Poles, the Soviets were actually informing the Germans about some of the Polish actions in advance - not clear whether this was purposeful or if there were German agents in Soviet ranks). Why do you think that the Soviets could surround and disarm such a large partisan unit? Because the Poles fully trusted them at that point, or at least not enough to expect an outright betrayal.

I can provide sources for the above, but I don't see why I should bother, since all of this is off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The AK district command (which included UBK and NSZ, per Tec much of the Stolpce unit being NSZ) made angeneral stmt in Jewish fighters - they did not refer to Bieslki or Zorin by name - but made a blanket stmt. This is quite clear even in the very poor quality Polish language source.

As for your assertion regarding the encounter with Pilch's NSZ/AK unit - actual academic sources disagree with - Tec and Zimmerman - sources who have covered this in depth. Both sources clearly tie the Soviet arrest of the Polish unit to the killing of 12 Jews a couple of weeks earlier - as a prompting of the action (Tec also quotes Tuvia Bielski on this specifically). Both sources cover this in relation to Bielski and in an in depth manner. Both sources note continuing attacks on Jews (moreso than against Soviets) by this Polish unit before and afterwards. Personal opinions and unsourced assertions matter little when not backed up by sources (though I suspect that these sources did not bother to track each temporary interim commander. Tec does note the new officers were NSZ). If you really want to include information on the Soviet ruse towards the Polish unit to lure them to the meeting after the Poles executed 12 Jewish captives - and you have a proper source for it - I am not opposed to expanding this (even though academic sources covering this have ignored this rather self evident and insignificant detail). Note Poles and Soviets were far from allies at this stage of the war.Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Pilch's NSZ/AK unit - oh god, now you're making up new stuff. As soon as one falsehood gets debunked, you invent a new one. Pilch's unit was AK. The more moderate faction of NSZ came under the control of AK in ... ... ... March 1944. That's four months after the events described here. Hence, Pilch's unit could NOT have been NSZ.

Again, this whole thing has barely anything to do with Bielskis.

(And yes, the sources do track all the commanders, your suspicions are ... hell, I don't know, it's just more stuff you just pull out of thin air).

If any of this belonged in the article I'd be happy to provide the sources - and I will, but not here, but in the appropriate articles. Here it's just UNDUE and unrelated to the main topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The AK district command (which included UBK and NSZ, per Tec much of the Stolpce unit being NSZ) - oh my god I missed that. It's false false false. The AK district command NEVER included UBK or NSZ. Even after March 1944, when A PART of NSZ came under AK control (four months after these events) they weren't part of any AK command. UBK was even more marginal. EVEN Tec does not say that "AK district command included UBK and NSZ". This is an outright falsehood. She also does not say that "much of the Stolpce unit was NSZ". This is another outright false hood. She says "some even" (even that is an impossibility). This is you blatantly misrepresenting a source. Twice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, I would heavily discount Tec's book as well, though I really like that book. While it tells a really good story, and is a great read, it's also a hagiography, though a bit better than Duffy's. Most importantly Tec is not a historian, she's a sociologist. She gets a lot of basic stuff wrong (like the NSZ thing - oh, and btw, iirc, before the war Pilch was a socialist or or at least from a socialist family so there was pretty much no way he could've been NSZ, since he was exactly the kind of person that NSZ, at least its extremist factions, would murder). Her book is another "pop-history" work written for a general audience, by a non-specialist (and non-historian). I realize it's popular, because they made the movie on its basis (though the movie of course has even wackier stuff in it). And because it was the basis for that movie it's cited a good bit. But it's still a low quality source and we should not use it for anything controversial, or where it's contradicted by sources written by actual historians, per WP:REDFLAG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another illustration of outright nonsense in Tec's book. She says "Some of these officers (who arrived from England to join Miloszewski's unit - VM) belonged to the Fascist NSZ". Now, this is an impossibility for several reasons. First, there was no NSZ in the Polish Government in Exile. Ever. The NSZ refused to recognize the legitimacy of the PGiE. In the field NSZ and AK units at this time fought each other, or at best stayed out of each other's way. This is like saying "In December 1944 the Haganah sent the members of the Stern Gang to lead its field units". It's absurd. Second, as already pointed out, the portion of NSZ that finally recognized the authority of the Home Army, did so only in March 1944. There were no NSZ men in AK in December 1943 (and even after March 1944, they served mostly in separate units, known as "NSZ-AK").

Third, she says "some of these officers". Ok, let's ignore the impossibility for the moment and take this seriously. Which ones? How many where they? Note there's no citation to any of this. But I can answer it. There were three officers that came from England. And it's not like their identities are a secret or something. The already mentioned Adolf Pilch, Ezechiel Łoś, and Lech Rydzewski. That's the three right there. Which one was NSZ? Well, none, cuz that was impossible. But more generally, NONE of these guys had ANY affiliation with any "nationalist" organizations. Not NSZ. Not UBK. Not NOW. Not whatever else existed on that side of the political spectrum. Like I said, this is a pop-history book written by a sociologist. There's no citations to back up any of these claims. It's a low quality source which makes assertions which are physically and objectively impossible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dislike of Nechama Tec's (a noted professor) award winning Defiance published by Oxford University Press duly noted. This book as been cited at least 113 times per scholar, [19], in an academic context, and clearly fits the description of a WP:RS. I suppose Tec might have been referring to the political leanings of some of these officers - who might have been AK in name only (ala RINOs) or something similar - despite being AK. As UBK - the integration in 1943 of the UBK into the Nowogródek AK district is covered at length in Zimmerman - Zimmerman uses the English form Cadre Strike Battalion and Bolesław Piasecki which are covered at length in regards to the Nowogródek AK district in pages 279-280, 298 of his book (as well as in a few other places).Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your complete refusal, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, to actually address the issue duly noted. Your continued efforts to bring up off-topic irrelevant aspects - UBK - which had nothing to do with this article's topic also duly noted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I don't care much for the IPN source for two reasons: First, while it's written by a known historian, enough questions have been raised about IPN and its publications that I've asked for another source and wasn't answered. If there isn't another RS that observes the same (as eg. here) then this should be considered WP:FRINGE. Again, this isn't "cutting edge" research and wee should be able to attribute every single fact in this article to any number of publications. The second problem here is that this source, as cited, reads biased.

Take for example the following statements: Like other Soviet-affiliated partisan groups in the area, the Bielski partisans raided nearby villages and forcibly seized food; on occasion, peasants who refused to share their food with the partisans were subjected to violence, even murder. This caused hostility toward the partisans on the part of the peasants, though some willingly helped the Jewish partisans. What do we know about this phenomenon?

1. Partisan groups of all denominations, including AK, often relied on the local population for supplies.
2. Sometimes the local populace was sympathetic and sometimes not.
3. The Yad Vashem source notes the Bielskis had their supporters and collaborators; and surely not all AK units asked for permission.
4. The difference between the two is that Jewish partisans were often seen as "bandits", "robbers" and "a threat to the local population", while the latter were not. This is thoroughly supported by RS; we've had this discussion before.
5. But for some reason the current text doesn't consider any of it, reading judgmental where it should read nuanced. The Bieliskis weren't robbers looking to enrich themselves, they were survivors who looked to avoid conflict as much as possible, as evident in the next example.

And another one: in two years of prior operations their group of nearly on thousand people managed to kill 14 Germans, 17 policemen, and 33 spies and provocateurs (per Krajewski these likely include peasants not sympathetic to Soviet partisans or resisting plunder

1. A group of 1,200 operating over a large area, who manage at the height of war to avoid killing seems very unusual (the above translate to <3 deaths per month).
2. Both the article and the source (as cited) make an implicit judgment as to why that is case, where they should make an explicit assessment... but at least the claims are attributed.
3. And the "peasants not sympathetic to Soviet partisans"? There's as much subtext here as there is text: Throwing "Soviet" around makes it look like the former, connecting with a whole host of stereotypes about Jews that were prevalent in Poland during that time (some are still are). Do we know that the Bielskis were affiliated with Soviet groups ("affiliated", not "aligned")? There's no suggestion in any of the other articles that they were, and Tec (as cited here) suggests Tuvia Bielsky actually feared the Soviet forces.
4. And again with the "plunder", as if they horded gold.

François Robere (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You are of course free "not to care much" for IPN but the place to bring it up is at WP:RSN. Since it is written by a professional historian, as you acknowledge, it qualifies as a reliable source, unless there's something else. THIS is why either you or Icewhiz need to bring this to the RS noticeboard - otherwise your argument just boils down to a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's most certainly not fringe and there is no dispute that the statement that it quotes was actually made. I mean, unless I'm missing something, I don't think either your nor Icewhiz are actually questioning whether this statement was made, right?

I also don't understand what your objection in your first set of 1-5 is. The text in this article does NOT refer to the units as "bandits" or "robbers" or anything of the sort. So what exactly is your point?

Your second 1-4... yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say there either. 1 and 2 are unrelated speculation and original research. Sorta irrelevant. #3 - you seem to object to the use of the word "Soviet"... except these were actual, honest to God (well...), genuine Soviet partisans. The fact that they were Soviet partisans is not under dispute, no? Regarding #4 - I have no idea what you're reading into that. The source actually says "robbery" (though "plunder" is a suitable paraphrasing). Someone else (Icewhiz?) changed it to "plunder". Anyway this is a completely strange as "plunder" does not imply "hording" (sic).

So I'm sorry but your comments are sort of unclear and incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)