Talk:Bielski partisans

November 2019 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "quotations have not been provided since June 2019". --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• I further removed an undue section "Allegations of war crimes"; preserving here by providing this link. The accusations are based on one source; these appear to be unproven, while other portions of the section attempt to rebut these theories. The whole section is undue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Quotation from the Pulawski source: Na początku grudnia 1943 r. partyzanci Bielskiego zgromadzili 200 ton ziemniaków, 3 tony kapusty, 5 ton buraków, 5 ton zboża, 3 tony mięsa i tonę kiełbasy89. Należy oczywiście przeliczyć to na liczbę osób, które Bielski musiał wyżywić (ponad 1200 osób z oddziału i z żydowskiego obozu rodzinnego90) - wyjdzie wtedy 160 kg ziemniaków, 4 kg zboża, 2,5 kg mięsa i 0,83 kg kiełbasy na osobę (...) Jednak partyzanci sami przyznawali, że mieli nadmiar żywności Volunteer Marek 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's, Piotrus's, and Poeticbent's "editorial" contributions (some of which are found above in this "Talk" page too, and no doubt to the article itself) to numerous Wikipedia articles on Jewish topics and the Holocaust have been described, in great and damning detail, by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein, "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust," The Journal of Holocaust Research, 2023, published online on February 9, 2023 and accessible at https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939. The article also reveals, p. 19 of the online version, that Kazimierz Krajewski, cited in this Wikipedia article as the source for very hostile, indeed defamatory, accusations made against the Bielsky brothers and their partisan group, is a frequent participant in far-right Polish publications and is not a recognized authority on Jewish-Polish history or relations. The Grabowski-Klein article also informs us (in footnote 88, p. 19 of the online version) concerning Krajewski that: "For a powerful critique of Krajewski’s methodology and his defense of nationalistic myths, see Piotr Witek, “Warsztat naukowy historyka w kontekście prób reinterpretacji postaci Romualda Rajsa ‘Burego.’” [A Historian’s Methodology in the Context of Reinterpretation of the Person of Romuald Rajs aka “Bury”], ohistorie, July 27, 2020, https://ohistorie.eu/2020/02/27/mariusz-mazur-warsztat-naukowy-historyka-w-kontekscie-prob-reinterpretacji-postaci-romualda-rajsa-burego/ (accessed September 9, 2022)." The very full documentation in the Grabowski-Klein article regarding Wikipedia articles relating to Poland and the Holocaust indicate that Wikipedia is a deeply compromised information source, and its treatment of edit wars often lukewarm, inconsistent and ineffective, so it cannot be relied on at all for historical articles on these controversial topics. This is so, despite the very honorable efforts of some editors, like Icewhiz and K.e.coffman, to resist such distortions.106.71.99.35 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Should be added

Two links with info about the underwear thing and the sexual "adventures" of the main brother that should be added as notes. https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/the-cousins-bielski/2008/11/19/

and 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106186/Jewish-saviour-butcher-innocents-Daniel-Craigs-depiction-Polish-partisan-comes-fire.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzrname (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No, one of these sources has nothing about those claims and should not be added. The first article cited above does say that women's underwear was appropriated for the use of women close to the leaders (rarely?/sometimes?/always? - not stated, nor does it say whether this was selected just from their luggages, applied to all or some of their underwear, etc., or varied over time as camp procedures evolved and/or different people received newcomers). Importantly, it says nothing about any woman, let alone all women seeking refuge, having to strip naked at all, before anyone. The second article cited says nothing about either underclothes or any demand to strip naked. It does not even hint at such things. So it is irrelevant in this context. That theme of humiliation of naked women sounds very like a supposition more revelatory of the mindset and proclivities of the accusers than of the accused. The intentionally false attribution of such a slanderous claim indicates academic unreliability, a studied disregard for truth, and malicious bias, each of which should justify a complete ban on any editorial contributions in the future, and removal of all contributions in the past, from the person responsible. 106.71.99.35 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources removed

not academic sources. Two others remain; not sure they are ok either, but these two definitely don't meet standards Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Can you clarify what you mean by "don't meet standards"? What standard are you applying to make this assessment? VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: per clarification on your talk page, we're talking about WP:APLRS, which does not say we can't use this source but requires consensus to restore non-academic sources. Do you have any practical concerns with the sources for the information that they are being used to cite? I don't think we're losing anything by removing the Wymazany_Aron_Bell source, but [1] looks fine to me in the context of what it's being used to support, [2] (other than the questionable use of the word "pacification", which doesn't appear to be the fault of Gazeta Wyborcza). VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @VQuakr. Gazeta Wyborcza is a Polish newspaper of record and I think it is reliable enough to use as a source. Unless there is a WP:REDFLAG issue, but if not, we are just doing a service to the reader, particularly as only refs were removed, not actual content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can find a better source than gee-whiz articles that somebody is mad. Or that there is a bed and breakfast on the site now. The problem with auch articles is that they often accept as premises statements that are disputed. I actually dislike the rule, but some of these sources make me see the point. In any event, there is a balance question and to be clear, I don't think the sources I left behind and should be there either. It is simply not possible to comply without a full rewrite, and I am on my phone and therefore am not available for extended discussion at the moment, but there's the argument against keeping them in a nutshell. I am fairly indifferent but a rule should be a rule, and why would it be exempt if the New York Times is not? That said there really is a problem with recent news, but I don't think anything I removed qualifies as that. Elinruby (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What rule are you referring to? Again, WP:APLRS just says some classes of sources shouldn't be restored without consensus. It doesn't say we can't or shouldn't use them. Not are we a rule-based organization anyways; "a rule is a rule" isn't really consistent with WP's philosophy. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ETA - NYT is fine as a source as well (with the always-present caveat that publication date and context still always matter in reliability assessment). VQuakr (talk) :32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not if someone removes it, is my understanding. It does seem like the way it is written assumes a plethora of talk-page denizens, which is a problem, but let's see. Which would be easier, litigating this or finding a better source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

Not if someone removes it... that's not what APLRS says. It says consensus is required. Consensus is based on policy based reasoning, and you haven't presented a policy-based rationale to not use this source. VQuakr (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: do you agree that this source should be added back in? It's been a week, and in the absence of a PAG-based reasoning from you to exclude I think we have consensus to restore it. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

References

better source needed

No objection to the material per se, can return if better sourced. When Tuvia died in 1987, he was buried in Long Island, New York, but a year later, at the urging of surviving partisans in Israel, he was exhumed and given a hero's funeral at Har HaMenuchot, the hillside graveyard in Jerusalem. His wife, Lilka, was buried beside him in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

Agreed that findagrave.com is user-generated and not a RS. VQuakr (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is tagged red by the script. In general, we don't want to use it, although it often is... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

References