Talk:Bielski partisans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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[1], Who has been promoting the anti-semitic fascist NSZ as "heros",[2], 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.[3]).
  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[4] 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 ([5]), 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 [6] 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 [7].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[8]--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[9].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)

"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)

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 [10] 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)

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 some of the officers in 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) Struck "much of", replaced with "some of the officers".Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 2 July 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)
Hey User:Icewhiz, can you please explain why you are misrepresenting a source by saying that "per Tec much of the Stolpce unit being NSZ"? This is outright false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
On second reading of the source I erred in the TP post above, as Tec writes "some of these officers belonged to the fascist NSZ". I will note that my error was on the talk page only.Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 2 July 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, [11], 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)

IPN, Krajewski

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 hoarded 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 "hoarding".
So I'm sorry but your comments are sort of unclear and incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on those who wish to introduce text sourced to a non-scientific missionary-style popular magazine distributed primarily to school children(The Post-Communist Condition: Public and private discourses of transformation (chapter - Power, knowledge and faith discourse)). Not everything the IPN does is scientific, as noted by actual RSes that cover this 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. 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 also distributes item such as music CD featuring skinhead nationalist bands en[12]... The Bulletin is a subject of study due to these rather extreme characteristics - it isn't cited seriously by others - this particular item has been cited by no one... It is also an undue and rather fringey view on this subject - we should prefer wider academic discourse (which does not read like this popular missionary attack piece) to this obscure non-English piece of text.... In addition to all that - the text we are discussing misrepresents what the IPN Bulletin wrote. Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on those who wish to introduce text sourced to a non-scientific missionary-style popular magazine distributed primarily to school children - maybe, except nobody here wants to do that. The fact that you keep lying about the nature of this source doesn't change the fact that it's a reliable source, written by a professional historian. How many times does this have to be said? What the hell does "missionary-style source" even mean? Is somebody fucking somebody in some very boring way and somehow this is affecting the reliability of our sources? Oh noes!! Seriously, your objections and ridiculous attacks on this obviously reliable source are becoming more and more incoherent. The source meets all the criteria laid out at WP:RS. It's written by a professional historian. You can make up all kinds of absurd shit, but given that the source is what it is, it's actually up to you to take it to WP:RSN if you have problems with. You have not convinced anyone that there's anything wrong with it. All you've done is keep repeating the same wrong thing per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what quote you're referring to. I haven't challenged any "primary" quote, just this historian's interpretation of events (again, as cited).
It's most certainly not fringe - well, where are the other sources that state the same? I've asked a couple of times already. Also: This was published in 2009; did anyone cite it since? (Does anyone cite IPN's bulletin in general?)
I don't know what you're trying to say there either Of course you don't. The point is this source seems biased in comparison with other sources cited here, and is introducing bias to the article (again, less so when its claims are attributed). #1-2 aren't speculation or OR - they are observations of how this source, and hence the article, make unqualified statements where they should qualify them. Icewhiz is right in pointing out that you should be seeking consensus for this, as we're under no obligation to include this source.
The fact that they were Soviet partisans is not under dispute, no? Yes, it is. As I said, there's a difference between "affiliation" and "alignment"; we've no indication that they were ideologically affiliated with Communism, rather than operationally aligned with it - which, Nechama Tec suggests, some non-Communist Poles did as well; she also suggests whatever alignment he chose was due to pragmatism, not ideology (again, like some fellow Poles). But instead of explaining any of this (or mentioning the fact that some of the local populace were simply hostile to Jews as such), the text throws around statements like "killed peasants who opposed Soviet partisans", as if they were anh extension of the NKVD.
François Robere (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
According to google scholar - this particular piece has never cited by anyone else. The Bulletin is mainly a subject of study (for memory politics), it is rarely cited by anyone as source for actual historical fact - many of the items (this one included) have no citations, and it is a dogmatic publication intended for schools - not for historians.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Umm, do you realize that your google scholar link does not actually show anything that you claim that it shows? Yet another false claim from Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Google scholar 101 - Scholar on entries it detects citations for (in sources it considers academic) - has a "cited by X" field next to the star and quotation mark - as you might see for - tec. In the Opór”? „Odwet”? Czy po prostu „polityka historyczna this is missing - indicating scholar doesn't have any citations for this. Scholar's citation detection is fairly accurate.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Where are the sources that state what "the same"? That Soviet partisans relied on taking food from local peasants for provisions? This is not exactly under dispute. And yeah, if you actually bothered to read the article, there ALREADY are several sources that same the same thing. This is basically you not doing your homework, not reading the article or the sources, and then asking others for explanations for your own ignorance. I'm guessing that's because you just showed up here to support your ]https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Icewhiz&users=Fran%C3%A7ois+Robere&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki tag-team buddy] Icewhiz, but can't be bothered to put in the time to actually read the sources.
this source seems biased in comparison with other sources cited here - no, it actually doesn't. This is just a different way of saying GOSH DARN IT! I JUST DONT LIKE IT!!! The source is fine. "seems biased" is just weaselly way of saying, well, "gosh darn it, I just don't like it".
were ideologically affiliated with Communism, rather than operationally aligned with it - what??? Find a source which makes this weird-ass distinction, then we can talk. Until then please refrain from making stuff up and cluttering up the talk page with your original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
One should also note that in 2008-9 there was a wave of various mass-market quasi/popular-history publications in Poland in reaction to a film, and that at least some of these reactionary pieces (at least those who received notice) were accused of anti-Semitism.[13] A hit piece in a popular-audience magazine in response to a movie release..... Highly biased and mainly filled with polemics and not with research.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Marek, I'm pretty convinced that at the moment you're again not actually reading what I write.
  • My comment: Partisan groups of all denominations, including AK, often relied on the local population for supplies; your comment: That Soviet partisans relied on taking food from local peasants for provisions? This is not exactly under dispute
  • My comment: I've asked for another source and wasn't answered. (at least twice); your comment: if you actually bothered to read the article, there ALREADY are several sources that same the same thing.
  • I mention Yad Vashem and Nechama Tec as sources that have a more favorable look on the Bielskis; your comment: this source seems biased in comparison with other sources cited here - no, it actually doesn't
  • I write that There's as much subtext here as there is text, and you completely miss the mark with "Find a source which makes this weird-ass distinction".
Bottom line, you haven't satisfied WP:CONSENSUS and you should find another venue to advocate for that source, or remove it. François Robere (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, unconvince yourself, because it's not true. And I'm sorry but I'm at a loss as to what your point is. You quote yourself. You quote me. This is suppose to illustrate something. Then you claim CONSENSUS. That's not actually how it works. You guys are free to start an RfC on all these issues. In the meantime please stop removing reliable sources and committing BLP vios by smearing a professional historian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

One should also note that in 2008-9 there was a wave of various mass-market quasi/popular-history publications in Poland in reaction to a film, and that at least some of these reactionary pieces (at least those who received notice) were accused of anti-Semitism. <-- what does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that Kazimierz Krajewski was accused of anti-semitism? If not, then why are you bring this irrelevant crap up? Just the way you bringing up the UBK or NSZ which have nothing to do with the topic of this article? This is a pretty blatant red herring attempt to prejudice the reader by introducing negative, but irrelevant issues.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious tags on material in Tec

@Volunteer Marek: has tagged several statements as dubious in due to WP:REDFLAG claims from a low quality source, misrepresentation of sources. Calling the AK's antisemtism REDFLAG is quite astounding, given the wide consensus among Holocaust historians regarding the AK - as may be seen in Zimmerman's historiography section in his introduction and in his chapter 10 When the Home Army Turned Its Guns on the Jews Which also covers incidents involving the Bielski brothers. I do suggest that the claim this is a "misrepresentation of sources" be struck. The passage cites Tec pages 212-214. On page 213 -- The Soviet-Polish cooperation was shaky. For a while each side was not prepared to openly challenge the other. The Poles expressed their hostility toward Russian partisans in limited ways. "When they caught a Russian partisan they would beat him up. After they took his weapon from him, they would free him." In contrast, Jews caught by these Poles were not as fortunate. Unprotected small groups of Jewish civilians in bunkers or Jews who were roaming the countryside were attacked and killed". .... and on page 213-214 - In line with Bor-Komorowski's directive, the White Poles were using Jews as shooting targets. A group of twelve men from the Jewish family camp Zorin was attacked on the way back from a food expedition. Only one escaped to tell the story. When I asked Tuvia about this incidents, in his characteristic manner he cut through the ambiguities. "They attacked the Jews because they were anti-Semites and obviously because they were afraid to murder Russians". Calling an award winning Oxford University Book by an established academic, which has been cited some 113 times by others, and is probably recognized as the leading in-depth source on Bielski partisans a "low quality source" is quite astounding.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, although it may very well be the case that the sources you cherry-pick make these kinds of assertions. Zimmerman doesn't. Tec is a sociologist, not a historian, and her book is a hagiography which manages to get basic objective info wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Volunteer Marek (Tec - not a great source, certainly biased, if generally reliable), except one general caveat - social science is interdisciplinary, and sociologists are as reliable as historians. Working in Department X doesn't mean one cannot publish work in the field of Y. There's historical sociology, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
History is multi-disciplinary, and Tec specifically is described as a historian [14][15][16] or holocaust scholar[17][18] by other scholars.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether history is multi-disciplinary or not, but history isn't sociology. And again this description as "historian" is colloquial and does not reflect any special or professional expertise in the area. This is reflected in the basic objective errors in the book and why it shouldn't be used for anything controversial or for claims which are easily contradicted by other sources, per WP:REDFLAG. It's fine for description of life in the Bielski camp, the organization of it, and other sociological aspect, though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The referenced uses above - are not colloquial.Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
István Deák, Europe on Trial: The Story of Collaboration, Resistance, and Retribution During World War II - The famous Bielski partisans, a Jewish group, which operated in what is now western Belorussia .... readily admitted having fought Polish and Ukrainian policemen in German service as well as Polish atni-Nazi - but simultaneously anti-Semitic - partisans. Conflicts with German soldiers were rare..Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Lol. The Bielskis fought Ukrainian policemen? In ... Lithuania? Wait. They fought "Polish policemen"? Seriously? There were no "Polish policemen" (Belorussian ones, yes) where the Bielski brothers operated. Where do you find this nonsense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
This review - in the The Oral History Review of Tec actually criticizes her for not covering antisemitism in Polish and Russian partisan groups enough - The issue of anti-Semitism, which so many Holocaust survivors explicitly link to the dangers they faced in such groups, is absent from Tec's discussion. She does, however, quote Bielski's own unambiguous analysis: "They [Russian or Polish partisans] attacked the Jews because they were anti-Semites. The review concludes that Nevertheless, Nechama Tec has made an important contribution to Holocaust history. Defiance adds much heretofore unpublished material to the historical record and does so in an objective manner, utilizing a reasonably broad field of research. The book must surely become a ma-jor resource for scholars seeking primary material on Jewish resistance during the Holocaust. It is also an appropriate monument to those who perished in the brave effort at survival and to Tuvia Bielski and other Jewish partisans, whose "hopes, dreams and...very lives "(209) are recre- ated in these pages..Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
3 On the outskirts of Nliboki, for instance, a survivor recalls being threatened by Germans as well as by ‘groups of White Partisans for whom killing Jews was considered good sport.’14 Harold Werner writes that the Polish ‘Army Krajowa [AK, Home Army] and the members of the NSZ [Nationalyny Azily Zbroiny (National Armed Force)] were hunting down Jews, just as the Nazis were doing’.15. Nliboki a variant of Naliboki, and the survivor being one of the Bielski members - in Berkowitz, Michael. "The Nazi equation of Jewish partisans with ‘bandits’ and its consequences." European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire 13.2 (2006): 311-333. - referring testimony that pre-dates Tec (this book from 1984).Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
If this is by one of the Bielski members, then there is an obvious conflict of interest and we should be careful of using this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you supporting throwing out all sources by AK members, their descendants, or modern supporters - based on COI? Regardless, the statements of the Bielski partisans, covered a secondary manner years after they made them, are obviously relevant to this article - we should of course attribute them to whomever said them - as the secondary sources does.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Lol. Did I say anything like that? Did I say anything about descendants or "modern supporters"? I said that a source from one of those directly involved in the events should be used with caution. Are you disputing that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Michael Berkowitz (who if I got the right one - received his PhD in 1989) was not a Bielski partisan - he is quoting one.Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, did I claim that he was? Please stop it with the red herrings and strawmans.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The Jews of Bielorussia During World War II, Shalom Cholawski, Harwood academic publishers, 1998 We have already told of the group from Novodrudok ghetto who had formed an autonmous unit in conjunction with the A.K. in the Naliboky region and which was completely destroyed when it was left without assistance in a battle against the German occupation forces. The results of that battle led to a growing tension between the partisan units and the A.K. units in the weak and also, to growing antisemitism. In December 1943 the Soviet partisan units received orders to disarm the Polish A.K. units. The A.K. resisted and relations deterioarted considerably. Many Jews in the forest were killed by the A.K. units. (The attack on Naliboki village refers to a Jewish-AK action in 1942 - attacking the German garrison - not the May 1943 event).12:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. In addition, I don't see why these sources are considered unreliable.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Just like there is a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, there's a WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. And that is what your comment is. Please speak for yourself, using your own words. Please also be aware that if, and let me emphasize the "if", Icewhiz contacted you off-wiki and asked you to comment here on his behalf and/or throw in some reverts on the article (your blind reverts, coming out of nowhere and always restoring Icewhiz's version make this a possibility) then that's a violation of Wikipedia policy on WP:CANVASS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Marek, you should be more concerned with how you conduct yourself with other editors than with who those editors are. This isn't how you're going to get these articles to improve. François Robere (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've asked you before to stop making passive aggressive personal attacks. I am concerned that an editor who's never made edits to this article before, who hasn't participated at all in the discussion, all of sudden shows up and performs reverts in support of another editor and then just adds a specious meaningless "me too!" comment in support of that other editor. It's a valid concern. And it actually doesn't concern you, does it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Calm down, Marek. If it was "tactical", it wouldn't be anything we haven't seen from "your" side before. You feel outraged? Imagine what I felt! At any rate, I do suggest focusing on the content, which is what really matters here. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which - what's wrong with Tec? She's cited numerous times, and "ticks all the boxes" of an RS. I've seen no contradictory evidence here, only editors' dislike. François Robere (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bielski_partisans/Archive_2&oldid=991373302"