Talk:Naliboki massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naliboki massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_968.html

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naliboki massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160222031927/http://ipn.gov.pl/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/56451/1-18171.pdf to https://ipn.gov.pl/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/56451/1-18171.pdf

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the POV biased?

That's a bit strange that all of 120-129 people were Poles, and the only Belarusian was a policeman? Unomano 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit strange, that you comment, instead to quote local sources.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No. He was just sleeping there by accident (IPN: jedynie przez przypadek nocował tam tylko jeden policjant białoruski). Btw, he managed to fire one shot, hitting a Soviet political commisar. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But what about the Bielski partisans? They claim they did not arrive at the area until months later. Cema (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai.php?serwis=pl&dzial=82&id=1291&poz=2:

"W napadzie na Naliboki brali udział partyzanci radzieccy z oddziałów „Dzierżyńskiego”, „Bolszewika”, „Suworowa”, dowodzonych przez Pawła Gulewicza, dowódcę Brygady Stalina oraz mjr Rafała Wasilewicza. Wśród atakujących byli również partyzanci żydowscy z oddziału dowodzonego przez Tuwię Bielskiego." "Świadkowie wymieniają znane sobie nazwiska partyzantów biorących udział w ataku, zaznaczając, iż wśród nich były również kobiety oraz mieszkańcy Naliboków narodowości żydowskiej." Translation:

In attack to Naliboki participated soviet partisans from units "Dzierzhinsky", "bolshevik", "suvorow",commanded by Pavel Gulawicz, commander of Stalin brigade, and mjr Rafal Wasilewicz. AMongst attackers also were Jewish partisans from unit commanded by Tuvia Bielski. Witnesses also mention known to them names of partisans who participated in attack, noticing that amongst them were also woman and inhabitants of Naliboki of Jewish nationality.

End of quote. http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai/pl/245/7609/Komunikat_dot_sledztwa_w_sprawie_zbrodni_popelnionych_przez_partyzantow_sowiecki.html

"Kilku świadków lakonicznie zeznaje, że wśród atakujących byli partyzanci od Bielskiego. Świadkowie nie wskazują jednak, na jakich przesłankach opierają to twierdzenie. Ponadto zeznania te nie są poparte żadnymi innymi dowodami, np. dokumentami archiwalnymi. Część historyków również wskazuje na udział partyzantów z Oddziału Bielskiego w ataku na Naliboki. Autorzy nie przywołują jednak w swych opracowaniach źródeł tych informacji. Jeden z byłych partyzantów sowieckich w swym pamiętniku wydanym w latach 60-tych wskazuje, iż obozy żydowskie założono w Puszczy Nalibockiej w II połowie 1943 r., a więc już po ataku na Naliboki. Tak więc fakt udziału partyzantów z Oddziału Bielskiego w ataku na Naliboki jest tylko jedną z wersji przyjętych w toku śledztwa."

Few witnesses testified that amongst attackers were also partisans from Bielski. Witnesses do not point on what basis they put this sentence. In addition, this testimonies are not backed by any document, e.g. archive documents. Some historians also point to participation of partisans from unit of Bielski in the attack. Such authors do not publish the sources for such claims in their publications. One of Jewish partisans in his diary from 60s points to the fact that Jewish camps in Naliboki forest were made in second part of 1943, that is afyer attack to Naliboki. This is why participation of Bielski partisans in attack in Naliboki is only one of versions pursued in the investigations.

Szopen (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the reverts?

Would anybody like to talk about the reverts? What is the disagreement here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון and Chester Leszek: And both sides need to stop calling the edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: keeps removing the mention of Jewish collaborators/perpetrators which is an indisputable fact. Sources were added, multiple ones to be exact. The first source was from a Holocaust memorial organization so you know it's legitimate.-Chester Leszek (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Participation of Jewish partisans (odd choice, and a very telling one regarding POV, to call a persecuted minority, being sent to the death camps by the Nazis and fighting against the Nazis, as well as facing hostility (and complicity with the Nazis - handing Jews over to Nazi authorities) from the local population) is very much in doubt. This section attempt to use non-partisan sources - the overuse of Polish sources slants the POV here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So just because Jews (like Poles) were a persecuted minority of means their hands were clean? Your logic makes no sense. Many Jews were complicit in war crimes. This is just one example and the proof is right there in your sources. There's nothing "dubious", it just seems like you refuse to accept the facts.. Also, you mentioned that the sources are Polish. Only one is, which is from a Polish site. The first source is from a Holocaust memorial organization and the citation clearly states the ethnicities of the perpetrators. These arent "fringe theories" just because you don't like them..

Choosing to call Jewish members of a Soviet partisan units "collaborators/perpetrators" is... A rather interesting choice of phrasing.... The first reference (which used to source "Jewish partisans" and which covers Jewish-Soviet partisans in the forest in general does not actually cover the raid on 8th May). All of the rest of the sources are modern Polish - which is a NPOV problem - as non-Polish sources present a different account.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but facts don't care about your feelings, Icewhiz. These Jews that collaborated with the Soviets had blood on their hands by participation in the slaughtering of Poles and Belarusians. For anyone to attempt to deny these crimes is historical revisionism no different from Holocaust denial...

There are different views here. Poles would see this as occupied Poland. Independent Jewish units (who did not take part in this event, as they arrived in the area a few months later) would say they were fighting for survival against the Nazies and hostile locals who harmed them and took over their possessions, houses, and land - taking back what was theirs. Soviets partisans would see this as occupied Soviet territory, with them acting under the direction and authority of the rightful Soviet government. The Nazies also had their own viewpoint. And all these factions and small groups were vying for control in and around the forest - which we should describe in a NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

not only ethnic poles but also ethnic Belarusians were killed, i.e., basically Polish citizens. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up these claims? -Chester Leszek (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Our article mentions Belarusian policeman. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Possible Soviet officer"

It is not "possible", but sure"; he is wearing ru:галифе pants characteristic of Soviet military uniform of the time. Let me see if there is an article in wikipedia for these pants. I don't know the english word. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: created a stub Galliffet trousers. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. -Chester Leszek (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the sole sourcing here identification of the trousers by an editor? That would be WP:OR. Note that uniform parts (from multiple sources) were worn by partisans without regards to their source - these units were very low on supply, and scrounged what they could.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair remark. Then we must remove any identification until someone reaches the source, The Last Day of Naliboki . I would also guess that the last three persons are Russians. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Commentary on use of IPN as a source

Per this But Piotr Gluchowski, the Gazeta Wyborcza reporter who co-wrote the article on the IPN report - as well as a longer feature story about the Bielski brothers, published several days later - was more forthcoming. Gluchowski wrote in an e-mail that he was sure the Bielski partisans were not involved in the massacre, but that, on the other hand, the IPN "are no amateurs. This is a government organization, a very serious thing.".... According to both Gluchowski and the detractors who found his article unsympathetic, the Bielskis are known in Poland only to the extent that some Polish nationalists have seized upon the idea that a Jewish partisan group collaborated with the Soviets to kill Polish civilians. The IPN itself is currently dominated by members of Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, a rightist party, Gluchowski said.. So IPN was already dominated by Law and Justice (a party which has quite a record on said issues) at the time of this report. There is also a paucity of sources that do not rely on the IPN report. A RS/n discussion might be due for The reinvestigation - or, as some former partisans and historians claim, the revision.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Come on, your very source says that IPN investigation is a "very serious thing". And please pay attention - the IPN is saying that there is NO EVIDENCE that Bielski partisans were involved. They freakin' AGREE with you. But you are so hell bent on rejecting them as a source and pushing a POV that you can't be bothered to notice.

And to clarify - the controversy is about whether the Bielski partisans were involved. Most likely, according to IPN, and other sources, they were not. But there were *some other* Jewish partisans, those serving with the Soviets, that were involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the IPN, of course, which is usually attributed in most non-Polish reporting regarding this alleged event. I am not trying to "push a POV" - I am trying to locate sources here. And frankly I do not understand why we are singling out Jewish Soviet partisans from Belarusian Soviet partisans (and other nationalities) in the infobox. Jews served in Soviet forces, as did other nationalities, and the proportion of alleged Jews (from townfolk claiming previous Jewish inhabitants (whose fate we do not discuss in this article at present, which seems a significant omission) were involved) in this alleged event in not particularly high.Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the IPN, of course what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As to the general question of whether "Jewish partisans" should be mentioned separately from "Soviet partisans" in this particular case, it depends on whether sources do that or not. I see that several of the sources mostly refer only to "Soviet partisans", although I'm not done looking through all of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

See: After the Holocaust: Polish-Jewish Conflict in the Wake of World War II by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, East European Monographs, 2003: — Jewish partisans massacre Polish civilians, including women and children, for example in May 1943 in Naliboki (128 dead) and in January 1944 in Koniuchy (between 34 and 300 dead). See Chodakiewicz, Narodowe, 81; Krajewski, Na Ziemi Nowogrodzkiej, 387-88, 511-12; Sulia Wolozhinski Rubin, Against the Tide: The Story of an Unknown Partisan (Jerusalem: Posner & Sons, Ltd., 1980), 126-27; Chaim Lazar, Destruction and Resistance (New York: Shengold Publishers and The Museum of Combatants and Partisans in Israel, 1985), 174-75; Isaac Kowalski, A Secret Press in Nazi Europe (New York: Central Guide Publishers, Inc., 1969), 333-34; (Google). Poeticbent talk 06:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In Konyuchy massacre there was a separate detachment of Jewish partisans our article says. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In Naloboki "brali udział partyzanci radzieccy z oddziałów "Dzierżyńskiego", "Bolszewika", "Suworowa", dowodzonych przez Pawła Gulewicza, dowódcę Brygady Stalina oraz mjr Rafała Wasilewicza. Wśród atakujących byli również partyzanci Żydowscy z oddziału dowodzonego przez Tuwię Bielskiego." [1] Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that but 1) that was from the initial stages of the investigation and 2) the wording falsely suggests that Tuvia Bielski led this group which participated in this massacre. Rather what happened is that there might have been some individuals involved in this massacre who at one point HAD BEEN in the group led by Tuvia Bielski. IIRC one of them was even somebody who got kicked out by Bielski so he went and joined the Soviets. I'm doing this from memory though so not 100% certain. At any rate, I don't think this is sufficient to list "Jewish partisans" separately here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We have a separate section which dwells upon the issue Jewish partisans. What is unclear? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What I want to know is how somebody got "has been called historical revisionism" out of that article when it says no such thing. Is this another thing just made up? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Haaretz / Forward says "The reinvestigation - or, as some former partisans and historians claim, the revision".Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So, in other words, you just made it up and misrepresented the source? Right. Don't do that anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The source clearly says "revision".Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Some additional, interesting observations, on the people the IPN employs: Poland honors historian who said Nazi invasion wasn’t so bad for Jews, JTA, 24 Oct 2017 - "after the aggression of Germany into Poland, the situation of the Jews did not look very bad", the "permission" to setup a Judenrat is cast as: "Although the [Nazi] occupation authorities took over, they ordered the wearing of armbands with the star of David, charged them heavy taxes, began to designate Jews-only zones only for the Jews,” he wrote, “but at the same time permitted the creation of Judenrat, that is, organs of self-government.". Or we have - Poland urged to fire publisher of works by Holocaust denier, AP, 3 October 2017 regarding a different individual (deputy director of the publishing office) - who retained his position since he, per the IPN, "is not a Holocaust denier himself so there is no reason to dismiss him.".Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

From your source: "Panfil was criticized for his statement by the Institute of National Remembrance.". Or "Polish institute rebuffs historian who said Nazi invasion not that bad for Jews". Funny how you left that part out. And what in the world does any of this stuff have to do with the topic of this article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The linked article, Jewish partisans, discusses organised and semi-organised resistance by the Jewish population. Putting “Soviet and Jewish partisans” next to each other is incongruent. I.e. “Soviet” implies nationality and / or allegiance, while “Jewish” is about ethnicity / religious orientation. Having the two juxtaposed in the lead looks off.

If there were no separate *Jewish partisan* detachments participating (or if it’s disputed), then I would recommend just stating “Soviet partisans” in the lead. The fact that some of the partisans may have been of Jewish ethnicity is not material, as then we’d need to explain the ethnic composition of the rest of the partisans: were they ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Poles, Tatars, Azeri, etc? That’s undue for the lead. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not incongruent. Jewish partisans specifies non-Soviet partisans who collaborated with Soviets in the massacring against Poles. The fact that they were regular citizens collaborating with Soviets is an important factor and should not be left out. Doing so would be historically revisionist. This shouldn't really be hard to understand.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B104:DDB5:2668:AD02:8B36:11A1 (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated but my understanding is that these units had exclusively Jewish composition as they were formed from people who escaped ghettos,shtetls and trains to concetration camps etc and stated this is such, they are named as such in scholarly literature, they also were a bit autonomous from the Soviet command. They were definetely part of the Soviet forces, but had unique character and composition and in both literature and in Israel the are known as "Jewish partistants".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also their operations diary was named as "Diary of Jewish Partisant Unit" so it seems they named themselves as such as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Notability / POV tags

The article, as constituted, refers to a purported massacre. This narrative is present as a single liner in a few older Polish history books, and has been advanced since 2001 by the IPN, which is a politically appointed institution, and by other modern Polish nationalist sources (it is telling that one of the first google hits for "Naliboki massacre" is this hosted on justice4poland a site dedicated to "Connecting true geography and detailed unfolding of wide variety of crimes perpetrated by German/Ukrainian Nazis and jewish bolsheviks of Soviet Union on the Polish nation.". The modern Polish investigation has been seen as revisionism by some.

In Soviet and post-Soviet sources (as well as possibly Jewish Hebrew/Yiddish sources that I have not been able to get a-hold of yet in full-text) the raid on Naliboki is described in completely different terms (and for a much longer period). As we may for instance see here - [2] (and there are additional sources - this one is on-line and in English) - describe a raid against an AK garrison that was collaborating with the Germans, was fairly well armed (at least 4 heavy machine guns, 13 light machine guns, 4 mortars, 10 SMG, 93 rifles, and quite a bit of ammo), and inflicted casualties during a 4.5 hour fight on the attacking force (6 dead, 6 wounded). One should note that modern Polish sources admit that a "self defense" force (part of or affiliated with the AK) was present in the town, collaborated with the Germans, and failed to submit to Soviet authorities (the Polish claim that "truce" with the Soviets was in place following their refusal to submit to Soviet authorities in the area, and that the Soviets violated this in an act of "trickery"). A raid on an armed camp (which in this case, was located in a town) in which primarily fighting men, members of an enemy unit, are killed - is not exactly a civilian massacre (even when some civilians are killed as collateral damage).

What we have in essence, in describing this event as the "Naliboki massacre" is a WP:POVFORK of Partisan campaign in Naliboki Forest (or something similar), lacking context, and framing the events per a narrative present primarily in modern Polish sources (some of which aren't RS and some are primary).Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The tag(s) are spurious and really just reflect your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is NOT a POVFORK (and if you actually bothered to read the policy you quote, it CAN'T be a POVFORK, because for it to be a POVFORK, it would have to actually fork SOMETHING. But this is the only article on the subject!) And to claim that this subject doesn't meet notability guidelines when it's covered in so many reliable sources and has been the subject of an official investigation is blatantly absurd. Your behavior on this article has crossed the line from "just a disagreement", to "blatant POV pushing" to "disruptive and tendentious. You can't just make stuff up and then mess the article up to your liking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The article does not appropriately (particularly after your mass reversion which returned an entirely unsubstantiated COATRACK attack on Jewish partisans, promoting a FRINGE theory (even to the IPN) that the Bielski group was there (when every source that has looked into this determined they were in an entirely different place until a few months later)) reflect non-Polish sources on the raid. Regarding the IPN - it is a politically appointed institution, in a country with severe freedom of speech issues regarding the Polish role in the holocaust, that is charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes. Interim investigative reports are similar to police documents and leaks - they are not historical research. It would also seem the IPN decided to not prosecute anyone that was involved in this, as of yet.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please. Stop. Making. Shit. Up. The article DOES NOT promote any fringe theories. The article freakin' says that the Bielskis were NOT there, according to sources from the IPN. The opposite of what your comment above claims. "Bogdan Musiał from the Institute has said that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the Bielski partisans were involved in the attack". The only problem you could possibly have is with the last paragraph which notes that witnesses claimed to have recognized some partisans from the Bielski group participating in the massacre. But that's what some witnesses have claimed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. See general agreement in this debate to keep this article title as it is. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Naliboki massacre → Naliboki raid – The attacks by partisan forces are often described as raids; see sample gBooks result. There was likely a war crime attached, but the new title would allow to cover that as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to search for "Naliboki raid" with the quotation marks, else you're picking up a whole lot of source which just use the word "raid".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition on 16 March: I would argue that "Naliboki massacre" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. See for example this gBook search: [3]. Only two book sources come up, both referring to Polish investigation / sources: "Another Polish newspaper, the liberal Gazeta Wyborcza, also disapproved of the representation of the Bielski brothers, while acknowledging that they were not involved in the Naliboki massacre..." and "'Polish Investigators Tie World War II Partisans to Naliboki Massacre.' Haaretz.com 14 Aug 2008. 8 Oct 2012 [4]...". 1st source: Film, History and Memory - Page 96, by F. McGarry, ‎J. Carlsten, ‎Warren Treadgold - 2015; 2nd source: Jewish Cultural Aspirations - Page 106, by Ruth Weisberg, ‎Bruce Zuckerman, ‎Lisa Ansell - 2013. Note that these are cultural history books, not WW2 history. I don't see 92 hits as mentioned in Volunteer Marek post below.

Since there's no firmly established name for the event, then a descriptive name ("raid") is more appropriate, per WP:NPOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see 92 hits as mentioned in Volunteer Marek post below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

When I click your link I get the 92 hits I mentioned below. I listed some specific examples below. Google search is weird - sometimes how it searches depends on your search history or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Must be distinctive title. Naliboki were raided numerous time for foodstuff. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was raided multiple times, but this raid is the only one that appears to be notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

How would you know that? "Naliboki raid" is zero google hits. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose %100 it was a mass murder of civilians, a crime GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NPOV trumps COMMONNAME in highly biased non-reliable sources. Lets begin with what this action was not - it was not a massacre (or mass murder) of civilians. Even per the modern Polish revisionist narrative advanced by the IPN's "investigation" (or revision per others) - In August 1942, a self-defense unit was formed in Naliboki. For some members of self-defense, long active in the conspiracy, participation in self-defense was a cover for underground activity. Membership in self-defense gave the possibility of legal possession of a weapon. Soviet partisans were aware of it. In March and April 1943 there were two meetings of the Soviet partisans with members of self-defense. During these meetings, Soviet partisans urged Poles to join their branches. The commander of self-defense did not give his consent. However, an agreement was made, under which Soviet partisans and members of the Polish self-defense were to avoid clashes with each other. Contrary to the agreement concluded on the morning of May 8, 1943, Soviet partisans attacked Naliboki. They were dragging men out of their homes, actual members of self-defense or only suspected of belonging to this formation, shot them near homes individually or in groups of several or a dozen or so.IPN - admitting that the vast majority of those killed were those who were members of the "self defense group" (which was a "cover for underground activity" - or Home Army), and that furthermore this unit operated in assent ("possibility of legal possession of a weapon") of Nazi/Puppet-Belorussian authorities - or in other words - collaborated. The Soviet narrative is of course different - as might be seen here - and basically describes a raid that encountered armed resistance (12 casualties in the attacking force), and that succeeded in destroying a company+ sized formation. The reality here is even more complex - in a modern analog, this location in the Eastern Front was somewhat akin to maps we see in the modern Syrian civil war - the factions here being the Nazis, Soviets, Polish (AK and others), Ukrainian nationalists, the Belorussian resistance, as well as smaller groups (including Jews in the forest) just attempting to survive (and defending themselves with arms in ad-hoc local self-defense organizations). This particular area which was well behind the Nazi front line, was a Soviet contested pocket (the partisans commanded control of the forest), with the village being controlled by a Polish unit. While one might discuss the criminality of the Soviet liquidation process (and it actually is a complex legal discussion, particularly prior to protocol-ii and the Geneva conventions - it would depend on how we would classify the partisans (regular army vs. Francs-tireurs) as well as whether we see the Soviets dispensing justice per their internal legal system (with issues in and of itself)). But in any case - a raid against an armed garrison, and destruction of the garrison (who was in opposition to the raiders (or "bandits" per the Poles)) - is not a civilian massacre - civilians who take up arms and act in an organized fashion in a militia unit are no longer civilians.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

First, "massacre" and "mass murder" are not synonymous, so please stop pretending they are and trying to create an obvious strawman. Second, it's only in your imagination that sources which describe this as a massacre "biased" and "non-reliable". This has already been explained to you numerous times so at this point you're just being obtuse. Third, the COMMONNAME policy very much requires that the common name - massacre - be used. Fourth, funnily (maybe not) enough, right after you lecture people about "biased non-reliable sources" you propose that ... we take apologist Stalinist sources seriously. Seriously? Company sized formation? Gimme a break. A "garrison"? Just stop. Just because civilians manage to fight back does not make not-a-massacre (and what, the Rwandan Genocide wasn't really a genocide because in some instances the Tutsi managed to fight back and killed some Hutus?) There's certainly room for reasonable disagreement and interpretation here but you've gone way over the line and at this point your intent on pushing a POV in this article is blatant and transparent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The victims of a massacre need not be civilians. The December 1944 Malmedy massacre was perpetrated by German troops against American troops. Nihil novi (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  But in this case the Poles were shooting back at the Soviets - inflicting 12 casualties on the attacking force. Some of the Poles may have been massacred or summarily executed immediately after (or perhaps during) the battle if we accept the narrative in the non-RS IPN "investigation" - however that event is not distinct from the battle or raid. We also have WP:BLPCRIME in using this terminology when it is supported merely by an investigation by a state agency (IPN - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation) and hasn't been tried in a court of law (not even in a Polish jurisdiction) - what we've got is these various interim reporting on their "investigation" (which has been sharply criticized by several non-Polish sources).Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  • "But in this case the Poles were shooting back at the Soviets" - so what? And for the millionth time, the IPN investigation IS a reliable source. You can go blue in the face denying it but it is. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are not valid reasons for repeating the same false claim over and over again. "hasn't been tried in a court of law " So fucking what? And guess what? Noone's ever been tried for the Katyn Massacre either. Doesn't make it any less of a massacre. Quit inventing ridiculous reasons for your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We do not lack reputable historians writing on the Katyn Massacre - it is a well researched topic. Interim documents of the IPN - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation are PRIMARY accounts from a politically appointed organization that investigates and prosecutes crimes -these are not RS for history, nor is a book review (in ampoleagle.com !) of a book written by a former Polish resident of the town (who is not a historian). An IPN official speaking at a historical club meeting is not a RS either (in particular when the IPN's subsequent bulletins contradict these remarks, however such a setting would not be a place to source history from). Furthermore the IPN itself has been criticized in quite severe terms.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
      • No, they are not "primary" accounts. How in the world do you get that? That's another absurd claim. Added to the long list of other absurd claims you have made. And yes they are RS for history since its 'freakin' historians who work for IPN. What "interim documents" are you talking about? It's impossible to communicate constructively with someone who's statements don't make any sense.
      • And I've pointed this out to you *several times*. The IPN investigation that you hate so much agreed with your position - they found the Bielskis were not involved in this massacre! Please get that through your thick computer screen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre was perpetrated against defenseless POW, after they had surrendered. Please also see my comment in the nomination about the lack of a "common name". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We follow WP:COMMONNAME and the most often used term in the sources is "massacre". End of story, no amount of lame obfuscation and denialism is gonna change that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There are about 92 hits on Google Books for sources using the term "Naliboki Massacre" [5]. There are ZERO hits for sources using the term "Naliboki Raid".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing comes up for me from the link; could you cite some snippets? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Try this one (I removed Wikipedia from the search and now get 86). Not all of these are accessible and some of them may be false positives, but some certainly aren't: "the liberal Gazeta Wyborcza, also disapproved of the representation of the Bielski brothers, while acknowledging that they were not involved in the Naliboki massacre." [6], [7] pg.144, [8], [9], [10], [11]. Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We lack non-Polish sources calling this a massacre (not in the context of denying it or denying the false association of angroup to the event). What we do have is nationalist Poles using the term. They often reference Chodakiewicz, who per the SPLC has "a long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism", "Chodakiewicz has a history of troubling, far-right views including repeatedly arguing that the killing of Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust by native Poles was not due to anti-Semitism, but rather to Jewish collaboration with Soviets."., "Chodakiewicz’s far-right beliefs have not only centered on dabbling in anti-Semitism. In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. " - and is not a source we would borrow terminology from. Contemporary Soviet accounts describe things differently from the modern Polish revision (a term used by non-Polish historians to describe these modern efforts), and NPOV requires we account for all views - not just modern Polish natiojalists.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"We lack non-Polish sources calling this a massacre" <-- 1) This is blatantly false. Here, again, some non-Polish sources calling it a "massacre" [12], [13], [14]. Why do you do this? Why do you keep repeating something which is so obviously false and so easily disproven? Please stop. That kind of behavior makes it impossible to assume good faith.

And one more time 2) will you please stop using ethnic criteria to judge source's reliability? Whether it's a "Polish" or a "non-Polish" or "Jewish" or "non-Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the reliability of sources. Using ethnic criteria to decide which sources are acceptable and which are not is not only in contravention of Wikipedia policy but it's very troubling behavior in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The first two sources are denials of Polish allegations. The third is a book by a former Polish resident of the town. On POV laden subjects - wartime acts between Soviets and Poles (with Jewish units thrown in by a author condemned by the SPLC(and others) and since debunked by other Polish and non-Polish sources) - one would expect, for NPOV, to use sources from opposing sides of the conflict, particularly when the incident is described in different terms by the opposing side. I would have made the same comment if this article were solely based on Russian sources (which would have led to an opposite POV problem).Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"The first two sources are denials of Polish allegations." NO. There's no such thing as "Polish allegations". Stop it with the ethnic attacks. You're really crossing the line into ethnically-based prejudice here. And they do NOT deny "allegations". They only state the same thing as what the Polish IPN and the Polish newspaper stated - that the Bielski brothers were most likely not involved. They do NOT deny that a massacre happened (which was perpetrated by Soviet partisans). You're doing it again. Making blatantly false claim which can be easily checked to be false. And you've been doing this repeatedly through out this talk page, hence this cannot be unintentional. Please. Stop. Lying.

I have no idea what Trump's visit to Poland has to do with any of this so stop it with the ridiculous red herrings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It was a battle with civilian casualties, not a massacre.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Show me a source which says that. There aren't any.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There aren't that many sources about this in English, but the few use the name massacre. And the many sources in Polish are by the name of massacre, so it supports the name too. Even if there'd be 0 sources in English for a notable event, we can use translation and non-English sources. Honestly, what is your problem again K.e.coffman? --Pudeo (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this was clearly a massacre and not just a military raid. It is also named as such in available sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Haaretz appears near the top of my Google search for "Naliboki Massacre" going as far as using it in a headline [15] - while I don't get a single Google hit for "Naliboki Raid". Per WP:V, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." So if some editors here dislike the word "massacre" because it seems consistent with what they see as an unacceptable bias in the article, there are other ways to deal with that problem. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Operations Diary -operation to destroy armed village of Koniuchy

Operations Diary is available online. It confirms patricipation of following units http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operations-diary-of-a-jewish-partisan-unit-in-rudniki-forest In the operation to destroy the armed village of Koniuchy, 30 fighters took part, of the units "Avenger" and "To Victory." Commanding officer Jacob Prener. [16] This is confirmed by Chaim Lazar. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: - you just added a whole bunch of badly sourced POVish information on the Koniuchy massacre (Jan 1944, which has its own POV issues - not accounting for the village being an armed camp in opposition to the partisans per the Soviet partisans, recent Polish re-investigations harangued quite widely) to this article on Naliboki (May 1943) - some 100kms away - how are you latest edits on this article relevant to this article?Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

aaa sorry wrong window I will fix this--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of date information

The following revert, besides removing the status of the investigation as of feburary 2018, also removed a more coherent organization of the IPN's investigation into a single section, returned rather out of date information (primary statements from the prosecutor's office in 2003 - on a case that has evolved much since them), and restored a gross NPOV violation in Nevertheless, the presence of several Jewish residents of Naliboki during the massacre has also been confirmed by their names. - nothing of the sort has been substantiated beyond witnesses saying this to the IPN. The emphasis in this section on Jews, in a Soviet military action - commanded by General Platon and involving Soviet units, does not reflect well on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Claims withdrawn and historians apologized.

I reverted this [17] because (quoted from Home Army talk page were this false claim has been already discussed): these claims were pushed in 90s but withdrawn and historians apologized for them as false.There was a campaign about it by liberal Gazeta Wyborcza claiming AK murdered Jews in Warsaw Uprising but later it withdrew from this and the claims are now recognized as false.Here’s the apology letter[18], the claims were discredited so heavily that even Barbara Engelking was forced to admit they are groundless[19]. And the apology letter I added in this text is by the very same Michal Cichy you quoted above from 1994. GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Cichy retracted or not (a newspaper would be a poor source for this) - this is sourced to Bilewicz, Michał & and Johanna Ray in 2012 who themselves cite Gluchowski & Kowalski 2009 and Grossman 1988 - so this has nothing to do with Cichy. It is published in an academic setting - which is much better than the rest of article. Note that cooperation with the Germans, by Naliboki residents, is an established fact in any event - the villagers themselves say the Germans sanctioned the self-defense unit.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Gluchowski and Kowalski say nothing of the kind. Probably because it's nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now, now - this was published in an academic setting and makes a rather straightforward interpretation of events in regards to Naliboki and the Nazi authorities under whose auspices the self defense force was formed. There is little reason to call this nonesense.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, now, since when is a newspaper article a "academic setting"? And that's sort of irrelevant since like i said, they don't appear to make that claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I take it you haven't read the source then. This is a book published by Palgrave Macmillan, the chapter in question has been cited 41 times by others - this is of a much higher quality than the present sources in the article (which are interim reports by an anti-communist lustration agency, media reports about the on-going (and rather stalled) investigation, and a book review of a non-academic book). The text itself in the source is The perceived need for self-defence against such raids led the formerly anti-fascist local branch of the Polish Home Army to collaborate with the Nazi police in killings of hidden Jews..Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - your assertion that As per discussion on t.p. this is false and apologized for - has no basis. Bilewicz, Michał & and Johanna Ray are citing Gluchowski & Kowalski 2009 and Grossman 1988 for this. If you wish to challenge a source based on an alleged retraction - you'd better produce said retraction. This is was published by Palgrave-Macmillan which is a reputable publisher.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This - >“formerly anti-fascist local branch of the Polish Home Army to collaborate with the Nazi police in killings of hidden Jews” is really a heavy claim. Do you mind providing an additional source that confirms this particular AK unit became pro-fascist and started to collaborate? The reference you repeatedly provided seems to be already rebuffed in the Home Army talk page. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been rebuffed at all - and in discussion there was something else all together. This is an academic level source - which is much-much better than the rest of the sources on this mess of a page. It also isn't a "heavy claim" - the collaboration of the Naliboki residents is admitted to even by the Polish IPN - who admit the self-defense unit was formed by the Nazis and acted in coordination with them. I will note that there are sources who detail the liqudiation of the Jews of Naliboki, the fate of their property, a Soviet vs. Polish/German firefight in 1942, and that the Naliboki unit reinforced Niescierowicze village in a fight against the Soviets in April 1943 (losing two unit members). You haven't provided a single reason to reject this source on the activities of this collaborating unit.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so let’s find out what AK unit operated in the Naliboki forest. Do you have any source that may guide us to secure that? I was attempting a Google search for “fascist + Home Army + unit + Naliboki" but have difficulty locating it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I provided a WP:RS and a strong one at that - on a topic that has a paucity of good sources (the rest of this article being based on interim, non-final, status reports from a lustration agency and media reports on said non-final interim status reports) . I will note this source does not state the Naliboki unit was "fascist", merely that it ceased being "anti-fascist" - as it was collaborating with the Nazi police. Any concrete policy-based objections to this source? Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, so what exactly “formerly antifascist Polish Home Army" that started to "to collaborate with the Nazi police" supposed to indicate? GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked the source, and there is nothing on page 280 about Naliboki village. There is mention about Jewish partisants raids in Naliboki Forest on page 283 and their attacks against local population which authors show as example of change from victim to perpetrator role.Naliboki village and Naliboki forest are two different locations --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct this is page 283. Naliboki forest includes Naliboki village (which is on the southern end) - though you are correct we should ascribe this to AK units in the Naliboki forest as a whole, and not specifically to the village.Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As said different location, and different situation.There is wealth of material about Naliboki forest.It contained active partisan units that were engaged in collaboration with Soviets and attacked both civilians and Polish underground, so it isn't a case of AK hunting down helpless civilians but a partisan conflict.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Gluchowski and Kowalski is a newspaper article in very liberal Gazeta Wyborcza and there is nothing about AK in the village hunting down Jews either, however they mention Bielski as a drunk and womanizer who cooperated with Soviet occupation in fighting Polish resistance[20]--MyMoloboaccount (talk)

The more significant reference is Grossman, however I don't have access to it. I would expect, however, that this book chapter is using it appropriately as a reference. As for Polish/Soviet occupation/resistance - such terminology varies between the POV of the source, and GW still ascribes to the Polish POV for the most part.Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry ? I don't exactly get you, are you saying Poland was occupied by Soviets is a Polish POV? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I said varies by the source. Obviously the Polish–Soviet War and the 1939 Soviet action are historical facts, the Soviet (and by extension Russian/Belorussian) sources tend to see this as occupied Soviet territory.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of local police in hunting hidden Jews, in the Naliboki region as a whole, following "liquidation" actions (shooting) by security police may be found in - Collaboration in the Holocaust: Crimes of the Local Police in Belorussia and Ukraine, 1941-44 First Edition, by Martin Dean (research fellow at the U.S. Holocaust Museum) published by Palgrave Macmillan on page 85. He also details a partisan ambush on the German security police on 9 June 1942 when they were returning from a "Jewish action" in the town of Naliboki.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Zoology book used as a source

I removed a zoology book that was added to this article as source for historical information. Vadim Sidorovich is zoologist and his book is a bout area he works in. I believe this was added by Icewhiz. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This book is an ethnographic sketch and historical outline of the forest - it is not a zoology book. It was written by an academic, and was reviewed by other academics. History is a multidisciplinary topic - and in this particular case history of an area of woodland attracts other disciples. This is definitely a more neutral source than many of the sources in the article, and a better source than many - e.g. a book review of "The Last Day of Naliboki" by Klimowicz (related to the self defense commander?) - which is a popular account, with the review done in Am-Pol Eagle which is not known for its scholarship.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of NRS - The whole article has been modified[21],[22] referring to this environmental "Land, Wildlife and Human" book[23] by biological studies professor Vadim Sidorovich [24][25] as a source. Do you mind self-reverting Icewhiz, please? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish OR in "Polish investigation" section

All historians agree that the Bielski partisans were not involved, and the Polish agency itself is parroting Jewish involvement from witness statements and says they found nothing beyond this. According to [26] " Piotr Gluchowski, a journalist for Poland's biggest newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, is writing his own book about the partisans and has looked into the Naliboki massacre. He says the witnesses against the Bielskis were parroting what they had read in a book by an avowed anti-Semite. " This also appears here about a Polish language book from the 90s. The section is currently based on poor sources and is a SYNTH/OR stringing together of material in order to suggest Jewish involvement in what the Polish agency itself sees as a Soviet operation. We should take care before repeating was is labelled as anti-Semitism.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, יניב הורון (Yaniv). There is no source that states that "all" historians agree that the Bielski brothers were involved, these are your words alone. Secondly, The Soviet underground began to arise in the province Nowogroski in 1942. The leaders of the various units, including those from the Soviet Army who concealed themselves, were of Russian, Belarusian, as well as the people of Jewish nationality. In the Naliboki town, they numbered about 4,000 inhabitants and in them there were several hundred people of Jewish nationality. In the attack on Naliboki, Soviet partisans from the "Dzierżyński", "Bolshevik", "Suvorov" units, commanded by Pawel Gulewicz, commander of the Stalin Brigade and Major Rafa Wasilewicz took part. The attackers were also Jewish guerrillas from the unit commanded by Tuwa Bielski. Stating the truth is not "Anti-Jewish" nor "anti-Semitic" and eyewitness accounts are a classic example of what is direct evidence. Just because you cite one journalists words (Gluchowski) does not make your point factually correct. Thank you. -2600:1001:B120:3360:4DAC:CA3D:CC7D:61EA (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo with NKVD officer?

Back to the "Possible Soviet officer" discussion: what's the caption of the image given by the source? François Robere (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is the book The Last Day of Naliboki . In wikipedia it came from "Jan Radziwiłł , „Janek”, „Długi” z Naliboków", where nothing is said about NKVD officer. Therefore, as I suggested in the above discussion, I ma removing the mention of the NKVD officer until confirmation. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The book is a WP:SPS. The publisher is a very small step up from a vanity press (some marketing, no editorial oversight, authors pay to be published) - [27][28] Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Group membership of partisans in the region is not particularly relevant

I think this deletion [29], which has been added back, should be re-deleted. An estimate of the makeup of partisans in the region is not the same as the makeup of the perpetrators. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed this part seems out of place Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert by Gitz6666

My edit added important context for without which the question of whether or not Jewish partisans participated in the massacre is incomprehensible. @Gitz6666 removed it under the pretext of WP:UNDUE, which is incomprehensible because my edit did not present any specific point of view. I believe it also fits within the scope of the article. Marcelus (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary [30], I belive this is WP:UNDUE because we shouldn't describe with excessive detail where the Jewish partisans were, what they were doing, where they were supplying, etc., since the historical consensus is that WE DON'T KNOW if the massacre was carried out by Jewish partisans. Thus, this big chunk of text emphasises the issue of the ethnicity of the perpetrators and, if included, makes it the main focus of the article. It is revealing that the quoted RS (in Polish) devotes less than half a page to the Naliboki massacre and to the issue "were the perpetrators Jew?" (at p. 166); all the info I removed were taken from pp. 155-156 and are not directly related to the Naliboki massacre. Indeed, the subject of the essay is not the Naliboki massacre, but, as the title makes clear, "Jews in Soviet partisan units in the north-eastern areas of the Second Polish Republic, 1941–1944". So these information do not belong to this article's subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. After all, the two are connected. Bielski's partisans could not take part in the massacre because they were not in the area, and Zorin's partisans could because they were. Information about where the unit was and what its activities consisted of is relevant. Why should we not inform about it? The reader has the right to know why Bielski's unit couldn't and Zorin's could take part in the massacre. What is it that makes the difference from which page of the article it is taken or even the name of the article? What is "revealing" about it? Marcelus (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the good compromise would be to retain the source and key facts, but reduce the lenght of this section? The point is, we should avoid creating UNDUE impression that Jewish participation in Naliboki is a major issue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Like User:Gitz6666, I am uncomfortable with this much detail about people who sources are saying likely did *not* commit the massacre. It feels like we are straying too far from the topic. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Tbf sources are saying that it's unlikely that Bielski unit took part in the massacre, and that is possible that Zorin's unit took part in it. Things I added give detailed information why sources says that. Marcelus (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Section on the 2001 investigation

I think this entire section should be deleted. Some of the sources are dead links. Some portions say "better source needed". A statement that an investigation was ongoing as of 2018 is not particularly useful, and a statement that findings had not been reported as of 2009 is even less so. As noted above, the statement about group membership of partisans in the region is WP:COATRACK. When one deletes all the above, there is little if anything left. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding Naliboki and the IPN investigation is a real thing, it needs to be described. But no doubt the section needs improvements Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This obviously needs a major c/e. I note that the section was longer few years ago, and it had some references that were removed - I haven't had the time to understand why. The 2003 claim was made by an IPN representative, but I can't find official IPN communique, just a copy(?) hosted on a website of dubious reliability ([31]). However, IPN did repeat the key claims in 2013 ([32]), and I am unsure why this was removed: W akcji na Naliboki brali również udział partyzanci żydowscy. Świadkowie wymieniają znane sobie nazwiska partyzantów biorących udział w ataku, zaznaczając, iż wśród nich były również kobiety oraz mieszkańcy Naliboków narodowości żydowskiej. translates as Jewish partisans also took part in the action on Naliboki. Witnesses list the names of the partisans who took part in the attack, and note that among them there were also women and residents of Nalibok of Jewish nationality. Perhaps the findings have been rebutted/declared obsolete? We cite this IPN comminique, without a data, that states that evidence for Belski's participation is weak and inconclusive. The 2018 communique (archive) contains the sentence Świadkowie wymieniają znane sobie nazwiska partyzantów biorących udział w ataku, zaznaczając, iż wśród nich były również kobiety oraz mieszkańcy Naliboków narodowości żydowskiej. but not the W akcji na Naliboki brali również udział partyzanci żydowscy. Overall, I am at this point unsure if the best thing is to shorten this or expand this, but the gist of the current findings seems to be lack of conclusive evidence for Bielski's group particpation (although it has been accused of this); however IPN does seem to find that some local Jews aided the Soviet partisans? It would be good to find actual academic publications (articles) discussing this in depth, not in passing. And something newer than ~5 years ago... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

My opinion that it should be deleted is based on the current version.[33]. I am not per se opposed to a different version. Care would need to be taken with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and sourcing requirements. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I don’t think it should be deleted. I was the one who marked it asking for a better source (see my edit summary). Musiał is a historian but Rzeczpospolita was (back then) not allowed (per sources requirements in the area) that’s why I asked for a better source but (Musiał) is perfectly fine. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I recommend removing this section due to NPOV and COATRACK concerns. Quoting from the recent journal article: added for clarity

In 2001 the IPN launched an investigation into these two supposedly Jewish-led massacres [including Naliboki] at the request of the Canadian Polish Congress.(90) Finding nothing, the IPN dismissed the claim years later, stating in 2008 that ‘several witnesses testify that there were partisans from Bielski among the attackers,’ but that ‘these statements are not supported by any other evidence, such as archival documents.’(91) Wikipedia’s coverage of the Naliboki massacre should not even mention Jews...

The section creates the impression that there is something to investigate, hence the concerns. If the investigation is indeed relevant and important and concerns the Jewish partisan unit(s), then it could be mentioned in the article Bielski partisans, provided sources meet Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article sourcing expectations.

I recommend that the section be removed from the article under discussion. Even in the Bielski partisans article this content will likely be undue. But that's a question for another article, not this one. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Compare what Grabowski and Klein claim the Wikipedia article says: "In 2001 the IPN launched an investigation into these two supposedly Jewish-led massacres [including Naliboki]"

To what our article actually says: "On 20 March 2001 an investigation into the Naliboki massacre was launched by IPN in Łódź."

The "supposedly Jewish-led" is not in this article, Grabowski and Klein just add it in themselves.

2. Grabowski and Klein: "the IPN dismissed the claim years later, stating in 2008 that ‘several witnesses testify that there were partisans from Bielski among the attackers,’ but that ‘these statements are not supported by any other evidence"

This is true but here's what Wikipedia article says: "As of April 2009 the IPN has not reported its findings, however historian Bogdan Musiał has stated that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the Bielski partisans were involved in the attack.""

Bizarrely, Grabowski and Klein appear to be complaining that this article/section says exactly what they say happened.

3. I don't get how this material is supposed to be WP:UNDUE here - an article about a massacre which was investigated - but would be due in an article on Bielski partisan, when the whole point is that the Bielskis DID NOT participate (yeah, I know it's confusing because the Grabowski and Klein article pretends that our article says what it doesn't say). The relevant investigation(s) was titled Investigation Reports on Koniuchy and Naliboki, not "Investigation Report on Bielski Partisans". Volunteer Marek 00:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

In re: Grabowski and Klein claim the Wikipedia article says... -- this appears to be a misreading of my post / the G&K article. The authors do not claim that Wikipedia says that; they are not quoting the article. For clarity, here's the beginning of the paragraph:

Wikipedia’s insinuation that Jews played a key role in perpetuating this massacre echoes distortions popular among right-wing fringe groups. It began in the early 2000s when the Toronto Branch of the Canadian Polish Congress (KPK), a right-wing group of Polish Canadians, alleged that in Naliboki and Koniuchy (a village in Lithuania), ‘Jewish partisans boast[ed] of killing 300 and 130 Poles respectively.’(89) In 2001 the IPN launched an investigation into these two supposedly Jewish-led massacres at the request of the Canadian Polish Congress.(90) Finding nothing, the IPN dismissed the claim years later...

Citations 89 is: Letter from Hanna Sokolski to National Post, June 23, 2001, CPC Toronto District – Viewpoints, http://kpk-toronto.org/ wp-content/uploads/viewpoints_020.html, also found in http://web.archive.org/web/20220907182445/http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/viewpoints_020.html.

Citations 90 is: Marc Perelman, “Poles Open Probe into Jewish Role in Killings,” Forward, August 8, 2003, https://forward.com/news/7832/poles-open-probe-into-jewish-role-in-killings/. For the Canadian Polish Congress, accusation, see letter from Hanna Sokolski to National Post.

Hope this clarifies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Great! That's what our article says (that the IPN investigation found that Bielskis did not participate and that the massacre was not "Jewish-led" (sic)". This "insinuation" appears to be a straight up invention. Volunteer Marek 00:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that's clarified, it may be advisable to strike the portion of the comments Compare what Grabowski and Klein claim... to ...Grabowski and Klein just add it in themselves.. That way others reading this discussion would not get confused. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of delating the entire section, as suggested by Adoring nanny, we should make it less suggestive and potentially misleading by replacing it with a text worded along the lines of the G&K paper and supported by that paper as a source. There seems to be something worth noting and relevant to (the historical memory of) the subject in that a right-wing group of Polish Canadians said xyz and the IPN took it seriously but ultimately found nothing and debunked the allegation. I think we should report this, as it is possible that some readers will reach the article specifically looking for information on Jewish involvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the section is "suggestive". Are you referring to the first sentence? It seems to provide the necessary background for why this was under investigation but if you think that can be reworded better then go for it. However, I don't think we should use the G&K paper if there are other sources available - the paper is part of about to start ArbCom case and is obviously quite controversial here. Generally I think holding off on using it until that case concludes and dust settles is probably a good idea, especially if something can be sourced to other reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 17:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

In general terms, I think we may use the G&K paper to support statments on the article subject and not to support statements on the article content. Eg. insinuation that Jews played a key role ... began in the early 2000s when the Toronto Branch of the Canadian Polish Congress (KPK), a right-wing group of Polish Canadians, alleged that in Naliboki and Koniuchy ... ‘Jewish partisans boast[ed] of killing 300 and 130 Poles respectively.’ might be used as a source here; however, Wikipedia’s coverage of the Naliboki massacre should not even mention Jews, shouldn't be used.

I see that some good editing has already been done by Adoring nanny. In my view, some work still needs to be done:

• To remove the sentence the Soviet partisans active in the area of eastern Poland were often joined by the Polish Jews, which lends credibility to the allegation "the massacre was the work of the Jews" and evokes the antisemitic trope of the Judeo–Bolshevism.
• To report that the allegation of Jewish involvment in the massacre was first made by the Canadian Polish Congress (KPK) here [34]. In this regard, quoting G&K paper as a source might be necessary, otherwise the was first made bit is unsupported.
• To remove the statement As of November 2018, the regional division of IPN stated that investigations regarding war crimes in Nowogródek Voivodeship of the Second Polish Republic were still ongoing. This statement is verified [35] but is very misleading, because it suggests that the ongoing investigations focus on the ethnicity of the Soviet partisans, which is probably false.
• Yes, some residents said that there were Jews among the attackers, which must have come as a shock to them, but this does not mean that the massacre was carried out by the Jews in general and by the Bielski partisans in particular. At most, based on this source [36], we could say that some witnesses reported that the massacre was carried out by Bielski partisans, but that subsequent historical research has not found documentary evidence to support these testimonies.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Your final point summary seems very correct and neutral; this is pretty much what our article should say. I'd be a bit wary removing content, perhaps rewriting of clarifying it could be better? Re CPC, we can mention it, but I'd suggest being neutral (any criticism of CPC should be first added to CPC article, in a DUE fashion). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a criticism of CPC. G&K paper call them "right-wing", our article calls them "conservative, anti-communist, and supportive of the Catholic Church". I think that reporting that the allegation was first voiced by them is justified, but we need G&K paper as a source to that end, and it's not a criticism, it's just content supported by RS. Besides, we could also mention that this topic became a "big thing" following the release of Defiance, when the issue of the involvement of Bielski's partisansin the massacre was discussed in the press: e.g., Wyborcza and The Times (not checked) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - be bold and edit away. I think you are right that Defiance popularized this issue; but we need RS to say that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Sources in the IPN investigation section

Here's the contents of the section, as it appears in the current version of the article: 2001 investigation:

Following Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet partisans active in the area of eastern Poland were often joined by the Polish Jews trying to survive the escape from the Nazi ghettos. The controversy, as noted in a communique released by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance IPN, concerns the participation of the Bielski partisans who might have supported the Soviets in the attack based on their ongoing relationship.

On 20 March 2001 an investigation into the Naliboki massacre was launched by IPN in Łódź. In May 2003, prosecutor Anna Gałkiewicz from IPN's Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation KŚZpNP, in charge of the investigations into the massacres in Naliboki and Koniuchy, reported that surviving eyewitnesses from Naliboki recognized Jews who had previously been in the Bielski partisans participating in the attack. As of April 2009 the IPN has not reported its findings, however historian Bogdan Musiał has stated that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the Bielski partisans were involved in the attack. According to a statement by the IPN, the unit involved was the "Stalin" brigade, accompanied by partisans from the "Dzerzhinsky", "Bolshevik" and "Suvorov" units. As of November 2018, the regional division of IPN stated that investigations regarding war crimes in Nowogródek Voivodeship of the Second Polish Republic were still ongoing.

Note: The Telegraph source was removed in this edit, leaving only the 'Source needed' tag. For completeness, I included the original Telegraph citation in the above text so that it's clear where the contents is coming from.

Sources and my assessment of whether or not they meet the APL requirements:

• Citation 1: IPN Bulletin (2009) -- appears to be a news publication from IPN rather than a journal, but seems okay. 
• Citation 2: IPN, Kommunykat ("Communications") -- appears to be a press release; a primary source and does not meet APL.
• Citation 3: IPN Investigation Reports on Koniuchy and Naliboki (1 March 2002) -- is this an investigative report from the prosecutorial side, rather than historical? Unlikely to meet APL; too dated; dead link.
• Citation 4: Telegraph -- does not meet APL.
• Citation 5: historian Bogdan Musiał -- meets APL.
• Citation 6: ODDZIAŁOWA KOMISJA W ŁODZI, STAN NA LISTOPAD 2018 R. ("BRANCH COMMITTEE IN ŁÓDŹ, AS OF NOVEMBER 2018") -- dead link but judging by the title, appears to be an announcement from an IPN branch; same issue as Citation 2.

Not used in the article:

• Grabowski & Klein source mentioned in the previous section -- meets APL.

Feedback on this assessment? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why press releases by scholary institutions do not meet APL? APL endorses the use of "an article published by a reputable institution". If retained, we should clealry label them as press releases or communiques or such, per best practices in attribution.

If we were to remove them, could you propose a rewritten paragraph/section that you think is based on RS and reflects what they say? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear enough, no? A press release is not an article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Shulman, Myra (2004). Thinking Critically: World Issues for Reading, Writing, and Research. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08953-6. A press release is an article that is usually published in a newspaper, newsletter , or website to publicize information about important people and events
• Farlow, Helen (1979). Publicizing and Promoting Programs. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-019947-7. A news release or press release is an article that is professionally written ( or written in a professional style ) and which can be used as is by the people in the newsroom to which it is addressed
• Gaikwad, J. and Kate, P.H., 2016. E-MARKETING: A MODERN APPROACH OF BUSINESS AT THE DOOR OF CONSUMER. Clear International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 7(9). A press release is an article written about your company for any product release or any other event
• Drake, Paul B. Pacific Visions: Finding, Selecting, and Using Resources for Your Libraries, Archives, and Museums. Selected Papers from PIALA 2009, Pacific Islands Association of Libraries, Archives, and Museums Annual Conference (19th, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, November 16-21, 2009). 2011. A press release is an article you write for your local paper.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an attempt to bring together the inputs from the discussion [37]. Please modify the text as you see fit and in the process improve the style and my defective English. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not bad, but I'd avoid adjectives at all here, it's all seems like variatins of WP:WTA/editorializing. Also, re "initiated an investigation into massacres of Poles allegedly carried out by Jews, including the Naliboki massacre". Was the investitagion aimed at determining whether Jewish participation happened, or into the massacre in general? I thought it was the latter. Finally, aren't we conflating now the Jewish participation with that of Bielski partisans? The cited source talks about some eywitness identifing the partisans, others about identifying local Jewish inhabitans, no? This could be worth clarifying? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

• Re avoiding the adverb wrongly (claimed that), I actually think that we can use wikivoice here because AFIK the claim that Jewish partisans boasted of killing ... Poles is entirely unfounded and incompatible both with G&K ("distortions popular among right-wing fringe groups") and with the findings of IPN. Since the article explicitly addresses the "Jewish question", which is quite delicate, I feel we should make it clear from the outset that these are fringe theories with no factual basis. But you're right that this might sound too judgmental. Let's hear from others.
• Re subject of the investigation, Forbes speaks of "investigating allegations that Jewish partisans participated in a massacre", but I agree with you that we should replace initiated an investigation into massacres of Poles allegedly carried out by Jews, including the Naliboki massacre, with something less committal, e.g. "initiated an investigation into these two massacres".
• Re "conflating now the Jewish participation with that of Bielski partisans", I'm not sure I understand the point. The text (after the massacre some eyewitnesses reported that the killings were carried out by Bielski partisans, but subsequent historical research found no documentary evidence) corresponds to the quoted source ("several witnesses laconically testify that partisans from Bielski were among the attackers"). I don't think it's worth mentioning that some of the witnesses reported that "the attack was carried out by "bandits", "Soviet partisans", people of Jewish nationality, including former residents of Naliboki", because it's very generic and uninformative, but if you think differently and can come up with a better formulation, please modify the text as you wish.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Koniuchy and Naliboki were two different massacres and two different investigations and completely different groups (although both involved Soviet partisans). Volunteer Marek 10:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove all references to the Koniuchy massacre? If I am not mistaken, this could be done simply by modifying the quotation from the CPC letter (in "Naliboki [...] Jewish partisans boast[ed] of killing [...] 130 Poles") and the following sentence, which would become At the request of the Canadian Polish Congress, in 2001 the Institute of National Remembrance initiated an investigation into the Naliboki massacre. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Gitz6666 changes

1. @Gitz6666, why did you hide relevant info about Nowicki and Budrym books in the ref?

2. Canadian Polish Congress isn't a political party, it doesn't have political leaning, there is no reason to label them as right-wing

3. The letter of the Canadian Polish Congress branch is from June 2001, the investigation was resumed in March of that year. So the restored by you chronological order is wrong. The letter is not really relevant here. The Congress's request to the IPN was earlier, and the affiliation of Jewish partisans with the massacre appeared as early as 1993 at the latest. Marcelus (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’m also eager to know why Gitz6666. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. As explained in the edit summaries [38] [39], there's no need to provide extensive references in the body of the article to books only available in Polish written by non-notable historians: we'd better place the references in a footnote. Marcelus's text was way too long; readers have limited time and what follows is full of irrelevant information: The first to attribute the crime to Bielski partisans was former Naliboki resident Wacław Nowicki in his book Living Echoes (lit. 'Living echoes'), published in 1993. This information was repeated by Polish and Belarusian historians, including Zygmunt Boradyn in his monograph published in 1999, Niemen rzeką niezgody. Polsko-sowiecka wojna partyzancka na Nowogródczyźnie (lit. 'Niemen as river of discord. The Polish-Soviet partisan war in the Novogrudok region'). IMO it's better to have this: Allegations that Jews played a role in the massacre first appeared in the 1990s in the memoirs of witnesses to the crime
2. Our article on the Canadian Polish Congress says that organisation has a political leaning: conservative, anti-communist, and supportive of the Catholic Church; also G&K say "right-wing". I think right-wing is better - it's shorter - and since a RS provides us with this information, it is likely that it is significant. I also believe it is significant: this whole thing of the Jews committing a massacre looks like a political shamble by Polish nationalists. Don't you think so?
3. The letter by the CPC is significant because of the same rationale - it is mentioned by the best available source. It is also inaccurate (the Jews were "boasting" about killing Poles!) and further indicates the origin of this whole shenanigan. There's no need of "chronological order" here, as the paragraph makes perfect sense: Allegations that Jews played a role in the massacre first appeared in the 1990s in the memoirs of witnesses to the crime and began to circulate more widely in the early 2000s, when the local branch of a right-wing organisation of Polish Canadians, the Canadian Polish Congress, wrongly claimed that in Naliboki "Jewish partisans boast[ed] of killing [...] 130 Poles." On March 20, 2001, at the request of the Canadian Polish Congress, the Polish Institute of National Remembrance resumed the investigation into crimes committed by Soviet partisans.
4. By the way, also the source added by Marcelus is questionable, because it is just a summary of an article published by "Gazety Wyborczej". I could have removed everything but I left most of the text and the source, and opened this source request at WP:REX. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1) Nowicki and Boradyn are notable. And in this context, certainly more so than the letter from the local branch of the Canadian Polish Congress that you inisist on keeping. It is important to note that the thesis of Jewish partisans' participation in the massacre did not come from nowhere, but functioned in the literature. Nowicki is a veteran of the Polish underground and a prisoner of Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. This may not be notable to you, but as for me it means quite a lot. Zygmunt Boradyn is a Pole from Belarus, and his works have been published in both countries.

2) It doesn't matter here, sticking political labels on apolitical organizations is not WP:NPOV

3) it is mentioned by the best available source, according to whom? G&K are not neutral on this issue. And even their statement that it started with a letter after a brief verification turns out to be untrue. the Jews were "boasting" about killing Poles!, the commander of the partisans who carried out the massacre in Koniuchy, Chaim Lazar, actually boasted of killing 300 "bandits." I don't know where the information about " boasting about killing 130 Poles" came from, because Chernyshov "Platon" reported about killing 200. The paragraph doesn't make sene. As I said the letter is irrelevant here, because it wasn't the reason why the investigation started (another G&K fakery!).

4) This is not a summary of the Gazeta Wyborcza article, this is a PAP article written by Joanna Poros, you can google her.Marcelus (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I was referring to Zygmunt Boradyn. If you say he's notable, I trust your word.
2. Maybe the CPC is not an "apolitical organizations"? I'd stick to the sources, but if others object that "right-wing" is UNDUE, I won't insist.
3. I don't need my sources to be neutral, I want them to be reliable (see WP:BIASED).
4. Nope. The content you added (on Nowicki being the first, on Boradyn repeating the information) is based on the paragraph starting with 6 stycznia na łamach "Gazety Wyborczej" from your source, naukawpolsce, which translates "On 6 January, Gazeta Wyborcza published an article entitled "The true story of the Bielski family". Your edit too closely echoes the original text (please mind WP:COPYVIO) and misrepresents the source (the text should be "as reported by Gazety Wyborczej...." + source naukawpolsce). I placed that text in a footnote but maybe we should just modify it. Let's hear from others.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensiveness of this explanation. Your arguments are convincing and I commend you for your civility and patience. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

1. He is a specialist in the history of partisans in Belarus.

2. It probably isn't in the sense that no organization is completely apolitical, but that's not the point.

3. You didn't talk about reliable, you talked about "best available", that's a little different. In any case, G&K are just one of many sources on the matter. In general, I wonder if it's according to Wikipedia rules to use as a source for an article the text discussing the very same article.

4. It's a somewhat different thing. Poros and PAP are reliable, my point was that they can be trusted. I can make a reference to Boradyn if you want because I have that book. Marcelus (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please @Marcelus don't keep restoring your content without consensus [40]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unfortunately you don't have the right to constantly undo my edits without giving a sensible reason. At this point, there is no justification for undoing these edits. You don't own the article. You demanded that the original source from Gazeta Wyborcza be quoted, which I did. There is no reason to remove the mention of Nowicki or Boradyn, you yourself admitted that they are notable. There is no reason to give an incorrect sequence of events related to the Canadian Polish Congress list.

Any reason why you originally retracted my edit has been removed. You do not own this article (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). Also Wikipedia:Consensus: Unanimous decisions, or when everyone agrees. There will be times when some people do not agree. Everyone's beliefs should be discussed, but there still may be some people who will not compromise. This does not mean that there is no consensus.

You are just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Marcelus (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's actually the same behaviour as on Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Dubious_statement, you are stalling, acting like you 'don't get the point', just to block the improvements to articles I'm trying to make. For what reason? I'm not sure, but you are definitely doing that. Marcelus (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Be kind enough to list to me the reasons why you think the changes I made in this edition are unacceptable. Please ensure that these are substantive reasons, not: "I simply don't think they are improvements." Marcelus (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead @Gitz6666, I’m also very curious. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've already listed the reasons why I disagree with your changes. See here above at 14:30, 1 March 2023, there's no need to provide extensive references in the body of the article to books only available in Polish (re "Wacław Nowicki in his 1993 book Żywe echa" and "Polish and Belarusian historians, including Zygmunt Boradyn"); I also believe it is significant [to mention the political leaning of the CPC] - your edit removed "right-wing"; The letter by the CPC is significant - your edit removed any reference to that letter. After I had explained my reasons at 14:30, 1 March 2023, you forced your changes into the article again at 20:12, 1 March 2023, thus simply ignoring my objections, which were shared by others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you taking this attack out. Would you like to add anything to your comment above? I don’t find it satisfactory. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no attack there and I explained in the edit summary that I thought I was on Marcelus' talk page. Anyway, could you provide a substantive argument, GCB? We haven't yet heard your voice, just brief comments signaling your position: I’m also eager to know why, I’m also very curious, I don’t find it satisfactory. For example, why do you think it is important to give detailed information on the sources that linked the massacre to Jews, even though the consensus among historians (including the IPN) is that we do not know whether the perpetrators were Jews? I'm also very curious and eager to know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m still trying to figure things out Gitz6666, I’m signalling to you that your arguments aren’t convincing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

talk page discussions are for exchanging arguments and building consensus. "Signaling" one's position without providing reasons is not helpful. We don't count votes here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1. This is not an argument, just your opinion. "Only available in Polish" isn't a good enough reason to remove a mention of them. These books are not here as reading recommendations, but to describe the phenomenon we are talking about. WP:RS claims that the first accusations of Jewish partisans' involvement in the massacre appeared in 1993 and were repeated later by Polish and Belarusian historians. This is an important part of the story. It should be in the article.

2. Ok, we can keep right-wing.

3. Ok, we can add information about the letter, but keeping the chronological order: On March 20, 2001, at the request of the right-wing Canadian Polish Congress, the Polish Institute of National Remembrance resumed the investigation into crimes committed by Soviet partisans in 1941-1944 against Home Army soldiers and civilians in the Nowogródek Voivodeship. On June 21, 2001 the local branch of the Canadian Polish Congress, wrongly claimed that in Naliboki "Jewish partisans boast[ed] of killing [...] 130 Poles". Marcelus (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 So? WP:SILENCE? Marcelus (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait a couple of days to hear the opinions of the other editors, ok? I don't agree with No 1. At most, I would have put this content in a footnote, as I did here [41]. However, if no one joins the discussion to express their opinion, I will no longer oppose the inclusion of the following text, which I belive is WP:UNDUE and also poorly sourced (newspaper article):

Allegations that Jews played a role in the massacre first appeared in the 1990s in the memoirs of witnesses to the crime. The first to attribute the crime to Bielski partisans was former Naliboki resident Wacław Nowicki in his 1993 book Żywe echa (lit. 'Living echoes'). Nowicki did not see Bielski's partisans himself; he provided this information based on the testimony of others. This information was repeated after him by Polish and Belarusian historians, including Zygmunt Boradyn in his monograph published in 1999 about Polish-Soviet partisan war in Novogrudok region

. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be good to upgrade from newspaper sources to scholarship. Nowicki is quoted in the context discussed here in this source (see also footnote on p. 332). What we really need is some reliable scholar who would comment on, for example, whether Wacław Nowicki's memoir (which is a primary source) is reliable and due. Sigh. It's very difficult to write about controversial topics on which not only there is no consensus, but which are not covered in-depth in sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

PS. I am not sure I fully understand your both views on #1, but I think a footnote (a note, as opposed to a reference, to be clear) is often a valid compromise. On that note, I strongly suggest changing the code and moving the current contnet of footnote 15 from the reference structure to a footnote structure. If you don't know how to do it but everyone is fine with the idea, I could do it myself using the code I know. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to do it and am happy to do it, if it's OK for everyone. Re verifiability (poor source) perhaps we could omit the word "first" ("first appeared"). It's likely that already in the 1960s someone had reported that the Jews were responsible, and I wouldn't trust a newspaper for an assessment that could only be made by an expert with extensive knowledge of the field. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, @Piotrus, to clarify: hiding it in a footnote is not quite justified. Especially if we leave the letter of the local branch of the CPC (they are at least of equal importance). The allegation of Jewish involvement in the Naliboki massacre did not appear in the 2000s but was present earlier in memoirs and academic literature. It's an important context. @Gitz6666 is asking: why do you think it is important to give detailed information on the sources that linked the massacre to Jews, even though the consensus among historians (including the IPN) is that we do not know whether the perpetrators were Jews?. My answer is: because it shows how this version of events came to be, it shows that it was not some figment of the imagination of a few crazy nationalists from the Canadian Polish Congress who made it up in the 2000s, but an accepted course of events in historical literature. @Gitz6666 also said: I also believe it is significant: this whole thing of the Jews committing a massacre looks like a political shamble by Polish nationalists. Don't you think so, it looks like you are wrong. Because it wasn't a "political shamble" from the beginning (although it was certainly used that way later on), just a misattribution of the perpetration of the massacre to Bielski's unit, which was corrected in the course of later research. In this sense, it was a situation of the kind that there have been many in the study of the Second World War, especially partisans.~We should not hide this from readers.Marcelus (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References