Talk:Yaffa Eliach

Untitled

She needs her own page. To redirect to brooklyn College? that makes less sense, then just to have nothing.

Some books of Yaffa Eliach (different revisions and translations) . ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reassessed as a start

• This article has been reassessed as a start according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

POV concerns - promotion of FRINGE view

As might be seen in the multiple obits on this esteemed individual - e.g. wapo, NYT, or Forward - coverage of Polish and Polish-Americans contesting her accounts are limited to: After the liberation of Eishyshok, according to Dr. Eliach, Polish partisans shot her mother and baby brother, an account that was challenged by some Polish American groups. (WaPo) or The family managed to survive until the area’s liberation in July 1944, but when they returned to Eishyshok, fighting broke out between Polish partisans and Soviet soldiers. Professor Eliach’s mother and Hayyim were shot to death by the partisans. Professor Eliach contended that anti-Semitic Poles had done so deliberately, though the charge was disputed (NYT). This "dispute" by Polish Americans (and in Poland - which WaPo fails to mention) with various investigations of fairly low quality (relying on statements and documents of the killers) that were done by fairly WP:FRINGE elements are currently taking up approx. half the article - including the lede, and including in her own account (which was widely covered, unlike these various FRINGEy reports) on how her mother and brother died. This is grossly UNDUE and POVish. NYT and WaPo - are giving this 5 and 10 words respectively - in fairly long articles. The same proportion of coverage is shown in coverage from the 90s and 00s - with Eliach's accounts being widely covered.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been asked several times now to stop attacking historians based on their ethnicity. For the record you are actually wrong. People criticizing her are also Lithuanian(Liekis Sarunas) and Jewish(Michnik). Again, stop with the ethnic based attacks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone on the basis of their ethnicity - I quoted the Washington Post who said this was challenged by some Polish American groups - and in a long article on Eliach, gave this exactly 10 words. At present, the amount of coverage we are giving to this viewpoint (challenging Eliach's eyewitness testimony) is grossly UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is grossly DUE. This is what she was famous for. Zezen (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Review of sources

Let's review the sources used in the article

• John Radzilowski

[1] Ph.D.Associate Professor of History at University of Alaska Southeast, co-author of 13 books,numerous reports, articles, and reviews in publications such as Journal of American Ethnic History, Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Polish American Studies,American Heritage of Invention and Technology, and Minnesota History.Received the Oskar Halecki Prize

• Šarūnas Liekis

Sarūnas Liekis is a Lithuanian historian and political scientist. He is Professor of Politics and dean of the faculty of politics and diplomacy at the Vytautas Magnus University (since 2010). He is an expert on inter-ethnic relations and conflicts.

Liekis studied at Vilnius University 1987–1993 (earning an MA), at the University of Oxford 1991–1992 (earning a Diploma), at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1995–1996, at Brandeis University 1993–1998 (earning a PhD), and earned the Habilitation at Vilnius University in 2005.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ar%C5%ABnas_Liekis

• Journal of Genocide Research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Genocide_Research The Journal of Genocide Research is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering studies of genocide. It was established in 1999 and is published by Routledge. The editor-in-chief is A. Dirk Moses (University of Sydney). It is the official journal of the International Network of Genocide Scholars. Previous editors have been Henry R. Huttenbach, Dominik J. Schaller, and Jürgen Zimmerer. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Political Science Abstracts, Historical Abstracts, and America: History and Life.

• Gazeta Wyborcza

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazeta_Wyborcza Left wing liberal newspaper

• Adam Michnik

Adam Michnik is a Polish historian, essayist, former dissident, public intellectual, and editor-in-chief of the Polish newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcz.Adam Michnik was born in Warsaw, Poland, to a family of Jewish communists.[2] His father Ozjasz Szechter was First Secretary of the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, and his mother Helena Michnik was a historian, communist activist, and children's-book author.He has taken various positions of support for the former Communist secret police officers, against the Catholic Church and against various post-Communist opposition parties.

• Polin

https://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/collections/series-polin-studies-in-polish-jewry Polin, established in 1986 by the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies, has acquired a well-deserved reputation for publishing authoritative material on all aspects of Polish Jewry. Contributions are drawn from many disciplines- history, politics, religious studies, literature, linguistics, sociology, art, and architecture-and from a wide variety of viewpoints.

None of the sources are fringe or nationalistic. Seems that the mainstream research on the subject of Eliach's claims has largely rejected her description of the events and that the criticism has been also issued by left-wing liberal historians and publicists.Reading through the publications it is clear that evidence against Eliach's version of events is overwhelming.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that no one else, Eliach included, saw a need to "research" her eyewitness account of an event that was already adjudicated in a Soviet court with the perpetrators punished. Non-Polish newspapers widely covered her account. John Radzilowski is a (very recent) associate professor, and back in 1999 he wasn't even that - writing in a new Journal at the time - he is not a notable historian (as may be seen by looking at citations of him). Coverage of Eliach's account in RS (including books by academic publishers) sometimes doesn't even see fit to mention this dispute - and when it is mentioned - it is done briefly.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"that was already adjudicated in a Soviet court with the perpetrators punished" well Soviets were a totallitarian system engaged in atrocities, so historians don't consider their trials as reliable."he is not a notable historian"-if you believe he isn't a reliable source, take it to th appropriate board for discussion." Coverage of Eliach's account in RS (including books by academic publishers) sometimes doesn't even see fit to mention this dispute". Polin, Radzilowicz,Journal of Genocide Research are all highly reliable acadamic sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. This is a minor aspect of the subject - per most of the coverage of her. The fairness of the legal system in Soviet Lithuania (or modern Poland) is moot when there is nothing to investigate (as the alleged perpetrators (per Eliach) were already punished). We do have RSes stating repeating in their own voice Eliach's account as fact without even mentioning these fringey investigations based on primary AK documents - e.g. [2] or [3] - both by reputable publishers.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent memory

Hmmm. " the baby was shot with 9 bullets and her mother with 15". So she counted the bullets and remembered that - as a 9-year old child? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

9 year olds often have vivid memories, particularly when their mother is killed a few feet in front of them while they are hiding. 9 year old kids can count (heck, 3-4 year olds can). Not the sort of memory one would forget. In any event this was widely reported in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

IIRC the 'best' testimonies related to BM massacre where those of kids around that age - which is one of the reasons IPN shelved the investigation, concluding that such testimonies are too unreliable. But I guess different criteria applies here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The wiki criteria is sources. As for legal side, in this case those reponsible were tried and punished in Soviet times making the legal issue moot. Furthermore testimony is treated differently when it is told at an early date (which was the case here, Eliach spoke before 96, as did her older brother, father and others) as opposed to new testimony appearing aftet probing for it 60 years later.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Soviet trials are per definition not reliable. However, there is a detailed analysis of the trials regarding this issue available and alledged murdering Jews is largely absent from the Soviet proceedings. If you insist this can be added to the article--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC).

Comments

1. . With respect to the veracity of the earliest *(and most sensational) her personal history, none of us is in a position to know the facts, and there is no point in trying to decide here what actually took place. That would be OR (even if we or anyone else could acomplish it) All we can do is report in a neutral manner the opinions of reliable sources.
2. . With respect to hte political implications, and the correct affiliations of the various groups, that may have been involved, none of us are in a position either, but historians can be; if there are multiple reliable views on this, we repot them, not judge between them. Mos people discussing this subject have some degree of bias about what they would like to have been true, and we are concerned with those sources for which there is some evidence of their being objective. In this respect, there is a reasonable general skepticism of Soviet era or Communist or nationalist sources.
3. Proportional coverage means that if there are negative (or positive ) views about the quality or accuracy of a person;s writing, we summarize them, not ireport them in exact detail.For those who want the detail, we give the references.
4. I think we may need to make a considerably wider search for sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with sourcing, per my impression, is that Eliach related her personal testimony - as a personal testimony (not as part of her research) - in the 90s. This testimony was mainly accepted by Western sources (e.g. ran in the NYT, 60 minutes, mentioned by others - also in an academic setting - as something she testified to). The Polish government, at the time, objected to Eliach's observations, and this was a bit of political issue (they wanted to investigate her, she refused, etc.) - for which sources are available. Subsequently (some a decade or so later), a handful of mostly fringe writers wrote various detailed responses (which present themselves as research into Eliach's testimony) - however, I at least, was unable to find any counter-response to the fringe responses - no counter-response - it seems Eliach (as well as others) simply ignored them - it is these subsequent fringe sources which are the pickle in terms of how to incorporate them. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The Polish government, at the time, objected - did it? Which government, which politician, when? Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The Polish Ministry of Justice asked the U.S. Justice Department - it was the IPN according to the source. Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

While there were also political figures involved, the Polish Ministry of Justice (per sources I see - both cited - not the IPN - which did not exist - this was in 1996, the IPN being founded in 1998 (there was a precurson commission)) contacted the US government with an interview request (which was subsequently rejected) and the Polish ambassador to the US made a response - e.g. here. There was a bit of coverage of this at the time - US News & World Report - under "Old Wounds", bottom of page 1 in the PDF, continues on page 2 - detailing this as a diplomatic issue around the Polish premier's visit as well the attempts of various fringe organizations to run a discrediting campaign. In terms of bona-fida mainstream coverage of this - it died AFAICT in the 90s. The internet campaign to discredit continues onwards. Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yaffa Eliach (Op-Ed, Aug. 6) alleges that the Polish Ministry of Justice. It's not exactly a source.

The other source is blocked for Poland. Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

One isn't able to discredit a child. Adult Elliah has never proven anything. Do you believe her stories? Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I summarized the other source. As for the NYT op-ed of Aug 6 - it was penned by a Polish diplomat - and thus is a perfect source for the words of the Polish diplomat (UNDUE in the article, surely, but the Polish diplomat definitely represents the Polish government). As for "proven anything" - while fringe organizations (per USW&N) have penned various tracts - Eliach never bother to try to offer any "proof" (in part, since the perpatrators were already tried in Poland in the 40s - there was nothing to prosecute in the 90s) - she just related her testimony, which was rather widely accepted.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

the perpatrators were already tried in Poland in the 40s - there was no independent Poland at that time. You describe people tortured and murderd by Communists, like Pilecki or Fieldorf. Unfortunately a number of killers were Jewish (Wolinska, Stefan Michnik), they run away from Poland.Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.archiwum.wyborcza.pl/Archiwum/1,0,222440,19960810RP-DGW,Pogrom_w_Ejszyszkach,.html It was Główna Komisja Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu - Instytut Pamięci Narodowej. Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Children's accounts are fringe. Little girls believe their sweet dads. Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• We can certainly keep the details of Eliach's early childhood as she remembered them, this is something that not only Wikipedia, but biographers and historians do when covering the childhood of notable people. As all American schoolchildren know, as a young child, Abraham Lincoln's father witnessed the death of his own father in an Indian raid in Kentucky in 1786. Lincoln's Dad's story is validated by family memory and by the fact that there was an Indian raid in that place in that year. No photojournalists were on hand to record cell phone videos of Lincoln's father's father being killed by a raiding party. But the event shaped Lincol's Dad's life. WE don't remove it fropm Wikipedia any more than we remove the event that shaped the childhood an dlife of the distinguished historian, Yaffa Eliach.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

we keep it, we link to the discussion of it We do not evaluate it. The above discussion of whether or not it happened as she remembered it is not something for WP to decide. I hope we are al l aware there are cases of false childhood memories of traumatic events, but there are also true childhood memories of such events. For circumstances 80 years later, direct evidence is unlikely. People will at best judge the verticality on the basis of the prevailing psychological theories about such accounts. More likely, people will judge it according to their own person attitudes towards whether they want to believe it. But that's people, in the sense of outside readers or commentators. As WP editors it is totally inappropriate writing the article to reflect our own opinions, and in my opinion inappropriate also to use theirs talk page to try to decide what happened. What we should use this talk page for, is to evaluate the sources.

written by DGG Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a biography

The biography is dominated by a child's tale. Einstein was a scientist, his socks weren't important. If Yaffa Eliach was important, please write about her successes, not about crazy opinions.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• False. the page has a long section on her life. to be sure, Eliach is an academic historian, like most scholars, she led a quiet life in adulthood. She was, however, a scholar of hte Holocaust, which makes her childhood experience as a victim of the Holocaust especially significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ithink EM Gregory is correct, that it is relevantto her career. It is in particular relevant to her published work. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's relevant, it makes her biased. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

born in Eishyshok ?

She was born in a Polish town of Ejszyszki. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A Jewish shetetl, that spoke in Yiddish - and whose residents referred to the place in Yiddish as Eishyshok - as do RSes referring to Eliach - e.g. The Washington Post, as does academic work on the Jewish community. Today it is Eišiškės in Lithuanian. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Challenged by Israeli historians?

Besides being , SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, imprecise in its citations, and using language not used elsewhere (e.g. a Polish-American activist[4] is presented as from the United States - factually correct - but the language used by the Washington Post differs) - this diff also contains a serious misrepresentation in stating Eliach's account was challenged by an Israeli historian (citing Israel Gutman). The cited source, on page 66, contains a rather scathing critique on the writings of one Zdzislaw Krasnodębski - who has written also on Eliach. @MyMoloboaccount: - please provide a direct quote that Gutman is challenging Eliach here (beyond saying her expertise was not Holocaust studies). Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

American historian is John Radzilowski:[[5] Ph.D.Associate Professor of History at University of Alaska Southeast, co-author of 13 books,numerous reports, articles, and reviews in publications such as Journal of American Ethnic History, Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Polish American Studies,American Heritage of Invention and Technology, and Minnesota History.Received the Oskar Halecki Prize

Lithuanian historian is Šarūnas Liekis.Sarūnas Liekis is a Lithuanian historian and political scientist. He is Professor of Politics and dean of the faculty of politics and diplomacy at the Vytautas Magnus University (since 2010). He is an expert on inter-ethnic relations and conflicts.Liekis studied at Vilnius University 1987–1993 (earning an MA), at the University of Oxford 1991–1992 (earning a Diploma), at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1995–1996, at Brandeis University 1993–1998 (earning a PhD), and earned the Habilitation at Vilnius University in 2005.[6]

Israeli historian is is Israel Gutman.Gutman was a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and deputy chairman of the International Auschwitz Council at Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation.He was the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and won the Yitzhak Sadeh Prize for Military Studies.At Yad Vashem, he headed the International Institute for Holocaust Research (1993–1996), served as Chief Historian (1996–2000) and was the Academic Advisor (from 2000).

In regards to Gutman he writes a praise of Krasnodebski's article which addresses Eliach but debates some points raised by Krasnodebski unrelated to Eliach.In regards to Eliach he is highly critical of her claims and states that it is good that Krasnodebski devoted space to address this person "Dobrze sie stalo,ze Zdzislaw Krasnodebski poswiecil sporo miejsca pracy Yaffy Eliach,ktora zajmowala sie sprawa Ejszyszek.Nie mam sympatii dla tej autorki nie jest autorytetem w sprawie Holokaustu i jej ksiazki nie przetlumaczono na hebrajski.Nie po­winno sie zamykac oczu na to,ze oddzialy AK na Wilenszczyznie walczyly z partyzantka sowieckq o wyzwolenie Polski. Dlatego wlasnie Zydzi,ktorzy znalezli sie po przeciwnej stronie,gineli z rak zolnierzy AK jako wrogowie Polski a nie jako Zydzi." It's good that Zdzislaw Krasnodebski dedicated a lot of space in his work to Yaffa Eliach who dealt with the issue of Ejszyszki.I don't have symphathy for this author;she's not an authority on Holocaust, and her books haven't been translated to Hebrew.One shouldn't close eyes to the fact that Home Army in Vilnius region fought with Soviet partisants for liberation of Poland.That's why Jews that belonged to the other side were killed by Home Army as enemies of Poland, and not as Jews." --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gutman's indirect comments on someone else's work do not support the content on the page - this is a misrepresentation.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How in the world are those "indirect comments"??? "I have no sympathy for THIS author", the "THIS" referring to Eliach, with the "author" being feminine ("autorki" not "autora"). What is a misrepresention of? Volunteer Marek 08:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

having "no sympathy" is completely different from "Eliach stated she and her family were victims of a pogrom by Poles and the Polish Home Army, an account challenged by ... [Gutman]" - Gutman doesn't relate at all to Eliach's testimony. He just makes a general comment that he is unsympathetic towards Eliach's work in general. This is a gross misrepresentation of Gutman. Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course he relates to Eliach's writing. He says that she is not an authority. He praises another author who criticized her. He goes on to enumerate the problems with her work. You have to squint really really really ha... no, actually even with squinting it doesn't work - you just can't get what you claim out of his statement, which is pretty straightforward. Not "indirect", wtf that's suppose to mean. Volunteer Marek 09:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

He relates to Eliach's published writing (noting it wasn't published in Hebrew and that he is unsympathetic). Eliach wrote quite a bit to say the least - so this is a very general statement, and furthermore IIRC her own personal witness account never appeared in her academic writing (it was aired on 60-minutes, published by the New York Times, etc. - but her academic writing was on pre-Holocaust life). In any event - he does not specifically relate to the killing of Eliach's mother and baby brother by the AK. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz locuta, causa finita.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Gutman an antisemite? Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I will also note Radzilowski has bounced around quite a bit academically and is not widely published nor cited, he is somewhat notorious for claiming that a fairly large amount of noted US Holocaust scholars are "neo-Stalinists" (in ``The Neo-Stalinist Discourse in Polish Historical Studies in the United States,” in Golden Harvest of Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews (Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012)``) - hardly a mainstream scholar. Liekis is a promoter of Lithuanian WWII nationalists, and his views and writings on the matter (as well as the Holocaust), have been critically received in mainstream academia - e.g. here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Per a piece published in the 2012 Sarmatian Review - " Radzilowski accuses such historians as John Connelly, Piotr Wrobel, Joanna Michlic, and Padraic Kenney of using neo-Stalinist methods in their articles and reviews concerning Poland. By “neo-Stalinist method” Radzilowski seems to have in mind the kind of writing that does not answer the adversary’s objections or arguments and instead uses the anti-Semitic label. Notably, John Radzilowski teaches at the Ketchikian branch of the University of Alaska, while the historians whom he accuses of antiCatholic and anti-Polish bias occupy positions at such prominent institutions of higher learning as the University of Michigan or the University of Toronto." - so Eliach is in good company it would seem, and the Ketchikian branch of the University of Alaska is, well.... what it is.Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You're violating WP:BLP. Again. What are you gonna do - go to his Wikipedia article and try to turn it into another attack page, the way you've tried to do with Norman Davies, Bogdan Musial, Kazimierz Krajewski, JM Chodakiewicz, and numerous other authors who didn't fit your POV?

What does "has bounced around quite a bit" even mean? It's some strange assessment on your part trying to smear the author.

"He is somewhat notorious" - unsourced, so a straight up WP:BLP violation.

"Hardly a mainstream scholar" - your idiosyncratic opinion, unsources, so also a straight up WP:BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 09:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I quoted the April 2012 Sarmatian Review covering this. There are a number of other sources. Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You quoted a "minor" book review by ... who exactly? And this book review did not even say what you claimed. Nowhere does it call Radilowski "notorious". Nowhere does it say anything about any "bouncing around". Nowhere does it say he is not mainstream.

So let's see, on top of violating WP:BLP, you are now attempting to misrepresent a source by claiming it says things which it doesn't actually say. Volunteer Marek 09:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Those were bad, old Icewhiz (talk)'s days. So nice to be able to edit now without his ASPERSIONS and worse, for 5P sake. Zezen (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Eišiškės, Lithuania

It wasn't Lithuania in 1935. We don't write born in 1935 in Gdańsk, Poland. Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed now. Zezen (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)