Talk:Naliboki massacre

Group membership of partisans in the region is not particularly relevant

I think this deletion [1], 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)

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 ([2]). However, IPN did repeat the key claims in 2013 ([3]), 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.[4]. 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 [5]. 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 [6] 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 [7], 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 [8]. 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

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 [9], 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)

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 [10] [11], 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 [12]. 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 [13]. 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

Section title

Another accusation of Jews killing Poles surfaces in the Wikipedia article ‘Naliboki massacre,’ which chronicles the killing of 129 Poles by Soviet partisans in May 1943 in Naliboki, a small town in western Belarus. The article insinuates that Jews, specifically the Soviet–Jewish Bielski partisan formation, took part in this massacre. [..] Wikipedia’s insinuation that Jews played a key role in perpetuating this massacre echoes distortions popular among right-wing fringe groups.
— Grabowski, Jan; Klein, Shira (2023-02-09). "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". The Journal of Holocaust Research. 0 (0): 1–58. ISSN 2578-5648.

Irrespective of whether Grabowski's perspectives on insinuations of Wikipedia is accurate, it is his opinion that the Jews were not involved in the massacre, and claims to such effects are right-wing distortions. Invoking WP:FALSEBALANCE, I am requesting Marcelus to present equally credible and acclaimed historians (in the broader sense of the word) who argue the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre.

Okay, so Marcelus will explain how the opinions of Magdalena Semczyszyn — who has a PhD on a relevant topic but, till date, is yet to hold any proffesorship — is credible enough to contradict a tenured professor of history at the University of Ottawa who has published multiple books from acclaimed university presses and has been conferred with the Yad Vashem International Book Prize. That said, I am asking for an quotation from Marcelus' work (p. 166 in part.) that supports the line in our article:

[..] and the participation of Jewish partisans from Zorin's unit is possible, but uncertain.

Is it

Być może chodzi o ludzi z obozu Zorina, którzy wchodzili w skład Brygady im. Sta-lina, ale i w tym przypadku nie wiemy, czy rzeczywiście brali oni udział w tych wydarzeniach.

? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting Marcelus to present equally credible and acclaimed historians (in the broader sense of the word) who argue the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre Why would I do that? I suggest you to read the article. Grabowski is right that there were some passages left in the article that insinuated the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre. But they were removed in this edition, after discussion.

According to the discussion and the current version of the article (although part of it is hidden in a footnote), the information that the massacre was carried out by Bielski partisans appeared in 1993 and was repeated by historians (including Boradyn). It was not until the IPN investigation that the involvement of the Bielski partisans was actually ruled out, but the involvement of the Zorin partisans (who were in the Naliboki forest at the time and were part of the Stalin brigade) is possible, though unlikely. This is the current state of knowledge.

Magdalena Semczyszyn is a specialist when it comes to Jewish partisans in Lithuania and Belarus. The article was published in the leading journal when it comes to Holocaust studies, "Zagłada Żydów", published by the Holocaust Research Center, of which Jan Grabowski was one of the founders.

Być może chodzi o ludzi z obozu Zorina, którzy wchodzili w skład Brygady im. Stalina, ale i w tym przypadku nie wiemy, czy rzeczywiście brali oni udział w tych wydarzeniach. translate as: Perhaps it is about the people from the Zorin camp who were part of the Stalin Brigade, but again, we do not know whether they actually took part in the events. Marcelus (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So, you accept that the allegations of Jewish involvement has no evidence. That's nice to know. Absence of evidence is often, evidence of absence but diggressions apart, you need to prove that the "current state of knwoledge" believes the involvement of the Zorin partisans to be plausible. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As the IPN investigation found, there are no archival testimonies of Jewish troops' participation in the massacre, there are only oral testimonies of witnesses to the massacre. I don't know where your surprise comes from, since everything is described in the article. Did you not read it before attempting to make edits?

you need to prove that the "current state of knwoledge" believes the involvement of the Zorin partisans to be plausible, again, please read the article, I even translated for you part of Semczyszyn article. Marcelus (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

One article does not "current state of knowledge" make. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

She sums it up pretty well actually. Bascially IPN investigation results as the current state of knowledge about the perpetrators Marcelus (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the thread below. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a better title. Thanks, Gitz666. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

New version of section

Maybe, Marcelus and others can enlist their objections to the new version of the section on Jewish perpetrators, as drafted by me? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing the section in two discussions above, you can join if you want, but don't ignore them and don't try push your own changes. Marcelus (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Specific objections, please. Almost 90% of my edits are copy-edits — shifting around sentences etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, you are ignoring @Gitz6666 revert. @Gitz6666 insist on keeping things on footnote (mention of Nowicki and Boradyn), we are still discussing it, you ignored that discussion. We also discussing proper chronological order of letter and IPN investigation etc. Really I insist on reading above discussion. Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Gitz6666, Adoring nanny, and Piotrus — what are your objections? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm all in all fine with the current text. A few remarks:

  • As already said, I would replace first appeared in the 1993 with the more cautious appeared in the 1993 because I wouldn't trust the quoted source, Gazeta Wyborcza, for an assessment that could only be made by an expert in the field. Note that the quoted source is not a high quality source per WP:APLRS.
  • I would remove the sentence Magdalena Semczyszyn speculates that Jewish partisans from Zorin's unit might have been participants but there is no evidence in support. In fact, this is not the subject of Semczyszyn's essay, it's not the point she's trying to make but rather a passing reference - a few lines in an article that is devoted to a different albeit releted subject. I would leave her essay as a reference to support they moved to the vicinity of Naliboki, months later, in July 1943 but I wouldn't attribute a possibly controversial thesis to the author (speculates).
  • In terms of WP:BALANCE, I welcome Marcelus's edit on Kwiatkowska concluded that daily Nasz Dziennik used the stories of Koniuchy and Naliboki massacres as a balancing counterweight to the Jedwabne pogrom [14]. Since the source is a PhD thesis, however, there might be doubts about its reliability per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I checked the thesis at pp. 155-156 and to me that claim looks well supported and the source reliable.
  • I'm OK with the removal of the content about the movie "Defiance", added by me; it's quite likely that the Naliboki massacre had already become widely known by the public as a result of the polemics surrounding Gross's book, Neighbours, as Kwiatkowska shows.

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666 ok, let's wait for a couple of days to hear the opinions of the other editors; can you now please revert changes made by @TrangaBellam as they are subject of ongoing discussion, as you did with my changes? Marcelus (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: Thank you! I agree with (1). I was inclined to do (2); thanks for the support. I will take a look at (3). TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Done. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam why are you making changes in the article that aren't result of the WP:CONSENSUS? Why you are ignoring ongoing discussions: Talk:Naliboki massacre#Gitz6666 changes and Talk:Naliboki massacre#Revert by Gitz6666? Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS Marcelus (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV. Honestly, that you screamed the hoarsest about the footnote, you shall be thankful to me for restoring it to the body! You can enumerate your objections to the version agreed upon by me and Gitz666, and I will try answering your queries. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate what POV I am exactly pushing? You keep accusing me of some nefarious intentions. You need to explain to me clearly what "ahistorical POV" I am trying to promote.

  First of all, revert your edits that you made to the article, your interference is a blatant attempt to forcibly make changes that are the subject of an ongoing discussion in which WP:CONSENSUS was not yet achieved. Marcelus (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nice stonewalling. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @User:TrangaBellam (?) do you mind please? Accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence? I don’t see any stonewalling here.- GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  You need to explain to me clearly what "ahistorical POV" I am trying to promote, so I can respond to you.

  You are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS buidling, which is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE. If you continue your behavior and do not withdraw the changes you have made, I will be forced to ask for admin help. I would not want to do that, so once again I kindly ask you to withdraw these changes and engage in a constructive discussion without accusing other editors of low intentions and focus on creating an article based on WP:RS. Marcelus (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given your hostile response to my editing w/o elaborating on any issue and edit-warring to maintain a non-NPOV section header, the thrust of my accusation is clear. That said this is not an user-conduct board; so, I won't waste bytes. And you can always ask for admin help. So many venues — AN, ANI, AE, and even the ArbCom — to choose from!

  Once again, I request that you enlist your specific objections to the current version agreed upon by me and Gitz, so that we can respond to your concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam My response wasn't hostile, but immediate becuase you made interference into a content that was under discussion on a talk page. I reverted your change (WP:BRD) and invited you to present your changes and a talk page and engage in a constructive discussion. You ignored me and ongoing discussion, acting like your changes are the new WP: CONSENSUS, which they aren't.

  You need to revert your changes and engage in an ongoing discussion, because all things you introduced with your change where part of such discussion. Take a deep breath and reconsider your course of actions. Please also change your tone and attitude towards me. Marcelus (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Once again, I request that you enlist your specific objections to the current version so that I and others can respond to your concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam Please read the discussion above, you can find all my objections to the content voiced rather clearly.

  My mine objection to your edits is that by making them you ignored discussion that started before your arrival to this article. And you act like changes that you introduced to the article are the new WP: CONSENSUS. I cannot be more clear than that. Marcelus (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is your objection to this version? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam (?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  (?) - Some kind of Morse code? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I commented above in the correct spot. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella, @Adoring nanny, @Gitz6666, @Piotrus ignores my requests and continues to edit content about which WP:CONSENSUS has not been reached. Per rule: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions, I consider it a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS.

  As @GizzyCatBella said, he also made accusations against me about personal behaviour that lack evidence.

  Lack of reaction by @Gitz6666 is disappointing but noted, since he acted differently before. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was busy elsewhere, now I react: I agree with Adoring nanny (here below) that TrangaBellam's recent edits are an improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I see people are interested in reactions to the new section. My biggest reaction is that if we are going to cover this, a title along the lines of "Unsubstantiated allegations of Jewish perpetrators" is the way to go. I see "involvement" is used instead of "perpetrators" in one proposed version, which I think is also reasonable, and which does not suggest that all of the perpetrators were Jewish. (Does any source suggest that??) The other thing is, I suggest the section be kept short as far as that is possible. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you feel are the pros and cons of this version? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)