Talk:Bielski partisans
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
| Index1,2,3 |
This page has archives. Sections older than180 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 4. |
Two links with info about the underwear thing and the sexual "adventures" of the main brother that should be added as notes.https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/front-page/the-cousins-bielski/2008/11/19/
and
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1106186/Jewish-saviour-butcher-innocents-Daniel-Craigs-depiction-Polish-partisan-comes-fire.html— Precedingunsigned comment added byUzrname (talk •contribs)00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, one of these sources has nothing about those claims and should not be added. The first article cited above does say that women's underwear was appropriated for the use of women close to the leaders (rarely?/sometimes?/always? - not stated, nor does it say whether this was selected just from their luggages, applied to all or some of their underwear, etc., or varied over time as camp procedures evolved and/or different people received newcomers). Importantly, it says nothing about any woman, let alone all women seeking refuge, having to strip naked at all, before anyone. The second article cited says nothing about either underclothes or any demand to strip naked. It does not even hint at such things. So it is irrelevant in this context. That theme of humiliation of naked women sounds very like a supposition more revelatory of the mindset and proclivities of the accusers than of the accused. The intentionally false attribution of such a slanderous claim indicates academic unreliability, a studied disregard for truth, and malicious bias, each of which should justify a complete ban on any editorial contributions in the future, and removal of all contributions in the past, from the person responsible.106.71.99.35 (talk)10:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not academic sources. Two others remain; not sure they are ok either, but these two definitely don't meet standards[1][2]Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Elinruby (talk)09:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can find a better source than gee-whiz articles that somebody is mad. Or that there is a bed and breakfast on the site now. The problem with auch articles is that they often accept as premises statements that are disputed. I actually dislike the rule, but some of these sources make me see the point. In any event, there is a balance question and to be clear, I don't think the sources I left behind and should be there either. It is simply not possible to comply without a full rewrite, and I am on my phone and therefore am not available for extended discussion at the moment, but there's the argument against keeping them in a nutshell. I am fairly indifferent but a rule should be a rule, and why would it be exempt if the New York Times is not? That said there really is a problem with recent news, but I don't think anything I removed qualifies as that.Elinruby (talk)02:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if someone removes it... that's not what APLRS says. It says consensus is required. Consensus is based on policy based reasoning, and you haven't presented a policy-based rationale to not use this source.VQuakr (talk)11:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
No objection to the material per se, can return if better sourced. When Tuvia died in 1987, he was buried in Long Island, New York, but a year later, at the urging of surviving partisans in Israel, he was exhumed and given a hero's funeral atHar HaMenuchot, the hillside graveyard inJerusalem.[1] His wife, Lilka, was buried beside him in 2001.[2]— Precedingunsigned comment added byElinruby (talk •contribs)
References
"at its peak, the unit hosted 1,236 people,70 per cent of them women, children and elderly; no one was turned away. About 150 people engaged in armed operations." this is under formation and should be "percent"SolomonW2011 (talk)17:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
