Talk:Defiance (2008 film)/Archive 1

Release date

An editor changed the release date from November 7 2008 to December 26 2008. I feel that this was changed in good faith, but I was not able to find a citation to back this up. Could anyone find one? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another "Controversy" controversy

Why is the Aron Bielsky incarceration controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.240 (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"one of the three Jewish brothers"

There were four brothers. One was erased by the film-makers like the other things politically incorrect (crimes by the Bielski brothers during the war) - Aron is now in the US jail.[1] This should be said in the article instead of just saying "three brothers", which is, simply, bullshit. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Swearing on the Talk Page is, simply put, not cool. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have heard that all four brothers are in the film but Aron's role is just diminished. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the IMDB page, Aron Bielski has been cast. In fact, there were 12 Bielski siblings, several of whom were murdered by Nazis. Aron was 11 years old when the Bielski's formed their group, and thus probably has a relatively small role within the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.192.143 (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding by a quick search on the internet that the more serious charges against Aron were dropped and that his case is still in litigation. There are other extenuating circumstances, so saying he is jailed and is facing 90 years is sensational and not well researched over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.129.133 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the fictional representation of the brothers in the film, in that the third brother, played by Jamie Bell, was actually the middle brother (at least according to an interview with JB on the DVD extras)?(79.190.69.142 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

"Zwick made them actively fight the German military forces"

Have you seen a preview film? How do you know what Zwick "made them" do? Do you have a source that states that the Bielski's never engaged any German soldier? I'm new to Wikipedia, but can we get this comment deleted? Judging by the above post, it seems that this could be an emotionally heated topic for some people. I feel like its a bit premature to begin a criticized the historical inaccuracies of a film that hasn't even been released to the public yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.240 (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all sources I know stated Bielski's were mainly occupied by survival. If they engaged German soldiers, this was accidental and not typical for their activities. Szopen (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but how does this conflict with the depiction in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.12.240 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care. Seems to me that the "zwick made them" etc is a quote, about criticism received by movie. WIkipedia notices there is controversy and criticism. Wikipedia does not say whether criticism ia valid or not. Szopen (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I edited it so that it that it reads as an opinion and not as a statement of fact.

I am pretty sure that a Gazeta Wyborcza review criticized them for actively fighting the Germans, up to blowing up the tanks... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I just saw the movie and personally wouldn't criticize it for showing them as "actively" fighting the Germans... there was one tank that as taken out at the end of the movie along w/ a platoon (or however many) Heer soldiers... but this was the climax and they were being pursued... so I took the point of that scene to be either run & be gunned down, or die fighting. Guess it depends on your definition of "actively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.164.51 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"American war film"?

Why the heck does it say "American War film"? This movie has nothing to do with America! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.209.203 (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an American film that involves war. It is "American" in that it is made by an American studio.24.21.168.8 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It was funded from the UK, and made outside of the Americas. So I removed the claim prior to seeing this discussion (and before the second comment was made). If somebody wants to put "a film made by an American studio", or more precisely "a film made by a studio from the United States" then that might be more accurate, although it'd also be a bit unnecessary given that the point is made elsewhere, and by the fact that the reader can click on the studio's link and read its article. – Kieran T ^(talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it not Hollywood? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it was filmed in Lithuania. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But it was made by a Hollywood company with Hollywood actors, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, define a "Hollywood actor"? Does Hollywood somehow lay claim to everyone who has made films there? Many of the actors in this film have spent the majority of their careers filming elsewhere, and certainly aren't from California. The notion of "Hollywood-ness" is an interesting question for film industry journalists, perhaps, but I suggest that it's not relevant here: a dubious or disputed minor point like this may as well simply stay out of the article. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aron Bielski controversy

If this can be verified, it may be indeed somewhat relevant, although perhaps more to the article on Bielski brothers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While the Bielski brothers are portrayed as heroes, the only living brother, Aron Bielski, a.k.a. Aharon Bielski a.k.a. Aron Bell, was arrested in Florida in 2007 on suspicion of stealing about $250,000 from his Polish Catholic neighbour Janina Zaniewska. Zaniewska was a victim of Nazi imprisonment during the war.

Update: I found a large article discussing this in Polish Gazeta Wyborcza. I think two references are enough to add another controversy to the appropriate section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That should get a quick mention at the most. Substantive discussion of the Bielski brothers belongs in the article on them, not the fictionalized movie portraying them. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Location section phrasing

The section is written in the style of a blog post, with statements like "which is not surprising given [...]" "Around the time", "about 50%" "(these figures are very rough and suffer from usual biases in surveys of ethnicity in that era).". Can someone with more knowledge on the subject please re-phrase it? --Nezek (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pure WP:SYN. In addition to that, the section is just too long. I also have a problem with the excessive amount of space devoted to inaccuracies in the movie. This is Hollywood, people. Movies always take libery with historical truth, and sometimes "true" stories are sheer fiction. Take a look at The Two-Headed Spy if you don't believe me. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I've placed a "neutrality" tag because of the length of the "insaccuracies" section, which seems excessive. There is certainly controversy, and judging from the sources it seems to be largely in Poland. It should certainly be mentioned, but in proper proportion. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stetsonharry. Focus is drastically shifting form the movie itself to the controversies surrounding the brothers. Perhaps some of the info regarding their real life activities should be linked to the Bielski partisans page or their individual pages.--Jacurek (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the info could be moved here ?[[2]]--Jacurek (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC

Yes. This is an article on a film, and as currently written it is more focused on the actual events and the extent to which the film deviates from them. While some film articles (such as (A Night to Remember) go in the opposite direction and don't properly distinguish truth from reality, in this one the pendulum is too far in the other direction. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis in "Location" section

I also wanted to go into a bit more detail about the problem with the "Location" section. As currently written, it consists of links to various reviews and Wikipedia saying that they are mistaken in discussing the location of the movie. That's not allowed by WP:SYN, which prohibits "synthesis."

That's when "an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Either a source needs to be found saying that reviews have been wrong on the location, or this section needs to go. I removed the section but it was reinstated. Please don't "edit war" over something as clear-cut as this. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a recently released movie. The chance of finding scholarly articles about its reviews is basically zero, as it is much too early for that. Does that mean that no review of the film can be discussed at all? After all, should we not first have a scholarly article to tell us which review is significant and which is not? The purpose of this article is to provide some useful information for someone who might be going to see the movie tonight. Anything that helps them understand it is probably useful. Sticking to WP:SYN here too religiously is probably overkill. I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies here perfectly. 76.64.217.83 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not applicable in this context. There is no need to have a section attacking how some reviews got the locations wrong unless this has been a problem noted by reliable sources. Wikipedia only reports what has been published elsewhere, so we cannot personally analyze such reviews for their merits. Besides, the only way reviews should be implemented in film articles is to assess what a film critic thought of the film, not to identify technical details. I'm removing the section since it is original research in making a novel conclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if somebody wrote an article in a reliable source making that point, it would deserve a sentence or two at the most. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done as far as requested reference, but I beg to differ with regards to the importance of the added info. All Wikipedia readers would find it quite helpful I'm sure. --Poeticbent talk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference relates to a Polish language article, which cannot be verified by English speaking editors, and as written the section is unclear as to whether the protest relates to the critics or the film. As previously noted, the section is grossly overlong and is written in a non-neutral tone. Considering that this relates not to the film itself but to its criticism, my objection stands and I still believe the section should be removed or, at most be incorporated in one sentence within another section. Right now, this article is far overweighted on the criticism of non-U.S., and specifically Polish, commentators and critics, even after my trim of the "historical accuracy" section. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about various criticism, perhaps disproportionate (I don't know, I haven't seen the movie) but please remember that the movie is about Poland (that's what I'm trying to stress here) so the commentaries originating from Polish viewership are of critical importance for the understanding of its historical context especially that the movie is based on real-life events. I don't see how the section can be trimmed, but I'm glad to have these facts on-hand before I head off to the theatre near me. --Poeticbent talk 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your concern about the historical accuracy of the movie, and I suspect that when you see the movie you will feel even more strongly about it. However, given Hollywood's track record in that regard, I think it is a mistake to begin with the assumption that a historical movie will have much historical fact. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

From my reading, there are massive problems with this section. The entire "Location" section needs to be scrubbed in the following ways"

• The first sentence, Some reviews of the film are confused as to where the action takes place, which is not surprising given the complex history of the area. is POV commentary and should be rewritten or removed.
• The next three sentences describe some controversy about accuracy and should be moved into the historical accuracy section. The sentences themselves have some POV problems and need to be whittled down to only the significant facts per WP:WEIGHT
• The rest of the section is a long explanation about a national dispute that can be significant in a history article but has no place in an analysis of the film. It should be excised.
• The term Location is used in all film analysis to describe where a movie is filmed. The addition of the See Production section for information on where the movie was shot. at the bottom is inaccurate. If location info is in the production section, then there should not be a Location section.

— CactusWriter | ^needles 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have been ripping my hair out over these same issues! To me, what makes this section irreparable is that it does not relate to the film at all, but to the criticism of the film. Even if written and sourced perfectly, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to include it in the article at all. The article has other issues, but this is the most pressing one. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand. The placement and size of that section alone goes against NPOV policy because of providing undue weight. And that is without even considering all the POV and OR problems. And, as you say, the entire section is merely a criticism of the criticism. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The synthesis was re-inserted as final paragraph of the "historical accuracy" section. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The referenced portion was moved into the historical accuracy section while I looked at the significance of the references. It became obvious that the refs to the film reviews were nothing more than synthesis (and I'm being generous by calling Gossip.Net a reference) because they mention nothing about geographic problems. Those sentences were deleted. That left only the single sentence about Polish moviegoers objecting to historical accuracies. Because that is already covered in significant depth in the preceding paragraphs, the sentence became redundant and was deleted. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Polish reviews very heavily discuss various historical inaccuracies, I think they should be mentioned. Gazeta Wyborcza is a leading Polish journal (think Polish NYT) and as such, a rather reliable source (not to mention that due to the views of its editor, Adam Michnik, if it is to have any bias about the movie, it would be pro-, not against).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To be moved.

Why the director should mention this in the movie?

The movie is silent about the fate's of two of the four brothers, including the controversial death of Asael who enlisted in the Red Army. Even more controversial is the fate of the only living brother, Aron Bielski, a.k.a. Aharon Bielski a.k.a. Aron Bell, was arrested in Florida in 2007 on suspicion of stealing about $250,000 from his Polish Catholic neighbour Janina Zaniewska. Zaniewska was a victim of Nazi imprisonment during the war

Please discuss where this should be moved because it does not belong here.--Jacurek (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this and other original research from the section, trimmed back its excessive length, and changed the title to a more neutral one. However, I am troubled by the overreliance on Polish-language sources, which cannot be verified by English-speaking editors and presents a possible problem under WP:V. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bielski's until now were known mostly to Israeli and Polish historians and this is why it is hard to find English references. Also, Aron Bell should have it's own page.--Jacurek (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read about the legal troubles of the younger brother and would love to learn more. I searched Google News and found nothing post-2007, when he was arrested. That belongs in the Bielski article and not here. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GW discusses this in their reviews, so it is not OR. They imply that the director on purpose marginalized the role played by Aron, as compared to the other brothers, due to the controversy of his recent arrest. This seems notable enough to be mentioned (if briefly). Perhaps we should create an article on Aron Bielski with the full (removed) content? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If GW makes a dubious connection (OR on their part, if you will), we don't have to repeat it here. Aron was the youngest of the brothers, so his role was not surprisingly minor.

Anyway, if the movie's title was "The complete life history of the Bielski brothers", then we could complain that some aspect of their life was not included in the film. However, this film is about the 1941-1944 period, so complaining that it does not cover something that happened in 2007 is just silly. 70.48.219.185 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone point to where in the article the statement that Aron's role is minimised due to his later life controversy is? The article mentions both the controversy and his diminished role in the film, but it does not explicitly make the link between the two. The closest it comes is a one-line statement from the filmmakers along the lines of his relative unimportance to the events depicted. Steve ^{T • C} 00:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading something along those lines in one of the reviews I browsed through, but I am having troubles finding it now. Hopefully somebody will find the right one... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Aron Bielski should have his own page so the info on his recent trouble with the law could be linked there instead of being included in this article. Is there anybody up to the challenge of creating "Aron Bielski page ?--Jacurek (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've stubbed Aron Bielski. Please help expand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I am disappointed but not very suprised that there are now attempts to delete that article and censor any mention of Aron's criminal record out :( See Talk:Aron Bielski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I was all for placing that in a separate article until I realized that it would result in an article that largely focused on that. Sadly, that is what we are dealing with now. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bielski Brothers article can also use expansion. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-English sources must be replaced or removed

A number of the sources used to support material in the "Historical Accuracy" section are in Polish and therefore must be replaced with relevant English sources, or the material they are supporting must be modified or removed. Since this is English WP, the sources must be in English as well so that readers and editors can judge the verifiability of the cited material.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

English sources are of course preferred, for the greater ability of en.wiki editors to verify the text, but where no English sources exist for material that has been determined relevant to the article, I see no problem with including non-English sources. The section could use some pruning, especially the second paragraph, but I don't believe the Polish sources should be removed wholesale; should the text be in question, a request at the relevant noticeboard for a trusted Polish speaker to verify/disprove would be the step to take. Steve ^{T • C} 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference, non-English sources are explicitly allowed by WP:V, albeit with the caveats I mention, here. Steve ^{T • C} 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you have a valid point, but with so much OR cropping up on this article, I'm leery about sources matching up with article text or the content straying from an article focus. I suppose I can google-translate some of these and see if there are any real concerns. Good point.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right too; some of us should have been more vigilant towards the original research and synthesis in the article, especially in the section you just removed from the Critical Reception section. For my part, it was because the inclusion/exclusion of this information has been subject to several reverts so far, and I was unwilling to enter an edit war on it, hoping it would get thrashed out on this talk page (see above) before it entered 3RR territory. Unfortunately, the conversations appear to have gone stale, so in an attempt to move towards consensus on this (and in the hope others might weigh in, one way or the other), I endorse these removals. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Jim raises a good point about the non-English sources and persistent efforts to insert OR. Jim's recent edits surprised me because I had thought that the OR had been removed, but apparently it was reinserted. This seems to be about the fourth or fifth time that has happened. There are English language sources about the reaction in Poland and those are preferable under WP:V. Perhaps those should be used. Stetsonharry (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But most or all of the PL links are empty, one contains only a link to a Youtube video. If someone can recover their content with whatever mechanisms, their content could be posted/ translated/discussed here. Novickas (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Needed to update my browser. Novickas (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed whole passages which were completely unsupported by the sources attached to them (English sources, no less), as well as one paragraph which really had nothing to do with the article itself and also misrepresented the theme of the source article. This makes checking of the Polish language sources against the article copy even more important.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In view of this, I would suggest that any remaining passages sourced by non-English sources should be removed.Stetsonharry (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? The reception of this movie in Poland is an important issue, as that is the country to which it is most strongly related. Obviously, it will be easy to find Polish language sources for this, while English ones will be much harder to come by, at least in the short term. Still, if you want an English language source that explains some of the controversies, try this one. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that non-English sources are ordinarily permissable. However, English sources are given preference in the English Wikipedia because they are more easily verifiable by English speakers. It seems wise to apply this policy strictly because of the problems that JimDunning found, in that sources were not properly quoted. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RSUE, non-English sources are acceptable. Please mind WP:BIAS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, there seems to have been a problem with the English sources utilized for large sections of this article. That would seem to emphasize the need to verify, and non-English sources cannot be verified by English speaking editors. Given the recent issues and large amounts of text that Jim had to remove because the sources did not support them, I think it is best to include only material that all editors can verify. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try Google translation service. It can translate Polish to English, and actually does a pretty good job. Maybe this is a way to alleviate some concerns. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I was going to use http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Polish&to=English but I haven't had a chance. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I compared them, and the Google one is infinitely better. Try that one. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Polish sources

I went through the sources in footnotes 14 and 19, using Google translator, and was discouraged as the translation is poor. However, I came away with the feeling that these sources are not being used properly. The article in GW[3] is a rambling feature article with a main focus on Aron Bielski, and the other [4] is a blog post or article by someone who doesn't like the movie, but as best as I can tell has not seen it. It is from one person, not several moviegoers. I question why this person's beef is included in this article. Is he a notable critic or just some guy? That is not clear.

The GW article does mention omission of the massacre, but does not reflect the opinions of anyone other than the author of the article, and his opinion is not clear in this translation. Unless this journalist is notable in some respect, I don't believe his view of the omission of the massacre should be in the article.

Both these sources predate general release of the movie, so we have criticisms of the movie that do not actually reflect the content of the movie, such as criticisms that the partisans are shown in combat, when in fact one of the themes of the movie is that the partisans avoided combat and people had to quit the group to engage in combat. I am not happy with the use of these sources, particularly the moviegoer letter, and I am puzzled why they are given such prominence in this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're having trouble with the Google translator I'd be happy to translate (relatively short) pieces from the articles. As to the two sources you mention, the GW article is relevant and legitimate, even though it does mostly deal with Aron Bell. The description of the omission of the massacre references IPN documents and statements. The authors (Gluchowski and Kowalski) of the article, from my understanding, are authors of a new book on the Bielski partisans that has recently come out or is about to come out, which makes them notable. The question of how much anti-German combat took place is one of stress and extent. The other source is a film related website (like Rotten Tomatoes maybe?). It is only really relevant here for the part about "A group of Polish moviegoers forwarded a letter of protest...". So the cite itself is sort of a RS (particularly for this specific info) and hence the question turns on whether the fact that some people send in a protest letter is important or not. Personally I don't think it is so I tend to agree with you here. As an aside the actual movie review from that site [5] (sorry, also in Polish), while noting some of the shortcomings of the movie (the Naliboki question, the extent of fights with Germans, etc.) is a lot more sympathetic/favorable to the film than the letter the same cite quotes (i.e. the opinions of the letter writers don't necessarily represent those of the film site people, who are just noting the letter's existence).radek (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The film will be released in Polish theaters on January 23. Hopefully this will generate better-informed reviews from Poles who have actually seen the film. I agree that the current material backed up by GW references discussed is less than ideal. Furthermore, the Aron Bielski case has been settled and the charges have been dropped - meaning that he is innocent and one of the main springs of this whole controversy has gone away. It would be good to see articles from the Polish press that take account of that fact. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Both these sources predate general release of the movie...". Aren't you forgetting about advance screenings and such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have such screenings been held in Poland in 2008 when those GW articles were written? That is rather unlikely. Here is a fresh review of the film from GW that has just come out, and the reviewer has seen the film. Why don't we take advantage and base our "Polish reaction" segment on it? 70.55.2.210 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Advance screenings" which left out one of the brothers? I noticed that some of the articles kept mentioning the omission of one of the brothers, which was confusing since I clearly saw four in the release I sat through.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I question the reliability of the sources used as supposed notable criticism of the movie and the weight given to them in the article. The entire section is not written in a neutral fashion, stating criticism as fact, which I've tried to correct, but I wonder if what we are really dealing with here are fringe opinions that are being given excessive weight in this article. For example, this movie is quite explicit in its depiction of the poor relations with villagers. That is an acknowledged plot point noted in the reviews and obvious to anyone viewing the picture. Yet here we have people saying that the poor relations with villagers was not "given sufficient attention". Again, this seems to indicate that the critics we are giving so much space to here either did not see the movie or represent a fringe viewpoint that is overweighted in the article, or perhaps that the sources are not being accurately quoted. I'm tagging that section for neutrality until we can be sure that there is no weight problem there. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is the largest Polish newspaper and as such is notable. It is also considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, pretty much in the same way that the NY Times is considered reliable. It is not fringe by any means nor are the views expressed in the newspaper. The criticism made in the articles is/was attributed to the newspaper and not stated as fact. It is/was also sourced to investigation by professional historians at the IPN (who are also considered a reliable source on Wikipedia). There really is no reason to object to this source or the material based on it.radek (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We have to clear up this confusion. Here is basically what happened, as I see it. The Bielski brothers are a somewhat controversial group in Poland. In 2007, when "Defiance" started filming, a "buzz" was generated in the Polish press. Some newspaper articles raised criticisms of the movie without any clear understanding as to what was in it. Some of those criticisms may remain valid, but some clearly are not. The unrelated but juicy case of Aron Bell added fuel to this little fire and generated additional speculation about the movie. To me the whole thing was rather juvenile. Nevertheless, the whole brouhaha was notable and we may have a few sentences about it, maybe in section "Polish response to production" (see Valkyrie (film) for where I got that idea).

Not quite. It seems from the text of the article that at it was written after viewing a pre-screening. Some of the other articles were written sort of as a 'historical supplement' - when a historical film comes out, usually interest in its topics rises and media outlets begin covering the topic to a greater extent. I agree that the Aron Bell thing is fairly irrelevant to the movie. I wouldn't go with "Polish response" though. And I do think that there's a difference between "Critical reaction" which is basically a judgment on the part of the critics at how entertaining the movie is and "Historical accuracy" which is a judgment on the part of historians on how factual the movie is. One can have a good movie with atrocious history (most movies made about English/British history these days) or vice versa or both. So the section that was merged should be re-split (this is in reference to the comment below by JimDunning).radek (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek. Discussion of Aron Bell is not that important, particularly now that he has his own article. But discussion of historical accuracy is a major part of the criticism, and I don't think its only the Polish reviewers who are discussing this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we can then also have a "Historical accuracy" section containinig only statements backed by references which are clearly aware of what the film actually contains. 70.55.2.210 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable explanation and suggestion, providing that reliable sources can be found. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<-- Indent. Per above, GW is a reliable source. It seems the writers of the articles viewed the movie. The section really was fine the way it was after the removal of Aron Bell stuff and the 'letter of protest'.radek (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've very carefully weeded out anything in the section not clearly supported by the sources. What I think was happening is that some of the source articles went into detail about the controversy surrounding the events and this has been interpreted or presented as controversy about the film itself. Or incorrectly characterized as criticism of the film. With the inaccurate statements removed, I think the section moves nicely in the direction proposed above. Also, the material should nicely fit into the Critical Response section now rather than a Historical Accuracy section (the controversy doesn't seem to be so much about the film's depiction of the events per se, but the real-life views of the events). Consequently, I'm merging the two sections.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

radek, thanks for weighing in on this. I am at a disadvantage since I'm looking at non-human translations, so your perspective is very helpful. I disagree that there should be a re-split at this point; maybe down the road if more significant criticism of the film's depiction of historical events is generated or found. Right now, from what I can see, the bulk of the writing about any controversy is about the real world questions about the brothers, not about how the film depicts them and the related events. Is this a fair assessment? If so, since the film's role here may be only to put some focus on the existing controversy, then a separate section is inappropriate. If, however, the film is actually criticized (in the pejorative sense) for inaccurately portraying events, then a separate section would possibly be necessary.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait and see since the movie just came out in Poland and hasn't been out that long in US.radek (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much better now, thanks to JimDunning's hard work. I've added a paragraph from the Times article on the reaction to the criticism from Zwick and from Bielski's son, which is needed for balance I think. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote by Tuvia Bielski's son was out of line. He has no credentials to issue such sweeping personal opinions to make them notable. Let's not turn this article about a Hollywood movie into another battlefield. 74.14.26.18 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Robert Bielski's comment should stay out of the text as it really doesn't serve the purpose of adding balance. Firstly, I think the Times article pretty much disputes his anit-Semitism claim anyway, plus it seems to ask a rhetorical question - "Is it anti-Semitic for Poles to even ask these question?" (i.e. of course it isn't anti-Semitic to ask a question). Secondly, it says GW has a Jewish editor, and while one may criticise journalists for sensationalism, I don't think we can go as far as accusing GW, with its Jewish editor, of anti-Semitism. Consequently I really think we should cut the Nechama Tec comment as well. And in general, if JimDunning has done such a great job of cutting criticism of the true-life Bielskis, then why (with respect, Stetsonharry) should we add content that defends the Bielskis? That is an equally bad swing back to bias in favor of the Bielskis when it was biased against the Bielskis. Lets cut the comments from Zwick, Tec and Robert Bielski and let readers who are interested check the source material themselves - thats what our links are for. JimDunning? Anyway, thanks all for your contributions to this interesting subject. Banjojojo (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Naliboki issue

Why don't we just adopt the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and decide that until IPN or some reputable historian unequivocally concludes that the Bielski brothers or people from their unit were involved in that event, we need not mention it here? This whole business about "alleged participation" makes me uneasy. Most of those allegations are rather flimsy, and could be motivated by the antisemitism of those who make them (sad but unfortunately true). 74.14.26.18 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Various members of IPN have made statements to the effect that some members of the Bielski's unit - but not the brothers themselves - HAVE participated in the massacre. This is corroborated by witness accounts, including by a few by those who were on the killing side. The investigation is close to conclusion. The "alleged" part is mostly because the official report has not been released and because some people (like Tec) will always question that conclusion no matter how much historical research has been done to back it up. The anti-semitism charge is out place (as pointed out above for example, the editor of Gazeta Wyborcza is Jewish).radek (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read carefully the latest statements from IPN here. The key statement from IPN spokesman Arseniuk is: "The fact of the participation of partisans from Bielski Unit in attack on Naboliki is only one of the versions examined during the investigation". (Fakt udziału partyzantów z Oddziału Bielskiego w ataku na Naliboki jest tylko jedną z wersji przyjętych w toku śledztwa). This implies that the matter is not settled at all, there are other versions that are also credible, and that IPN may come to the conclusion that they in fact did not participate. In short, until the official conclusion is published, there is a good case for removing this allegation from this article. "Innocent until proven guilty", I say.74.14.26.18 (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, most historians agree that there is little doubt that individual partisans hailing from Bielski's group took part either in that massacre or in other hostilities targeting Polish soldiers and civilians (in other words, they followed the Soviet orders and tried to destroy local Polish resistance, loyal to the government in exile).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's then say exactly that (backed with references of course), and drop the dubious Naliboki allegation for now. But note that fighting against Polish soldiers or partisans is not a war crime, so I am not sure that deserves that much mention. 74.14.26.18 (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I don't find that Naliboki is mentioned often in relation to the movie. It is certainly highly relevant to Bielski partisans, but doesn't require detailed treatment here. Still, since there are reviews that mention it, we should have a link.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the 'innocent until proven' guilty thing, that's exactly why it says 'allegations'.radek (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to use non English sources on Wiki

Just a quick comment on Banjojojo's edit summary that "we have agreed to use Eng-lang links in Eng-lang WP": No such agreement has been made here. In fact, any such notion relies on a profound misunderstanding of Wiki policy. English language sources are preferred when they are available (i.e. if you find an English source with the same info as the non-English source you can replace the latter by the first) but in their absence, non-English sources are fine. If we got rid of non-English sources on Wiki we'd have to delete about a third of our articles and turn another third into stubs. This is particularly true on any topic relating to culture and history of non-English speaking countries, such as this one. In that case Wikipedia would become just a large repository of information on American pop culture (oh wait...). In particular, "Rzeczpospolita" is the second largest newspaper in Poland (after Gazeta Wyborcza). It is notable, non-fringe and considered a reliable source. Additionally I want to note that Jacurek actually kept the damning info, accusations and quotes from the article (made by former residents of Bielskis' Jerusalem and by Tuvia's relatives) out and merely wished to note that other there are other criticisms of the Bielskis in addition to the ones currently listed in the article. And as I said before, I'd be happy to do any translatin' here.radek (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I was appalled at the edit summary as well. This is an international project, not an "English-only" club. Read more at WP:BIAS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No offence was meant. My main reason for the edit is that it didn't make grammatical sense to a native English speaker - and I'm sure you'd agree with me that you want English-language readers to take this article seriously. I've noticed that even the very best Polish editors sometimes invert clauses in English-language sentences, and also muddle definite and indefinite articles. Don't take it personally - I am lousy at foreign languages myself.

As to my deleting of the link - I was backing up JimDunning's policy of cutting the 'controversy' content as it really is more about the Bielski partisans themselves rather that the film itself. We should certainly have a section on the controversy, but it shouldn't be bigger than the rest of the article about the film. Mindful of this, JimDunning happened to have removed criticism of the Bielskis - please note that in keeping with his policy I deleted allegations that these criticism are ant-Semitic. My point - lets be consistent so that if we pursue a policy of making this article as relevant to the film as possible, and if we reduce the criticism of the Bielskis, then logically we should ALSO reduce the 'anti-Semitism' defence of the Bielskis too.

Finally, we had to cut down the number of Polish-language links here, which most users of Eng-Lang are unable to use, unfortunately. That's not Anglo-centric arrogance, that's a practical need of an English language encyclopaedia. We don't have pages and pages of Mandarin or Urdu for the same reason. I'd be delighted if you (e.g. Radek) could translate these Polish-language sources into English, and then add them. I accept that occasionally a non-Eng source should be used when the information is extremely important, but we should only do this from time to time. Polish-language wikipedia is a great source for Polish-language information, and rightly so.

Thanks all. Banjojojo (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from actors

This article contains some statements from the actors in the film, giving their view on the people they were portraying. Would it be possible to incorporate them into the article? I think they do a good job of illustrating better where some of the controversy about the Bielski brothers is coming from. Quotes of this sort are included in our article about Valkyrie (film), so I don't think they are out of bounds. In what follows I will quote extensively, and then we can decide if any of this could be included.

Here is Daniel Craig, for example:

That's what fascinated me about this, really. It's obvious if anyone watches the film, if anyone reads the book, if you sort of understand the storyline, that these people did bad things," Craig said.

"They did very, very bad things and you always have to look at the net result, which is that 1,200 people walked out of this situation and survived. But keeping that many people together and under control, there were power struggles and major shifts in power ...

"The question is: `What would you do in a situation like this? How would you defend yourself?' You'd like to think that you'd protect your family, that you'd protect the people around you. But what would you be prepared to do to actually make that succeed, to protect yourself and your family?"''

Here is Jamie Bell:

''"We have no idea of the circumstances back then. We can't really comprehend what it must have been like, and to survive you had to do some pretty brutal things, whether it's murdering your neighbour for food, or murdering another guy for some medicine so that people can stay alive.

"The conditions were incredibly brutal. And I think that's why Tuvia Bielski did not want this story to be told, purely because it was too hard for him to explain why he had to do certain things. He's a hero because he saved lives, and that's why the story should be told. I think that Ed (Zwick, the director) wanted to blend the fact that they did have to do some pretty brutal things, but there were also acts of heroism."

There are other things but that's enough for now. 74.14.26.18 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, here is an article describing the situation in those days as remembered by a survivor. Not related to the movie, it just makes fascinating reading.74.14.26.18 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those quotes are quite good and would contribute to the quality of the article. BTW, the part about "that's why Tuvia Bielski did not want this story to be told" basically reflects a very common attitude among war veterans (particularly WWII veterans) and their unwillingness to talk about "how it was". Those were extreme circumstances which resulted in extreme (though sometimes necessary) actions and it's pretty much impossible for people living in peaceful times to comprehend them.radek (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving Naliboki aside

The issue of Naliboki has dominated the criticism, but it should be pointed out that while it is the most extreme example, majority of newspapers and voices pointt out that the movie avoids showing the widespread banditry of Bielski partisans against rural population and beatings and murder of peasents that refused to give away they food(already subject of Nazi confiscation). Additionally criticised are the idealistic relations in the camp as opposed to Bielski's violent behaviour and discrimination of poor members as well as treatment of women. In addition it seems he killed two Jewish members of his camp as well. It is confirmed by Nechama Tec

Sources:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

I am sadly without any time to edit at the moment, but I believe the above articles and interview are good sources to make the criticism section more represantative to what was criticised publicly rather then focusing just on Naliboki which are important part but only a part of criticism. --Molobo (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that this is an article about the film, not the Bielski brothers. We should keep criticism short and to the point, and possibly direct the reader to links which describe the situation more fully. Remember, a Hollywood movie is under no obligation to be 100% true, and that limits the criticisms that can be made of it on those grounds. 70.55.1.143 (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't agree more. In fact, since the film is fiction and not a documentary, there is no obligation to stick to the truth. And what is the truth? Certainly there is no real-world consensus on what happened. The content of most of the articles that have been cited have been about the real-life controversy and disagreements about the Bielskis, not the film's portrayal of them. As far as I can tell, the film has only served to add another spotlight to the existing disputes, and that is what the article should make succinct mention of.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

JimDunning - I respectfully asked you to cooperate and discuss Leslie Bell. From my side it seems you don't want to discuss this with me in a cooperative manner. So I'm putting Leslie Bell back in the article. She is a niece of the Bielskis, she has published a reaction to the movie and I don't think its fair for us to censor her voice out of it. Banjojojo (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for being unable to get the response to your Talk page earlier (the real world's realities were of higher priority, sorry). Consequently, I will place my explanation about the Bell issue and your edits (and edit summaries) here—

There have been a number of instances where statements in newspaper articles have been mischaracterized or misinterpreted when incorporated into this film article. Most recently I came across a sentence which had been inserted into a paragraph describing "criticisms" of the film for its "historical inaccuracies". This one (italicized below) appears to state that the film was flawed for leaving a Bielski cousin (Yehuda) out of the film's story.

The movie has been criticized for other historical inaccuracies. It omitted the Bielskis' cousin, Polish Army officer Yehuda Bielski. Gazeta Wyborcza noted the film "departed from the truth on several occasions", including depicting pre-war Nowogrodek as a Belarussian town where "no one speaks Polish", and ....

I read the source article written by Leslie Bell, a Bielski descendant, and published in The Jewish Press and I can't find anywhere in it any "criticism" of the film for "omitting" Yehuda from the story, so I removed the statement with an edit summary saying the contribution "distorted" what the source article said. In fact, I didn't find any place in the article where the author says Yehuda was left out of the story. In response to my edit, the apparent contributor of the assertion countered with the statement, "Not distortion - L. Bell reacted to movie, I didn't say she criticised it" and reinserted a passage about the article:

Leslie Bell, a descendent of a member of the Bielski partisans, reacted to the film by publishing an account of the Bielskis' cousin, Polish Army officer Yehuda Bielski.

Now this version accurately describes the context and content of the article (but not the attached edit summary); note that the editor's second edit bears little resemblance to the first. This set of edits is all too representative of the problems we've been experiencing in this section of the article: inclusion of information that does not accurately reflect the information and intent of the source material; and inclusion of information not directly related to the film (usually it is information more relevant to the real-life Bielskis and the controversy surrounding them). I can understand if there are honest mistakes made about interpretation, but we need to be careful about sticking to what is actually said and not bring into the article other agendas. Please read cited articles carefully and try to be neutral. Also, measure relevance to the film article. For example, in the case of the second edit, I removed it because the source article is about the Bielski cousin, not the film specifically and there's nothing in the source article which indicates that Yehuda's absence is an issue.

I am going to remove it again because the Bell article still is not about the film and is not very significant: I imagine every Bielski descendant who has seen the film has "reflected" on it. So what? I would expect they would. Leslie Bell's article might be more relevant and interesting vis-a-vis the film if s/he had actually said something about the film. But s/he didn't. Just my opinion.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, whether something is a "fact" or not is not the issue when it comes to inclusion in the article, it is Verifiability, whether it is supported by a reliable source. It must also be relevant to the article. How is Yehuda's absence from the film relevant or significant to the film article if the source article never criticizes the film for his absence? And since the source article never mentions the absence, it is not even a verifiable "fact". Again, we need to stick to what is verifiable and relevant.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Already far too much of this article has concerned its veracity, to the neglect of the artistic elements. This has compromised the neutrality of this article in a serious way. --Stetsonharry (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gluchowski

The current description gave only partial view of what Gluchowski wrote on Bielski's partisans.--Molobo (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your quote came from Metro, which is a free tabloid handed out on the street. Maybe not the most reliable source, which probably uses sensational wording in excess. Let's stick to Gazeta Wyborcza and Rzeczpospolita. 70.55.1.143 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, have you actually seen the film? It has quite a few scenes of brutal behavior by the partisans, their killings of innocent (by our standards) people etc. Complaints that such things have been left out of the film that one hears in some corners are simply misguided. The film is actually quite balanced in that regard (unless someone has an axe to grind against the Bielskis and anything short of presenting them as barbaric criminals will not satisfy them) 70.55.1.143 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And this is the key: WP editors don't decide whether a portrayal or characterization is balanced or accurate or fair. Reliable sources do. So the article has included material about the spotlight the film has thrown on the real-world disputes about the Bielskis, so can we move on to other aspects of the film's development and response?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Jim's comment above hits the nail on the head. This article harps excessively on the veracity or lack of veracity of this movie, emphasizing its supposed presence or absence of factual content. That puts undue weight on one aspect of this motion picture, and I have so tagged. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think most of the content of Defiance_(2008_film)#Controversies_around_the_film belongs in Bielski partisans. Unless a source straightforwardly has to do with the film and historical accuarcy or controversy, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about the film (an independent essay, would be something else altogether). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It troubles me because I don't see this movie as spawning wide controversy in the same sense of other movies that have spawned controversies in the past, such as (to go back in history a bit) Lolita. This movie has drawn criticism in Poland, but with all due respect it has not spawned much controversy in most places, particularly the United States, which is its primary market. To go on and on about the controversies and criticism in two sections is in my view a serious weight issue, even if it was worse in previous versions. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever sourced controversy there may be about the film should go in the reaction section. I forgot to say above, see WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The controversy seemed important enough to rate a major article in The Times, an important and notable newspaper, so it is definitely not OR. So we should mention it at least, though I have no problem with condensing that section considerably. 70.55.1.143 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If the source mentions the film, it's ok for the article, even more so if the source is in an English-speaking country. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a controversy in Poland, but outside Poland it is not controversial. This article thus gives undue weight to "controversy" for a movie that has not spawned widespread controversy. I am not even sure to what extent it is controversial in Poland. I've known movies that were truly controversial in the U.S. that were all over the airwaves. I have seen no evidence that this movie has resulted in that kind of widespread controversy even within Poland. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, en.Wikipedia has international readership. If a source about the film brings it up, I don't see many worries. Moreover, World War 2 partisan groups in Europe were often rather fluid and didn't always support their "governments in exile." Truth be told, it was all a canny mess, but they don't teach you that in school. In France, some of them got hooked on the "lifestyle" and after the war, turned to crime (with military kit, no less). It took years to rein them in. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, and the purpose of this article is not to set the historical record straight. It does not help the way it is currently written, with non neutral wording used ("criticized for historical inaccuracies" rather than "claims of historical inaccuracies" as I sought to phrase it, for example). Zwick responded to the criticism and that was removed. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, because the "mainstream" history of that war is still told with so much (often misleading) spin, those who know something about their local history can still get stirred up into very strong PoVs when a movie "gets it wrong" (as most Hollywood movies do, since they need to sell tickets to bored teens and young adults and can be very sloppy in both research and a script's historical backstory, or worse). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when I first started commenting on this article a few days ago (it seems like years) I pointed that out. I pointed out that a movie made in the fifties called The Two-Headed Spy told the "true" story of a British spy in the German general staff and it was absolute and total fiction! Stetsonharry (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Likewise Der Untergang is by far and away the most historically accurate film ever done about that overall topic, very noteworthy and controversial for being so, yet it's still replete with needless mistakes and yes, all kinds of spin here and there. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and The Longest Day was filled with inaccuracies, such as having the soldiers step into knee-deep water when it was often over their heads. Entire books have been written about historical inaccuracies in movies. In fact, I happen to have one entitled, I think, "History According to Hollywood." I'll have to dig it out. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I found that movie almost unwatchable when I saw it a few years ago. The script got off to a dodgy start with its source property (don't get me started on Cornelius Ryan). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On undue emphasis on veracity - I'd agree IF the film-makers hadn't made a caption at the start of the film introducing it as "A true story." You're right that films usually have no obligation to tell a true story. But if a film labels itself "A true story," its in for a heap of trouble if its sways too far from the truth, and should expect critical reaction r.e. veracity. Come on guys, imagine a film titled "Nixon" that called itself "A true story" and omitted "Watergate" ! In point of fact, Nixon is a relevant case - unlike Defiance it has a disclaimer that says: "An attempt to understand the truth [...] based on numerous public sources and on an incomplete historical record." Defiance (or rather, Ed Zwick himself) wouldn't be having this trouble if it had used the label "Based on a true story" or "Inspired by a true story." The use of "A true story" is misleading indeed false labelling that the film-makers seek to benefit from. They really have brought the scrutiny upon themselves. Indeed in this Defiance article we should be addressing the role of 'fact' in the movies like this - it is precisely the central, fascinating point that has arisen from this Wikipedia entry. Banjojojo (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As ever, it's all about sources. If they bring it up and can be cited, they can be handled in the article. Otherwise, it's all original research. As for the "true story" hook, that's Hollywood. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, its about sources and citation. Since I've been editing this page (about 4 weeks now) the editors' debate has tended to be about which sources and citations are legitimate - original research is less of a problem on this page so far, thank goodness. I tend to favor as much sourcing and citation as possible, whereas some editors feel that some sourcing and citation is irrelevant and biased. It's a fair debate to be had. Banjojojo (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to go deeper into this veracity subject and how it may relate to bias. How would we react to a British film about the Irish War of Independence billed as "A true story" depicting the leader of the Black and Tans as a dashing hero on a white horse, ridding the world of evil Irish terrorists in a gentlemanly manner (but he is occasionally tough-when-necessary)? What if then there were Irish newspaper reviews about the film that objected to the film's omission of Black and Tans confiscating Irish childrens' medicine, raping Irish women and executing Irish Prisoners of War without trial? Would we be cutting links to those Irish reviews from the Wikipedia page on that movie? Would we really? I don't think so. We all have our cultural perspectives, myself included, and just because we think a few Poles are getting all hot and bothered about their history as depicted in this film, it doesn't give us the right to censor their citations of English-language reviews and criticisms from the Wikipedia page. And before someone says it, I wasn't making a direct comparison between the Bielskis and the Black and Tans - it was a loose metaphor to try to encourage a bit of understanding here... I could have referred to the scenario of a film billed "A true story" about British forces in the American War of Independence, which celebrates the Brits as generally good guys... or the Americans in Vietnam... or the Japanese in Korea... or any number of possible historical movies. Hollywood often admits its history films aren't meant to be taken as the whole truth (see my example of "Nixon" above) - but "Defiance" is a departure from that good practice by using the words "A true story" instead of a disclaimer or even the opaque sentence "Based on a true story". For the record, I like the movie, would give it 7/10 and am sure the Bielskis were incredible people and achieved great things - My position is just that source material dealing with historical veracity IS an important aspect of this film article because this is a historical movie that seeks to open moral and historical questions rather than to simply entertain us (Ed Zwick seeks to make us think, he's said it himself, he invites a moral and historical discussion) - and the film very loudly shows itself off as "a true story" while (according to many critics) using an awful lot of artistic license. Let's not gag legitimate voices from the controversy around the film. Banjojojo (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if there are sources to cite which have something to say about how "true" the "true story" may be, there's nothing untowards at all about putting what they have to say about it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole argument puzzles me. A whole bunch of Wikipedia articles about movies based on true historical events (or set in a particular historical period) have extensive sections discussing their historical accuracy. To give some random examples, take a look at: Pearl Harbor (film), U-571 (film), Battle of Britain (film), Saving Private Ryan, Battle of the Bulge (film), The Bridge on the River Kwai, A Bridge Too Far (film), Patton (film), Memphis Belle (film), Midway (film), Sink the Bismarck!, Tora! Tora! Tora! etc. etc. Yet for this film even one paragraph is apparently too much, and a neutrality tag is slapped on the article. Where is the consistency here? If some of the participants in this debate really have a fundamental problem with "historical accuracy" sections, I do hope they demonstrate their good faith and consistency by requesting similar changes to the articles I listed. Or is it something about this particular film that makes it special? If it is, let's not beat around the bush and have it out. 74.15.21.158 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the original research is gone now, I think. Sourced commentary about historical accuracy is very ok (which is to say, without cite spanning, since the source must discuss the film comparatively with historical references and/or sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case we are ok. It seems everything is sourced to articles directly discussing the movie. Let's remove the neutrality tag. 74.15.21.158 (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinkin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

74.15.21.158 brings up a good point about those other film articles with ties to historical events. Consider each one—

• Saving Private Ryan has an excellent, well-sourced section about the film's portrayal of the period and events. All have something to do with the film itself, and the only mention of "truth" is a passage about how Speilberg changed the participants and details of a "real battle"; it nicely includes information on why Speilberg consciously changed them for dramatic reasons.
• Battle of the Bulge on the other hand contains nothing but unsourced material that is probably all original research and editorial synthesis. This explains the reason for the {{Unreferenced}} tag on the article. Not a good model.
• The Bridge on the River Kwai has an excellent section on the historical context of the story, which is well-sourced and always about the film. An important note is that it ably avoids a discussion of the controversial practices of prison camp slave labor and Geneva Conventions issues central to the story, despite the attractive digression those represent. Well done.
• Just the opposite for A Bridge Too Far. It is completely unsourced, and is probably a lot of original research (an editor compared her/his knowledge of WWII and insignificant details in the film). I've placed maintenance tags to those effects on the article page. It needs much attention.
• For Patton, Memphis Belle, and Midway, most of the "historical accuracy" sections are unsourced and, worse, really add nothing to the articles. The material does poor jobs addressing whether those deviations from "truth" affect the entertainment value of the film. How much better the articles would be if the sections treated the production, logistical, and creative reasons for being "untruthful" (like Speilberg explaining his reasons for changing battle details to enhance to viewer's experience).
• Sink the Bismarck! and Tora! Tora! Tora! not only make those mistakes, but venture into the territory we've been dealing with in this article by providing too much focus on the real-world events rather than the films' potrayals.

Jim Dunning | talk 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) But the neutrality concerns have not been rectified. Again, I would like to draw our attention to the comment that I made in initiating this section: This article harps excessively on the veracity or lack of veracity of this movie, emphasizing its supposed presence or absence of factual content. That puts undue weight on one aspect of this motion picture. I believe that is a valid concern. While it's true that there was a problem of original research and sourcing, what is problematic about this article is the extent to which there is discussion of the veracity of the movie. It dominates the article.

There is also lack of balance in the controversies section, in that Zwick's response to the controversy, quoted in the Times, was removed. The sentiment of Bielski's son, that anti-Semitism is behind the criticism, is inflammatory (and probably unfair) but also was quoted in two publications and should be reflected if so much text is to be spent on criticism. That is the WP:UNDUE problem here. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But if we dwell into why certain allegations were made against the partisans in Poland, we are then getting into Polish internal politics and drifting away from the movie. To explain that the section has to grow even longer, and then even more weight is put on it, making the article even more unbalanced. Bit of a paradox. Still, I am glad we are now clear that the discussion boils down to whether "Polish antisemitism" has to be explicitly mentioned or not, and that is the neutrality concern. 74.15.21.158 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To make another obvious point, it is very difficult to separate antisemitism from some Poles directed against the Bielskis from legitimate pain, resentment and sense of historical grievance some in Poland may feel if they lost innocent family members to attacks by Soviet partisans to which the Bielski unit belonged. This is why allegations of antisemitism are best avoided.74.15.21.158 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is about anti-Semitism at all. Bielski brothers are heroes to many, especially in Israel and rightly so, but at the same time they are bandits, thieves and traders to most Poles. To Poles, Soviets were just another occupiers, to Polish Jews they were the ones who saved them from the Germans and allowed them to leave their hideouts. History of that period is so messy that you either have to be a Polish Jew or simply Polish to understand.--Jacurek (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 65 years after the events I would hope most Poles have a more balanced view of people like the Bielskis. Still, there are some, especially those whose families lived in Eastern Poland, that have more old fashioned attitudes. 74.15.21.158 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings all. I see a lot of discussion here and so you know who is writing I'll open with my ID Banjojojo (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC).

I agree with user 74.15.21.158 that the neutrality tag isn't legitimate.

To continue, Wikipedia guidance notes at the top of this page invite editors to create an article which is "broad in coverage" and includes a section on "reception". Our veracity and controversy content in WP:Defiance has been doing just that - the word "reception" certainly doesn't exclude controversy, nor reactions from non-film critics.

Further, WP guidance notes invite a section on "differences between TV show/book ... etc". I interpret the sentiment behind that clause as good reason for a section on "differences between movie/real events" which we have entitled "Controversies around the film". Even if we stuck to the strict letter of that clause of guidance, there are very big differences between the film and the book, most of which are in fact being dealt with by the controversy and reactions from non-film critics. For example, Tec herself writes the Bielskis were from Poland, not Belarus - just like some Polish articles cited. Tec also writes Tuvia Bielski was a Polish Army veteran. And there's plenty more.

(indent)Unsure how to digest this block of text and address it, so I'll start piecemeal. Before we go too far on the "differences between movie/real events" please review the Film Style Guidelines on Adaptations:

Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it. This material should be placed within a relevant section of the article (e.g., Production, Major Themes, and Critical Reception). Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged.

This means that any differences between the book and the film should be addressed in the context of the film's development (and sourced); i.e. (1) what creative and logistical considerations went into any decisions made by the producer, screenwriter, and director in adapting the source material to the screen; and (2) what the reaction was to those normal adaptation decisions. The first usually finds a home in the Production section and the second shows up in the Response section (although Production may be appropriate). As for differences from historical events that may or may not have inspired the film's fictional story — which may occur when controversy about the historical events already exists or if the film is seen as biased or distorting the accepted historical record — then that should be handled in a "Criticism" type section (and sourced as well). For this film I have not seen as much of a focus on the film as "distorting" history as on it highlighting existing disputes. Either way, there is no reason a treatment cannot be concisely summarized in a single paragraph; there just isn't that much content to the dispute. I'm not minimizing the significance or seriousness of the controversy, but surely we can ably describe the issue in a single passage. How difficult can that be?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Consequently, and in keeping with WP guidance, I see no problems here about our inclusion of a full section on veracity, controversy and reception by non-film critics.

As a precedent, WP:Valkyrie has an entire section on "German response to production". It also has an entirely separate section on "Historical accuracy." It then has a section on "Reception" (NB not critical reaction). This is further divided into reaction in America and reaction in Germany. Veracity and non-film reaction sections in WP: Defiance are in fact far smaller than in the WP:Valkyrie article. Like 74.15.21.158 and Jacurek I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want Polish responses to Defiance, and veracity issues, to be gagged, and I suspect bias motivating these attempts to gag contributors. Why don't the same people who want to gag the Polish responses go on to the WP:Valkyrie page and demand the veracity and German response sections get reduced? Why aren't you gagging the Germans? Any answers?

And now, to turn to the user who disputed the neutrality of this article in the first place - Stetsonharry. You've been referring to my edits. You took a quote about anti-Semitism from The Times article and inserted it into this WP article, out of context. I removed it, and I believe I removed it fairly, as it is in the cited source material for all to see. The quote uses an anti-Semitism defence for people under investigation for (and have not been proven innocent nor guilty of) murder. The Times published the quote in that context. To my mind it is wrong to use it as a defence of an allegation in isolation, out of context. Neither we nor the newspapers have said anyone is guilty or innocent of anything. We've said what the people are being investigated for and that the accused have issued denials - that is fair and efficient - it is enough information for our article. And it is not anti-Semitism. To my mind anti-Semitism is an extremely serious allegation and it should not be used lightly, as it that devalues genuine cases of prejudice, including mass genocide.

Zwick's quote, for the same reason of efficiency, was cut - it is there in the cited material for all to see. I didn't remove the source material. JimDunning cut plenty of comment for the same reason - efficiency.

Moreover, you wrote that some people "claim" there are historical inaccuracies in the film and also you've said on this talk page that "claim" is accurate. In fact Wikipedia views "claim" as a loaded word - please could you look it up. I deleted that word, with the intention of sticking to Wikipedia guidance. I deny your accusation that I was biased in that edit. As to your point that the controversy is isolated to Poland - that's not true. The Marissa Brostoff article from August 2008 was published in The Jewish Press, 5 months ago, in America. It was one of the first pieces to speak of controversy around the film - please could you look it up. There were other American articles surrounding the film, ahead of the release. Now, perhaps our sentence "Even before its release the film generated controversy in Poland" is biased, because the fact is: even before its release the film generated controversy in The Jewish Press in America as well as in Poland.

I have to tell you honestly, and respectfully, I'm starting to view your pleas about bias with scepticism. It all begs the question: Can you, Stetsonharry, honestly say you are so innocent of bias yourself? What is your connection to the subjects here? Have you really added the neutrality tag because of perceived bias or because you personally don't like the evidence as it is being presented here? All of us editors should ask ourselves this question about our own bias all the time, myself included. I'm certainly not beyong reproach, and I welcome your scrutiny of my own behaviour.

And please, before you accuse me of bias, note that I have also cut at least one entry that is precisely what you object to - it was from a Polish editor adding Polish citations of controversy around the film. In response they accused me of Anglophone bias because I cut their Polish-language citations. My argument, again, is that I try my best to edit according to Wikipedia guidance. While my view is that we should have as much relevant content and sourcing as possible, we can't have a large amount of non-English language sourcing, because this is the English-version section Wikipedia. There are non-English-version sections of Wikipedia for non-English citations. And rightly so.

Put simply, and to rest my case, I vote that the neutrality tag should be removed immediately. Banjojojo (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you're going to have the level of detail on the "controversy" currently devoted in this article, neutrality requires that you need to have the response to the criticism of the movie from the movie's diretor Zwick and also from the Bielski family, whether you or I agree with it or not. I have not seen any valid reason for not including the response to the criticism. However, if the criticism/controversy section is kept to the proper proportion, there is no need to have extensive responses from Zwick or Bielski.

As for the neutrality tag, it says very clearly on the tag that the tag should not be removed as long as a dispute exists. Please don't remove it. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"I have cut down the controversy section, and removed the mention of Naliboki massacre involvement, which at this point looks increasingly unlikely (If IPN comes out with a conclusion that they were involved, that section can be enlarged again). Left is the undisputed fact that the Bielski unit was a part of Soviet partisans run by NKVD, with all the controversy that entails. I hope we have finally achieved the required level of neutrality. 74.15.21.224 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stetsonharry, I'm having trouble seeing the supposed non-neutrality here. The sections on historical accuracy and controversy are not that long at all, relative to what's found in other movie articles, as noted above. The section "Critical Reaction" is half about the historical accuracy of the film, two paragraphs. Of this the first one simply notes that the movie departs from historical accuracy in some ways while the second is about Tec explaining WHY the film makers on occasion chose to depart from historical accuracy (basically to make a more entertaining movie). I there anything specifically about this section that is non-neutral? Do you really think that it is too long? The "Controversies" section is just one paragraph. It mostly notes the existence of controversies around the film's subject matter. It is somewhat guarded in presenting the criticism, duly noting that the investigation into the massacre has not been concluded but also notes the verifiable fact that the Bielski unit cooperated with Soviet partisans. The second half of the paragraph IS the response from others which notes that the Bielskis and some historians argue that the unit was not in the area at the time. It quotes Gluchowski saying in effect the same thing. Again, it's hard to see any bias here or undue weight. Basically it just seems like you object to having these sections AT ALL or of them including ANY mention of controversy.

To put my own cards on the table, my best guess as to what happened with the Naliboki massacre is simply that some members of the Soviet partisans that were involved in it later on ended up joining Bielski's unit, when they showed up months later in the area. It's quite possible that Tuvia and his brothers had no idea that these individuals had been involved. It's also not outside the realm of possibility - especially in the light of Bielski's later troubles with the NKVD - that when the unit showed up in the region the Soviets forced them to accept some "commissars" to keep an eye on them. But controversy exists, there's an ongoing investigation, and Wikipedia has a duty to document it. The POV tag is spurious and unwarranted.radek (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That information should be in the article about the Bielskis, not in this article about a Hollywood film. Why don't we put in here only things that are undisputed. Anyway, even Polish commentators are coming to the conclusion that the real controversy is around the proper interpretation of the fact that the Bielskis were part of the Soviet partisan movement. The Naliboki allegation is almost a distraction here. 74.15.21.224 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

<-- Well, I think since Naliboki is the most serious charge and also because it is a specific case rather than the more abstract "cooperated with the Soviets", I think it should be mentioned here. But in the interest of compromise, I'm fine with omitting it and having the text be as it is now. BTW, the Bielski partisans article could use expanding.radek (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The remaining paragraph can still be improved, as at present it sounds rather awkward, but it's the best I can come up with. The film does not after all hide the fact that the Bielskis were working with the Soviets. But it does omit the rather "unpleasant" activities that the Soviet partisans were engaged in at the time in Eastern Poland. 74.15.21.224 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the involvement of the Bielski group with other partisan groups in reallife belong on the article with the group. Wikipedia has an obligation to document the controversy, including of course the statements of supporters of the group as prominently as critics of it. The question here is that it is usual to discuss in historical film the question of how true to history it is. Considering that the very involvement is uncertain, the wording here would have to be very tentative. Whatever is here or anywhere has to be in neutral non-loaded language, as elsewhere in Wikipedia. It does not help to say that "the fact that the Bielskis were part of the Soviet partisan movement., one should say "associated" or "supported by", or, perhaps, "tolerated"--which is as much as the Communists actually extended to any potentially rival group in Poland or anywhere else. Anyone who actually doesn't know the reputation of the NKVD can find out from the article on them, we do not need to use the word "feared". The way to deal with topics as difficult as this is as soberly as possible. For one thing, it gives less of an impression of propaganda. In other words, Gwen is completely right in her sentence at the start of this section. DGG (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, I agree completely with Gwen;'s short statement a tthe beginning of this section. DGG (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am all for rewording as the issue is indeed tricky. Still, we cannot eliminate this controversy mention completely, as it has been noted by major news outlets in at least 4 countries (Britain, Canada [11], United States [12] and Poland). Surely that means it deserves at least one sentence. To be honest, in my opinion a whole section that would do the issue justice would be useful, but I bow before the concensus emerging here. 74.15.21.224 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of Criticism section

After digesting the concerns expressed by everyone about the Bielskis's checkered history, their film portrayals, and the reactions to both, I've attempted a rewrite which I hope presents a balanced, but succinct treatment that focuses on the film. I still need to provide consistent cite formatting and research some of the Polish sources more thoroughly so I'm satisfied they are characterized accurately. How does this work (I've included the New Yorker paragraph just to show placement)—
Jim Dunning | talk 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New Yorker film critic David Denby praised the film, saying that "it makes instant emotional demands, and those who respond to it, as I did, are likely to go all the way and even come out of it feeling slightly stunned." Denby praised the performances in the film, which he described as "a kind of realistic fairy tale set in a forest newly enchanted by the sanctified work of staying alive."

The Times reported some Poles fear "Hollywood has airbrushed out some unpleasant episodes from the story", such as the Bielski partisans' affiliation with Soviet partisans directed by the NKVD, which, towards the end of the war terrorized ethnic Poles in Eastern Poland, including the region where Bielski’s unit operated. Gazeta Wyborcza reported six months before the film's release that "News about a movie glorifying [the Bielskis] have [sic] caused an uproar" among "Polish amateur historians", calling the Bielskis "Jewish-communist bandits", while professional historians have been characterized as being "more cautious", describing the group's banditry as understandable when survival is at stake. The newspaper commented after the film's release that it "departed from the truth on several occasions", including depicting pre-war Nowogrodek as a Belarussian town where "no one speaks Polish", and Polish partisans are missing from the film altogether". Professor Krzysztof Jasiewicz, in an article published in leading Polish daily Rzeczpospolita, criticized the film for vastly simplifying the historical reality in which it is set and failing to adequately place the events it describes within the complex historical situation during World War II in Eastern Poland..

Zwick responded to the criticism by saying that Defiance is not a simple fight between good and evil. He told the Times in a statement: "The Bielskis weren’t saints. They were flawed heroes, which is what makes them so real and so fascinating. They faced any number of difficult moral dilemmas that the movie seeks to dramatise: Does one have to become a monster to fight monsters? Does one have to sacrifice his humanity to save humanity?" Tuvia Bielski's son Robert said "I believe it’s just a consistent Polish anti-Semitism and the Poles are sloughing [palming] off their own crimes of being an enemy of the Jews during World War II". Nechama Tec, on whose book the movie is based, stated in an interview with Rzeczpospolita that she was initially shocked by the film, especially by the intense battle scenes, which included combat with German tanks. Tec does not believe these battles occurred: the partisans tried to avoid combat and were focused on survival. She explained this divergence as an adaptation concession producer Edward Zwick made to make the film more thrilling and necessary to obtaining the necessary funding, such being the realities of Hollywood. Nevertheless, after seeing the film a number of times, Tec said that she is liking it "more and more".

I think the article is fine as it is now, after my changes (but I may be biased :)). I strongly object including the quotation by Bielski's son, until it is established he has the credentials to issue informed judgements about current affairs in Poland. As far as I know he spent his whole life in the US, so his capacity to judge which Polish historians are anti-Semitic, or how consistenly anti-Semitic Poland is today, is essentially zero. 74.15.21.224 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the whole quote is an obvious ethnic slur, so it cannot be included, just like any quote of type "Americans are racists" or blaming something on "consistent American racism". 74.15.21.224 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it important to move the third paragraph to an earlier position to help enhance context and background and provide some chronological progression. Also, I believe the use of the word "inaccuracies" is inaccurate since it is a work of fiction; changes are inherent in the adaptation process and should be treated as such. The two paragraph organization is intended to create a balanced structure: "criticism" (both in the positive and pejorative senses) of the film in the first, and reaction to that criticism in the second. However, I have no problem with removing the Bielski son quote.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the Bielski quote the text seems very good. It would be nice to also reference the NPR program which is quite informative. 74.15.21.224 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Tuvia Bielski's son Robert said "I believe it’s just a consistent Polish anti-Semitism and the Poles are sloughing [palming] off their own crimes of being an enemy of the Jews during World War" This is not necessary, his statement is historically inaccurate (kind of Polish Concentration Camps nonsense) and puts Robert Bielski in a bad light.--Jacurek (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad JimDunning you are restoring the controversy section. But I also agree with 74.15.21.224 that Robert Bieslki's quote shouldn't be included. There is an issue aside from Robert Bielski's seemingly prejudiced remark. His quote is a response to the Naliboki allegation, which we are no longer including. Logically we shouldnt include the reaction if we aren't including the allegation. As a compromise, I'm happy to cut reference to BOTH the Naliboki allegation AND Robert Bielski's anti-Semitism defence, as both subjects are pretty extreme and possibly dubious. I say we keep the NKVD / Soviet relationship in there as well as the Zwick comment. Nobody's denying the Bielskis were associated with the Soviets, one way or another, and at the same time that sums up why there is the controversy. Banjojojo (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The NPR article has some good information about Zwick and development that would enhance the Production section, but relative to the controversies, it doesn't have much directly related to the film. Let's look at it some more.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think JimDunning's proposed revision is very good. While I'm not happy with the amount of space given to controversy given the size of the article, I think this strikes a balance. I think Tuvia Bielski's son's comment isn't needed if the massacre accusation is removed, as that indeed is a response to the massace. I do think Zwick's comment is required there or somewhere else in the article. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bare in mind some sections of WP articles naturally grow faster than others. The solution isnt always to restrict the growth of that one section by cutting it - sometimes it is better to let it grow and to improve the other sections and add more sections so that the whole article is more rounded and comprehensive and offers ever more information. In this case, criticism/controversy is the first section to grow fast, and I think we should let this happen, with a view to allowing other sections to catch up in size. It would be a shame to take a policy of restricting information when it is coming forward in abundance. Take a look at WP:Valkyrie - its all about reception, veracity and the controversy there has been in one European country (Germany). All this said, we should get round to filling out the rest of our article's sections, for example Production, and Music, which has the film's only Oscar nomination. Banjojojo (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I toyed with the idea of moving Zwick's comment (and even some of the "controversy" material) to Production, but thought it best in this section to provide that balance. Of course, it can still be placed there as well. Speaking of which, can we now devote as much effort as we've spent here maturing that Production section?
Jim Dunning | talk 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

JimDunning, are you going to update the page now with the text above? Or are you awaiting for more input? Banjojojo (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to update. I was waiting to see if there are more comments, but it's been quiet for awhile, so I'll make the change. Thanks for everyone's input and help.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd change this phrasing: "Gazeta Wyborcza reported six months before the film's release that "News about a movie glorifying [the Bielskis] have [sic] caused an uproar" among "Polish amateur historians", calling the Bielskis "Jewish-communist bandits"," or remove it. GW is specifically referring to "amateur historians publishing in the nationalist press" but the statement makes it seem like it's all Polish amateur historians (whoever they are). Also, I'm not seeing that particular sentence in the article itself so I'm not sure why it's in quotes. Instead the article says "an uproar in the Nowy Dziennik". I'm actually wondering if they didn't mean Nasz Dziennik, since Nowy Dziennik is a Polonia mag, which I don't know much about but a search on its website gives you nothing relevant for "Bielski" or "Odwet" and nothing whatsoever for "Naliboki". Finally, that article is way outdated (note the comment that the Bielskis were partly responsible for Naliboki, whereas lately IPN has been saying they haven't).radek (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Radek, if you see inaccuracy please correct or remove it immediately yourself as it is an extremely serious matter. Thanks, Banjojojo (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The passage does not seem to me to say all amateur historians, but if someone wants to change it to "some amateur historians" I guess I wouldn't have a major problem, but the source article does not use those words. As to the quotes, I rechecked and they are clearly there and I think the paraphrasing accurately reflects the intent of the paragraph in the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change which keeps the direct quotes accurate, but seems to point out more clearly the nature of the uproarers.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not gonna quite work. The text currently says "in publications (including nationalist websites) among "Polish amateur historians"," while the source says "Polish amateur historians publishing in the nationalist press". So in the source the uproar IS the nationalist amateur historians while the current text makes it seem like the nationalist amateur historians are only a (possibly small) part of the uproar. Essentially the text in the article puts the emphasis on "Polish amateur historians" while the source very clearly is putting the emphasis on "nationalist". Which is why I made that change. And I still think this source is a bit outdated and confuses Nasz Dziennik with Nowy Dziennik (source do make mistakes you know) but whatever. BTW, I think Turski's characterization of Bielski "a mixture of Kmicic, Hubal and "Ogień" is a very apt description of both the person and how these kind of controversies come about.radek (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming the amateur historians are nationalists, but the source doesn't explicitly say that. Just because someone publishes in a "nationalist" periodical doesn't mean she is a "nationalist" as well. I agree there's a chance that is what is implied by the author, but the author could have made it unambiguous by putting the adjective "nationalist" in front of "historian" rather than "press" (she may have had a reason for wording it exactly that way). That's why we can't just change the quotes to fit one possible interpretation of the source passage. Now, maybe we should find a better source to make the point, but I don't agree with rewriting the quotes to fit one interpretation. I vote for leaving it to the reader to decide by using the source's exact words. As for the source being dated, I think that's the point: we're showing when the controversy about the film began.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

<--- How about: "Gazeta Wyborcza reported six months before the film's release that "News about a movie glorifying [the Bielskis] have [sic] caused an uproar" among ""Polish amateur historians publishing in the nationalist press"" who referred to the Bielskis as "Jewish-communist bandits". professional historians have been characterized as being "more cautious", describing the group's banditry as understandable when survival is at stake". That way it's all there and folks can decide, as you say. Lots of quotation marks but otherwise we're gonna be stuck in this interpretin', which, as wikipedians we're not supposed to do anyway.radek (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to maintain the neutrality of this article, so I've removed a second criticism section entitled "Language." That point deserves, at the most, a sentence. I've added that to the criticism section in the spirit of compromise, but would not object to even that sentence being removed as it is a very minor point and mentioning it in the article at all seems unecessary. It is not necessary for a Wiki article to reflect every single point of criticism raised in a film review, when doing so would compromise the neutrality of an article. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time finding "criticism" of the film for its depiction of language. What Stetsonharry removed clearly was not supported by the sources. As for what's left, it appears to be more recognition that the film depicted things differently than reality (in that paper's opinion, anyways). But is that a "criticism" in the pejorative sense? Is the writer saying there is something "wrong" with the film for doing that? I can't say either way; I'd have to say "maybe" and therefore would ignore it or find another credible source who is more definite or clearer in its opinion. Again, the film is not a documentary, it is fiction, so the point should be how does the presentation of languages spoken affect the viewing experience? The writer does not clearly address that. I'm for removing the statement; "Some Polish reviewers also criticized the use of Russian language" seems too strong a characterization of the source material.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

All good points. I've removed the sentence. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosovietic

Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita brands the movie as philosovietic, idealizing Soviet partizans [13]. Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to a blog post. The author also wrote an opinion article. I don't think "insights" from such pieces belong in this article. Yes, there are obviously people in Poland that have a major problem with various aspects of this movie. They are entitled to their opinion, but we really don't need to put every one of their objections here (there is Polish Wikipedia for this after all). 70.48.217.245 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And there are people around the world who have a major problem with various aspects of this movie, not knowning anything about the land, people and historical context.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And "Philosovietic" isn't a word in the English language - sorry, its nonsense for English-speakers and I think you mean "pro-Soviet". Wikipedia certainly isn't an English language club, but we can't have vocabulary here that most users won't understand. Xx236 has written - Polski jest językiem ojczystym tego użytkownika - I assume this indicates Polish is your first language. We really have to ensure the credibility of this English-language page by using the English language, vocab and grammar correctly. I guess by "Philosovietic" you mean pro-Soviet. We've already established that the controversy is around the Bielskis' Soviet connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjojojo (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about accusations from those articles that once Soviets (including Bielski's) signed agreement with AK about common defense. AK took central position, Soviets in the wings. Germans attacked, AK defended and suddenly they found out they have no wings - Soviet partisans including Bielski's unit simply escaped leaving AK behind Szopen (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Szopen - please add that to the Bielski Partisan page, fairly and accurately sourced and cited - its not for the Defiance film page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjojojo (talk • contribs) 08:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is the talk page of a movie, meant for talking about reliable sources which deal straightforwardly with that movie, not any historical events from which the movie may or may not be drawn. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article, I have only put this information here, in case you don't know. BTW - who is the "we" from we really don't need? 70.48.217.245 has only two edits, all of them here.

The movie pretends to inform, but misinforms. A reader should know about it, it's not a "Polish" matter. Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about we. If you have some reliable sources which discuss the movie and its historical accuracy, they're very welcome here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To Xx236 (talk - The article already very clearly shows there is controversy about the historical accuracy of the movie, which bills itself as 'A true story'. Please see the debate above that we (yes 'we' means all of us, the editors of this page, from all over the world, including Poles, including you) have been having. The point is that it is fair and accurate for us to include the controversy about historical accuracy, and we have clearly included the dispute, but we should not turn an article about a film into an article that replaces the existing Wikipedia entry about the Bielski Partisans. Moreover, we should try to use facts and evidence far more than opinion. Banjojojo (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Budget

Someone changed it to 32 million, I'd like to change it back to 50 million based on the following:

http://www.themovieinsider.com/m4159/3/defiance/

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/DFIAN.php

Admittedly, this source is different. Thoughts?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=defiance.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFireTones (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Defiance - true story of Bielski - myths & lies - ( english subs) - full

Documentary movie about Defiance and Bielski's partisants - > [14]. We should include facts from the movie in the article. --DumnyPolak (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that movie constitutes a reliable source.radek (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Movie review by Snyder

[15] Unfortunately, non-free (but people with university connections should be able to access it). I've just read it, and it is an excellent review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Reference Nr. 14 and 23 are the same: "Jewish resistance film sparks Polish anger" (Guardian) -- Imladros (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)