Talk:Aron Bielski

[WP:Perma Ban on editor Stetsonharry]

Since Wikipedia has issued a perma ban on user / editor Stetsonharry for abusive rules violations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stetsonharry), I think that all of his arguments / discussions below should be ignored and not considered at all. Regarding the propriety of mentioning the criminal case against Bell in Florida, I think that it is very relevant. After all, this guy has been living the life of an alleged war hero for all of these past decades. That, in and of itself, adds credibility to whatever scam he may have allegedly committed. That status is what could have allowed him to gain the trust of the victim, bank, and government officials. While some people below have argued that Bell may have played a minor role in WW2, there is no way to know for certain how events would have played out had he not been there. The Bielski brothers were a group effort - not an individual one. Just like the efforts on Flight 93 by the passangers on 9/11. We will never know who did what. But in our hearts they are ALL heros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.2.132 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns

Bielski clearly falls under the "non public figure" section of WP:BLP. That says: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

Since Bielski is notable only because of his participation in the Bielski partisans, the material about his 2007 arrest must be omitted and I am doing so. I doubt that Bielski is deserving of an article on his own. Since there is essentially nothing in this article after the arrest, and speculation concerning it, are removed, I've proposed this article for deletion.Stetsonharry (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here and I would like to hear what others think. In my opinion if somebody is present in thousands of web pages including Israeli Yad Vashem and Polish Institute of National Remembrance as well as in many books and newspapers why Wkipiedia should be stripped with info about the person? Respect, because Aron's old age (recent trouble with the law) is not an argument at all.--Jacurek (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no expertise at all in this area, as I mainly edit film articles and became involved in this because of the connection with the film Defiance. If there is more on him, individually, in the records as some teenage warrior than by all means add it. My worry is that, given his tender years in WWII and his obscurity thereafter, there is really no article here on him separate from Bielski partisans once the criminal charges are excised. Personally I'd like to know more about those criminal charges, but my reading of BLP indicates to me that they can't be put in this or any other article. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting case, but I think the fact that he is a hero of a movie has gained him enough notability to make him, well, notable. His criminal troubles are well documented, and his role in the movie (and in the book it is based on) even more so. I particularly find attempt to censor any mention that one of the Bielski brothers is a criminal from wikipedia (ex. [1]) not very constructive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His character has a supporting role in the movie, and that just underlines my point, which is that he is notable because of the partisan activities and the movie, not because of his alleged actions in Florida two years ago. This article as currently constituted is tantamount to an attack page, which grossly excessive weight on his arrest, and should be deleted. I shall so request. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Being arrested on major felony charges--anything that carries a life sentence certainly counts--is one of the most major events in almost anyone's life, and it's not undue weight to mention it in a biography. One or two sentences, even in this short an article, is not too much, and the fact that he was so arrested is verifiable fact and obviously not libelous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But that is all that is really all you can say about this man, except for his activities with the Bielski partisans that is or should be covered in that article. What disturbs me is that this article grew out of a discussion in the Defiance (2008 film) discussion page specifically on how to get that arrest in Wikipedia. I was frankly sympathetic to that objective until I re-read BLP. This article is clearly intended for that purpose, and I just can't reconcile that with policy.

Nobody has adddressed WP:NPF, which I see as very clearly dealing with this precise situation. I would like to see that specifically addressed, as pertains to how the arrest relates to his notability. Failing that specific point being addressed, I would suggest that the arrest cannot be included in this or any article, no matter how much you or I may find it interesting. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His activities with the Bielski partisans should be covered here. Four years of someone's life is not one event, nor is the fact that he was arrested in any conceivable way false or defamatory.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that there would still be a strong case to be made for merger, even if there was substantial information on his activities with the partisans. I am an inclusionist at heart, but this article worries me because of the emphasis on the arrest, which I just can't reconcile with BLP. I would like to see a discussion of these BLP concerns. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no emphasis on the arrest here. We have discussed the BLP concerns; you just don't like our answers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps shortening or rewording the last sentence would help ? After all he and his wife are still awaiting trial.--Jacurek (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the charges were dropped after they agreed to settle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal is ridiculous

With the movie "Defiance" bringing light to their exploits, the Bielski brothers are finally emerging as significant figures in the history of the Holocaust (along with people like Oscar Schindler, Irena Sendler and Raoul Wallenberg). As one of the four brothers (and especially as the only surviving one) Aron Bielski definitely merits an article in Wikipedia, and I am surprised that anyone is seriously questioning this.

At the same time, I agree it is undeniable that the current article is a pathetic stub which, because of its shortness, gives undue prominence to Bell's 2007 criminal case. But the solution is to improve the article by expanding it and bringing things into proper perspective, not deleting it. 74.14.25.236 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But expand it how? Is there substantial information on this Bielski as an individual separate and apart from his activities as a youngter with the Bielski partisans? If not, then what you have is more information on the brothers as a group, and that belongs in the partisans article.

Assuming there is no BLP issue, and that has yet to be addressed in this discussion, the article has a very serious neutrality issue because of the prominence of the arrest, and I have tagged accordingly. Again, I would like to see the BLP issues I have raised discussed, specifically concerning how the arrest relates to his notability. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So should George Washington not include any information on his activities with the Continental Army, because that belongs with the group article? What he did with the partisans is not dismissable as irrelevant.

The BLP has been addressed in this discussion. If you disagree with the responses, respond to what they say, don't just say they don't exist. He's arrested for a serious felony, the most important thing that happens to many people, and it take up about a quarter of the article. That's not disproportionate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been addressed because the BLP problem is that the arrest is not related to his notability. Please explain to me how the arrest is related to his notability, which I see as stemming solely from his activities in the partisans. You don't have to repeat that a felony arrest is serious; I am aware of that. I'm solely concerned with the issue of his being a non-public person and the arrest not being related to the reason for there being an article onb him. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is silly. The only thing that makes Oskar Schindler notable is that he saved 1200 during World War between 1939 and 1945. By your logic, our article on him should not include anything about his life after 1945 (as those events are not related to his notability). But of course our article does discuss his post-war life in considerable detail, including such unsavoury details as the fact that he went bankrupt, failed as a businessman, and was reduced to living on handouts from the people he saved. Should those facts be deleted from there? 74.14.25.236 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oskar Schindler was a central figure in that episode of the war. Aron was a teenager and tangential. Read what was just added to the article: "his participation and impact on the life of the Bielski otriad was minimal, almost nonexistent." Stetsonharry (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aron as the youngest was the least important of the four brothers, but the fact that he is still alive increases his significance. Yes, just by living long you can become notable. For one obvious example, take a look List of surviving veterans of World War I and our articles about the men listed there. During the war most of them were completely insignificant privates, few among millions, but today they are notable as the only survivors of a distant, significant period. Same goes for Aron Bell. It is also important to note that as the only surviving brother his testimony was an important source to Peter Duffy, who wrote one of the two definitive books on the subject. 74.14.25.236 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and might feel different if the article did not seem to mainly impart two particles of information: 1) His role in the partisans was "almost nonexistant" and 2) He got into legal trouble when he was an old man. Surely the first point is significant and should be put in the Bielski partisans article. The second point stands out like a sore thumb and appears to be the only reason we have this article. In fact, it is the only reason we have this article, as was evident from the discussion in the film page that resulted in creation of this article. BLP policy is very conservative and bends over backward not to do harm and to respect the privacy of subjects. This strikes me as being one of those instances in which a person is notable for one specific event, which is treated differently than if, for instance, he was a B movie actor known for getting into bar fights. I say that because I've been editing an article about just such a person! Stetsonharry (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He's notable for being a 70+ year old survivor who stole from another survivor. This is not digging into his personal life, like BLP cautions against. It's like not mentioning that OJ Simpson got into legal trouble when he was an old man. This is not private information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree with you that the article in its current form makes me uncomfortable. The circumstances of its creation were somewhat unfortunate. Still, I feel Aron Bell as a significant living Holocaust hero deserves to have an article in Wikipedia. I hope some solution can be worked out here. 74.14.25.236 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent) Prosfilaes, that is the crux of the issue. I would suggest that this person is notable solely because of his role in the Bielski partisans, as dramatized in a movie, and not because of his ripping off an old lady last year. Contrast that with an article I've been editing on the B-movie actor I just alluded to, Lawrence Tierney, who was notable because he was an actor and because of his propensity for getting into bar fights, which hurt his career. In the case of Tierney, his arrests related specifically to the decline in his career and I personally inserted references to them. Here, we have a man noted for his being essentially a bystander in a partisan group when he was a child, and that role being dealt with in a movie.

Now, if he was so important that he merited a lengthy article, I can see inclusion of a reference to the arrest and settlement. But obviously that is not going to happen because of his tangential role in the partisans. So we have an article of limited length on a private person, describing mainly his legal problems and very minor role in the partisan group. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to hold up my part of the discussion. But I will point out that the concerns of WP:BLP don't end when you go to the talk page; even here we should speak of his being accused and arrested, not of him "ripping off an old lady".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

I think that the article is more neutral than initially, but that the "later years" section continues to make the article problematic because it is dominated by his arrest on charges that were later dropped. There is ample precedent from other articles to removing references to, for example, SEC investigations that are initiated and then dropped. I believe the same principle applies here, and that the arrest should be removed.

Adding a section on the WWII massacre, which I removed, is not proper in this BLP and underlines my concern about this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the arrest case gained significant media coverage, it seems quite relevant and notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But the charges were dropped. There's no question that the arrest received significant attention. However, it is not unusual for events that receive significant attention to not be included in Wiki articles because of policy. I think I cited earlier the CEO who was subject to an SEC inquiry, which was widely publicized, but then mention of the inquiry was removed from the article on him was removed because the inquiry was dropped. I think that is the precedent that needs to be followed with this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very strange precedent. I would rather see the CEO entry decensored then to support it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the section about "later life" is unsupportable under established BLP policy. There are three possible justification for such a section:

1. He is so famous that everything he does is significant. He is certainly notable, and possibly the diffusion of his story by the film will make him famous, but he's not of that level yet, unlike say a president or a movie star. I doubt he ever really real be, though he may deserve to be. If it should happen, we can reconsider. But even if he were considerably more famous, I don't think we would mention it unless there were actually a conviction, and there was not, just a monetary settlement. The relevant rule is "Do no harm." We're not a tabloid.
2. It is related to his notability. That's the arguments used for CEOs and accusations of financial misdealings. for a person whose notability is business, financial misdealings are relevant. For a political figure, anything relating to personal morality is considered relevant, because of the public trust involved. For a man notable primarily for his military activity during WWII, and secondarily because of a film made about it, interpersonal events 60 years later do not seem relevant. (The WW II events, on the other hand, are the sort of thing that might be relevant,--but in the absence of any evidence of his personal involvement, or apparently even any accusation against him personally, is much better only discussed under Bielski Group.)
3. The crime he was accused of is itself notable. That usually requires something like murder. That doesn't apply to Florida.

Given my respect for Pietrus, I do not delete it immediately out of hand, as I otherwise certainly would, but ask him to discuss it further. I suggest , however, that he delete it himself. DGG (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My reply is short: the crime is discussed in many publications as a major event in his life. If you take this out, there is really very little to make him notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed with Piotrus--Jacurek (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As usual, looking at analogous situations elsewhere in Wikipedia may be helpful. Please take a look at Category:Band of Brothers characters. In it are soldiers who were mostly utterly unremarkable during World War II, but because characters based on them have appeared in a television series, they are now notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia.

Aron Bielski falls into a similar category. He might not have been that remarkable during World War II, but now he is one of the major characters in an Oscar-nominated movie. Why not have an article about him too? Furthermore, all of the soldiers articles contain sections about their postwar life. So this article might have one too. And that should surely include the events which made the major papers in at least two countries. 74.14.26.18 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are meaningful BLP and WP:UNDUE worries here. The charges were dropped and the article is so short, the narrative as now written seems to skew this person's whole life into what could be a very unfair and wholly misleading hint of wrongdoing. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. See previous comments. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for an Aron Bielski fraud case for someone who was merely forced to pay weregild sans conviction. But I hardly see where UNDUE comes in; it says "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", which the article does fairly well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Even bringing this up in such a short bio wholly skews the content: The event has minimal significance to the subject, since it is unlinked to his notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we solve the problems by shortening the info on the alleged crime, for example to: "In 2007, he was accused of fraud, but the case was settled in 2008". Would this be neutral enough? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Too little info in my opinion, I propose this as a minimunm:

Aron Bell (Bielski) was arrested in Florida in 2007 on suspicion of kidnapping and theft but the the case was settled out of court after Bieski agreed to pay restitution to alleged victim.--Jacurek (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see either alternative alleviating the problem. This is not something that can be finessed. The reference to the entire incident has to go, for the reasons that now three editors have stated, in my case ad nauseum. Stetsonharry (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you but will respect opinion of the majority.--Jacurek (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out. The event had nothing to do with his notability (which is thin to begin with), the charges were dropped and given the length of this article, could easily mislead readers (WP:UNDUE). If this were a full length biography which gave more context to the subject's life, it could be kept. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course the event has much to do with his notability. A significant proportions of media coverage about him mentions it up. To censor it seems bizarre.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

BLPs are subject to stringent rules. I have been involved mainly in performing arts biographies and I can tell you that the same sensitivity is shown to people far more notable than this person. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the less notable, the more care must be taken. As I said earlier, if the article were a full length take on this person's life, the event could be included, since there would be context. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Even in people who are not alive there is an aversion to emphasizing the sensational. We wrestled in Van Johnson about allegations of homosexuality even before his recent death. References to another well known (living) performer's alleged senility were also removed. Here we have a totally obscure man, living in Florida. To me it was a slam dunk and I was surprised the discussion went on so long. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one must be very wary about sides of folks' lives which have aught to do with their notability. See also WP:Coatrack. I've seen dead actor bios, half of which were taken up with gossip sourced to tabloids. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A coatrack for what? His life as it is known? This wasn't gossip sourced to tabloids, either; the sources are impeccable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Gwen Gale was referring to situations such as this[2], not specifically to this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so far as I know, tabloids and gossip are not a worry here. I only brought that up to show how WP:UNDUE can (or should) have sway in a bio. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is still very strange to me why a significant event in somebody’s biography, covered by all major media etc., has to be censored. I really don't understand these rules but will not argue because I'm not an expert here.--Jacurek (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indent)I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more with use of the word "censored" in this context. This is part of the longstanding policy of Wikipedia relating to living people who are not major public figures. An article on a movie actor emphasizing his sexual proclivities, for instance, is not proper unless it is a significant part of his life. To cite an example I've used before, again from my bailiwick of performing arts, Lawrence Tierney gave significant weight to his police troubles because that was why he was notable. He was notable as an actor who got into a lot of fights and was arrested many times, to the detriment of his career. William Eythe was notable as an actor not because he was supposedldy caught in the subway with some guy, or whatever it was. I have explained this several times and won't repeat myself any more, as it doesn't seem to be a principle that you accept and we'll have to agree to disagree. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Tom Neal, who became more notable for his personal life than his acting. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, contrast him to Paul Kelly, who actually beat a man to death yet his career was not affected. Were that article to be expanded, Kelly's conviction for manslaughter would certainly be mentioned but it would not be given major weight because that was not why he was notable. Right now I think the weight given to the manslaughter conviction and prison term is fine. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand....we'll have to agree to disagree....and I rather strongly disagree but again...this is just my opinion. P.S. There is also links about his troubles that in this case have to be removed as well. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stetsonharry (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You cannot seriously argue that external links - media coverage about the subject in mainstream outlets - should be censored because of the neutrality.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So basically we shouldn't be writing real biographies here? I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a regurgitator of stupid actor hagiographies? To say we shouldn't cover a convicted murderer's crime because it's not "notable" is stupid and against WP:NPOV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is WP:BLP. Wikipedia cannot afford to be sued, so just like in the case of copyright we are overreacting and playing it as safe as possible. Overall, I suggest blaming the law instead of our policies... and supporting movements to change the laws :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the law; in that case Paul Kelly has been dead for fifty years, and in this case, no American court is going to find us libelous for reporting the simple facts of the matter. I don't support changing perfectly reasonable American libel law just because someone wants to misinterpret it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kelly's conviction for manslaughter is described in his biography, and I approve of that and just said so. Stetsonharry (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and speaking of the law here, the charges were dropped, which brings us straight back to WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 27 J.

expanation of BLP policy

We have a few basic policies. One of them is BLP, which can best be summarized: WP is not a tabloid. We do not publish derogatory information about people unrelated to their notability. It is not a matter of reacting or over-reacting, or of libel, but rather of the human decency to Do no harm. Of course we do not risk libel, but we do much more. To be more exact, we publishe negative information only in the following cases:

1. The notability of the person is because of the negative material (and its notable enough for an article)
2. The person is so famous that any reliable material at all is considered important public knowledge
3. The matter affects their notability,

None of the three is at all the case here.

1. An example of the first would be a multiple murderer--though in some cases such articles too have been rejected. Or a person guilty of widespread violation of other laws to the extent of major public notoriety,not what I will call garden-variety crimes.
2. An example of the second would be someone at the level of a major movie star--there is a general agreement that almost nything goes here as long as it is reliably reported.
3. An example of the third would be a man notable as a banker accused of embezzlement, or a physician of malpractice, or a person with a special trust to youth such as a teach and child abuse. Or a manufacturer of food products accused of producing them under unhumane conditions. There is a special case: people in politics, for it is generally considered that any moral or criminal lapses affect their suitability. To a certain extent, this holds of similar positions of public trust where rectitude is considered a jobrequirement: ministers or religion, police officers, judges.

Pietrus, I am, frankly, surprised that an administrator here would have the lack of judgment to advocate putting the material in as external links, when, as you recognize, it can not be inserted in text. If anything, external links are more closely limited. Please real WP:EL for the circumstances in which they can be used. BLP can not be bypassed that way; I still respect your work--please do not disappoint my trust.

I have removed those links and I will ask for a block of anyone who reinserts them, admin or not. I do not think there is the last doubt at all that the block will stand.

Incidentally, BLP applies to discussions on talk pages as well, and offending material will be removed here also. DGG (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to reinsert the material, particularly when threatened will a block, but I will call it how I see it: censorship. So, respectfully disagreeing with you here, this is EOT for me now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DGG, I respect your opinion but I'm still highly unconvinced by your arguments. Perhaps even more than Piotrus. Frankly...this "censorship" is a little shocking to me...--Jacurek (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Many folks have a wider definition of the term censorship than is supported by its documented use in publications over the years. The pith is, censorship is something done by governments, but Wikipedia is a private website which keeps editorial sway over its content both through the consensus of volunteer editors and rules put forth by both those editors and the Wikimedia Foundation. This isn't censorship, but the deletion of content which is thought to be perhaps harmful to the project, to the subject and moreover, to the readers. Going by your wider definition of the word, almost all publications censor what they publish and Wikipedia's doing so is unremarkable. Editorial polcies such as WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are not seen as censorship from a publishing outlook. If a bureaucrat of the US or some other government ordered the owners of this website to remove content, that would be censorship. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. What Wikipedia is doing, if we want to get technical, is self-censorship. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen..yes, I understand...well... I strongly disagree and I'm a little shocked with the consensus then :)...Thanks for all your comments--Jacurek (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I know of no editor here who agrees with consensus all the time :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Taxis

Didn't he own and operate a fleet of taxis in New York? Badagnani (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Did he? Source? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of arrest

Considering that since the article creation, various editors keep adding the info on his arrest (which is reliably sourced) I think we should agree that this is a notable part of his biography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The charges were dismissed and are unrelated to the notability of this person. Stetsonharry (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for the charges being dismissed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one article[3]. This was discussed previously at lenth, and had already gone through the dispute resolution process, via the BLP noticeboard I believe. The discussion some months ago involved outside editors asked for input on the BLP issues. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stetson. But that appears to resolve how the case wound up, not that they weren't guilty. They settled and paid a large restitution and are on a kind of probation. I don't see how this notable information shouldn't be included? Why are we censoring it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dismissed charages can still be notable. Let's compare how notable are some facts from Aron's life: Aron Bielski arrested ~1000, "Aron Bielski" arrest ~1000, "Aron Bielski" fraud ~1500, "Aron Bielski" trial ~30,000, "Aron Bielski" Holocaust ~6,000, "Aron Bielski" partisan ~2,500, "Aron Bielski" partisan ~7,500, "Aron Bielski" partisan ~8,000, "Aron Bielski" Bell ~25,000, "Aron Bielski" New York ~4,000. It seems that the trial represents a major part of his biography.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no "trial." The charges were dropped before trial.

WP:NPF clearly applies, because his notability relates to his membership in the Bielski partisans. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on this, because no new facts have come to light, just editors repeating old facts on a subject that I believe was settled months ago. We can't keep repeating ourselves every time some editor comes by to insert the arrest of this very old man who is in Wikipedia only because of his activities as a teenager in the partisans. Enough already with this. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

as for those hits, Let's look at the first, "trial."

1, is the WP article

2, is the bielski brothers WP article

3, is a from http://www.edu-usa.com,. (I deliberately omit the link--if the site isn't blacklisted here, it ought to be), A racist anti-Semitic site with anti-immigrant, anti-hispanic, and anti-gay sidelines. It calls itself "ChristianBoard: made by Christians for Christians" and is affiliated or copies substantial content from Jew Warch

4 Is an the 07 Daily Mail article

5 is a mention

6 is IMdB for the movie, offering a free trial of IMDBPro

7 is a WP mirror

8 is an anti-Semitic possibly holocaust denial site, though not a blatant as ChristianBoard (anti-Catholic also as a sideline)

then comes wikirage, etc. and people reprinting the news stories on their blogs, etc. ,

Conclusion: Raw g counts as a measure of notability is nonsense. I find it hard to believe an experienced WPedian didn't know this before, but I hope at least it's clear now. you know it now. As for the issue. Indictments with no further action can be notable if a/the person is a major public figure, such a a movie star, and the material gets very wide publicity otherwise, or b/They are major political figures and all possibly negative matters matters however trivial are considered relevant. In this case its a person notable as one of the heros of a movie and for his real life career as a partisan on which the movie was based. And such inconclusive matters are the sort of negative publicity that BLP is meant to eliminate with do no harm. Based on my general knowledge and understanding, when something like this has charges dropped, it can mean either that there is a decision it is unsuitable or impossible to prosecute, or that the charges are not correct. goes to trial. Whatever our attitude towards "indicted" , indicted and charge dropped is even harder to justify the inclusion. DGG (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I very much respect your opinion and maybe I'm missing something, but the arrest and related events trial itself was were reported on extensively. The case was resolved in a reliably sourced settlement. So it seems quite notable and worth including appropraitely. I understand it's sensitive, but this doesn't seem like a case of "Indictments with no further action". It seems to be a case of indictments resolved with a settlement, all of which were widely reported on. Just because this individual is a heroic figure in other aspects, I don't see a justification to keep reliably sourced negative content out. I think according to our guidelines and NPOV it should be included in a couple sentences. I'm not going to add it or comment further. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...the trial itself was reported on extensively. Unlikely, because there was no trial. Didn't I just say that? Stetsonharry (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But there was to be, before he settled out of court. Something does not have to happen to be notable and widely discussed in reliable sources. Nobody is saying we should make him into a criminal, but the accusation that was settled out of court is a notable event in his life and deserves a (brief, neutral) mention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong.Criminal charges in this country are just that, accusations, and only a few cases go to trial. Most conclude in guilty pleas, or the prosecutor decides he can't prove guilt so he drops the case. That's what happened in this instance. In the eyes of the law, Aron Bielski is innocent, so please stop talking about a "trial" that "was to be" when there is no basis for that and is simply wrong. BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. The fact that the principle of innocence until proven guilty is bedrock in this country makes the references to nonexistent "trials" and "trials that were to be" even more disturbing. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To echo the above:

• Google hits don't mean anything, other than as raw search leads, that's what they're designed to be, that's all they are, with a bit of marketing spin. About the only meaningful thing one can say about ghits is, "wow, look at all the ghits, there might be some helpful sources here."

• Wikipedia:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown and WP:UNDUE have sway: The arrest has nothing to do with the notability of this topic and given the verifiable outcome, putting anything about it into this article, about this living person, would be a violation of WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally and completely with Gwen on this. It is truly minor--and with no conviction--and irrelevant to notability. I apologize for not having followed it up myself since June. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Later years

Nowhere in the bios of Asael, Tuvia or Zus is it mentioned that Aron also worked for this NYC trucking company. Is this because it wasn't mentioned in the epilogue of the film Defiance? It seems odd that this basic fact would be ommited from his brothers' biographies. 63.143.233.12 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090127062814/http://lohud.com:80/article/20090121/NEWS02/901210331/-1/newsfront to http://lohud.com/article/20090121/NEWS02/901210331/-1/newsfront

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aron Bielski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004034239/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/153227%2C251214_Bohater_w_cieniu_zbrodni_.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/153227%2C251214_Bohater_w_cieniu_zbrodni_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718023830/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/61991%2C256256_Bielski__w_puszczy__niedomowien.html to http://www.rp.pl/artykul/61991%2C256256_Bielski__w_puszczy__niedomowien.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lohud.com/article/20090121/NEWS02/901210331/-1/newsfront

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)