Talk:Naliboki massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Section title[edit]

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

Irrespective of whether Grabowski's perspectives on insinuations of Wikipedia is accurate, it is his opinion that the Jews were not involved in the massacre, and claims to such effects are right-wing distortions. Invoking WP:FALSEBALANCE, I am requesting Marcelus to present equally credible and acclaimed historians (in the broader sense of the word) who argue the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangaBellam (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Is it

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

? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting Marcelus to present equally credible and acclaimed historians (in the broader sense of the word) who argue the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre Why would I do that? I suggest you to read the article. Grabowski is right that there were some passages left in the article that insinuated the involvement of Jewish partisans in the massacre. But they were removed in this edition, after discussion.
According to the discussion and the current version of the article (although part of it is hidden in a footnote), the information that the massacre was carried out by Bielski partisans appeared in 1993 and was repeated by historians (including Boradyn). It was not until the IPN investigation that the involvement of the Bielski partisans was actually ruled out, but the involvement of the Zorin partisans (who were in the Naliboki forest at the time and were part of the Stalin brigade) is possible, though unlikely. This is the current state of knowledge.
Magdalena Semczyszyn is a specialist when it comes to Jewish partisans in Lithuania and Belarus. The article was published in the leading journal when it comes to Holocaust studies, "Zagłada Żydów", published by the Holocaust Research Center, of which Jan Grabowski was one of the founders.
Być może chodzi o ludzi z obozu Zorina, którzy wchodzili w skład Brygady im. Stalina, ale i w tym przypadku nie wiemy, czy rzeczywiście brali oni udział w tych wydarzeniach. translate as: Perhaps it is about the people from the Zorin camp who were part of the Stalin Brigade, but again, we do not know whether they actually took part in the events. Marcelus (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you accept that the allegations of Jewish involvement has no evidence. That's nice to know. Absence of evidence is often, evidence of absence but diggressions apart, you need to prove that the "current state of knwoledge" believes the involvement of the Zorin partisans to be plausible. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the IPN investigation found, there are no archival testimonies of Jewish troops' participation in the massacre, there are only oral testimonies of witnesses to the massacre. I don't know where your surprise comes from, since everything is described in the article. Did you not read it before attempting to make edits?
you need to prove that the "current state of knwoledge" believes the involvement of the Zorin partisans to be plausible, again, please read the article, I even translated for you part of Semczyszyn article. Marcelus (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One article does not "current state of knowledge" make. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She sums it up pretty well actually. Bascially IPN investigation results as the current state of knowledge about the perpetrators Marcelus (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the thread below. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a better title. Thanks, Gitz666. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

New version of section[edit]

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

We are discussing the section in two discussions above, you can join if you want, but don't ignore them and don't try push your own changes. Marcelus (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specific objections, please. Almost 90% of my edits are copy-edits — shifting around sentences etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are ignoring @Gitz6666 revert. @Gitz6666 insist on keeping things on footnote (mention of Nowicki and Boradyn), we are still discussing it, you ignored that discussion. We also discussing proper chronological order of letter and IPN investigation etc. Really I insist on reading above discussion. Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gitz6666, Adoring nanny, and Piotrus — what are your objections? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all in all fine with the current text. A few remarks:
    • As already said, I would replace first appeared in the 1993 with the more cautious appeared in the 1993 because I wouldn't trust the quoted source, Gazeta Wyborcza, for an assessment that could only be made by an expert in the field. Note that the quoted source is not a high quality source per WP:APLRS.
    • I would remove the sentence Magdalena Semczyszyn speculates that Jewish partisans from Zorin's unit might have been participants but there is no evidence in support. In fact, this is not the subject of Semczyszyn's essay, it's not the point she's trying to make but rather a passing reference - a few lines in an article that is devoted to a different albeit releted subject. I would leave her essay as a reference to support they moved to the vicinity of Naliboki, months later, in July 1943 but I wouldn't attribute a possibly controversial thesis to the author (speculates).
    • In terms of WP:BALANCE, I welcome Marcelus's edit on Kwiatkowska concluded that daily Nasz Dziennik used the stories of Koniuchy and Naliboki massacres as a balancing counterweight to the Jedwabne pogrom [1]. Since the source is a PhD thesis, however, there might be doubts about its reliability per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I checked the thesis at pp. 155-156 and to me that claim looks well supported and the source reliable.
    • I'm OK with the removal of the content about the movie "Defiance", added by me; it's quite likely that the Naliboki massacre had already become widely known by the public as a result of the polemics surrounding Gross's book, Neighbours, as Kwiatkowska shows.
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gitz6666 ok, let's wait for a couple of days to hear the opinions of the other editors; can you now please revert changes made by @TrangaBellam as they are subject of ongoing discussion, as you did with my changes? Marcelus (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gitz6666: Thank you! I agree with (1). I was inclined to do (2); thanks for the support. I will take a look at (3). TrangaBellam (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam why are you making changes in the article that aren't result of the WP:CONSENSUS? Why you are ignoring ongoing discussions: Talk:Naliboki massacre#Gitz6666 changes and Talk:Naliboki massacre#Revert by Gitz6666? Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS Marcelus (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see is you engaging in a fair amount of acrobatics to push a particular ahistorical POV. Honestly, that you screamed the hoarsest about the footnote, you shall be thankful to me for restoring it to the body! You can enumerate your objections to the version agreed upon by me and Gitz666, and I will try answering your queries. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate what POV I am exactly pushing? You keep accusing me of some nefarious intentions. You need to explain to me clearly what "ahistorical POV" I am trying to promote.
    First of all, revert your edits that you made to the article, your interference is a blatant attempt to forcibly make changes that are the subject of an ongoing discussion in which WP:CONSENSUS was not yet achieved. Marcelus (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice stonewalling. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:TrangaBellam (?) do you mind please? Accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence? I don’t see any stonewalling here.- GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to explain to me clearly what "ahistorical POV" I am trying to promote, so I can respond to you.
    You are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS buidling, which is an example of WP:DISRUPTIVE. If you continue your behavior and do not withdraw the changes you have made, I will be forced to ask for admin help. I would not want to do that, so once again I kindly ask you to withdraw these changes and engage in a constructive discussion without accusing other editors of low intentions and focus on creating an article based on WP:RS. Marcelus (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your hostile response to my editing w/o elaborating on any issue and edit-warring to maintain a non-NPOV section header, the thrust of my accusation is clear. That said this is not an user-conduct board; so, I won't waste bytes. And you can always ask for admin help. So many venues — AN, ANI, AE, and even the ArbCom — to choose from!
    Once again, I request that you enlist your specific objections to the current version agreed upon by me and Gitz, so that we can respond to your concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam My response wasn't hostile, but immediate becuase you made interference into a content that was under discussion on a talk page. I reverted your change (WP:BRD) and invited you to present your changes and a talk page and engage in a constructive discussion. You ignored me and ongoing discussion, acting like your changes are the new WP: CONSENSUS, which they aren't.
    You need to revert your changes and engage in an ongoing discussion, because all things you introduced with your change where part of such discussion. Take a deep breath and reconsider your course of actions. Please also change your tone and attitude towards me. Marcelus (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I request that you enlist your specific objections to the current version so that I and others can respond to your concerns. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam Please read the discussion above, you can find all my objections to the content voiced rather clearly.
    My mine objection to your edits is that by making them you ignored discussion that started before your arrival to this article. And you act like changes that you introduced to the article are the new WP: CONSENSUS. I cannot be more clear than that. Marcelus (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your objection to this version? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam (?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (?) - Some kind of Morse code? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented above in the correct spot. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella, @Adoring nanny, @Gitz6666, @Piotrus ignores my requests and continues to edit content about which WP:CONSENSUS has not been reached. Per rule: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions, I consider it a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS.
    As @GizzyCatBella said, he also made accusations against me about personal behaviour that lack evidence.
    Lack of reaction by @Gitz6666 is disappointing but noted, since he acted differently before. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was busy elsewhere, now I react: I agree with Adoring nanny (here below) that TrangaBellam's recent edits are an improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that some of them are improvement, but they weren't discussed here. But some of them aren't improvement. Why WP:BRD applies only to me? You were reverting all my changes if they weren't discussed here. Marcelus (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But some of them aren't improvement. - Like? [I plan to ignore your commentary on the meta-issues.]. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you support that with a source? The source you cited is saying: Hence, when the debate about Jedwabne reached past the most heated stage, Nasz Dziennik also stopped devoting so much space to the topics that were supposed to balance out Jedwabne. References to Koniuchy and Naliboki still appeared in articles after 2002, however articles solely devoted to those massacres were rare. Nevertheless, after the intense campaign to publicise these crimes during the Jedwabne controversy, Koniuchy and Naliboki started functioning as word-codes, symbols of Jewish savagery and refusal to repent for `their' atrocities., Kwiatkowska is talking about Nasz Dziennik discourse. In your edit, you removed Nasz Dziennik reference, presenting the phenomenon as general. Is this deliberate manipulation on your part or did you simply fail to understand the source? Marcelus (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I erred in my understanding; fixed. See how simple this is? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see people are interested in reactions to the new section. My biggest reaction is that if we are going to cover this, a title along the lines of "Unsubstantiated allegations of Jewish perpetrators" is the way to go.(partly reconsidered this below; "Jewish" may not be the right word to use here, but what do the allegations actually say?) I see "involvement" is used instead of "perpetrators" in one proposed version, which I think is also reasonable, and which does not suggest that all of the perpetrators were Jewish. (Does any source suggest that??) The other thing is, I suggest the section be kept short as far as that is possible. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What do you feel are the pros and cons of this version? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adoring nanny. Sorry to partly disagree, but I think that current version of this section on the page is atrocious. I think this should never be framed as a dispute about "Jews" because that is antisemitic. The involvement of Bielski partisans is a good question, but however described, it should not be framed as a dispute about "Jews". I would suggest to remove whole section about the alleged "Jewish perpetrators". My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I could be wrong, not sure. I was looking for antisemitic content in WP after reading article by G&K, and that section did appear to me as something to be removed if we want to satisfy the concerns by G&K. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, WHAT? It is the Polish Right who went about describing the event as an instance of Jewish savagery etc; we are simply documenting such ahistorical claims and discussing them. That does not make us antisemitic. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the sources covering antisemitism are doing so in an antisemitic manner? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that we should avoid covering this in a way that is antisemitic. This is leading me to partly reconsider my earlier comment about the title. I definitely like the fact that we say right up front that the allegations are unsubstantiated. Not sure exactly how we should describe the subjects of said unsubstantiated allegations; what do the allegations actually say? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nowicki if you believe the quote found on the Internet (I did not have the book in hand) said: In less than 2 hours 128 innocent people were killed. Most of them, as eyewitnesses later stated, at the hands of Bielski's and "Pobieda" henchmen. Boradyn also spoke simply about Bielski partisans. However, Nasz Dziennik and similar outlets spoke directly about Jews and Jewish crime. Certainly, such allegations can still be found in the depths of the Internet. The IPN investigation was conducted in general to identify the perpetrators. (Contrary to what the text of the article now says) Marcelus (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just chiming in to say that since the Polish right-wing media and organizations took the Bielski news and ran with it, it seems very appropriate and historically accurate to talk about the unsubstantiated claims of Jewish perpetrators. I do wonder, however, if "involvement" isn't a better word. Ppt91talk 23:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I was pinged a while above. For now I have just a brief comment: aren't "Unsubstantiated allegations" a pleonasm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So: Unsubstantiated claims of Jewish partisans among perpetrators? This is also in part a solution to the objections made by @My very best wishes Marcelus (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think just claims or allegations would be enough. Either of those words should be sufficient. Unless I am misunderstnding the concept of allegation (from define:allegation on google: "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof."). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin Brigade:

"Stalin's brigade included many Jews who ran from Germans to partisans"

https://collections.ushmm.org/oh_findingaids/RG-50.407.0155_sum_en.pdf

"As part of the Stalin brigade, Marion Spiegel commanded a small Jewish unit, which included Fishkin and Slobodkin."

Heroism in the Forest: The Jewish Partisans of Belarus p.66

"Jewish refugees did not form their own resistance movement.In July 1943 many joined the Lenin detachment of the Stalin Brigade, which contained a “Jewish” unit led by David Mudrik." Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.Wendy Lower

"A large number of Jewish youth were to be found in Stalin Brigade" Zionist movements during Shoah. Asher Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dle19getu (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the sources support "false allegations", and I think it's important to specify that the allegations were false. Or maybe "disproven" or something. I wouldn't oppose "unsubstantiated" if the sources don't quite support "false" or "disproven" (I'm not sure if they do or they don't).
    Separately, I think we should discuss this at a time when multiple participants aren't facing the possibility of sanctions in this topic area. Whether to include this content at all, and how to describe it, I think might very well need to go to an RFC. I was quoted in the G&K article, and several other editors in this discussion were directly criticized in it, as was this particular Wikipedia article. I can't be the only one that thinks that this group of people -- the ones named in the article -- are not the best group of people to decide what to do with the content specifically discussed in the article. I'd rather leave the decision to "uninvolved" editors. I'm not sure what the community consensus is on that point. Levivich (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned this all earlier, but I will try to put it in one comment. It seems to me that the section should remain. The IPN investigation into the perpetrators of the crime is a fact, the fact is that the reason for the investigation was to verify the veracity of the claims that the crime was committed by Jewish partisan units. It is also a fact that the right-wing and Catholic media used the Naliboki crime as a kind of counterweight to the narrative of Polish responsibility for the Jedwabne pogrom. Jan Tomasz Gross published a book about Jedwabne in May 2000, the Canadian Polish Congress filed a request for an investigation in February 2001. There is no coincidence here. For these two reasons, I think the section should stay to describe this mechanism and instrumentalization of the memory of the Naliboki massacre.
    However, I would not use the phrase "false." Because we are not dealing here with a deliberately created "hoax" in 2000/2001. Information about the participation of Jewish partisans in the massacre appeared earlier, the earliest recorded date being 1993 and Nowicki's memoirs. It was repeated by other historians after him. I read Boradyn's book he doesn't even use the word "Jewish," he only talks about " Bielski partisans." "False" suggests that we were dealing with a deliberate lie from the beginning. That's why I prefer "unsubstantiated" or a similar term. Witness statements speak of the participation of Jewish partisans, residents of Naliboki, of course, since this is not confirmed by documents, oral testimony based on unreliable memory should be dismissed as "unsubstantiated." This is another reason to use "unsubstantiated". Marcelus (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that "false" means "intentionally false"; something can be unintentionally false. "False" is the opposite of "true", "false" is not a synonym for "lie". Whereas, "unsubstantiated" suggests that it hasn't been substantiated yet; "false" suggests that it will never be substantiated, because it's not true, and I think (but I'm not sure) that "not true" is what we want to convey, per the sources (if we mention this at all). Levivich (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "false" suggests that it will never be substantiated, because it's not true - This is novel argumentation; a point to ponder. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, exactly except that the investigation ruled out beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the Bielski partisans, but Semczyszyn acknowledges the posibility of participation of the Zorin unit, although she considers it unlikely. (Zorin unit was in the Naliboki forest at the time and was part of the "Stalin" Brigade). Semczyszyn is RS. Marcelus (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich Since I've only been around for less than three years and have not been mentioned in the Grabowski and Klein article, I assume I can speak as an uninvolved editor. According to the description of the arbcom case request, namely Inclusion in this list, or as a party if a case opens, does not mean that misconduct has or will be found, I am not sure how one should definitively determine those at risk of sanctions in the first place. Is it based on our own interpretation of how an editor was presented in the article? Or is it just the fact of being included? Either way, that's a rather dangerous route to take that could disqualify several editors from being able to contribute based on merit. Unless I am really missing something crucial here or am otherwise inadvertently ignorant regarding certain arbcom rules, I don't see the validity of that approach, at least for now and especially considering that the arbcom case might take a long time to resolve. Perhaps this is something that should be directed to arbcom directly and, if so, I'd be happy to do it as who is not involved. Ppt91talk 19:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sanctions" was in reference to WP:AE not Arbcom :-) And I think the "involved" thing has more to do with editors named in G&K than editors named in the Arbcom case request (not everyone named is "involved", but some are, in my view). I don't think the Arbcom case request party list is actually relevant here. Levivich (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich Thanks for clarifying! I haven't had a chance to familiarize myself with the AE case and was worried for a second that the entire subject would be suddenly deprived of many experienced editors (yourself included) due to an arbcom case that has yet to make any final determinations. And while I find a lot of merit in the GK article, overall I guess I am feeling a bit apprehensive about the kind impact it is having so far. Ppt91talk 19:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't read Polish. But based on the above descriptions of the sourcing, "unsubstantiated" looks to me to be a good word to use. As I understand it, the participation of one particular Jewish partisan unit is found by the investigation to be "false", while for another, they don't have evidence, but they can't say it's impossible. In light of that, "unsubstantiated" fits. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeta Wyborcza[edit]

Before the release of Defiance, Gazeta Wyborcza ran an article with a scoop (?) on how the IPN investigation, whose results were yet to be disclosed, came to the conclusion that the Jewish partisans were to blame. The article was cited by other media. Was this a scoop gone wrong? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article published by "Gazeta Wyborcza" on 15.11.1996: Jacek Hugo-Bader, A rewolucja to miała być przyjemność (And the revolution was supposed to be a pleasure); where there was information that Naliboki was a crime conducted by Jewish partisans. I don't know what was the main subject of the article, because it isn't available online. But Jacek Hugo-Bader definitely isn't right-wing. Marcelus (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

Much like Grabowski, discusses the blaming of a Jew partisan unit for the massacre among other things in context of antisemitism in Polish nat. discourse, growth of RW, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author creds. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naliboki_massacre&oldid=1208049983"