Talk:Marek Edelman

Even the earliest versions of this article report his date of birth as 1919 and 1922 in the same edit. The early versions say the place of birth is Warsaw, but the Associated Press obituary lists it as Homel. Can we get someone with local information to research this, or at least see what is grave marker when he gets one? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the exact date and the place of birth are unknown. I'll try to dig out as much detail about this as I can but even major newspapers and main sources note the double date.radek (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at a lot of sources, both Polish and English and Homel is generally given as POB (with "soon after moved to Warsaw). The YOB seems to be more controversial. This kind of presentation is typical. radek (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, at least there are solid sources to say the date and place of birth are uncertain. Prior to his death it was kind of nebulous, "some sources say... other sources say..." without a citation. Please add a specific reference from a reliable source that confirms the birth information is uncertain. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Did no one bother to ask the guy when and where he was born before he died? 68.94.91.134 (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He probably doesn't remember *joke*. OK seriously, he probably would know about how old he was +/- 1-2 years, but the place, that's hard to narrow down, he could've been raised with mis-information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Polish Newsweek obituary he was born in Homel in 1919. The whole "Warsaw 1922" thing came about because (again, according to Newsweek) that is the date he started giving out at the end of World War II, in order to avoid deportation to the Soviet Union (by 1945 Homel was in SU, not Poland and in 1919 the area was fought over between SU and Poland) - since otherwise he would have been considered a "Soviet citizen". If there's no objections I would like to change it to Homel, 1919 and note the reason for the confusion in the article.radek (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is an extraordinary claim, and I would be more comfortable with more than one independent source. However, you should go ahead and add this as a reference even if you leave the text alone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be extraordinary but actually it makes perfect sense. Anyway, for now I'll just add the newsweek ref to Homel and date but will leave out the description of the supposed reason for confusion until I can find another source that confirms it.radek (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish Polityka (left wing mag) says the same thing : Urodził się na Białorusi. Fakt ten ukrywał, aby uniknąć po wojnie repatriacji do ZSRR. (He was born in Belarus. He hid this fact after the war, in order to avoid repatriation to the Soviet Union).radek (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this one's exactly 100% source (it appears to be an online mag) : To właśnie Warszawę, już po II wojnie światowej, podawał jako miejsce swoich urodzin, by uniknąć repatriacji. (It was Warsaw, which after World War II, he gave as his place of birth, in order to avoid repatriation).radek (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might throw in a new idea: The details may have been changed at the beginning of the war, in order precisely to prevent deportation. The younger age would have ensured that, at least for a while, he would not have been conscripted for forced labour. The disparity in ages was just enough to be credible. Bamboozling the Germans was a major past-time during the occupation. Tha AK resistance often 'aryanised' papers in order to save lives. The practice was made easier by a historical quirk: from the time of the Partitions until 1948, in large parts of Poland, including Warsaw, birth certificates were issued by the relevant religious authorities rather than the civil ones. I do not think he was in any danger of deportation after the war, as this was limited to the Ukranians ^[1]. and the Germans in the 'Recovered Territories'. Polish citizens born in the Eastern Territories had 'born in the USSR' added to their documents, and ethnicity and religion were no longer referred to. Of course the 'born in the USSR' was neither factually nor legally correct, but 'People's Poland' wasn't big on facts or legality, as Marek Edelman often pointed out. Pawelmichal (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But during WWII he was already in the ghetto, not hiding under aryanized papers. Unless we're talking about the period after the Ghetto Uprising (but at that time I think he was just *in hiding*, so papers didn't play into it) or the period after the Warsaw Uprising (when they hid out in the countryside - but this was a relatively short period of time and again I don't think papers played into it).

The deportations by the Soviets, from post-WWII Polish borders to Soviet Union, obviously affected mostly Ukrainians. But remember that quite often the Soviets did not recognize Polish Jews born in the Kresy as "Polish citizens" either - the obvious example here was the formation of the Anders army - and forced some of them to Soviet Union as well. Even if this wasn't widespread it's very possible that at end of the war Polish Jews had heard about what happened with Anders etc. during the war, so they expected the same. Volunteer Marek  14:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I did not suggest Dr. Edelmans' papers were Aryanised. His Jewish identity was a source of great pride to him. While it is true that some Polish citizens of 'the Mosaic profession' as it was then called, were forbidden from joining the Anders' Army by the Soviets, they were in already in Soviet hands, in the depths of the USSR. Most were redirected to Biro-Bidjan. However, several thousand Jewish citizens did join General Anders, including many rabbis, notable intellectuals, [inc. Prof. Finkelstein], and notable Zionists [inc. nota bene Menachem Begin]. A great many Polish Catholic and other citizens were also forbidden to join by the Soviets, although a great many left later, either with General Berling's Army, or in the wave of post-war resettlement [as portrayed in the film 'Sami Swoi']. 'Soviet-born' citizens were on the whole welcolmed warmly in post-war Poland, especially in the 'Recovered Terrritories'. You have adduced no evidence of Jews being deported, and in any event a number of prominent people in post-war Poland were Jewish. As I have surmised, the only time that the alteration made any sense was at the very beginning of the Occupation, in order to avoid German measures either known of or anticipated. No sane person could have foreseen the eventual fate of Warsaw's Jewry. It is entirely possible that Dr. Edelman merely made the change to emphasise his attachment to the city he loved. Since neither of us can prove our theories conclusively, I suggest the status quo regarding the time and place remains in the article. It has no serious bearing on the substance of the article, or the reputation of the subject.Pawelmichal (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

His mother, Cecylia Edelman (died 1934), was an activist member of the anti-Zionist socialist[4] Bund and his father, Natan Feliks (died 1924), was a trudoviks activist.

(a) the reference has nothing to do with his mother (b) is "anti-Zionist socialist" really needed anyway? Readers can get that from the link (c) other than that ref, which covers "anti-Zionist socialist" and nothing more, this sentence—along with the entire paragraph—has no reference. Can anyone cite it?

More questions: the reference refers to a "anti-Zionist socialist" Bund during the time of the Second World War, but could the organization have changed in the time between his mother's membership and WWII?^[1] Also, considering the source (Socialist Worker, a newspaper published by a UK political party), they are probably not the unbiased, objective news coverage we want as references in out articles. I've removed the claim from the article pending the outcome of this discussion; as a possibly controversial claim, please do not restore it per Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing with articles about the deceased. —Ed (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference for the above

The parpagraph is above is neccessary. Therefore, it needs to be cited. I am confident the information is accurate. Also, Jewish Labour Bund was virtually always anti-Zionist. It was only anti-Zionist because Zionism was parrelel to the Bundist idea that Jews should be able to live where they want, in stead of having a homeland. This information you can find anywhere, if you know where to look. I suggest re-posting the infomation above Marek Edelmans parents with or without a reference (preferably with, so as to end this discussion). Thanks. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree "anti-Zionist socialist" isn't exactly relevant to Edelman's mother, my aim was merely to introduce the anti-Zionist nature of the Bund. Edelman adhered to the politics of the Bund, so it's important enough to be mentioned. How important though, should be left to the readers to decide and is definitely no basis for removal. Following from Eliscoming1234's contribution I'm therefore going to re-post that info with a "more reliable" additional source (the famous Israeli newspaper Haaretz). None of this is by the way "controversial", it's all discussed on the actual the Bund page and a quick Google search of "marek edelman the bund" would render you endless reliable returns. I think all of your uncertainties are answered here anyway (from the Further reading). Cheers. -- Franz.87 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@Eli - I agree that the paragraph's inclusion is necessary, but it has to be cited with reliable references that actually verify the information reported in this article. In addition to adding {{fact}}s and {{verify credibility}} in this edit, I removed a reference because it said nothing about him ascending to be the leader of the Bund, only "After the war Edelman served as the right-hand man of uprising leader Mordechai Anielewicz and was a long-time activist in the Bund, the General Jewish Labor Union."

@Franz - I'm still of the opinion that the words are unnecessary; it's not descriptive enough to do anything more than make reading more difficult, and readers will find that same information in the Bund article. I see now that it is not controversial, but I still think that it isn't necessary in this article unless we add a paragraph on what he did as a member of the Bund. —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your voice User:Franz.87. User:the_ed17, as Creator and Director of "The Bund on Wikipedia" Project and its Task Force, I will try to find some more information about what Marek Edelman did in the Jewish Labour Bund. Just give me and others some time (we are working on other fronts). Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you must do it right now. ;P Totally kidding. I understand that it takes time; I am simply attempting to draw attention to what I perceive as a problem. For the moment, I am going to re-remove the "anti-Zionist socialist" until you or Franz has time enough to write a paragraph on Edelman's work within the Bund; when that is added I will have no objection to those words appearing somewhere within that para. Thanks to everyone for kind and civil discussion. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok User:the_ed17, I made the Marek Edelman article one of our top priorities. You can see what I posted here. Can you re-post anything you removed about the Bund? That way, the editor(s) will know to fix those things as well. Thanks. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the present article, the only thing I removed were the words "anti-Zionist socialist" and the accompanying two references. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about policy. I see that there are always links to the Daily Telegraph, and they appear to be added by the same person. Is there a conflict of interest here? Also, I'm wondering if any of the other external links are appropriate, or are they all spam? Mugs Bunny (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to indicate a very serious historical misrepresentation in the article. To wit, all references to "Armia Ludowa" are false. "Armia Ludowa" was Stalin's proxy having very limited impact in Poland. It represented all against what Marek Edelman was fighting subsequently in Soviet occupied Poland. He was saved by agents of AK "Armia Krajowa" (Home Army), which represented practically all Polish resistance and which organized the 1944 Warsaw uprising in which Marek Edelman took part. Myself, I was member of AK and liaision agent to Mark Edelman's ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organisation). In this capacity I got involved in the Ghetto uprising where I served under Marek Edelman without belonging to his ZOB. My souvenirs in literary form are regisrered with Yom Vashem and are accessible in my site: http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/LITERATURE/passion_week.html I would be obliged, if the "Armia Ludowa"/"Armia Krajowa" confusion could be corrected Regards Georges Metanomski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.217.114 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the instances of "Armia Ludowa" because the reference given did not mention that group. —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I...don't...think...the...above...anon is legit.radek (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

More generally, there is some confusion as to 1) which one (AK or AL) helped to evacuate him from the ghetto and 2) which organization he joined.

This is compounded by the fact that (ok this is going to be somewhat confusing); the predecessor of the AL (which was actually formed in 1944 - hence, too late to help Marek out of the ghetto) was the GL, or Gwardia Ludowa. So if it was the "AL" helping him out it would've been it's precursor, the GL. BUT, at the time there was ANOTHER GL - Gwardia Ludowa WRN, which was a socialist organization that was not Soviet-sponsored (unlike the other GL/AL) and which was part of the AK although with a high degree of autonomy (it's own officers, etc.). From what I've read before - although at the moment I don't have the source handy - I'm pretty sure, it was actually GL-WRN which was responsible for keeping up contacts between ZOB and AK (several members of both organizations knew each other from the (non-Soviet) socialist movement in pre-war Poland) and I believe it was GL-WRN/AK which rescued him. I will try to find sources on this in the next few days (and there's also the possibility that I might be wrong).

On the second question, I think that between the end of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the break out of the Warsaw Uprising Edelman was associated with the AK. Basically in this period the AK was the one that was helping to hide the former ghetto fighters and giving them material and political support. However, once the Warsaw Uprising broke out, most of the ZOB ended up fighting within the ranks of the AL rather than the AK. The reasons for this are not 100% clear but the two main ones appear to be that 1) Cukierman wanted to join AL rather then stay with AK for ideological reasons and 2) the AK was short on weapons (unlike the AL which had lots of Soviet-donated weapons but few volunteers) and told the ZOB fighters that it didn't have enough for them. So they went to AL which armed them. So the answer to this question would probably be "both". Again, I hope to have some more sources on this soon.radek (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I added some subsections, but the text needs to be rearranged to fit the new sections or perhaps additional sections are needed. Can someone who knows the subject better than me do the honors?

I also moved the {{Wikimedia Commons}} link to External Links per Template:Commons/doc#Location. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this statement from the article based on the source (bolding mine):

• Statement: Edelman was never a Zionist. He remained firmly Polish, refusing to emigrate to Israel.^[1]
• Source: "The organization' was known in part for being anti-Zionist, believing that Jews must assert themselves as a part of the societies of their countries of origin. The dispute led to tension with Edelman's former colleagues from the uprising who immigrated to Israel after surviving the war. In later years, Edelman reportedly warmed to Zionism and met with fellow ghetto fighters who had immigrated here"
  

Still working with the article. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source that specifically says that Edelman was anti-Zionist? I mean, something like this is just not enough: "One of the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, he had remained faithful to the Jewish socialist ideology of the Bund, even though the Polish socialists had disappointed him and Zionism, which the Bund had opposed, had prevailed." This simply says that he was a Jewish socialist and that the Bund opposed Zionism. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

He was anti-Zionist. The proof is that he specifically adhered to that Bundist concept (Doikayt) throughout his life. Even if he might have softened up a little when he was older. Now we just need to find a source. The whole problem is this article makes it seem like he was extremely anti-Zionist. Thank you for taking charge.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a source would be nice. ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed - with regard to the Guardian editorial used to claim that Marek Edelman caused "a major uproar" in the Israeli press for his views on the conflict etc - I could not find one article which verifies the authors claim. Should such a subjective statement from an opinion piece be included in a wikipedia article with regard to the facts of Marek Edelman's life without proper substantiation of this (in other words an actual article which shows this to be the case)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.184.156 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I missed the boat. Totally missed that that was an editorial. You are quite right on that point; a new source will have to be found if there are any out there. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph for the moment after discovering that both of the sources were editorials. Reproduced below. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In old age, he spoke in the defense of the Palestinian people, as he felt that the Jewish self-defense for which he had fought was in danger of crossing the line into oppression.^[2] In August 2002 he wrote an open letter to the Palestinian resistance leaders. Though the letter criticized the suicide bombers, its tone infuriated the Israeli government and press. According to The Guardian, "He wrote [the letter] in a spirit of solidarity from a fellow resistance fighter, as a former leader of a Jewish uprising not dissimilar in desperation to the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories."^[3] He addressed his letter to "To all the leaders of Palestinian military, paramilitary and guerilla organizations — To all the soldiers of Palestinian militant groups".^[4]

Ed (not to belabor the point) Tim Collard's obituary piece in the Telegraph regarding his view of the life of Mark edelman also needs to be seen essentially as an opinion piece and certainly the claims made in that opinion piece should be substantiated before being included in this article on wikipedia?

I of course would of course defer to anyone who could provide factual articles on the life of Marek Edelman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.133.184.156 (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't belaboring the point at all, becuase you are right. :-) I've left it in for the moment, but have added {{unreliable source}} and {{cn}}. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~, 63.133. ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Marek Edelman and Zionism in The Independent (ref: Rose, John (October 7, 2009). "Marek Edelman: Last surviving leader of the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis" (in English). The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/marek-edelman-last-surviving-leader-of-the-1943-warsaw-ghetto-uprising-against-the-nazis-1798644.html. Retrieved 2009-10-31)

"He took to his grave his unshakeable belief, rooted in his strong sense of humanist Judaism and forged in his teenage years as a member of the Jewish Anti Zionist Socialist Bund, that racism could be overcome and that a politics which speaks to a common humanity would ultimately prevail."

"In the summer of 2002, Edelman, still going strong, intervened in Israel's show trial of the now jailed Palestinian resistance leader, Marwan Barghouti. He wrote a letter of solidarity to the Palestinian movement, and though he criticised the suicide bombers, its tone infuriated the Israeli government and its press. Edelman had always resented Israel's claim on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as a symbol of Jewish liberation. Now he said this belonged to the Palestinians."(id.)

"He addressed his letter to the Palestinian ZOB, "commanders of the Palestinian military, paramilitary and partisan operations – to all the soldiers of the Palestinian fighting organisations". The old Jewish anti-Nazi Ghetto fighter had placed his immense moral authority at the disposal of the only side he deemed worthy of it." (ibid.)

--Pylambert (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

@first quote: that is grossly misrepresenting the source. If you remove the uneeded middle part, it reads thusly: "He took to his grave his unshakeable belief ... that racism could be overcome and that a politics which speaks to a common humanity would ultimately prevail." It's talking about his beliefs on racism and politics, that came from the Bund (which happens to be Jewish Anti-Zionist).

@second + third quote: this would be a much better source to use. However, the paragraph (currently removed) has to be rewritten so that it reflects the information present in this source and only this source; the editorial/blogs do not meet WP:RS and the letter does not meet WP:PRIMARY.

Here are several RS that support the assertion that Edelman continued to oppose Zionism:

1. "He was an anti-Zionist champion, believing that Jews should promote and advance their culture as part of the state in which they live."
2. "All his life he was a staunch opponent of Zionism and a harsh critic of Israel and its policies."
3. "... the anti-Zionist Marek Edelman, who remains in Poland as a Diaspora Jewish (Yiddish) nationalist and member of Solidarity ... The Zionists leaders decided Edelman was insane and silenced his voice. As late as 1981, his book could not find a publisher in Israel and had to be privately printed."
4. "Non-Zionist witnesses, such as Marek Edelman, ... have been pilloried for opposing the dominant Zionist viewpoint."
5. "Marek Edelman, a veteran of the revolt who has continued to reside in Poland, supports the Palestinian resistance...."marek+edelman"+zionist&dq="marek+edelman"+zionist

I'm sure there are more. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there are. For instance:

• "Edelman represented the left-wing Jewish, anti-Zionist Bund organization, to which he belonged since childhood, within the YKA leadership... The fact that Edelman never stopped being a Bundist - and hence opposed the very idea of the State of Israel - and that he was critical of Israeli policies, exacerbated the tension that existed between him and Israel's establishment and historians." Michael Handelzalts in Haaretz.
• "He considered himself both a Pole and a Jew, despite his white armband with its blue star. Warsaw was home to him; his parents had died when he was young, leaving him to be brought up by staff in the hospital. He spoke Polish, Yiddish and Russian. His dream was not of some Zionist homeland, but a socialist Poland in which Jews would have cultural autonomy. He continued to hope for that all his life." Obituary in The Economist
• "Marek Edelman, though one of the greatest living Jewish heroes, does not happen to believe in Zionism. He has called the state of Israel “a historic failure,” whose fate will be sealed as soon as American foreign policy changes tack." Norman Davies in Commentary Magazine, 1987
• "Edelman remained a Bundist for whom Zionism was not an option. Indeed, to him it was a mistake: I remember that he once told us that the State of Israel was not really Jewish. “It’s an Arab state with the Jewish religion,” he said." Stanislaw Krajewski in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angles

And there are scores more sources. Edelman's anti-Zionism is well known, and well attested. The attempt to exclude it, and to prevent any reference to his famous "Letter to the leaders of the Palestinian resistance", is highly tendentious, distorts the legacy of this great man, and turns Wikipedia from an objective encyclopaedia into a propaganda journal. Let's make sure these references are returned as soon as this misconceived protection is lifted. RolandR 02:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Having added the above, I returned to my current book, Walled:Israeli Sociery at an Impasse, by Sylvain Cypel, and immediately read the following: "No Israeli schoolchild has ever heard of Marek Edelman, but all of them know the name of Mordekhai Anilewitz, who led the insurrection of the Jews remaining in the ghetto after the others had been deported. Yet Edelman, the only leader of the revolt to survive, was his assistant. Why was Edelman forgotten in Israel? Anilewitz had been active in Hashomer Hatzair, the most far-left of the Zionist youth movements, whereas Edelman had been a Bundist, which then meant an anti-Zionist. Precisely because the Nazis did not differentiate among the Jews to be exterminated, the Jewish fighters had all grouped themselves together, right and left, Zionists and anti-Zionists. Bur when official Israeli historiography transformed the insurrection into a precursor of the advent of Israel, it excluded all reference to the Bundists and Communists among the fighters, keeping them out of textbooks. Edelman has remained largely unknown in Israel; his memoirs were not translated into Hebrew until 2001, twenty-four years after their publication in Poland. His first book, The Ghetto Fights, which came out in Warsaw in 1945, was turned down by all Israeli publishers and, as the Israeli historian Idith Zertal has noted, appeared in a private collection in 1981 'thanks to the stubborn perseverance of a handful of scholars resisting the exclusive imposition of the national-Israeli version of the insurrection'. Edelman, she adds, 'was not a suitable hero'." (Sylvain Cypel, Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse, Other Press 2006, p 420) RolandR 02:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only should the above sources be given their due place in the "Marek Edelman" article—the citations should either be provided in extenso as a Wikisource or Wikiquote, or be used in a separate article, "Marek Edelman, anti-Zionist." Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:The above comment is both disingenuous and ridiculous. We have cited here at least a dozen reliable sources for Edelman's anti-Zionism, including his own words and interviews with him. There are scores, if not hundreds, more similar sources. Edelman's anti-Zionism is very well attested, ir is one of the defining characteristics of his worldview, and it is the editors attempting to exclude this, rather than those striving to include it, who are guilty of politicising this article and making it an inaccurate reflection of Edelman's beliefs. RolandR 13:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)(Relates to now-deleted comment)RolandR 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've been away for a little bit...my thoughts:

• Malik, your first and second sources look good enough for the anti-Zionist statement, keeping with WP:V
• Nihil, primary sources would be fine if you were quoting from it, but a stand-alone paragraph with just the quote would not have been.
• As to "warming to Zionism", if the vast majority of news articles say that he was anti-Zionist all of his life, we can alter the article to reflect that but note the discrepancy in the references by using a note.
• My thoughts after reading this are that Davies must have written something more detailed about him in a book or something. Can anyone find that? :-)
• @63.133, do you have a hyperlink to that interview? That would probably be a good thing to include.
• Thanks to everyone who is working on improving this article, not only in regards to political issues. All the best, —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I totally disagree with the judgment here and I dont think a fair and throrough discussion has taken place on this subject as I had expected.... As a result I am abandoning further discussion of this.

To call Marek Edelaman a lifelong anti-zionist is simply inaccurate. I have lost a bit of faith in wikipedia. Enjoy the article

He was an anti-zionist throughout his life. Although, right after that first sentance, it should say he later softened up towards zionism (I know that was mention somewhere in this discussion)--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 1 day. Please discuss your edits on the talk page. Any editing (after protection ends) that is unaccompanied by a good faith discussion on the talk page, may result in a block. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added two references in Yiddish from the Bundist Israeli magazine Lebns Fragen. I checked and rechecked the links, they're both OK, so please don't tamper with them, it's definitely http://lebnsfragn.com and NOT http://www.lebnsfragn.com . I think it is symbolically important to include also at least one or two links in Yiddish in this article, while clearly mentioning they're in Yiddish... --Pylambert (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the "dead links" tag after finding that the links did not work. I did not realise that someone had tampered with good links, and assumed that there was a typo in the citation. I hoped that someone would find the correct links, since my Yiddish is nowhere near good enough for this. I didn't expect that this would be used as an excuse to remove these important links. RolandR 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to make a point so that no editing war would occur where there is nor reason to launch one. I guess User:Dutycourt doesn't master yet the linking system, he certainly thought doing the right thing. I couldn't find the article he mentioned ("My Comrade Dr. Marek Edelman" by Maius Novogrudski), the link he added didn't point to the good article. By the way, I can't read Yiddish at all, nor Hebrew, but I can use the google translator (with due precautions, i.e. controlling word by word, not just translating by sentence, and comparing translations towards different langugaes I understand). --Pylambert (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Pylambert, when searching for that article (mentioned above), try it again by spelling "Maius Novogrudski" as his correct (English) name "Majus Nowogrodski" or "Mark Nowogrodski".--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re this . I thought it was already covered. The confusion stems from the fact that he was born in Homel but after the war claimed he was born in Warsaw because otherwise he risked being deported to Soviet Union - Belarus having been taken by the Soviets - and he preferred to stay in Poland. I also thought I put in a source about it into the article at one point. Volunteer Marek  18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because a new editor introduced unsourced material, which appeared to be speculative original research, as a footnote. If there is a relevant source, it would certainly be useful and interesting to include this, with a source. RolandR (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Point is the introduced unsourced speculation (which you rightly reverted) was also incorrect and I had thought that the correct explanation was already in there. Anyway, I'll try to dig out the source for the correct info. Volunteer Marek  20:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the above comments are incorrect and ahistorical, and in the face of the evidence the reverted edit appears to be more correct. I have therefore restored it.86.12.129.12 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The first source in the article referencing the birth place does in fact state that he was born in Homel but claimed Warsaw to avoid getting sent to the USSR .VolunteerMarek 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor recently removed all usages of the word anti-Zionist from the article, saying "Edelman's views need context. It is inaccurate to characterize his views in a blanket fashion as simply anti-zionist. The interview provided (in his own words) underscores his own concise personal viewpoint - politically and otherwise." In support of the edit, the editor used a 1985 interview with Edelman.

I tried to combine the interview, in which Edelman said he opposed Zionism, with the old text (which included the word anti-Zionist). I also believe the editor has misrepresented what Edelman said in the interview with regard to Zionism.

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made a recent addition based on an interview that Mr Edelman gave... In it he underscores that the reason his he not a Zionist is not for reasons of ideology but he was not convinced in the viability of Israel in the longer term.

I have included a paste of part of the interview here.

Why didn't you become a Zionist?

Well, you see, you grow up in some kind of a house. My mum thought and always told me that all would be well here, that all people are equal. good and so on. Zionism is a lost cause, both then and now.

Can you elaborate?

I am not talking about the ideology. I am saying that you cannot return to what was there 2000 years ago, this is impossible. In the sea of 100 millions Arabs you cannot make a state against them, any day those Jews can be slaughtered as they were slaughtered by Hitler. I am not saying it's gonna happen today, but those Arabs will learn how to shoot just as they have learned. They are a much bigger nation. It is a purely political thing.

Someone has attempted to delete my addition and based on the interview - which clarified Mr Edelman's position on Zionism - I see no reason to delete what has been added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edelman didn't say, as you wrote, that "he did not consider himself to be a Zionist". That phrase suggests that others might see him as a Zionist, but "he did not consider himself to be a Zionist".

Other sources, such as the one you deleted, say Marek was an anti-Zionist. I added some relevant information from the interview, but you're (a) deleting material that better describes Edelman's views and (b) adding material that twists his words. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Marek Edelman never describes himself in blanket terms as anti-zionist. Rather he qualifies the reason why he is not a Zionist. And he makes it clear it is not based on Zionist ideological grounds. He bases his viewpoint on the idea that Israel is not viable as a country surrounded by a much bigger hostile population. I have posted his words stating this above. He states plainly that his views are not based "on ideology"

Secondly, calling someone anti-Christian because they do not believe in Christianity is just as silly as calling Edelman anti-Zionist. In fact Mr Edelman had visited Israel on many occasions... so if he was in fact allegedly truly anti-Zionist in any real sense - it certainly did not translate into his personal aversion for visiting Israel. If anyone needs to read the interview I posted to verify what I have posted in terms of accuracy - the interview is available for anyone to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered for a moment that this is not the only interview Edelman gave? Reliable sources describe him as an anti-Zionist, and it's not your place or mine to interpret whether his views make him a non-Zionist or an anti-Zionist. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr Shabazz - if you do find other interviews where he describes himself as an anti-Zionist - you are more than free to post them (just as I did). In the meantime - I see no reason to reject what Mr Edelman had stated in his own words.

This question has been discussed at length above. Several reliable sources, including serious newspapers and books, have been cited to show that, for his entire conscious life, Edelman opposed Zionism. Sere, for instance, the lengthy quote I copied from Sylvain Cypel's Walled:Israeli Society at an Impasse. The undeniable facts are that Edelman was a leader of the anti-Zionist Bund, he argued against Zionism before the establishment of the state of Israel, and he continued his opposition both to Zionist ideology and Israeli practice until his death. There has been, as Cypeland others note, a concerted attempt to write Edelman out of collective memory; in parallel, as an insurance, there seems to be an attempt to sweep under the carpet his "inconvenient" political views. The sources are ambiguous, and any attempt to interpret one interview as refuting them is unacceptable synthesis. RolandR (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we cannot seem to come to an agreed solution or compromise - I have asked a third party to get involved in this dispute. In the meanwhile I ask that you do not continuously delete the addition of the interview that I made earlier. If you wish to discuss this further with me in the talk page - I am very open to doing so. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the notes I left on your Talk page. The third opinion only applies when two editors are in dispute. In this instance, there are three of us. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated the Dispute resolution noticeboard Mr Shabazz (Roland R) for greater clarification on how to solve the dispute regarding the addition of the interview. Hopefully the suggestions will help to solve the dispute... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr Shabazz - in answer to your recent comment. Yes I agree - secondary sources are acceptable of course (and needed) - but opinion pieces are hardly secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.174.194 (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Per WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources, opinion columns are not "reliable sources" for statements of fact. Please tell me, which source do you think is an "opinion piece"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me be very frank with you. Concerning the paragraph with which we are discussing I did not see one reference that was not an opinion piece. I gave Paul Foote's op-ed as just one example of what I was referring to... There are quite a few like his that are used as references in the article (and paragraph as well).

Malik - I just wanted to add that if you have any suggestions on an agreed solution to the dispute - i am very open to hearing what you may have to say... I just thought I would add that at this particular time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As a result of a continuation of deletion of what I had added earlier and an inability to come to any compromise or even a discussion with regards to a compromise I am initiating formal mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobullgracias (talk • contribs) 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed this content as it is sourced to an opinion piece and an old geocities website, get proper sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Edelman was an anti-Zionist now has three sources, all books published by university presses. With respect to the second part, the quote from the 1985 interview, the Geocities link is a convenience link. The sentence can stand without the URL; it is sourced to a Polish magazine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your convenience link is a WP:LINKVIO, would you care to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the cites needed for date/place of birth (I think the current sources are sufficient for that). The claim that he was a Bund leader before the war sounded more dubious; he would be only 20 years old by then. He might have been a leader of a youth group, but I cannot verify it with more reliable sources, so I removed it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The article seems to meet B-class criteria. For GA, more reliable refs would be needed to replace the media notes; they should be available (his bio is in S. Lillian Kremer (2003). Holocaust Literature: Agosín to Lentin. Taylor & Francis. pp. 288–. ISBN 978-0-415-92983-7. Retrieved 23 May 2012. and likely many other books and articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marek Edelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004012251/http://www.dziennik.pl:80/wydarzenia/article450759/Zmarl_Marek_Edelman.html to http://www.dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/article450759/Zmarl_Marek_Edelman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marek Edelman. 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/20110707133615/http://amgathering.com/category/in-memoriam/ to http://amgathering.com/category/in-memoriam
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004013749/http://www.kurierlubelski.pl/module-dzial-viewpub-tid-9-pid-77681.html to http://www.kurierlubelski.pl/module-dzial-viewpub-tid-9-pid-77681.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140425041343/http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=2606&stayInsideTree=1&backlink=land.php%3Fid%3D232&PHPSESSID=3d5391b70eb3cec6f98b1bc41b7ed3ca to http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=2606&stayInsideTree=1&backlink=land.php%3Fid%3D232&PHPSESSID=3d5391b70eb3cec6f98b1bc41b7ed3ca
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016083126/http://thethirdestate.net/2009/10/a-true-mensch/ to http://thethirdestate.net/2009/10/a-true-mensch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429104554/http://ejpress.org/article/news/eastern_europe/16128 to http://ejpress.org/article/news/eastern_europe/16128

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The article currently states that Edelman developed a new life-saving procedure as a cardiologist. The reference cited at the end of that sentence does not mention anything like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sustain4people2 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this error, which has been in the article for more than ten years! I have replaced the original source with a reference to Edelman's obituary in the British Medical Journal, which mentions his development of a new procedure. RolandR (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organization).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)