Talk:Frank Blaichman

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

Accuracy

Article from the 'United States Holocaust Memorial Museum' is unencyclopaedic and written purely from Blaichman's POV. I tried to change it to include more factual aproach, but obviously didn't do a very good job.

At the moment the whole article looks horrible and nonsensical, patched together from two pieces without anything in common. One fragment is a glorifying biogram, while another is a poorly stitch-on notice, that the war hero was probably an officer of the totalitarian Polish communist state and most of his account is probably fictitious. The article should at least be marked as incoherent and lacking in proofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.128.164 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edits because you hadn't done a good job. I know nothing about this guy. My reasons were that (1) your removal on the basis of a copyvio was - in this unusual instance - wrong; and (2) articles about war criminals and the like tend to "get people going". If you are going to make big changes to such an article it is usually better to discuss them first. Sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick about what I did, but I'm pleased that you took note of my comment on your talk page and started a discussion here.
Hopefully some people who do know more than nothing about the guy will turn up before too long and you can bat ideas about with them. I'd just like to point out that any changes will have to comply with the policies for
biographies of living persons
, so it might be worth your while reading up on that in the interval if you are not familiar with it.
My other suggestion would be that you, erm, suggest! In other words, list all the specific issues in this article and perhaps draft up alternatives. If you have sources to back up your draft and they are
neutral then you'll be on to a winner. I'll keep an eye on this page - feel free to contact me on my talk page also if you have any issues. Thanks, and in particular for doing the right thing. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This was the point at which I reverted the IP editor's contributions, picked up because of a reflist issue in the maintenance categories. It might give people who are involved with the article a decent starting point for discussion etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part I simply translated the issues brought by the Polish historians and the World Home Army Soldiers Association's spokesman interviewed in http://www.rp.pl/artykul/2,532244.html , about Blaichman's book. I thought the issues aroused by 'Rather Die Fighting' were more encyclopaedic than the copy-paste from USHMM, that doesn't even distinguish
Ludowe Wojsko Polskie
.
Anyway, I'll search for something more tangible to put in the references, but I'm not sure if there'll be much info in any other language than Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.128.164 (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is notable then I'm fairly sure that there will be an English language version somewhere. Allegations such as these do not usually stay in one country. Hope you don't mind all my formatting of your recent edit. The bit I have commented out can be discussed further here by people who know more about it than I do. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms of the book made by Stanisław Aronson as mentioned in Rzeczpospolita are particularly notable, given the very high reputation and widespread respect for Aronson, and hence should probably be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can translate then feel free to do so & we'll find someone else to double-check. One of the big issues has gone away, which was that the Holocaust Museum is mis-spelling the guy's name (not surprising, then, that I could not find many news stories etc). The article naming convention now follows that of his published work. - Sitush (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that [1] (I translated it at the bottom of the page in elinks) is enough to establish this "allegation" as a fact. I'd suggest rewriting the text in a way that "this has been repeatedly mentioned in Polish media (refs) as based on the IPN's biographical note (ref)." The word "allegation" suggests the claim is not true, and the article currently presents this fact as a media story, where in fact (my link above) we have a more reliable and verifiable source (the IPN bio, online) that given rise to the media articles. PS. I'd also like to see more info on the source of the claims he was a partisan; I wouldn't be surprised that they are based on his own memories only. If so, it should be clearly indicated that his partisan history claims are based on a self-published source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the broader problem is that the article treats his claims at face value through out the "World War 2" section, but all information there - aside from some factual statements regarding the general nature of Nazi occupation - come only from him. The text should be rewritten to reflect that this is what he claims happened in his book, rather than what may have actually happened (which isn't to say that the story isn't true). This is particularly important in light of questions of reliability of the author that have been raised.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources for the article at present are those from the Museum (which we cannot prove are
undue weight. I have not read his book but that would be acceptable as a source only if it was to support non-controversial statements. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec)Yes, I agree that we should be careful - but this also implies that the story, which only comes from Blaichman be treated carefully as well. I'm not talking about removing it, just being careful in the wording. Claims which are other than general descriptions of Nazi occupation of Poland, should be specifically attributed with "In the book Blaichman says..." and similar.
BTW, one strange thing is that the cover of the book has a photo of the Bielski partisans on it, suggesting some kind of connection between Blaichman and Bielskis. But AFAIK there was absolutely no connection between the two (to me this suggests that the book is trying to ride the coat tails of Defiance) - and significantly Tuvia Bielski's description of the relations between AK and Jewish partisans are completely different than Blaichman's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted all of todays edits. They added little and took away much. Start over, please. I'm happy to see additions here but not edits which have been made without discussion. This is a controversial article and should be treated as such. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! You just reverted a whole bunch of well sourced text, as well as removed relevant tags. The additions added very important info. And the discussion is occurring as we edit. That's how it's usually done.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally opposed to your reverts. You removed a lot of useful work, from fixing the lead and biography, to incorporating the correct link to IPN bio note of his. There is little controversy. We have the museum bio for most of his life, and the IPN note for the rest of it. Then there is some media controversy which is reliably referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've also removed the quote from Aronson, which I brought up already on talk above, and re-inserted the Polish language text from Rzeczpospolita - which there really isn't any point in having in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I pointed the latter on Sitush talk, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During today the lead has been changed dramatically and asserted as fact something that is an allegation from one source (IPN). It also mangled content that was agreed at
WP:BLPN, removed the word "allegation", added an inappropriate maintenance tag to a section ... and so on. I'm not saying that all that was done was wrong but it had already been said here that things should be discussed before being applied to the article. So, discuss. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The maintenance tag was quite appopriate, and thank you for addressing it by transforming the generic museum ref into a series of inline ones which eliminate the need for the tag (I am just puzzled you contradict yourself - if you believed the tag was inappropriate why did you fixed the problem...? :>). The word allegation would be appopriate if sourced only to media releases. Now that I've verified it with the proper, original academic source (IPN's pdf - the link which your version removes (!)), I see no need for weasel wording. IPN's claim is as much factual as Museum, if not more so (seeing as IPN works with primary documents, and Museum likely based its blurb on subject's own memoirs...). By the same token one could label the entire biography section based on the Museum source as "allegations", too (and you still have not addressed the question of self-published problem for those claims). I am not sure what you mean by "mangling content". The current version mixes biography with the lead and controversy section, and it is quite mangled indeed (my version fixed that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not contradict myself: the point was already made in the article, I've merely made it more clear. Anyway, I'm happy with your edits to the controversy section which you just self-reverted (thanks). The BLPN discussion ended with the Polish language version in there, but I'm not fussed about that myself. I'm not happy with stating as a fact the secret police allegation in the lead - until there is some sort of prosecution etc it remains an allegation. You've done some good work, just the wrong way round: we were already in the D of
WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The wording of the lead could be better. We should probably just state his exact work placement then, as it is clearly referenced by IPN. We can discuss the lead here more; the problem is that the Museum piece describes him as the "Jewish resistance member", IPN as (roughly) "member of the communist security apparatus" (perhaps that would be a better wording), and Polish mass media, as a "member of a communist criminal gang". In particular, Polish media (citing at least one named historian) contradicts the Museum version, and I am not sure what would be a good compromise for the lead ("was a Polish Jewish member of an armed organization during World War II", perhaps)? Would I be correct in saying that at this point we are working on the lead wording and the only disagreement we have regarding rest of the body is on whether the IPN report on his 1945 activities should be described as allegation (your preference) or not (mine)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the lead goes, the stuff about his grandparents is trivia and can go IMO. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be incorporated into the body of the biography as I did in my version. Lead-wise, we just need to agree on "FB was..." sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested "was a Polish Jewish member of an armed organization during World War II" seems to me like a sound solution to the problem. I agree that the Museum thing needs adjusting somehow but need time to think - I just knew that this was going to explode! I'm not Polish, I'm not Jewish and I'm apolitical (as in "never voted because they're all a bunch of egotistical crooks" cynicism). I have no axe to grind here but I am extremely conscious of the weighting problems. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone (certainly not me) thinks you're acting in bad faith or have any kind of bias - this is mostly just a disagreement on what can be incorporated into the article and how quickly. No big deal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we are not in any kind of a hurry. Would you be ok with reverting back to my version, changing the lead per suggestion above, with the word allegation restored per your preference (while we discuss it below)? My primary concern is that my last version had better structure, better density of references, correct link to IPN's ref (pdf instead of jpg) and discussed the reception of his book more extensively. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather wait 24 hours and see if anyone else comes along. I suspect that they will because this will have blown up on the Poland project etc. It's about consensus and all that, so giving people time to have a say is no bad thing. The article has been a mess for a long time. Honest, I'm not trying to make trouble here. I do appreciate that much of what you did was good stuff - but that is just my opinion. You'll see form my talk page of 0300 this morning that I was going to pick at this if no-one else did turn up. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait, but I'd rather prefer that we use my (fixed per above) version. If an editor misses the fact that it was reverted, they may waste much time redoing what I've done (density of refs, book reception description, etc.). Since you raised no objection to those items, and I agree to fix the lead and keep your "allegation" wording, is there any need not to revert to my version? It should no longer contain any controversial material, just more useful stuff (and if it does contain controversial material, it can be rewritten / removed on a sentence by sentence basis, rather than as a wholesale revert that destroyed about an hour of my work...). It would be a shame if somebody came and started doing what I've done (density of refs, book reception description, etc.) not realizing that it was already done. The potential for wasting somebody's time is what really irks me here :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be inclined to think that if someone does that without checking the talk page first then more fool them. Is there a template or something we could stick at the top of the article? Probably not, so go ahead if you feel that you must. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well now with all the revisions it's a bit confusing. Piotrus, what version of the article are you proposing? Ajh1492 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he's referring to this edit [2]

So as someone involved in last night's discussion on the noticeboard, I'd agree the the following text (from the above listed edit) is a fair description. It contain additional information from the other articles I had found, plus from the IPN itself: (I would only add the word "Information" that is in Bold).

START
Blaichman published a book in September 2010, Rather Die Fighting: A Memoir of World War II.

communist crime.[5] Further, the book does not mention his ties with the Polish communist secret police.[2][7]

The same month the book was published the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita had a review of it stating that

Who is the author of a book? According to the publisher, Blaichman, at the age of 16, witnessed the German invasion of Poland. He created a Jewish partisan unit in the Lublin area, which fought with the Germans, and after the war he worked at UB in Pińczów and Kielce. But this is only half of the truth.

In fact, "Francis Blajchman" - as his name was noted in the materials of the

Communist Police", organized by the IPN.[2]

The information was widely reported in Poland.[6][5][3][8][4]

END

So I'd vote for Piotrus to revert his last good faith self-revert and add the word "information" to the last sentence. The section is about as well referenced as we can get, and objectively deals with the subject. That's my 2 cents. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I hope that the latest version is neutral and acceptable, further comments and edits are of appreciated. In addition to items discussed above, I've clarified some names, links and dates. I think that the bio section needs qualification regarding his disputed partisan activity, and the lead should mention the controversy caused by the book's translation in Poland. That can however wait, and as it is somewhat more controversial, I'd like to make sure there would be no objection to such edits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Information" is fine by me. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, and as agreed above, I restored to this version and since then did a number of small fixes I explained on Sitush's talk page. Based on his further comments on his talk page he finds one or more of those edits problematic, but so far I am unable to undertand which one. I will relist those edits here, and if any of you have any comments on them, please don't hesitate to describe it here. But please, be civil and precise.
Edits: restores the ageeed upon version, plus agreed fixes - lede, information, correcting error on book publishing date, removing unnecessary quotation, adding full names of the agency he worked in, correcting error based on dates, ilinking a city, removing some unnecessary information, including a sentence I myself added earlier, and clarifying another sentence, rewording it for extra neutrality, reordering paragraphs by logic - first mention media attention, then discuss it in detail and move book authorship to biography - and adding a name of another historian, or finally the mentioned fix of his name as used by Polish sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read through the latest revision [3]] and I am in agreement with what Piotrus wrote. It is well written, NPOV and well sourced. I have no objections. I think we should just let that revision stand. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 9781611450156
    .
  2. ^ a b c d e f Gmyz, Cezary; Zychowicz, Piotr; Wybranowski, Wojciech (6 September 2010). "Ubek wspomina mordowanie". Rzeczpospolita. Retrieved 2011-04-04.
  3. ^ a b c "Kontrowersyjna książka. Ubek wspomina mordowanie?". Newsweek Poland. 7 September 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-04.
  4. ^ a b c "Były ubek o "drapieżczo antysemickiej" Armii Krajowej". TVN24. 7 September 2010. Retrieved 2011-04-04.
  5. ^ a b c "IPN zbada książkę ubeka". Rzeczpospolita. 9 September 2010. Retrieved 2011-04-04.
  6. ^ a b "Żołnierze AK chcą śledztwa". Rzeczpospolita. 8 September 2010. Retrieved 2011-04-04.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference ipn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ "Ubek wspomina w książce mordowanie żołnierzy AK". Polish Radio. 7 September 2010. Retrieved 2011-04-04.

Copyvio?

"This article incorporates text from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has been released under the GFDL." Fine, if true, but is it? I can find no reference to the GFDL on the museum website. Instead, they seem to claim copyright, but allow "limited non-commercial, educational, and personal use only", [4] which is unlikely to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket mentioned at top of this page. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry - didn't see that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't checked it -
WP:AGF - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

lede

Sitush, you have to be more specific and should probably treat each addition one at a time.

As far as the lede goes - the fact that he was "associated with communist resistance" is not just from IPN (which is a reliable source), but also from Blaichman's own book. Same goes for him being part of the

secret police
. It's not like he's trying to hide these facts.

Also I'm not sure why you removed the Aronson quote or reinserted the Polish language back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead as amended says he was involved with the secret police. That is an allegation, and should be phrased as such: IPN may be a reliable source but it has not been proven and, I gather from some other edits today, they may take it to some place in order to prove it.
  • Because it had not been discussed, end of. We're in
    WP:BRD have been since yesterday/early this morning. As it happens, I don't disagree with it but that was not the point. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
IPN may be a reliable source but it is also a controversial body. If he says the same thing in his own book then that is fine, but I'm not prepared to accept a "snippet view" interpretation of what he does or does not say in his book. The Museum is not proven to be SPS (although it probably is) and as such the weight given to it has to be at least as great as the weight given to IPN. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How come IPN is a controversial body? It is a reliable academic institution, and this is what counts. It has published the short note on FB before the current media controversy, too. It doesn't even accuse him of any crimes or such, it just mentions he was, for few months, an official of the security apparatus. What is controversial, it seems to me, is FB book and the claims it makes. It is his memoir and even more so the controversy it generated (due to his revisionist claims about AK, claim that he shot two of its members, and such) that really makes him notable, because being a minor government official or a minor resistance fighter/gang member is not enough. The current version of the article is quite misleading, and even delatable due to poor notability, due to the omission of the primary reason he has been covered by the media. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned at BLPN and, I think, in the WP article for it. Equally, the museum is, almost by definition, an academic organisation. Being in academia does not prevent bias/incorrect statements and the like - in fact, academia thrives on such, and certain types of museum are definitely POV-pushers IMO (this is probably one of them). But, honestly, I don't know for sure, and hence the weight issues. I'm just playing the role of a disinterested policy wonk here. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a "Comment from the author" [5]:
"Wydawca zwrócił mi także uwagę, że czytelnikom może być trudno zaakceptować, iż autor pracował po wojnie dla Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa."
Translation: "My publisher brought to my attention that many readers (in Poland - VM) will find it hard to accept that the author (Blaichman - VM) after the war worked for the
Urzad Bezpieczenstwa
."
He goes on to try and explain why he worked for them, what his tasks were and that he voluntary resigned later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't translate anything, so no offence intended, but the above translation looks odd: "my publisher ... the author" is a weird & ambiguous construct. Is this just a translation issue? - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get literal, "my publisher" is "The publisher" (I translated it with "my" because it also says "my attention"). "The author" is already literal - he is referring to himself in third person - not sure why you think that is odd, but that's how he does it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Referring to himself in the third person. Perhaps he has delusions of grandeur! Good to go. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so that can go back in. BTW, in Polish referring to oneself in third person doesn't necessarily have the same implications as doing it in English - it's more "formal" but not necessarily indicative of delusions of grandeur.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to split this topic off so that we're not talking about ten different things at once. So this is a response to the comment above: "I'm not happy with stating as a fact the secret police allegation in the lead - until there is some sort of prosecution etc it remains an allegation". Again, the fact that he was a member of the secret police is not an allegation, I believe he talks about it in the book (though I'm going by some reprints of texts from it that are available on line). There is in fact an "allegation", also based on text in his book, that he participated in the murder of two "adolescent" AK members which some people want IPN to investigate (not clear whether they agreed to do so or not). This is in fact an "allegation" but it is not presently in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going off reprints/partial pieces is taking things out of context and a no-no. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd keep the lede simple, maybe a simple statement about his recently published book causing some controversy. This would encourage the reader to continue reading the article for further details. The Lede should only be a hook to get the reader to continue with the article.
No. Just mentioning his book is definitely undue weight. Wikipedia is not a suspense novel & the lead is not intended to be a "hook". - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the controversy his book caused is a rather important part of this article. I'd expand the lead saying that he worked, briefly, for the security apparatus of the Polish communist government, emigrated to the USA and published a book that caused controversy in the Polish media. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read through the latest revision [6]] and I am in agreement with what Piotrus wrote. It is well written, NPOV and well sourced. I have no objections. I think we should just let that revision stand. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helped by the Righteous

I am browsing the few other sources available online. This briefly mentions he served for the Polish government after the war and lived in Kielce. The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations: Poland gives an interesting twist that I think is worth including in the current bio:

"In October 1941, Frank Blachman escaped the massacre perpatrated by the Germans against the inhabitants of Kamionka in the Lublin district. While in Kamionka ghetto, in the county of Lubartow (Lublin district), Frank Blaichman's parents managed to establish contact with Aleksander and Staisnlawa Glos, peasant acquaintances of theirs who lived in the nearby village of

Kierzkowka
. In October 1942, when the Germans liquidated the Kamionka ghetto, Blachman's parents and family where shot to death. Blaichman himself managed to escape, and after wandering for a long time reached Kierzkowka, where he knocked on the Gloses' door. The Gloses arranged a hiding place for young Blaichman in their granary, provided him with food and clothing, and saw to all his needs. In throwing in their lot with Blaichman, the Gloses were guided by a deep love for their fellow man, which overrode considerations of personal safety or economic hardship. In the summer of 1943, Blaichman, with Gloss help, joined a Jewish partisan company operating in the nearby forests. Blaichman soon became a group commander of the Jewish partisan unit which, in July 1944, entered liberated Lublin. After the war, Blaichman emigrated to the United States. On June 14, 1998, Yad Vashem recognized Stanislawa and Aleksander Glos and Righteous Among the Nations."

The ref for the above is <ref name="GutmanLazare2004">{{cite book|author1=Israel Gutman|author2=Lucien Lazare|author3=Sara Bender|title=The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations: Poland|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OvQhAQAAIAAJ|accessdate=4 April 2011|year=2004|publisher=Yad Vashem|page=238}}</ref>

I think it would be a worthwhile addition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that you'd want to incorporate the Gloses into the article, but in the WW2 aspects, not in the controversy section.Ajh1492 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Any suggestions for an image? Fair use of his book cover? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-class

Passed for WPPOLAND confirming previous MILHIST assessment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Blaichman&oldid=1206334031"