Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [1].

---

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Dęblin–Irena was an anomaly in the history of the Holocaust in Poland. While 99% of the Jews in surrounding areas were murdered, in Dęblin–Irena the chance of surviving was as high as ten percent. The article explains why. I would like to thank @Harrias, CPA-5, Peacemaker67, Piotrus, and Gog the Mild: for their reviews of the article at GAN and A-class review, which have got the article in the shape it is now. (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The article is overall well written and throughout researched. I do have one relatively minor concern regarding the possibly WP:UNDUE level of detail in the 'Aftermath' section. Some of the content there about Poles killing/chasing Jews away after the war was added by a user who also tried to remove information about other Poles rescuing Jews and who was inconclusively discussed during Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz case that let do this entire topic area getting 500/30 protection a while ago. The sources are reliable, but I have concerns whether the level of detail given there is not excessive and therefore violates NPOV. I think this should be discussed further, as in whether this level of coverage is due and balanced, particularly given that the information about the rescue of Jews was shortened to a single sentence, but all minute details about post-war persecution are still present (I think it is fine to mention that several people were murdered but are it really due to mention details that one survivor had trouble reclaiming a bakery, and some other people received threatening letters?). We provide the name of the survivor who failed to reclaim their bakery after the war, but not the name of survivors who were sheltered on a nearby farm (their names are given here: [2]). Again, it's a minor issue, but related stuff was still controversial important to get an editor site-banned - I think we should be very careful with due balance in such issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: Thanks for your comment. After reviewing this again, it still seems to me that both aspects are covered proportionately to their coverage in RS. There are actually two sentences about rescues, but for the one you are referring to, the rescue was only partly of Jews from Deblin-Irena and the source does not say which of the rescued people had been in Deblin-Irena, so their names cannot be added. The postwar incident added by the other editor was shortened to a one-sentence mention by myself, even though it gets multiple paragraphs of coverage in "What! Still Alive?!": Jewish Survivors in Poland and Israel Remember Homecoming, which received a positive critical reception. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the bakery incident gets multiple paragraphs... does it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Full quote—three paragraphs

The YV testimonies recall physical violence in a variety of ways. Attackers often persisted through a longer period of time and employed means of harassing Jews that were straight out of wartime practices. Ester Kaminska (AYV O3/3029) returned to Dęblin after the liberation, where, she says, “I again had a fuss because the Poles thought that they would get all this. When they saw those few Jews, they carried out a fresh massacre. They did not want the Jews to return at all.” A Pole who had been given the Kaminska family bakery by the Nazis was unhappy that Ester had returned and tried to get a group of Soviet soldiers (who resided in the town) drunk to incite them to kill her. These drunks caused a scandal one night, bringing Kaminska to the verge of despair: “There were no doors, no key, nothing to lock with. We were crying all night; there was nobody to turn to and nowhere to go. It was worse than the camp.” Finally, Kaminskaʼs distressed daughter intervened, notifying the Soviet Peopleʼs Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), which arrested the soldiers and forced the Poles to move out. Although Kaminska managed to recover part of her apartment, she continued to be harassed by extortionists (referred to as “Poles” or “bands” in the testimony), who, in a gruesome repetition of wartime actions, demanded a “ransom” to leave her alone. She did not have enough money to pay it, so she departed for Palestine through Lower Silesia.

• • • • Thank you for the quote. Given the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_this_PRIMARY_or_unreliable? I am a bit confused why you think an interview of a historian is PRIMARY but the interview / document quoted here is not. Also, "Ester Kaminska suffered repeated harassment and extortion from local Poles," - why aren't the Soviets mentioned? And she did manage to recover part of her property, while the article does not mention this and suggests no property was recovered. Likewise, the support she did receive from the Soviet authorities is not mentioned. I am sorry but it seems to me like only facts to support a particular narrative were included. I still think this particular incident is too trivial to be mentioned at all; removing it entirely per UNDUE is my recommended solution. When we are talking about thousands of people, many of whom died, the story about a single bakery and resulting harassment, in which part of the property was recovered, some harassment occurred but nobody was wounded or injured seems out of scope, if not to say trivial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
        • This is a secondary source because it doesn't primarily quote what Kaminska says, but instead offers summary and original analysis. A one sentence summary (which is factually correct and not misleading, imo) cannot convey all the details. I would not strongly object to removing this, if others agree that it should be removed. However, Rice does cite this case in some detail as one which illuminates certain aspects of Polish-Jewish relations as reflected in personal testimonies. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
          • I stand by my view that this particular incident is too trivial to be mentioned there, through this also got me thinking that we could use an article about the phenomena of property rights post-WWII or such, of which the issue of Jewish property would surely be significant, and in turn, in a section/subarticle about Poland, this incident could be more irrelevant. But as I said, in the current article, IMHO it stands out as a trivial side-story, compared to much more serious issues discussed everywhere else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Fixed
• The airfield bombing image is missing alt text
  • Added
• File:Dęblin–Irena_Ghetto.jpg should have its FUR expanded, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than "unique historic images"
  • OK, after looking at this again, I ended up removing it and linking it and two other images as external images. It's hard to justify this as fair use when at the recommended resolution it's hard to make out any details.
• File:Zbombardowane_lotnisko_w_Deblinie.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The source website is run by the government of Poland and states that all images are public domain / free use:[3] Also stated to be PD here
    • I don't doubt it's in the public domain in Poland, but my question is with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
      • In Poland, any photograph that was published without copyright notice before May 23, 1994 (this is the vast majority of PD photographs from Poland) were never copyrighted at all. So these photographs were all PD on the URAA date, as stated in the template. It's highly unlikely that anyone tried to claim copyright on this photograph, especially since it is a reconnaissance photograph taken by military aircraft and no human author is known. It's also likely {{PD-ineligible}} as WWII aerial reconaissance photographs did not involve independent authorship by a human being. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb. It is my intention to claim points in the Wikicup for this review.

• "It initially contained six streets" → 'It initially contained of six streets'.
  • Changed to "consisted of".
• "for various local firms, especially Dęblin Fortress (a German Army base), the railway, and the Luftwaffe" I am not sure that these are example of "local firms". Maybe just skip "for various local firms"?
  • Removed
• "in late 1941 due increased German restrictions" → 'in late 1941 due to increased German restrictions'.
  • Done
• "located 68.7 kilometers (42.7 mi)" Why the false precision? Maybe 70 and 40?
  • That's what it says in the source, however, I've done as you suggested.
• "The first chair of the Judenrat, Leizer Teichman, and the secretary were expelled in 1941". What does "expelled" mean in this context?
  • Clarified
• "The Judenrat's command altered again". Optional: → 'The Judenrat's leadership altered again'.
  • Done
• "Some Jews worked for German companies such as Schwartz and Hochtief, which were hired to do construction on the military bases in the town." "which" isn't right there.
  • Rephrased to "contracted by the Wehrmacht to do construction on the military bases in the town", hopefully that is an improvement
• " Another 200 of the Slovaks worked for the Schultz firm following an expansion" Does this mean 'An additional 200' or is it just a part of the summary of how many Jews worked where?
  • Clarified
• "had success with many Viennese Jews." I can't work out what this means.
  • Rephrase: "They recruited 200 Jewish workers in Opole, many of whom were Austrian Jews who had been deported from Vienna in February 1941..."
• "They also built a barbed-wire-enclosed complex adjacent to the runway for craftsmen to work." Should there be an 'in' on the end?
  • Added
• "often fictitious ones obtained through bribery" Are you entirely happy with "fictitious"? To me it suggests imaginary.
  • Removed
• "he was physically present in Dęblin during the deportation." Delete "physically". (What other way would he be present?)
  • Removed
• "they were turned away by the Jewish police there." But you then state that 400-1,000 were let in?
  • Clarified to say that some were turned away
• "whose existence was justified by increasing the productivity of their parents". Should "by" be 'as'?
  • Done
• "not equalled elsewhere in the Lublin District". Optional: → 'not matched elsewhere in the Lublin District'.
  • Done
• Is "Autheried" a typo?
  • Nope, directly copied from the source
• "Both theft and having foreign currency". Suggest "having" → 'possessing'.
  • Done
• "to distribute the aid among the Slovak Jews". "the aid"? What aid? It hasn't previously been mentioned.
  • Referring to the valuables and money mentioned in the previous sentence. I wrongly assumed that was obvious. I tried to think of a way to rephrase "aid", but drew a blank. Suggestions welcome.

It may just be me, but aid in this sort of context calls to mind food and possibly medication, as in 'Emergency aid was flown into the disaster area'. How does a simple '... carrying letters and bringing valuables and money. A committee was formed in the camp to distribute these among the Slovak Jews' sound. The (three) things being distributed then seem (to me) obvious from there having just been specified.

Done (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The organization itself". What organisation? (A genuine question; whichever it is, it may be better to just name it.)
  • Home Army, mentioned
• "Several members of the Kowalczyk family". Were they local Poles? If so, could we be told?
  • Clarified
• "were run by the Luftwaffe and yet were still liquidated before the end of 1943". Optional: delete "yet".
  • Done

Nice work, my nit picking above notwithstanding. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your feedback, I believe I've actioned everything. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good. I have commented above on the "aid" issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A fine article. Only these superficial details that I could find to pick at. Nicely resolved. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass

• Yale University Press link
• Yad Vashem missing links in Bergman, Koźmińska-Frejlak, Silberklang, Miron
• You could link Lukas Verlag to the German wiki article
• I would still link United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 in the second mentions, since you already link Yad Vashem everytime in the refs (not sources)
• link Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
• Wondering what the "pp." is in the Schmeitzner source?
• Spot checked the ones I could access, 22, 74, 76, 80
• Some authors to link: Yehoshua Büchler, Eleonora Bergman, Jan Jagielski, Mike Schmeitzner
• Sources all look reliable Aza24 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. I have now consistently linked first mention only for publishers, to avoid sea of blue. I linked all authors except Jagielski, since it's not possible to link another wiki in author parameter without easter egg. I fixed the Schmeitzner citation (it is actually a trans-title). (t · c) buidhe 13:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Well... I have an idea, you could do

      "|author1=[[Eleonora Bergman|Bergman, Eleonora]] |author2={{ill|Jan Jagielski|pl|lt=Jagielski, Jan}}" and then in case the harv refs break "|ref={{sfnref|Bergman|Jagielski|2014}}"

      but this does seem unessesary lol – either way, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "other parts of Poland" implies that the towns are in Poland, but the location is so basic that I think it should be spelled out specifically, even at the expense of repetition.
  • Done
• The only mention of Irena in the article on Dęblin is that the Irena colony is at the core of the present day town. If Irena is important enough to be part of the name of this article, it should have its own article. I suggest linking it in red as [[Irena (Poland)|Irena]]
  • Done
• "Thousands of Jews lived in the town before the war, which was the site of the Polish Air Force Academy from 1927." This seems a non-sequitur. What is the connection?
  • I rewrote the lead to be in chronological order. Per MOS:LEAD it should cover all significant aspects of the article including (minimally) the background section.
• "It initially consisted of six streets and was an open ghetto, with non-Jewish Poles allowed to enter." Was this just an area where Jews were required to live or also one they were not allowed to leave without permission?
  • Clarified based on the body, which specifies that Jews faced the death penalty for unauthorized departure.
• "most Jews followed the Modzitz dynasty". Following a dynasty sounds odd. Maybe Modzitz branch of orthodox Judaism?
  • Modzitz is a Hasidic dynasty.
• "there were some incidents in which Polish merchants vandalized their Jewish competitors' shops" Presumably the Jews were Polish. Would not Christian merchants be more accurate?
  • Rephrased to clarify that
• "According to Israeli historian David Silberklang, "Szymon Drabfisz" was the first chair and Teichman the second". You have said above as a fact that Teichman was the first chair. Are you implying that Silberklang is less reliable than Crago?
  • I attributed both pieces of information since they are both reliable sources.
• "Schultz was also under contract" What was Schultz and why "also"?
  • Reworded. I cannot find more information about Schultz other than it was a German firm contracted to do railway construction
• "The organization itself accused Jews". What organization? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarified that this refers to the last-mentioned organization (Home Army).
• Thanks so much for your comments, I'm sorry that I managed to miss them for so long. (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, just checking that you have noticed Dudley's comments above? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Err, I must have missed them. Thanks for the reminder! (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine apart from one query.

"Dęblin and Irena [pl][a] (Yiddish: מאדזשיץ‎, Modzhitz)". Yiddish for what? If for both areas together, this should be clarified, if only for Irena, then the Yiddish for Dęblin should also be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The sources are not clear whether Modzhitz refers to (pre-1953) Deblin, Irena, or some neighborhood therein. There is no other Yiddish name found in sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Modzitz gives an answer, but it is obviously not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and some reliable sources agree that it's a neighborhood within Deblin/Irena[4][5] And if so, it probably refers to Irena, as stated in USHMM encyclopedia which refers to "Irena (Yiddish: Modzhitz)". Whereas, Yad Vashem (also in the print encyclopedia cited) implies that the term covers all of Deblin/Irena, and some other sources seem to agree with that... (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

A solid piece of work, I expect my comments to be minor. Feel free to revert any copy-editing I do.

• "the Jews of Dęblin and Irena" sorry to take issue with the very first sentence, but; the reader has no idea where these localities are
  • Good point, this is now fixed
• There is some slight redundancy between lead paragraphs one and two. This isn't the biggest deal, but condensing would aid readability.
  • Reworked
• "local labor camps became collection centers" "collection centers" sounds like jargon; what is this referring to? is a link available?
  • Reworded
• The liberation of the area in 1944 seems worth mentioning; a lay reader may assume the area remained in Nazi control until 1945
  • Added to lead
• This may be a naive question, but "Poles" can refer to people of an ethnic group or a nationality, right? So when saying "Poles and Jews", is it worth saying "ethnic Poles" to avoid implying that the Jews were not Polish, nationality-wise?
  • Changed to "non-Jews" or "ethnic Poles" as appropriate
• "forced to wear armbands" presumably, armbands of a specific type, identifying them as Jews; if the sources say that, might be worth spelling out
  • Added link and slight clarification
• It might be worth providing a brief description of what a Judenrat was, even though there's a link
• The lead of Nazi ghetto does not specify how those were different from a "Jewish residence restriction"; if there was such a difference, it might be worth spelling out.
  • Removed, as explaning it would give undue weight and Silberklang is the only author who makes this distinction.
• "The Jews could favorably compare their situation..." seems an elliptical way of putting it; why not "The Jews who worked there saw prisoners held in worse conditions than their own" or equivalent?
  • Done
• "After the deportation of 6 May 1942" this deportation hasn't been introduced; perhaps "the first of several deportations on.."?
  • Done

Thanks so much for your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Gendarme" seems to me an obscure enough term that a link (or wiktionary link) might be worthwhile
  • Linked
• "but the children had to hide when the SS conducted inspections" this implies the SS was okay with children in the camp, but not in school, and is odd; was this actually the case?
  • Right, the camp was run by the Luftwaffe, which is not part of the SS, but SS would inspect periodically. The former tolerated the children, the latter did not. I changed the wording to clarify this.
• The paragraph beginning "The camp had three German commanders" seems a little bit scattered, in that many different strangs of information are being presented. This is likely inevitable to some degree, but I'm wondering if some reorganization is possible; the Home Army is mentioned in the next paragraph, for instance, and the punishment piece may fit better with the material about some Jews trying to escape.
  • I think you're right; moved both these sentences to the next paragraph.
• This may just be a personal preference, but I have typically understood "shot" to mean "struck by a bullet", rather than "killed by a bullet", whereas the article appears to use it in the second sense; would "shot and killed" be more appropriate in some cases?
  • Clarify that they were killed, where the sources support it. In one case it is not explicit, the source says "The square was crowded with people who were wailing and screaming, and the Germans beat the Jews and shot a number of them"

That's all from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Thanks so much. I believe I've addressed everything. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: There's one point outstanding, about the Judenrat, above; you may have missed it; but it's minor, and this is a great piece of work, so I'm happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh sorry, I fixed that too. Appreciate the support! (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hog Farm

I'll try to get to this over the next couple days. Insert standard claimed for the WikiCup disclaimer here. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• "and at an important junction on the Lublin–Warsaw rail line" - Is this the official name? It seems like a context where an offical name would be used, but if so, then shouldn't rail line be capitalized?
  • I don't think it is the official name. In 2020, the Lublin–Warsaw rail line is part of Rail line no. 7 (Poland). But I am not sure that the entire line (Warsaw to Dorohusk) existed in 1939.
• For context, it feels like the Second World War should be mentioned in the German invasion section
  • Added mention
• " the first chair of the Judenrat, Leizer Teichman was dismissed in" - Comma after Teichman, the name is an appositive
  • done
• Link Wehrmacht at the first mention
  • Done
• ". Under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Grossman" - Do we know Grossman's first name?
  • Not stated in any source, unfortunately. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's about it. I'm not seeing much to work on here, and what I am seeing is rather minor. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, I believe I've addressed all of them. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.