Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Killings by local Poles

As requested, quotes following: buidhe 11:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

For example, following one such collective deliberation in the winter of 1943, Wenkart allowed a group of Jewish partisans to enter the camp to seek refuge from persecution by the Armia Krajowa (AK). (Farkash p. 67)

... there were several escape attempts by camp residents, even though those planning them could not be certain they would survive outside its walls. Most fell into the hands of the AK, the local population or the gendarmerie, were murdered or even returned to the camp. (Farkash p. 74)

During the course of the evacuation and the loading of belongings, about 50 Jews escaped from the camp and made their way to the forest. Most were murdered by the AK, while others retraced their steps and were sent to Częstochowa. (Farkash, p. 76; also discussed in Museum of the Jewish People source)

I don't think I or anyone else asked about it, but it's good to preemptively provided quotes and such for potentially controversial claims. Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Map

Shouldn't we use historical map (WWII/SPR) instead of the current one? I am not sure if using modern one is a good idea (I notice no maps are used in other ghetto articles I checked). It creates the impression that the ghetto was build and run by modern Polish state (see Polish concentration camps controversy). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, I wasn't aware that there was a location map with WWII boundaries. Perhaps you know of one?

I always prefer to use the administrative boundaries at the time because to do otherwise is somewhat ahistorical. buidhe 10:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Historical maps would be better. If none are present, what's better: no map or ahistorical map? I think a map is better then none, but we should make it clear in the description the map is 'modern'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Using a modern map is not a problem, it is illustrative in regards to the location. JoeZ451 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Oh? [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

@Piotrus: This is what it says in the source:

In various work-places at the airfield and beyond it, troops supervised the Jewish laborers, and according to survivors, they, too, generally treated them reasonably well. By contrast, some of the Polish supervisors abused and beat Jews, and the Ukrainian guards who supervised Jewish laborers on the railway were particularly cruel. While certain functionaries were remembered as being overtly hostile, in general within the camp itself, the Jewish laborers received relatively decent treatment. (Farkash, p. 70)

buidhe 08:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• See my explanation below. Anyway, Farkash is a bit problematic for such WP:REDFLAG claims, as far as I can tell from my look she was a PhD student when she published this article (and I am not sure she graduated yet). The article is reliable, but REDFLAG recommends we try to corroborate such extreme claims with further sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is published in Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust., a leading Holocaust Studies journal. In English. Top notch source, hard to find something better. You had better stop shouting "REDFLAG" when discussing Holocaust Studies scholarship. This should remain. JoeZ451 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet again, you miss the point. The problem is not Dapim. The problem os Farkash. Do you think a PhD student should be called "a historian"? At best, they are one in training. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis calls them an Holocaust educator. What matters most is where this was published: a leading Holocaust Studies journal. JoeZ451 (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

So likewise this is a reliable article, right? [2] published by NYU Press. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Status of Dęblin Synagogue

pl: Dęblin Synagogue refs [3] which shows a modern day shop there. Has the old building been demolished and replaced, or is it the old building restored? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, apparently the original building was repurposed for various uses after the war [4]. I don't think there's any contradiction, because it may be that the outer appearance is ok, but the building has underlying structural issues or other defects which are not readily apparent. buidhe 05:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

pre-GA review

• "Although German soldiers supervising the forced laborers tended to treat them relatively well, some Polish supervisors beat Jews" - seriously, anyone who claims that Germans were more lenient towards Jews than Poles will raise eyebrows. I removed it per WP:REDFLAG and frankly, this is simply not necessary. Jews were terribly mistreated at ghettos and this sentence adds nothing new.
• I am still concerned about the claims that Poles killed Jews discussed above (#Killings by local Poles). It is very likely some killings like this occurred. Below is a link to the oral testimony of Romuald Róg, born in 1926 in Poland, describes life in Dęblin during the war; local Jews fleeing the town during the establishment of the ghetto; local townspeople organizing the distribution of food to the Jewish population; the liquidation of the ghetto, including the murder of those who fled the roundup; the sight of a column of Jews at the railway station; the sight of a mass burial; and his participation in the Polish Home Army. It's in Polish. He doesn't mention they (AK) were killing Jews in Dęblin-Irena ([5]). At the very least this requires attribution, through frankly I'd like to see more corroborating evidence. I did look at at Farkesh article, and she sources those claims primarily to primary sources; certainly a historian's privilege, but again, WP:REDFLAG is relevant. Who else can corroborate her claims that local AK murdered Jews? AFAIK, Pulaway district was Marian Bernaciak's district (Orlik) and I've never heard anything about that guy or units under his supervision being involved in any antisemitic acts and I thought he's been thoroughly researched (see his article). If indeed "most of about 50 Jews" who escaped the camp were murdered by AK, you'd think this would've been discussed in relevant literature, and not discovered by a minor historian few years ago (I'll also note that her claim did not seem to have been noticed by other scholars...). Ps. Also per User_talk:Buidhe#About_Polish-Jewish_history: there is also a potential COI: Farkash is a PhD student, she published in a journal published by her university, and her PhD thesis supervisor is one of the editors of the journal she published in. This makes the entire peer review / reliability topic more of an issue here as well, and bottom line, I don't think this particular article is a reliable source for REDFLAG claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I undid these changes, as they are not constructive. Locals, in many cases, were more crueler to Jews than German soldiers and the source points this out. Sources documenting Polish atrocities abound, for example: [6] “Barwy Białe” on their Way to Aid Fighting Warsaw. The Crimes of the Home Army against the Jews. There is nothing out of the norm in Farkash's paper. The paper itself was published in Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust. (Taylor and Francis) which is one of the most regarded Holocaust Studies journals. Sourcing can't get much better than this. JoeZ451 (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

I think you may be onto something in terms of the Home Army. Farkash does cite several testimonies, but not all of them are even eyewitness. One wonders if there could be a case of mistaken identity happening.

Although I do give Farkash less weight because she does not have a PhD yet, I'm not convinced that what you found is a COI issue or reflects badly on her paper. Bender is only one of three main editors and most academic journals have strict policies for avoiding COI, such as having involved persons recuse themselves from editorial decisions. There are only a limited number of journals publishing on the Holocaust, so it may well be a coincidence that she published in this one.

I'm not sure that the thing about the labor supervisors is an exceptional claim. The German soldiers were in this case Wehrmacht troops, and there's evidence that Wehrmacht soldiers did not mistreat Jewish forced laborers as much as the SS. Furthermore, it's relevant and encyclopedic to include this detail, because although all Jewish people suffered during the Holocaust, they did not all suffer in the same way or to the same degree. Since Farkash' source seems to be testimony by survivors, I attributed it in the text. buidhe 14:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In particular, I am concerned about this: "Some people tried to escape from the camp, but success was unlikely. According to Farkash, the majority were killed by the Home Army or German authorities". This sentence equates Home Army with Germans, which is quite problematic. I strongly suggest removing that part per WP:REDFLAG until corroborating reliable sources are found. Such a claim should have better attribution than a PhD student publishing in a venue with potential COI issues (no proof of any COI, yes, but I work in academia and such I have seen similar COIs first-handed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I can see you already did the change. buidhe 04:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Aye, with no prejudice to restoring some of this in few years when further sources tackle this. Overall, she may be right - but exceptional claims require above average sourcing. I think the article is pretty close to passing GA now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

One more minor concern about the claim from Rubin, Arnon (who is he btw? Can't find an academic bio of him). About the postwar claim that Jews where denied the right to return homes by some "commandant of the local militia". Is there any more info on this? After Soviet take over (liberation...) there was, AFAIK, no militias, just regular government, with some military elements. This is a rather dubious claim that some area would be controlled by militia; and in either case, the militia would soon be suppressed by the government. What did the government said when the locals appealed to it? Bottom line is that we can assume, based on common sense, that even if some locals where denied something by some militia, the situation would return to normal, since I am not aware of any large scale problems caused by some militia, nor that people where mass evicted. There were some issues related to property restitution and nationalization, but we would need more information on that, and in either case, those where not problems at 'local militia' level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure about the Rubin source. It has no footnotes and the translation isn't great, although you would expect Tel Aviv University Press to have standards. I would guess that, similar to Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Ghettos (as described in this review) it is based on testimony from people who used to live there and sources such as yizkor books. If you think the information is suspect, you are probably right. Here is the quote from the book. I don't have more context because I got it off of Google Preview.

Because they were the inhabitants of the town Irena (Deblin), they went there with the purpose of resettling there. The commandant of the militia refused them the right of staying in Irena, maintaining that the Jews have no right to live there, without permission of Lublin.

They enclose an acknowledgment from the Municipal Council that in Irena are living now app. 20 Jews, being in the same situation, and it must be taken into consideration, that from Czestochowa will arrive more persons, and the number will reach probably to few hundreds. buidhe 11:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus' opinion on what is exceptional matters little when scholarly sources disagree. Many small localities in the countryside were controlled by the AK or other Polish rebel groups in early 1945. The Soviet and Polish People Republic only pushed them out much later, in 1946. In early 1945, Soviets were busy fighting a war in Germany, and had few forces to spare for the backwoods. I added a second source with this statement of Jews being prevented from return, by Monika Rice. JoeZ451 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Please provide a quotation from that source. Sources that confuse militia with Milicja Obywatelska are likely to have other major errors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

From the second source that Joe added, open access pdf:

Another letter of complaint sent to the MAP from the Lublin area concerns the MO chief in Irena (Dęblin). In January 1945, he denied returning Jews the right to settle down in the city until they were able to produce a special permit.

buidhe 22:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

With the correction of the error (not militia but milicja), I think the sentence about local communist authorities denying permission to survivors to settle can stay, since we now have two reliable sources for that. But I removed the excess detail (single individual's story), since I think it's UNDUE to focus on such a minor incident (effectively selecting a single testimony out of many others). Btw, I found a source that in 2015 a plaque dedicated to the Jewish community was unveiled in Debnica, probably this should be mentioned here? [7]. I also found there is a book in Polish about the local WWII history that seems to discuss the ghetto and such ([8]) but it seems like it would be rather hard to get (and if you don't speak Polish, not very helpful). I suggest adding this to further reading.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A scholarly source considers this "minor" incident, in which a survivor was robbed, threatened, and driven away from town in a series of incidents as representative of "direct threats or attacks on one's person", devoting significant space. Not "minor", and sourced to scholarly source. JoeZ451 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

A small incident like this is simply WP:UNDUE. This is the relevant policy. It doesn't matter what it is sourced to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What a perplexing notion of "small". Reality check: robbed of her real estate and business, attempted murder, repeated extortions, and driven out of town to exile. Scholar sees this as representative. JoeZ451 (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

• (edit conflict) I wonder if we can find a compromise here with a briefer mention of the Kaminska incident? Although the Stalag 307 book is doubtless interesting, it seems nearly impossible to obtain and is of limited relevance if it's mostly about the prison camp. Interestingly, the Miasto Deblin article that Piotrus mentioned refers to an incident that I had found mentions of but was unable to confirm: that local Jews were murdered after the liberation. However, I was able to find another corroborating source:

In the villages and towns surrounding Radom, at least several Jews were killed during the first few months after the liberation. Many of those crimes were never reported. Even if they were, most of the murderers were never tried for their crimes. This was sometimes due to the fact that some local policemen were involved in these murders, as in the case with the murder of three Jewish women – Łaja, Gitla and Fryda Luksemburg, in March 1945 in Irena-Dęblin, a town located 65 km east of Radom. (Krzyżanowski 2013, free access here)

I think Anna Cichopek also discusses this incident on page 37 of Pogrom Żydów w Krakowie: 11 sierpnia 1945, but can't confirm without a copy of the book. buidhe 10:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Buidhe: good catch on the murder sourcing. I think a compromise on a shorter version for the Kaminska account, which is several incidents, can be made. Can you suggest wording for something shorter? JoeZ451 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

How about this:

Ester Kaminska suffered repeated harassment and extortion from local Poles, one of whom had obtained her family's bakery from the Nazis, which led to her departure to Palestine in 1947. (Rice pp. 119–120)

Rice does cover the Kaminska incident for three entire paragraphs, so it's not like we're picking this out of a primary source. buidhe 06:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If we have 2+ academic sources for such incident, then I guess it can be considered due enough for this. Overall, I like the current version more, since instead of focusing on individual incidents it provides an important summary and informs the readers that such terrible events where not rare exceptions, but that persecution continued. Through we need top notch reliable sources to back such claims, and we should avoiding generalizing/OR from incidents ourselves, but instead report what the reliable sources say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, that sentence looks fine. I'll add it. JoeZ451 (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Joe removed a section that Piotrus added on Escape and rescue. In general, the same arguments against anecdotal incidents apply. I'm not opposed to inclusion of such a section, but it would have to be balanced by information about other escapees who did not experience a good outcome.

I was able to find more information about local Home Army units:

In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers:“In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands. (Zimmerman 2015 p. 213)

One exampleis the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period endingDecember1,1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposedcommunist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That hadsignificantly changed with the creation, it continued, of“Bolshevik and Jewishbands”in such places as Lubertów,15miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa,some62miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy,30miles northwest ofLublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands madeevery effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks,“robbing, along with them,and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.” Zimmerman 2015 p. 361

We could add something along the lines of:

Despite the relatively good conditions, some Jews tried to escape because they feared that the camp would be liquidated. The Luftwaffe camp command imposed collective punishment to deter escapees. According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from Polish peasants. Most Jews who tried to escape were captured and others returned to the camp. Several members of the Kowalczyk family were honored as Righteous Among the Nations for sheltering Jews who had escaped from the camp. Árpád Szabó, a Hungarian military doctor, was similarly recognized for smuggling a Slovak Jewish couple to Hungary.

References

buidhe 12:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I removed[9] the section as the source itself was primary database, not a secondary scholarly source. Piotrus placed the wrong URL, it is [10]. Even worse, the text Piotrus added did not follow the citation. Pitorus': "During the ghetto's history, there were a number of Jewish escapes, as well as rescue attempts by local Polish gentiles" does not appear in the source. The second sentence is somewhat supported, but is imprecise as the source says: "Some of the refugees arrived at the Kowalczyks after the liquidation of the Łuków ghetto in 1943, while others arrived in January 1944, after escaping from the Dęblin labor camp", while Piotrus wrote "sheltered nine Jewish escapees from the Dęblin-Irena ghetto". So only part of the nine were from Dęblin, and from the labor camp, not ghetto. If there are proper scholarly sources referring to rescue in the context of the ghetto, yes, that can be added. JoeZ451 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Sock puppet Icewhiz

Yes, and since all the sources relating to escape are after the ghetto was liquidated and focus on the camp, the para should be added to "Luftwaffe camp" section. buidhe 13:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC

The paragraph I added is pretty standard in other ghetto articles, through of course it can be improved. Since some sources, including our lead, refer to the ghetto as labor camp, I am not sure if the distinction between camp and ghetto inmates is either correct or helpful. In either case, I hope Buidhe you can incorporate that material into the article, since it is IMHO no less relevant than the other minor incidents discussed here. Either we include all of them or none of them. As for concerns about primary sources, this incident is also discussed on pages 570-571 of Gutman's 2004 The encyclopedia of the righteous among the nations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither this article or any of the sources describe the ghetto as a forced labor camp. All they say is that some prisoners of the ghetto were moved to the labor camp. It does not make sense to split the article into Dęblin–Irena Ghetto and Dęblin–Irena forced-labor camp(s), because notability would be dubious.

Such sections are standard on Wikipedia ghetto articles, but not in published encyclopedias dealing with this topic. Some of these sections could legitimately be criticized for failing WP:DUE and not contextualizing these rescue attempts. If you compare, e.g. Kraków Ghetto#Rescue and outside aid to the Kraków entry in Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, you see what I mean. I do believe that these rescue topics should be covered on Wikipedia (according to policies and guidelines) but in some cases this would require splitting material to separate articles, like Rescue of Jews in Kraków District is probably a notable topic. buidhe 15:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall I concur with regards to too much detail. FYI this was discussed before and the consensus was to split excessive details on the rescue in the List of Polish Righteous Among the Nations. At the same time, if we devote space to another story of a single participant event, there are issues with balance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to implement some of the suggestions and address the concerns made above since it looked like consensus was reached but the corresponding change was never made. However I was reverted by Buidhe with the usual "get consensus" edit summary.

BTW, the Zimmerman source in the article was not ... represented correctly. Volunteer Marek 05:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Buidhe. Please stop edit warring - it took you less than 45 minutes to jump in and start with the reverts! Please stop using aggressive edit summaries like "Go take it up with the FAC source reviewer." (no, I'm not going to "take it up" with a "FAC source reviewer" - who? - nor do I have to. I'm taking it up with the person who put the misrepresentation of the source in the article in the first place. You. AFAICT no one ever checked that source), or "Your claims (...) are baseless" (I have Zimmerman in front of me right now and he says nothing about "Jewish fugitives" on the pages given. In fact page 361 doesn't even mention Deblin or Irena!). Please stop claiming "no consensus! no consensus!" when very clearly in the discussion above the very same concerns have already been raised (use of graduate student's work for WP:REDFLAG claims. In fact you yourself acknowledged these concerns in a positive manner in your comments from December! So why are you reverting now?). And please try discussing on talk. Volunteer Marek 07:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dęblin–Irena Ghetto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^talk 11:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Background

• I tend to start my reviews in the body, and then come back to the lead after. At no point in the opening few lines of the background section does it state what country it is in; could this be added please.
• Is the Yiddish translation for "Dęblin and Irena" or just for Irena?
  • It's unclear. Yad Vashem source implies that the name covers both, but this claims that "Modrzyc" is a neighborhood in Dęblin.
• "..and there were also Gur Hasidism." This doesn't seem to make grammatical sense; should it be "..and there were also Gur Hasidists."?
  • Fixed; "Hasidim" is apparently the correct collective noun.
• Is "Rebbe" a title? It could do with a wikilink if so.
  • Done
• "..on 11 September the ammunition was blown up.." By attackers, or by the Polish, so it didn't fall into enemy hands?
  • Clarified
• "They were forcibly conscripted into forced labor units.." Try to rephrase to avoid the repetition of "force"; in fact, probably just remove the first one altogether.
  • Done
• Use {{lang}} templates rather than italics for all foreign language terms.
  • Done

Ghetto

• The image needs more explanation: "Some of the ghetto's boundaries are shown." I know that they are detailed in the article text, but the caption needs the detail too.
  • Done
• "..who had survived the liquidation.." Explain the use of liquidation here.
  • Fixed
    • The term "liquidation" could still do with explanation somewhere, as it is used throughout the article. Harrias ^talk 10:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Added footnote.
• "..this included 300 people from Ryki, and 300 from.." Remove "and".
  • Done

Forced labor

• "..some Polish supervisors beat Jews and the Ukrainian guards at the railway camp were especially harsh." Add a comma before "and", I thought the Polish supervisors were beating the Ukrainian guards!
  • Done

Deportation etc.

• Per MOS:TIME, "at 9:00 hours" needs a leading zero: "at 09:00 hours"
  • Done
• "Under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Grossman, gendarmes, Luftwaffe soldiers, and police auxiliaries.." This needs a semi-colon I think: "Under the command of SS-Obersturmführer Grossman; gendarmes, Luftwaffe soldiers, and police auxiliaries.." I initially read it as all those people being in command.
  • Done
• "Talia Farkash estimates.." Who is she?
  • Piotrus objected to "Israeli historian" because she is a PhD student. I am not sure what to label her, and hoped that it would not be necessary.
    • I can't see the objection to "Israeli historian" myself; she graduated in 2016, and is now a fellow. Even at the time she wrote it, irrespective of being a student, she was clearly a historian: she researched history and had that work published in a reputable journal. But anyway, it is by-the-by for this review; at GA I'm not going to be too fussy about it, but were this to move onto ACR or FA, I would hope for a resolution. Harrias ^talk 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• "..about 1,400 Jews were still alive in the labor camps around Irena:[9] 1,000–2,000.." The first figure (1,400) needs to be a range too, otherwise the 1,000 to 2,000 figure causes confusion.
  • That's because only one source gives an estimate for all the camps. It's inconsistent with Silberklang's estimate of the number of people at the airfield camp, but his estimate is an outlier.
    • Could you make it clear in the text that they are different estimates? Harrias ^talk 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Notable inmates

• Could this be merged into the text elsewhere to avoid a very short section that seems a bit like trivia.
  • Done

Links

• Gniewoszów, Masovian Voivodeship is linked twice at the end of the Ghetto section.
• Operation Barbarossa is linked for a second time in the Forced labor section.
  • Fixed both

Images

• File:UT 2 w Szkole Orlat w Deblinie.jpg would benefit from a caption.
  • Fixed
• File:Irena, Lublin map.png requires source and author information.
  • Please see the open street map template on the description page and additional sources provided below.
• Otherwise images are appropriately tagged, captioned and have alt text provided.

Sourcing

• Referencing is consistently and appropriately laid out to reliable sources.
• No spot checks carried out, as an experienced nominator.

Overall, good work as always, mostly minor prose points to resolve. Harrias ^talk 16:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your comments. It may take me a few days to work through them. buidhe 19:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think I have fixed everything! Thanks again. buidhe 01:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I have provided a couple of responses, but neither of them are required to meet the GA criteria, so I'm happy to pass this either way. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

On "Jewish bands"

There is a discrepancy when referring to Jewish versus AK/Polish partisans as "bandits". Past discussions on this issue include Talk:Home_Army/Archive_5#Attitude_towards_refugees. Zimmerman states in The Polish Underground and the Jews:

1. p. 185: The use of the term “bandit groups” to describe Jewish fugitives from the ghettos during the liquidation campaigns began to be more pronounced. To many Jewish historians, the appearance of this term in underground reports revealed a gross lack of sympathy for the predicament of Jews in hiding.
2. p. 262: In the summer of 1943, the Polish Underground’s reports on banditry routinely named Jews as important players but rarely expressed sympathy or understanding for them as objects of ruthless, unmasked genocide on the part of the occupation regime.
3. p. 266: Having fled from ghettos and camps to the forests, where Jews were being hunted down like wild animals, and being forced to seize food from farmers to stay alive, Gen. Komorowski described these same people as “criminal and subversive elements. No communication from the commander was ever disseminated to the rural population calling upon them to aid their fellow citizens in dire straits.”

That's why Jews should be called partisans or refugees (or perhaps fugitives) but not "bands". (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I generally agree, unless we are quoting sources. As you note, Zimmerman himself noted that the term "bandit groups" was used by the Polish resistance. That said, we should be able to avoid quotes in most cases. The issue, however, is that we also should avoid editorializing for sympathy. The "band" may indeed be negative, but "refugees" is generally positive. One person's terrorist is another person's freedomfighter, a Jew stealing from poor Polish peasants was a bandit to them, but a hero to his fellow refugees starving in the nearby forest. And the context is food theft by presumably organized groups (since this is what a "bandit group" or "band" implies). Maybe the best neutral term would be "groups", since we are dealing with a mix of partisans and refugees (Bielski partisans, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that "refugee" is a positive term? All it does is describe what the person does (fleeing for their life), not whether they are good or bad. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Band: "a group of people who share the same interests or beliefs, or who have joined together for a special purpose: The former president still has a small band of supporters." Band does not connote bandit, nor is it pejorative. I happen to concur that there were anti-Semitic elements in Home Army, and that the use of "bandits" to describe Jews (whether simply on the run from the Germans or in an organized resistance group) would likely be an expression of that anti-Semitism. At the same time, let's not misinterpret the English language. But if we can get to WP:CONS by instead using "group", which normally works, then let's try that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: The meaning and moral value of "band", like that of "murder", is context-dependent. A "band of musicians" is fine, a "band of bandits" isn't; a "murder of crows" is fine, any other sort of murder isn't. François Robere (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, The term refugee tends to invoke notions of sympathy, as refugees are usually hapless souls who are seeking refuge from something, no? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: What Zimmerman and virtually all other neutral sources say on the matter (see the discussion cited by Buidhe, in which you participated) is that the term was used pejoratively and discriminatingly against Jews. That means we cannot, and should not state it in Wikivoice, nor without context. Everything else - including one person's terrorist is another person's freedomfighter and the "fugitives" were stealing resources from the peasants - is WP:FORUM at best. François Robere (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, I am hardly attached to the use of the word "band". Do you have any issues with "group"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No objection to "group", but we need to be clear that this discussion won't recur in another two years. The TA doesn't benefit from rehashing settled discussions when the sources, properly represented, haven't changed. Also, we need to watch for other instances of biased phrasing, eg. "requisition" for AK vs. "raid" for the Bielskis.[11] François Robere (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, that's exactly the point. Afaics "band of bandits" was not in use here in the first place. It appears someone has perceived antisemitism in the use of band as connoting bandit per se, which actually reminds me of a Woody Allen joke but never mind. As a matter of fact, etymology shows band as connected to ring and circle - while bandit comes from banned, not band. Anyway, facepalm, and to repeat: we can use "group" as life really is too short. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that "bands" implies that these Jewish groups are "bandits". The word "bands" can be used to refer to groups of people with a common interest. When I think of the word "bands", I think of the TV show Band of Brothers (miniseries), referring to a group of men in a US military company. However, if consensus says that they should be called a "group" instead of a "band" then I will not be too bothered. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus edit

The Yad Vashem source never says that this family's effort was at all related to the local attitude towards Jews, so this sentence is entirely WP:SYNTH.[12] Remember, none of these individuals credited with rescuing Jews get a mention in any of the secondary sources on the town, so I have to conclude that expanding at all would be WP:UNDUE. (Removing entirely would be fine by me.) As for this,[13] it's hardly a trivial detail. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Buidhe, please respond. Is the dispute still ongoing, or we came to an agreement here (see [14] the conversation you took part). Yes or Not please - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, Regarding the sentence "Despite the difficult relations between Jews and locals, a small number of individuals tried to offer assistance to Jewish fugitives.", it's WP:SKYISBLUE obvious and I think uncontroversial statement intended to provide context; we all know that the local relations were difficult and assistance was provided only by a tiny minority - or do you disagree with that general statement? Zimmerman says similar things in his books many times, as do many other scholars. My concern here is that for the reader the transition from talking about one topic to another is jarring here, which I clearly noted in my edit summary.

The other claim, hmm. What does Farkash say, exactly, and is there a source cited for this?

And why do you persist of removing the details/clarification related to the Righteous? [15], [16] _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, there's no source that connects in any way these two separate issues. Putting in this sentence is a clear WP:SYNTH violation, not to mention adding unnecessary bloat to the article. These types of transitions are encouraged in student writing but not on Wikipedia because they are WP:OR magnets.

If it's not covered in secondary sources that are specifically related to Deblin-Irena, then what makes it WP:DUE? None of the "clarifications" are necessary unless you insist on putting in the WP:OR sentence referring to "locals". (t · c) buidhe 08:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, The sentence has nothing to do with SYNTH or OR. It's an uncontroversial statement of fact for general context. I invited you to comment on whether it has any errors or is controversial. I am still waiting for you to address the issues raised. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I also oppose the addition of this text in the article, as it is unnecessary detail which causes bloating in the article. The article doesn't need to be specific on the socio-economic status of this family or how many people they saved because the article is not about the family; it's about the Jewish people in this area during WWII. Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

quotations requests

re: [17]

Please provide quotations to support the statement made that are being disputed. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disputed text for clarity below - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants. According to Farkash, in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group into the camp. Most Jews who tried to escape were captured, and others returned to the camp.

"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"

"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.” (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

So... where do the above two paragraphs mention "Jewish fugitives"? Where does the second paragraph, from page 361, mention Irena or Deblin? Volunteer Marek 07:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, could you clarify the major concern VM raised rather than reverting [18]. Such a reaction is not what's expected. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased the source in my own words, which is required to avoid copyright violation. Also, the phrase "Jewish bands" cannot be used per WP:IMPARTIAL as it is a pejorative term. Not sure what the objection is. During World War II, Deblin was in Pulawy county. (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your “rephrasing” does not match the source, that’s the problem! Additionally, even if we allow for the WP:SYNTh in regard to Pulawy, your statement is both inaccurate and cherry picked. First, the source doesn’t say “accused”. It says “stated” (it’s gives one example of a report). Second, the source goes on to provide examples where Home Army reported on local rescue of Jews (in a positive manner). Third, the issue here is of communist groups which robbed the local peasants so the whole issue is only tangentially related to the topic of this article.

I would also appreciate it Buidhe, if you made an actual effort to discuss the disagreements and not only when you’re edit warring. If someone posts an objection, you don’t respond for four days, then that someone undoes your edit, and ONLY THEN you bother responding, as a way of justifying your own reverts, that’s not good practice and it’s not a good look. Volunteer Marek 01:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And let me point out, *again*, that some of these issues were already discussed previously back in Dec 19, pre FAR, as can be seen from the discussions above. Back then even acknowledged some of these issues (for example, stating “ Although I do give Farkash less weight because she does not have a PhD yet”), so I’m not clear on why you’re digging in now, post FAR. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Bands" is just a pejorative word used to describe Jews who were on the run from German authorities and trying to survive. I can't believe you're suggesting that this report should be accepted by Wikipedia as reliable, since it uses clear Jewish Bolshevism stereotypes. Farkash paper is peer-reviewed and a reliable source. I tried to come to a compromise above, but clearly you aren't happy with any compromise. The claims that you're objecting to are not at all extraordinary. Pretty much any reliable source on the Holocaust states that Jews encountered a hostile and/or indifferent attitude from the population in Eastern Europe. It would be a surprise if this particular corner of it was any different. (t · c) buidhe 02:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing about whether the report should be accepted as reliable or not, please don’t try to construct strawman here. I’m also not interested in your own original research. And I’m not clear what you mean when you claim that you tried to “compromise”. All you’ve done is revert and avoid discussion. Volunteer Marek 03:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, what source says that AK used such term to describe Jewish fugitives? (I’m quoting you) - "Bands" is just a pejorative word used to describe Jews who were on the run from German authorities and trying to survive"? (For clarity, I'm talking about Jewish fugitives in general, not Communist groups, which they are referring to as "bands.") - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, read the quote. It uses the phrase "Jewish bands". Jews joined partisan groups, communist or otherwise, (they were banned from joining the AK in most places) mostly because they were on the run and trying to survive. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I read the quote several times, and the quote does not say what you wrote. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore this “they were banned from joining the AK in most places” is also original research and if anything reveals the POV baggage you’re bringing to this article. Hell, Zimmerman himself, who is the source we’re discussing , gives numerous examples of Jews in the AK. Volunteer Marek 03:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The sentences cited to Zimmerman 2015 213 & 361 seem a reasonable reflection of the content per the quote provided for pg213 and my own reading of 361. Perhaps there is space for tweaks, eg. noting it was the "local" home army, but not seeing the case for wholesale removal. The sentence cited to Farkash 2014 67 seems a pretty straight reflection of the source text, even adding additional nuance. Farkash 2014 74 seems a similarly straightforward reading, aside from being a bit less explicit about the murder outcome. CMD (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why it was so important for this text to be removed before consensus was reached to remove it. I wish WP:BRD was used, instead of a back-and-forth edit war. I don't think either side looks good in the edit history.

I accessed both the Zimmerman and Farkash sources, both of which I regard as high-quality sources. I think the above text is verified by the sources, but I might cite other places in Zimmerman where they talk about Jewish fugitives, like Zimmerman 356-357, or perhaps change the text from "Jewish fugitives" to "Jewish people". However, I do not support the wholesale removal of the text and think it should remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no.. and I'm completely puzzled by your (Z1720 and CMD) analysis of the given sources. So, according to you, this quote from the source -

"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands"

Supports this text in our article?

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants. 

Am I understanding you correctly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah.. so? Do you see the word Polish in the quote? NO. (The area was multiethnic, consisting of Polish, Ukrainian and even Belarussian origins. Farmers whose food was stolen could be of any of the above origins) Do you see the word fugitive (from Dęblin) in the quote? Also, NO, the source says nothing of that.

I'll write exactly what this particular quote says. You are welcome to include that in the article if that source is to be used. See below:

In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that the local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

I believe this will solve the first portion; I'll move to the next later. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that, at this time, the area surrounding Lublin was part of Poland (or the German-occupied Poland) so to say that the local population was Polish is correct from a nationalistic perspective. The source also specifically refers to the Polish population in other parts of the text several times (including on page 213, which is one of the references pages). buidhe does the source say what the author refers to when they use the word "Polish"? For example, is the author referring to ethnic Poles, nationalistic Poles, or something else? (And can you provide the quote/source that specifies your perspective?) If the source doesn't indicate this, I am fine with removing the word "ethnic" from the original text. GizzyCatBella in my opinion you need to stop removing the whole text from the article. You do not have a consensus to remove the text, and this discussion will not work if you keep trying to remove the text. Do not make any changes to the article. Let this discussion play out. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 That’s not what the quote Buidhe presented says (look at Buidhe' quote and compare it with the text she wrote, we are talking about that quote), if the book quotes more that supports the text presented by her, then please quoted it. (Sorry Z1720, I’ll get back to you later with more, I’m busy at the moment.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree: Zimmerman talks about the local population of Dęblin. Deblin is part of Poland at this time; therefore, the local population is, by their nationality (not ethnicity) Polish. Another example might be that my nationality (the country I am a citizen of) is Canadian, but my ethnicity (where my ancesters are from) can be British, Malaysian, or Cree. Also, we don't have to use the quotes buidhe provided to support the text; if other high-quality sources support the text, we can switch out the references. I provided one such example above where I think a different page number in Zimmerman's book might support the text more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be switched to "non-Jewish population". "Fugitives" does not imply that they are necessarily from Deblin because they could have fled from other places as well. However, GCB's proposal is unacceptable because it takes this report at face value when it cannot be considered a reliable source. The antisemitic prejudices in this particular division of the Home Army are well documented. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Need a different word than "fugitives". Need a different phrasing than "accused". GCB's proposal is fine and accurately reflects the source. It DOES NOT "take the report at face value". The proposed text specifically attributes the claim to the report. Your opinion on "antisemitic prejudices" is neither here nor there and it is original research and all it does here is illustrate how you're manipulating the underlying text. Volunteer Marek 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

More generally, the question is WHY THIS particular snippet from Zimmerman? Zimmerman's book is excellent and balanced. He mentions bad stuff. He mentions good stuff. But this is going through the source and just picking out the bad stuff but not including the good stuff (same is true of couple other sources in the article actually). Which *is* a form of misrepresentation of a source. Volunteer Marek 23:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

So in an effort to come to a resolution, how is the text below?

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.[1] According to Farkash, in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group into the camp.[2] Most Jews who tried to escape were captured, and others returned to the camp.

This changes "local ethnic Polish population" to "the local non-Jewish population", "hostile to Jewish fugitives" to "hostile to Jewish people,", "stealing from ethnic Polish peasants." to "stealing from local peasants." I don't see text in the source that supports that Jewish bands were fugitives, as the text doesn't specify where the Jewish people in the bands came from. If there is text the describes the people's origins, please provide a quote below and we can include it as a reference. Is this an acceptable change? Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

These changes are good and address a good part of the problem. But I still take issue with the "accused". This was just a standard report, one of thousands that HA produced on local conditions in the field. Whether it's accurate or not is beside the point. But it's not an "accusation". This wasn't a legal proceeding or an op-ed or something.

The problem with Farkash are different and we can return to that later. Volunteer Marek 23:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I see two quotes from Zimmerman that comment on Home Army reports, in which HA personnel state that Jewish people are joining communist bands and are stealing from the local population. I believe that verifies that the Home Army is making these accusations. If you think it should be changed, please propose text below. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied with Z1720's proposal. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, no, no... :) lets do it all over again step by step .. the quote does not say ... the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people the source says ...hostile to the Jewish communist bands. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestions are welcome; starting over is not and would be counter-productive. If a user wants something changed, please suggest changes to the proposed text or propose new text. In my opinion, Zimmerman supports that the local population was hostile to Jewish people with this quote: "In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands." The report is making a clear distinction between the communist bands and the Jewish bands. Yes, there is overlap between the two groups, and the Home Army accuses these Jewish bands of becoming communist, but this report singles out Jewish people as the group the locals are hostile towards. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Switching fugitives for people seems to reduce information (any communist or Jewish bands would be fugitives at the time), but overall the rewrite seems fine. The second sentence references page 361 as well, which doesn't seem to have been taken into account above. CMD (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

    We should make it clear that per the source cited, the "fugitives" were stealing resources from the peasants. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I thought this was reasonably clear already? They are the subject of the paragraph. CMD (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 I reverted your "fact" tag because it's being discussed above. We would appreciate your input. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for flagging. For starters, good old WP:SAID would cover the use of 'accused' here. Simply switching it to 'said' fixes that part of the puzzle, as it normally does. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I weakly oppose including "fugitives" as an adjective for these Jewish people. Although it is safe to assume that many Jewish people in Poland were targeted and displaced by Nazis during this time, we do not know the origins of the people who made up these bands. Also, fugitive implies that a person is trying to avoid capture by police, but some POVs might be that these people are part of a guerilla group or militia and thus are combatants in WWII, which would not qualify them as fugitives. Since the source doesn't describe the status of these bands, I think it is better to use a more general term until more information comes forward.

Piotrus I oppose including text that states the Jewish bands (referred to as "fugitives" in your comment above) were stealing from the local population. The Home Army reports are accusations and difficult to authenticate. I think it is better to say that these accusations were in reports as that is supported by the source. I would be willing to reassess this if a high-quality source states that Jewish bands were stealing from the local population.

Chumchum7 I'm not fully against using "said" instead of "accused", but I think accused is more accurate. The credibility of Home Army reports is questioned in the source, so calling their statement into question, as using the word "accused" does, is appropriate in this instance. As always, I'm interested to see other perspectives on this. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's great to see you're interested to see other perspectives as it's the only way WP reaches WP:CONS. Hopefully others will learn from you. If everyone can tolerate 'said' in this case, then we've made progress. Speaking of perspective, I once read an interesting quote from the Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich - who happens to be a New Yorker. He said that many people from Poland think the Poles had a better record in the Holocaust than is accurate, and many people from outside Poland think the Poles had a worse record in the Holocaust than is accurate. I wouldn't mind this quote being put at the top of this Wiki topic area. It pretty much explains where people are coming from in all its debates, including this one. Zimmerman doesn't support the stereotype in the proposed line of content: "the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people." -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, The cited source above doesn't differentiate between the claim that the local populace is hostile and that food is being stolen. We should observe what it says. Otherwise, this is cherry-picking and editorializing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I read Michael Schudrich's wiki article, and I don't think his quote can be included in this article. Since this is a featured article, the sources need to be high-quality. Schudrich doesn't seem to be a scholar of WWII, so his opinion is not based on an analysis of the documents of the time period. His status as a Chief Rabbi and residence in Poland, does not fulfill the high-quality standard required for this topic. Please let me know if I am mistaken about something in his bio. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, Please explain how having a "residence in Poland" relates to not meeting "high-quality standards". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Residing in a country where an event happened does not cause that person to be a subject matter expert, and thus cannot be considered when evaluating if their work is a high-quality source. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, Just residing, no. But having a prominent position, such as being the Chief Rabbi of Poland, does make him an international authority on the Polish-Jewish topics. He is often cited in the press, not just in Polish but international (American, Israeli, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I referred to his quote with regard to this discussion only, not with a view to including it in article content. The whole topic area of Polish-Jewish relations would benefit from thinking about his words, is what I am saying. The notion that "the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people" is the type of preconception he is referring to.
• As is the notion that the allegation of Jewish groups taking food must be an antisemitic concoction. Call it 'theft' or 'requisition', no armed group on the run from the Germans (whether Polish nationalist, Polish communist, Jewish communist, Jewish nationalist, etc.) produced their own food. One way or another they all took it from the local population.The Polish Home Army stole food as a matter of survival also. People were hostile to people taking their food, regardless of their race.
• So the idea that The Home Army reports are accusations and difficult to authenticate would require a theory about where these Jewish groups got their food if they didn't requisition it, which is what everyone else was doing. Answer: no such theory exists. So yes, Jewish armed groups took civilians' food and for the Home Army to complain about it was hypocritical rather than inaccurate. Some might describe that hypocrisy as anti-Semitic.
• For the record, there's no doubt that the Home Army's policy on Jews changed for the worse in 1943 with the change in leadership from the philo-Semitic Polish socialist Stefan Rowecki to the Polish nationalist Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski, who FWIW I personally have no reservation describing as an anti-Semite based on the reliable secondary sources.
• Darned complicated stuff, which requires more nuance and less generalization. Proposed content requires more work. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Chumchum7, you pretty much nailed it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: The Zimmerman quote at the top of the discussion does not say where the Jewish groups got their food from. It is possible the bands were given the food by the local population, or they foraged in the forest, or Allied groups were able to sneak food into them through underground networks. Yes, I think it's likely that these bands stole food, but I won't support this inclusion unless a source verifies that information because assumptions lead to original research; it's the same reason why I do not support calling the Jewish bands "fugitives". If a source does verify this, please post it below. Also, if the "proposed content requires more work" please post your suggested text below. Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To reply to the ping above on fugitives, I feel from the text of the article that any Jew outside of the established ghettos would be a fugitive by definition, and don't see the distinction between guerillas and fugitives, but don't feel it's too important. On stealing, I agree with the above that any such people were surely stealing some food, but both the source and the article text are more a commentary on the focus of the Home Army than a dispute of the underlying facts. Overall though, I think proposed the text is fine as stands. On wider concerns about the overall situation in Poland or overall Home Army policy, this article is not about that, it focuses on a very small and select area for which the relevant sources' quotes are directly applicable. CMD (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@CMD - You removed the tag[19] claiming that there is a source present - Quote what source says below please.GizzyCatBella🍁 02:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this request. Please read the above conversation? CMD (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it in the above conversation any quote that supports -

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jews.

Could you please quote what part you are referring to that justified the removal of the tag? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You have asked this exact question above already, where it was answered. I refer you to that, and suggest this discussion stay focused on Z1720's suggested tweaks. CMD (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@CMD - You know what? Forget it, instead focus on reaching an agreement. Please read Chumchum7’s proposal below. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Using the source text:

"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"

I can propose the content:

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division said communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He says that according to a Home Army report, while the local population had rather favorable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups who took their food and resources.

Two points for context. (i) Elsewhere Zimmerman shows that Jews were barred from some units of the Home Army, indicating that joining or forming communist partisan groups was the obvious alternative. I would add a line of sourced content showing there were very good reasons why Jews joined communist groups; the place of the Antisemitism is not the depiction of the communist groups as heavily Jewish, it's the barring of Jews from some elements of the Home Army that was Antisemitic. (ii) Zimmerman is treating the Home Army as an inevitably biased primary source, not a source that cannot be used because it 'lacks credibility'. Both in academia and at Wikipedia, one expects bias in primary sources and this does not mean they lack credibility. Note that 48% of all reports received by the British secret services from continental Europe in WWII came from Polish sources, mainly the Home Army. The total number of those reports is estimated about 80,000, of which 85% of them were "high or better quality". As a primary source, the Home Army is just as unreliable and as credible as any other Allied force. --Chumchum7 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

How about we use “said” instead of “accused” (since the second is WP:OR) and “groups” instead of “bands” or “fugitives”? Wouldn’t that solve the issues? Volunteer Marek 05:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what I am proposing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, now the quote is transcribed correctly. No WP:OR, just fine. That’s what the source says. Thank you Chumchum7. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC

The report specifically came from the Home Army's anti-communist division. Zimmerman says that in contrast to some other parts of Home Army, it did not report sympathetically on Jews. (p. 188) "The anti-communist division – Antyk – was ironically a subdivision of BIP whose leaders constituted the Home Army’s progressive, pro-Jewish wing. This juxtaposition of pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish elements within the same bureau was a reflection of Polish society’s profound ambivalence toward the Jews. As discussed in Chapter 5, individuals working for Antyk held fervent anti-communist views that included a belief in the żydokomuna stereotype. It is thus not surprising that one of Antyk’s first reports covering the period of mid-January to mid-March 1943 is marked by a distinct anti-Jewish orientation." I hope you agree that we do not want to be reproducing zydokomuna stereotypes on Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, Are you denying that there were cases where food was stolen from peasants? Is saying that this happened a "żydokomuna stereotype"? Anyway, it's cherry-picking, the same report says the locals were hostile to Jews, which you accept at face value, but when the report accuses Jews of stealing food, now that's unreliable? Ockham's razor is quite simple. Poor local peasants did not want to give food to Jewish refugees, so they stole the food, which led to a vicious cycle that Zimmerman and others often describe. (And whether the initial refusal to aid the refugees was because of antisemitism, or because the peasants were starving themselves and had nothing to spare, or because of a combination of these and other factors, the source doesn't say and it's unlikely we will ever know in this particular context, i.e., the "Dęblin and Irena" area). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, and don’t overlook the death penalty imposed by the Germans on Poles for offering any help to the Jew. (see - German retribution against Poles who helped Jews) That included supplying them with food. Any food, even a glass of water. That played a role as well in some cases. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In theory, a death penalty existed for such help (along with many other activities theoretically punishable by death in German-occupied Poland). In practice, death penalty was not consistently enforced and when it was, it was for long-term help to Jews, not giving someone a glass of water. Furthermore, on-paper death penalty for anyone aiding Jews also existed in most other German-occupied countries. (t · c) buidhe 09:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RS disagrees with you, Buidhe, on everything you wrote above. Quote from RS and link below:

Unlike in most other German-occupied countries, where fines or imprisonment was the normal penalty, in Poland, the death penalty was prescribed for rendering assistance (even a cup of water) to the Jews. In Poland, this penalty was routinely and summarily imposed on the offenders and their entire family.

Page 141 if you need to confirm [20] By the way, I'm always happy to help with information, so if you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the in the tq above is on Page 114. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@buidhe In working towards WP:CONS, do you have any proposed adjustment to my above attempt to achieve consensus content? Your needs are as important as everyone else's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: I don't fully support your proposed text. One issue I have is with the structure of the first sentence: Zimmerman is not claiming that this Home Army report exists, of which the existence of the report is disputed. Instead, Zimmerman is recording what a Home Army report says. Also, having a "Z says that Y says that...." structure is not the best-quality prose and should be avoided, as I think it can be here. If there is dispute on the existence of this Home Army report, then we need to start a new discussion on what sources dispute the existence of the report Zimmerman cites.

Also, the Home Army report cited above specifically says that the local population was hostile to Jewish bands. As stated in the source, "“In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”" If we are describing that the local population was favourable to communist bands, we need to list that the locals were not favourable to Jewish bands.

Chumchum7's proposal also removes the Farkash information. There has not been enough discussion here about Farkash for me to determine if they are a high-quality source. If editors propose removing Farkash, I would like a separate discussion about that (preferably in a new section.) Therefore, I oppose Chumchum7's proposed text. I still support my proposed text from two days ago:

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.[1] According to Farkash, in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group into the camp.[2] Most Jews who tried to escape were captured, and others returned to the camp.

I did not try modifying Chumchum7's text and create a new proposal because it removed so much text and was too far from what the original text and sources stated, in my opinion. Please post suggested changes below. Z1720 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I also still support Z1720's text, for the same reasons. I believe Farkash' source is a high-quality RS because it was published in Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust (later renamed The Journal of Holocaust Research) an established, peer-reviewed journal associated with the University of Haifa and published by Taylor & Francis. (t · c) buidhe 23:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 - First, you write in your comment above - "If we are describing that the local population was favourable to communist bands, we need to list that the locals were not favourable to Jewish bands". The source does not say that locals were favorable to communist bands but favorable to communism. Second, the text you are posting is identical to what you already posted in this thread, and it was rejected. What's the point of posting it twice?

Here is the text I'm proposing, which is comparable to Chumchum7's proposal with a little tweak:

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who seized their food and resources.

The above captured form RS quote:

In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.

In my judgment, both Chumchum7's and mine are accurate descriptions of what the quote says. Yours is way off, and that was discussed already. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to accept that my text was rejected by some editors. I reposted it because I felt it was a better reflection of the sources and a better place to start from. I can see an argument that the local population supported communism, but this quote from Zimmerman "the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation."" causes me to believe that there was a separate communist group in this area, which was different from the Jewish group that was trending towards communism. This is a discussion we can have and it might result in changing my proposed text. However, I oppose GCB proposed text because it still doesn't solve the "Z says that Y says that...." concern, the removal of Farkash's information (which has not been fully discussed yet), and removes too much information to use as a starting point. If I am the only one with these concerns, I will admit that my opinion is outside of consensus and WP:DROP. If others agree with me, and the two sides can't come to a consensus, might need to go to a WP:RFC or WP:DRN. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Z1720 is right here. (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so lets editors select.

We are going to break your proposal into two parts; Zimmerman's book first. As of now, we are ONLY discussing that part. The second part we will do later since it's a different author and different quote.

Question: Which text matches the below quote more accurately?

Quote from the Zimmerman’s book:

In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.

Proposed text A

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.

OR

Proposed text B

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.

Please choose below A or B only without any with a brief comment if nessesary.

• A - obviously - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  GizzyCatBella, If we are attributing Zimmerman, maybe just quote him directly? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually that’s a good solution if we don’t get anywhere here Piotrus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Notes

@GizzyCatBella: This proposal is a great start but it needs some edits before it is ready for comments. First of all, there are many quotes from Zimmerman's book I sourced in my proposal and these additional quotes need to be included. Also, I noticed that you did not include the second sentence from my proposal, sourced to Farkash. Why was that excluded?

I would also like the choice of texts to be set up as a request for comment. This would allow new editors, who have not been following this discussion, to evaluate the text and give new perspectives. The more voices that participate, the more likely (hopefully) that a consensus will be reached. I also want to encourage editors to give feedback on why they selected their preference so I want to remove the stipulation that editors only provide a brief comment. The RFC will also create a new section on the talk page, so that editors are not intimidated by the large amount of discussion this topic has already produced. A draft text for the RFC will be posted as a new section below. Once the language of the proposal is finalised, I will either post the RFC myself or have another editor set up the RFC. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The issues to be fixed (Buidhe, maybe you could fix it?)

Our article in the Aftermath section reads:

Some of the Jewish survivors, who attempted to return home in January 1945, were told by the local Milicja Obywatelska police chief that it was illegal for them to settle in the town.

First

Milicja Obywatelska translates to Citizen's Militia, so it's not police. It should be - chief of local Milicja Obywatelska, not Milicja Obywatelska police chief.

Second

Source one reads (Kopciowski, Adam 2008 page 202)

In February 1945 ... Citizens Militia made it difficult for Jews returning to Dęblin-Irena to obtain residence permits.

Source two reads (Rice 2017 page 29):

In Dęblin Irena (near Krakow) Jews were informed that they could legally settle in only three cities, Lublin, Włodawa, and Żelechów.

Source three reads (Koźmińska-Frejlak, Ewa 2014 page 154):

... MO chief in Irena (Dęblin). In January 1945, he denied returning Jews the right to settle down in the city until they were able to produce a special permit.

The source that talks about MO chief in Dęblin don't say that he told Jewish survivors that it's illegal to settle. It says that he told them to obtain a permit before being allowed to settle. The sources don't say that some Jews had difficulties. Then if not some, then all faced a similar difficulty.

So taking these three sources provided as a base, the information should be recorded something like this:

In January 1945, Jewish survivors who attempted to return home to Dęblin-Irena were informed that they could settle legally only in other towns and that they need a special permit before settling in Dęblin-Irena. Milicja Obywatelska made it challenging for returning Jews to acquire residency permits.

- GizzyCatBella🍁 08:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:GizzyCatBella: The problem is that English-speaking readers probably don't know what the MO is. Although the name translates to "Citizens' Militia", it was actually a police force.[21] As for permits, I'm not sure this distinction is an important one (presumably it's illegal to settle without a permit.) None of the sources use the wording "some" or "all". What do you think about the following: Jewish survivors who attempted to return home in early 1945 found that the local Milicja Obywatelska (police) obstructed them from obtaining residence permits. (t · c) buidhe 08:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s okay too, I think.. Maybe wait a day or two for other's opinions, and if you don’t hear anything, replace it with the new text you wrote. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, If this is due, I'd again suggest just quoting the source directly. Was it obstruction, or just following some cumbersome regulations? Do we have any source that talks about whether gentile Poles had to produce any permits, or on the contrary, were exempt from it? Is it plausible everyone who wanted to settle down in that city required one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

They followed regulations introduced by people of Stronnictwo Ludowe, from what I remember. Such rules applied to everyone who wanted to settle in towns. (Meldunek, remember?) If there were some special separate rules for the Jews only, you ask? No, I’m not aware of such rules ever existing in Polska Ludowa, sources present don’t talk about it either, at least I didn’t see it. The obstruction these people are talking about were probably made at the lower level by Milicja in Dęblin for reasons unknown. Piotrus, I have no stamina for searching for sources again. I don't think we should explain why and who introduced these residency permits. What I and then Buidhe wrote accurately represent the sources present. If you want to take it from here and work on it further with Budhie go ahead. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)