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

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)

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 ([3]). 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: [4] “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? [5]. I also found there is a book in Polish about the local WWII history that seems to discuss the ghetto and such ([6]) 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[7] the section as the source itself was primary database, not a secondary scholarly source. Piotrus placed the wrong URL, it is [8]. 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)

Status of Dęblin Synagogue

pl: Dęblin Synagogue refs [9] 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 [10]. 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)

quotations requests

re: [11]

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 [12]. 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[13] 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 [14] 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)

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.[15] 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.[16] 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,[17] 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 [18] 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? [19], [20] _{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)

Draft text for an RfC

I have started this new section to determine the language for an RfC, as previous discussions were becoming too large. Below is a draft text for a proposed RfC. Once multiple editors have approved the proposed draft, it will be sent to RfC to generate comments from the wider Wikipedia community. This discussion is not where editors express a preference for which text they want in the article. Rather, this is to ensure that all sides approve of the RfC that will be conducted. Proposed text is below:

Title: RFC on proposed text

Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the sources?

The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman and Farkash:

"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.”

"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)"

The two proposed texts are:

Proposal A

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. 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.

Proposal 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.

Proposal C

A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.

Proposal D

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 some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Proposal E

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.

Proposal F

Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.

Proposal G

Zimmerman writes: "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.”"

Proposal H

None of these texts should be included, and the source should be excluded from the article.

References

Please indicate below if you approve of this text going to RfC, or would like to modify the text. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, It's a good idea, but I think we need more than just versions A and B. For example, my version has been omitted. There should be also an option of not mentioning this at all as possibly undue/not relevant (although I don't think it's the best, it should be included in the vote). My proposed version was "A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants".

And the vote should be separated for each of the two sentences. I.e. the first should be on whether include the sentence about the report, local populace, communists, and food. The second should be about the group of partisans seeking refuge from the Home Army. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I added your proposed text as "Proposal C". I didn't add references because I was unsure about which sources and pages you were citing. Would you like to add those references to your proposal? As for multiple RfCs, I would agree to do that. Just to clarify: are you suggesting an RfC on the text cited to Zimmerman, and a second RfC on the text cited to Farkash? Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I’m afraid we are going in circles here. There is more that these two versions of yours proposed (see section) [21]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The version of Proposal A in this section is the only version I am proposing for the RfC. If people who have supported my proposals have issues with my proposed text, I will discuss possible changes below. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We already discussed it here[22] and I have the proposal opened including your version there. You opened a new section omitting proposals of others. I’m not impressed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal has not been posted to RfC, and I do not see evidence that anyone who has supported my proposals has endorsed your proposal. If there is missing text from the draft above, please post it below so it can be added. An alternative is we can approach WP:DRN and ask a mediator to help us create this RfC. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope. My proposal has been composed above by another editor earlier and later posted by me again with a bit of tweak. At least one other editor supported it, so I’m afraid you are mistaken here. I assume a lot of text may be confusing. But perhaps instead of me posting the proposal here yet again in yet another section you opened talking about the same thing, maybe it's better to continue in the unfinished section. What do you think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Mediation might be necessary; thank you for suggesting that. Otherwise, I’m afraid we will have to use direct quotes in the article. This is not going anywhere as of now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think it is best to start with Z1720's version and propose changes to it as desired. (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, buidhe, does your above comment state that you support an RfC using my draft language? Also, would you participate in WP:DRN if it was proposed? Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    Z1720, Yes to both. Thanks so much for your contributions here. (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your response buidhe, I will wait until tomorrow to open up a DRN. My response to DRN's question of "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" will be: "I hope a mediator will help us create an RfC that accurately reflects the material all sides want to include in the article, and possibly post the RfC on our behalf." I will also include everyone who has been part of the above discussions since May 19, when the material was first removed from the article. If any editors have concerns about my plan, please comment below. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Afaia Wikipedia policy and guidelines would not support treating RFC as place to invite outside comment on an editor's preferred choice of two versions of content, which omits at least a third version of content recently rejected by the same editor.
• Separately I'm not certain that Wikipedia policy and guidelines would support Wikipedia referring to a primary source in its own voice (in this case a Home Army report) when it does not have access to that source and is in fact citing a secondary source (Zimmerman) citing the primary source. As far as I'm aware guidance would ask us to attribute the information to Zimmerman referring to the Home Army report.
• Thirdly I would appreciate if someone could point me to where Zimmerman supports the content "the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people" because for some reason I can't see it. This phrase means that every single local person who was not a Jew was hostile to Jews, and is the sort of generalization that we normally eschew on Wikipedia - and particularly in the WP:ARBEE time pit. Moreover, WP:NPOV asks us to balance what one secondary source says with what other secondary sources say: none of them have a monopoly on truth.
• For the record, recent scholarship shows that tens of thousands of Poles murdered tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust; that shame is difficult for Polish nationalists to handle, and it's also an estimate that less than 1% of the Polish population murdered Jews. How the rest of the Polish population behaved towards Jews is a matter of secondary source debate. For example, Gunnar S. Paulsson has said the majority "were passively protective" - and like Zimmerman, he has no monopoly on truth.
• If we can all agree on quoting Zimmerman directly, that should fix this absurdly long discussion here and now. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 - You nailed yet again! Your wisdom, knowledge, and experience are appreciated here. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of you have addressed one of Z1720's main concerns at all; that is, the removal of Farkash source without discussion. Furthermore, saying that popular attitudes were one way or another is not a form of collective guilt because it does not remotely imply that every single person agrees. Since attitudes differed from place to place I'm not sure why you are quoting something that has nothing to do with this particular location. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, do you agree to quote Zimmerman directly instead? After all, the original disputed text - "..the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jews" you composed and wrote into our article citing Zimmerman[23]. As said earlier already, your voice is as important. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what I wrote originally, that was a later proposal. Originally it stated "Jewish fugitives". (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This diff indicates otherwise True, you wrote "to Jewish fugitives" [24] Who wrote that then? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove Farkash. I worked on Zimmerman first. There is nothing stopping Farkash being worked on next. Meanwhile I maintain what I raised in my last message, and still wait for it to be addressed. That said, I am getting closer to WP:DISENGAGE because in my 12 years experience of the WP:ARBEE area this discussion is looking a lot like something that will end up with administrator intervention. --Chumchum7 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, You later changed to "ethnic Polish" population was hostile to Jewish fugitives.[25] Where does that source say that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm about to WP:DISENGAGE as well. I have no more energy for this. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: I see above that you wanted to disengage from the topic. I don't want editors to think that I am ignoring your concerns, but I also want to respect your desire to disengage. If you are still interested in creating an RfC, I hope editors can work together to find a solution. If there's no response, I will take that to mean that you want to stay disengaged, I apoligise for the ping, I won't ping you again.

In answer to some of your above comments: I'm in favour of having multiple proposed texts in an RfC. Should the draft also add options like "None of these texts support what is described in the source" and/or "the text should be removed"? Re: comments about Zimmerman referencing a primary source, and whether we should quote Zimmerman directly: this is an option that we can add to the RfC. Would you like to propose some text below? For comments on analysing the sources ("if someone could point me to where Zimmerman supports the content") I acknowledge that editors don't think this question has been answered, but I think it has been, which might be contributing to frustration from multiple editors. I don't want to get into a discussion on the merits of proposed texts; those discussions and questions can happen at the RfC. I hope this section will compile a draft that we can bring to RfC and get more editor's input. Do you endorse having an RfC to determine Wikipedia's consensus is on what text (if any) should go here? Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I see your concerns that the removal of Farkash has not been addressed. My interpretation of the above discussions (in multiple sections) is that this has been put on hold for now and might be discussed later. I would be in favour of having two separate RfCs: one to address the text quoted to Zimmerman, the other to address text quoted to Farkash. I don't want to discuss the merits of Farkash here. Would you also be in favour of creating two separate RfCs? Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, Two separate RfCs is fine by me if you think it would work better. (t · c) buidhe 15:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 Is there any particular reason you, while finally adding a short version of another editor, skipped to include mine again? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I thought that Proposal B above was your proposed text. Do you have different text you would like to propose? If so, post it below and I'll add it above. Also, whose text is Proposal B? Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the proposed texts, I see that the first two sentences are the same. Clearly, I missed a proposal somewhere. Sorry about that! Should I replace Prop B with your proposed text below? Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My original proposal -

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 some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Chumchum7’s proposal with my tweaks:

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.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella Which version would you like to include in the RfC? Also, can this version replace Proposal B? (I think what happened, and it was an immense mess-up by me, was I thought Prop B in your straw poll was your proposed text. So can we replace this RfC's Prop B with your actual proposed text?) Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, note WP:TALKO and WP:TALK#REPLIED. Because it appears "Proposal C" was inserted into Z1720's first comment in this thread some time after my reply to it refers to Z1720 having made two proposals. I don't have time to go through the diffs to check when in the discussion it was inserted, and who by. The guidelines advise us not to edit our own comments after they've been replied to, because it only adds to confusion. Guidelines advise us to contribute to the bottom of the discussion if a reply has already been posted. The guidelines also advise us not to edit others' comments, it is disruptive. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: The text at the top is a draft, and it is going to go through changes. It's easier to keep all the information in one place. If you'd like, I can move the draft to its own page, if it would make it easier or I can add a note saying when Prop C was added. Proposal C was text proposed by Piotrus and added by me here: [26] If anything is to be removed, I will strike out text instead of deleting it. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 - Please include both proposals, I like Chumchum7 which I tweaked even better but would like to have mine taken into consideration also.. since I spent about 11 hours of my soon ending life here already. Also, please remove Farkash from this RfC and make two separate RfCs, Zimmerman first which is this one and Farkash later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @Z1720 And if current proposal B is to be excluded is not up to me; I didn’t write it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GizzyCatBella for your prompt reply. Since multiple editors either desire or endorsed a separate RfC for Farkash's information, I have struckout Farkash as one of the sources quoted at the top of the draft. I also removed Proposal A, since the first sentence is the same as Proposal B, and the second sentence is sourced to Farkash, which will get their own RfC. I have added your two proposals as "Proposal D" and "Proposal E". GCB, I did not add references since I did not know which pages from Zimmerman should be cited or where they should be placed. Can you add the references to your proposal, or post below where you would like them to be placed? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Z1720. So you were confused; I can see that clearly now. As far as citations for Zimerman - they are the same as they are there now.

Recap so we are clear here:

Buidhe used below citations while writing the article: The citations read:

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.”

She then wrote this text into the article (see first diff)[27] based on the citations above. Following suggestions at FAC, Buidhe added to her text word "ethnic" before word "Polish" [28] for final version to read as below. (Note added after: Buidhe does not support addition of the word ethnic anymore but supports the below text without that word (see conversation below).Text remained in article until challenged on May 26th, 2021 [29]

"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.

After protests and inauguration of this discussion, you (Z1720) added offered the full text of below citation from page 361 on top of Buidhes already given citation from page 213:

"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.”

And you (Z1720) came up with this proposal:

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.

Then I (GCB) proposed this based on the same citation:

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 some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Then came Chumchum7’s proposal based on the same citation:

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.

Then Piotrus proposed below based on the same citation:

A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants. Am I correct here Piotrus , is this your proposal?

Then I (GCB) tweaked a little Chumchum7’s proposal adding “some”, “rural" etc. to read like this:

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.

Note: There are also proposals raised to quote Zimerman directly and to remove that text all together.

Thank you for your attention. (13th hour now!) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References:

@GizzyCatBella: I think the information above is correct. I don't think there's been specific proposed text on how "to quote Zimmerman directly" would be worded in a proposed text. I hope someone who supports this solution will post the suggested text below, and I will add it to the draft. I think the last "proposed text" in the RfC should be to remove that text. Once everything is proposed, the final draft wording of the RfC can be posted below and editors can say if they endorse opening up the RfC. I'll also note that the Farkash source, while part of his discussion, will be included in its own separate RfC which will be created at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I believe we are getting somewhere now.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, amazing progress was made today. It was mentioned above that this would be posted to DRN, but I don't think that's necessary anymore so I won't post there. Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as everyone has their proposal included in the RfC, I think everyone should be happy - well, not necessarily with the outcome, but that's for the wider community to discuss. I see my proposed sentence has been added there. Let's wait maybe 48h to make sure everyone active here had the opportunity to add their version there, if they want to, and then RfC should end this one way or another. Might be a good idea to ping some folks. @Buidhe, Volunteer Marek, Chumchum7, François Robere, and Chipmunkdavis:. I think that's everyone? Feel free to ping anyone I missed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• GCB's discussion above contains some inaccuracies. For example, both pages in Zimmerman were initially cited, not just the first one. The changes to "ethnic Poles" languages was made because it was requested at the FAC, not because it was my initial version. I prefer that Z1720 post the RfC since I haven't noticed them making any errors and it's important to get things right. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The point made by @Volunteer Marek: and others about whether or not to include this citation in the first place should come first in any RFC list of options. It is the most fundamental issue, not sufficiently discussed here. It's like we've been nitpicking for years about which type of nuclear power plant our country should go for, thereby distracting ourselves from whether we're better off making do with natural gas and renewables. Afair VM refers to it as a WP:CHERRYPICK; I don't yet have a view on that either way, but I am satisfied that Wikipedia's core aim of article stability has not been served well by this citation - and that alone makes a very strong case for Wikipedia to question whether it should be included at all.
• Given that instability problem, the second place in the RFC list should go to direct quotation, possibly in a box, with inline citation to Zimmerman: So Zimmerman writes: "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.”" --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 It is reasonable to consider leaving this sentence out, but if so the next sentence to Farkash should be retained, since it is directly pertinent to the town/airfield camp. I'm not sure what article stability has to do with the inclusion of content, and it certainly isn't a "core aim" of the project. WP:Article stability is a redlink. (t · c) buidhe 10:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, please do not modify other people comments as you did here [30]

This is against policy. If you are disputing that you wrote that text into our article and can prove it, I'll be happy to strike that for you myself. But let's take a look again before I do that.

On January 1st, 2020, you composed[31] this text based on the quote from Zimmerman and recorded it into our article:

"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."

On September 9, 2020, you expanded it [32] adding "ethnic" to the word "Poles" "Polish" utilizing the same Zimmerman's reference for text to look like this:

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

The text you composed and wrote remained in our article until May 19, 2021 [33] till an editor challenged the text you wrote as not pairing with reference you added. [34].

• Beetwin May 19 and May 26th, 2021 you defended that exact text by performig 5 reverts:

• 1 - [35],
• 2 - [36],
• 3 - [37],
• 4 - [38]

and finally on May 26th

• 5 - [39]

If you can find any mistakes in what I just wrote please point it out and I’ll correct it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's incorrect to attribute this change to me since it was proposed at the FAC by another editor. I would consider it inaccurate what you write above since you said On September 9, 2020, you expanded it when it would be more accurate to say, "According to the suggestions at the FAC, it was edited". No, I did not edit anyone else's comment. (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  I also request that you change the version attributed to me to the one I actually support. When I receive reviewer comments, I often make them even if I'm neutral on or don't have a position on them specifically. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, so you made additional changes without double-checking the reference but relying on advice given to you at FAC. I understand mistakes happen; we are all humans, but it's a good lesson for the future. I'll make those changes for you. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. (t · c) buidhe 10:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:buidhe, in reply to your comment higher up the page: FYI article stability is one of the six specified criteria for Good Article status at WP:GACR, it's also encouraged by policies WP:CONS, WP:WAR and others. When all else fails, sometimes leaving out troublesome content has contributed to stability. Especially in the notoriously febrile WP:ARBEE space, where editors are routinely blocked for fighting over content instead of working collegially towards a stable consensus. Back to the task at hand, I submitted my proposed content higher up this thread. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: It's generous and gracious of you to say you made a mistake earlier, and this has straightened some things out. I am finding the changes to the top of this thread confusing, and do think it best to stick to WP:TALK#REPLIED. Generally I'd appreciate it you could follow the guidance there to add to the bottom of the thread. We now appear to be working on two chunks of Zimmerman, while my proposed content (and possibly others) was based on only the first one - so I'll have to compose another content proposal below. A couple of things that remain front of mind for me are that (i) "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands" ≠ "people are decidedly hostile to Jews" and (ii) I don't see that Zimmerman is implying it's necessarily a slur for the Home Army report to say these Jewish groups were communist; I see he's simply saying the Home Army said much of the local population didn't get along with these groups. Let's remember that according to secondary sources, many Jewish groups surviving outside the camps and ghettos proudly self-identified as communist (e.g. the nearby Parczew partisans and more famous Bielski partisans). All of these tactically cooperated with the much larger non-Jewish, Polish communist Gwardia Ludowa and Armia Ludowa (ethnic Polish communists heavily outnumbering Jewish communists) and/or Soviet forces. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: What is the proposed text that should be in the article? I will add your proposed text to the draft. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: While I appreciate that you say "I haven't noticed them making any errors and it's important to get things right." I would have to disagree: I've made some errors here. This is why I'm going to post a "Final draft version" of the RfC below once everyone has contributed for everyone to check and ensure that it's what we want posted to RfC. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720, with regret I'm now struggling to see how Wikipedia policy/guidelines would support inclusion of the second chunk of Zimmerman. This article is about an extraordinarily specific subject, the Holocaust in one small town, Deblin (current population 16,000) and its even smaller neighborhood of Irena. Per WP:NOTABILITY, if this article deserves to exist, then it needs to be about this town. The second chunk of Zimmerman doesn't mention Irena or Deblin at all - it mentions other towns in the wider area, which are not what this article is about.
• Could you let us know what "One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943." is referring to? One example of what? This may have a bearing on User:Volunteer Marek's point about WP:CHERRYPICK.
• This brings up a further problem that several of us here, myself included, do not have the whole book to hand and so cannot see the excerpts in their context - this is not best practice at Wikipedia and the problem would only be exacerbated with an RFC.
• For the citation to the first chunk of Zimmerman, I can propose another option: Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.
• Boiled down to the most basic problem, which people without the book can comment on, the question is whether or not the phrase "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands" in the context of this excerpt means "people are hostile to Jews". Personally, I don't believe it does. --Chumchum7 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Chumchum7: As I stated at the top of this section, I don't want to discuss the merits of each proposed text here. Instead, this section is trying to determine the language of the RfC, which will be posted once endorses opening the RfC. I read that you do not believe the quoted source supports that "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands". I disagree; I think the quoted prose from Zimmerman does support this and it is within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am hoping that an RfC will determine consensus on which proposed text best supports the information in the sources. If the Wikipedia community doesn't think my text is supported by policy and guidelines, it will be rejected.

• If you do not think an RfC is the best option, then how would you like to solve this dispute? I don't think more talk page discussions among ourselves is a workable solution, as that has led to the impasse we are currently experiencing. I would also accept a WP:DRN. If you would like to proceed with the RfC, can I add "Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups." as Proposal F? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to draft the RFC below, including my recent proposal as option F, but per above I don't think you can include the second chunk of Zimmerman. I do think you need to start the RFC with the option of not including the citation at all (i) with VM's cherrypick concern and (ii) ARBEE article stability in mind - with an indication of what an arduous Talk page discussion this has been. Who knows, they might hand out medals, with the best one for you, for maintaining courtesy. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 I have added your text as Proposal F. I want to include the second quote from Zimmerman (the things quoted from page 361) because I did consult that source and this text when crafting my text. Furthermore, the text that was originally removed on May 19, which is the beginning of this chapter of this dispute, included page 361 as a source.[40] I understand that some editors think the quote is cherrypicking, and that should be brought up in the RfC. Should I only include a reference to Zimmerman 213 next to your text?

Chumchum7 and GizzyCatBella: Proposal E was suggested by GCB, who mentioned that it was previous text suggested by Chumchum7 with tweaks by GCB. Longer RfCs are less likely to receive comments from neutral editors. In the interest of having as few proposals as possible, would it be OK to strike out Proposal E and not include it in the RfC? Also, GCB mentioned that there were proposals to just quote Zimmerman directly. If that is still supported by an editor as the preferred option, can someone post the text they would want that proposal to say? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the proposal E (Chumchum7’ proposal tweaked by me) thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as a solution for Proposal F you can just cite the first chunk. There have been calls to incorporate the option of not adding anything at all, NB see WP:NOCON: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As to direct quotation, here's what I posted higher up the thread: Zimmerman writes: "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.”" Exclusion and direct quotation ought be options (1) and (2) as they are so fundamental. --Chumchum7 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have struck Prop E. The direct quote has been added as Prop G. References have been added to Prop F and G. The exclusion option has been added as Prop H: please check the text to ensure it reflects what the option entails. When I post the final draft below, I will move the direct quote as the first option. I think the exclusion option should be the last one, because it entails a "none of the above" aspect that is formatted better as a final option. Thoughts?

Also, if anyone else would like to add a new proposal, please do so below. Piotrus would you like Proposal C to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? GizzyCatBella would you like Proposal D to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal D to Zimmerman pg. 213, yes please. (thank you for doing all this Z1720). - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Added. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Z1720, you are the best. Piotrus, your proposal is missing, do you want to add it to the list or you are happy with what it is now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Forget it Piotrus, it’s there, I missed it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think p. 213 is sufficient, although I wouldn't object to citing both pages if anyone thinks it's better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I discovered more slips between the sources and text written into the article, but let's not worry about it yet. Let's get this issue behind us. This is an excellent article written by Buidhe who worked hard to produce it. Thank you Buidhe for writing it. If we could fix those errors (stamina granted - I'm running out), this article deserves the best status for sure. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, please change Proposal H None of these texts should be included, and the source should be excluded from the article to None of these texts should be included, per WP:NOCON and/or WP:CHERRYPICK. There's no rationale for excluding the high-quality source, Zimmerman, from the article altogether. -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, also I suggest instead of 'texts' that it should be 'incidents'? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The purpose of a RfC is to present the options, while reasons for supporting any proposal, including Proposal H, are to be discussed during the RfC. If these texts are removed, so will the source as it's not used to cite anything else. Perhaps None of these texts should be included? Very concise. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 WP:NOCON is not great to cite in an RfC because the RfC's purpose is to develop consensus; if the RfC returns a "no consensus", we can decide what to do then. Also, citing reasons might exclude someone from choosing that option, as they might want to select Prop H for different reasons than NOCON and CHERRYPICK. I think keeping it open, and letting the editor explain why they chose Prop H, is better, and you can cite NOCON and CHERRYPICK in the comments as a reason someone might want to choose Prop H. Piotrus I don't support changing "texts" to "incidents" because the options are presented as "Proposed text". Since this would be the first use of the word "incident", editors might not know what is being refered to. Would both of you support buidhe's suggestion of None of these texts should be included? Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If text refers to what we write, that's fine. I thought it implies particular references. By incidents I mean, well, incidents discussed (such as a particular report, or another event). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella, there should be unwavering conscientiousness in reproducing the excerpt accurately - suggest you show the correction right away. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 I’ll post it in a new section below, should be easy to fix - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, I was still giving proposal E some consideration before GCB agreed for you to strike it. I've come to the view that it has a very useful nuanced difference to Prop F that could be the very point where WP:CONS may be found. That's on whether or not to use the last sentence of text to emphasize the said groups' alleged or actual ideology and ethnicity. I believe there may be some hope of RfC coming up with some variation on these two proposals, and maybe others, which accommodates our multiple interpretations of Zimmerman. For these reasons, please 'unstrike' it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have unstruck Prop E. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes indeed I'm not exactly clear about what Piotrus means by incidents. Yes I can accept None of these texts should be included. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, Chumchum7, and Z1720: Thanks for the ping. I'd like to note the context of Zimmerman's quote, without commenting on any particular proposal: pp. 210-212 discuss the growing Soviet threat; p. 212 discusses Polish antisemitic stereotypes and the way German propaganda exploited those stereotypes; and pp. 212-213 discuss the Polish response and the underground's focus on "the question of Jews and communism" and "communist activity among local populations" - the report on Dęblin is brought as an example of that focus. Throughout the section Zimmerman is subtly critical of the underground's attitude, noting a mixture of a) real concerns about the Soviets; b) real concerns about Jews' safety, and c) internalized prejudice against them - with the latter two sometimes appearing in the same report. We should be careful not to leave this context out of the RfC, lest we risk not only the use of WP:CHERRYPICK but also a violation of WP:APLRS through the use of a biased WP:PRIMARY source. I leave it to you to consider what's the best way to do this. François Robere (talk) 13:38, 31 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.[41] 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)

Draft text for RfC (seeking final approval)

Below is a cleaned-up version of the RfC draft above, with changes that include: 1) removing all struck out text 2) moving proposed text G to proposed text A, per the request at this diff, 3) renaming Proposed text H as Proposed text G 4) Changing the wording of Proposal G to "None of these texts should be included" as suggested and approved by editors above. 5) Adding a page 213 reference to Proposal C and E, D and F, as I do not think users expressed which page number should be cited.

Subsequent changes: 1) Proposal G has been added, which causes the "None of these texts" option to become Proposal H. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent changes, 2: 1) Proposal G, buidhe's added text, has been placed in the Proposal C slot, with the other proposals moved down a slot. I also crossed out C and E above, as they have become Proposals D and F in the move. If there are any questions, please comment below. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

At the bottom of this section, please post if you approve of this RfC draft text, if something should be added or removed, and/or if there are any concerns. Please do not post which proposal you prefer or the merits of a proposed text, as this will be discussed when the RfC is officially opened.

I am pinging all editors who have been part of this discussion so far. If you are not listed, you are also invited to comment or approve the text. If I missed anyone, please ping them here or below. Pinging: buidhe, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Chumchum7, Volunteer Marek, Chipmunkdavis. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Title: RFC on proposed text

Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?

The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman:

"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 contrast to the sense of extreme alarm and urgency revealed in the letters of Polish Jewish leaders...reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews during this time reflected the eerie distance of mere observers. 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.”

The proposed texts are:

Proposal A

Zimmerman writes: "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.”"

Proposal 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.

Proposal C

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

Proposal D

A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.

Proposal E

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 some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Proposal F

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.

Proposal G

Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.

Proposal H

None of these texts should be included.

References

• Z1720 What about your proposal? I think that should be included as an option. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Mine is proposal B. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Note: since buidhe added a Proposal G, the "None of these texts" option has been move to Proposal H. Changes have been noted above, too. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 - Proposals B and G are the same besides for one word (people <--> fugitive). Perhaps move G right below B or vice versa for easier identification of the difference? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Proposal G has been moved to Proposal C, and the other proposals have been re-lettered accordingly. Changes have been noted above, too. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There is lack of logic in Q: "Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" and A: "None of these texts should be included.". I'd suggest amending the first sentence to "Assuming the issue(s) should be mentioned at all (otherwise see Proposal H), which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hats off to your patience and perseverance. Some of the proposals purposefully don't reflect the second excerpt at all, and would automatically get thrown out by the phrasing of the question: "Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" This wording assumes it's a given that both excerpts are applicable to the article. Because the second excerpt doesn't mention the distinct subject of Deblin or Irena at all, that is highly questionable per WP:SYNTH and WP:VNOT. The second excerpt would clearly be applicable to articles about the specific locations it mentions, or a more generic article about the Holocaust in the Lubelskie region (which would include the Soviet-backed Parczew partisans and the postwar pogrom by Polish partisans in Parczew), and possibly an article about the Holocaust in Poland in general. So to accommodate this, the question can be adjusted to: "Are both texts applicable to this article? Which proposed content best reflects the excerpt(s) that is/are applicable to this article?" Also, it would be a waste to reduce the question to a blunt multiple choice; there may be a 'eureka' moment when a fresh pair of eyes creates an all-new proposal, so we can also add: "Would any other proposal work better?" -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

@Chumchum7: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner; real life has been busy. I am not sure what to do about Zimmerman 361. Multiple editors have concerns about Zimmerman 361's use in this article. I am mindful that longer RfCs usually cause editors to ignore it, and RfCs usually consist of one question. Would it be better to pause this RfC draft and have a separate RfC for the Zimmerman source first? Or is there consensus to remove Zimmerman 361 altogether? Questions for buidhe: How and why was Zimmerman 361 added in the article? Were there were concerns about this source at the article's GAN or FAC? If so, what were the conclusions of those discussions? Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No concerns were raised during GAN or FAC discussions. Reason for citing the second page as well was that it refers to Pulawy county to which Deblin belonged at the time, although administrative borders have since changed and it is in a different county now. The neighborhood of Pulawy is the same place as the neighborhood of Deblin/Irena. Parczew on the other hand is 50 miles distant from both. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait...let's see something here...that source starts with: One example is the Polish Underground..., so it's written in the context of something else. One example.. of what? Anyone with quick access to this source? What is the context, example of what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I found it.[42] Buidhe??? Could you explain how the second source while talking about the letter sent by Jewish Combat Organisation to Komorowski supports part - According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives.? Why did you bring that part that talks about something else even though in the very same book in the NEXT page (362) Zimmenrman quotes Skorczyński "...summary of Poles' attitudes in general: There is certain symphaty for the Jews.." Zimmerman writes that "...local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews..", "...Jewish individuals able to escape from deportations and go into hiding were able to find Poles willing to help..", "..they were able to find Poles willing to provide shelter.", ".. people of Jewish background hiding among Christian population". Based on Zimmerman, how on earth you wrote that "the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives". For Christ sake what's going on here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how that's related? It doesn't mention anything about Deblin or nearby areas. (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll explain. So even though the second source cited by you talks nothing about the attitude of ethnic Poles to Jewish fugitives but talks about cooperation between Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa and Home Army; Then on the following page 362, Zimmerman describes the attitude of Poles in encircling areas toward Jewish fugitives as assertive and helping the Jews who escaped the Ghettos, YOU came up with "According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives." and you see nothing wrong with it? Do I understand you correctly? No-slip on your part? None? Do you still claim that the source says that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(And here Buidhe, you removed part of my comment yet again[43] please be careful, this happened before already[44] - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC))

I think you're the one getting mixed up, and the aggressive tone is not helpful. If you actually read page 361 it ends the discussion about the Jewish Combat Organization and starts a separate paragraph on Home Army reports, which is where the comment about Pulawy is found. On page 362 it's discussing reports on a different part of Poland which I don't believe is relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, your statement that Zimmerman describes the attitude of Poles in encircling areas toward Jewish fugitives as assertive and helping the Jews who escaped the Ghettos is inaccurate. He actually says that in this part of Poland, "local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews", citing a few individual examples. Additionally, as you acknowledged above, I wasn't the one who came up with the language of "ethnic Poles" so I'd appreciate if you didn't put those words in my mouth. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The big problem is that few individual examples are all we have, both for aid and for hostility. We need to be careful to avoid unfounded generalizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: and here is the question you should ask yourself. (see my above comment addressed to Buidhe) Please read page 362 and ask yourself if you still support the proposal According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people and if this even should go to RfC. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a tad concerning. I already specifically asked Z1720 on 29 May, "Could you let us know what "One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943." is referring to? One example of what? This may have a bearing on User:Volunteer Marek's point about WP:CHERRYPICK." The reply came: "I don't want to discuss the merits of each proposed text here." and then "I read that you do not believe the quoted source supports that "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands". I disagree; I think the quoted prose from Zimmerman does support this and it is within Wikipedia policy and guidelines." Now another editor has volunteered the answer to my question. That answer makes me even more convinced that faithful representation of the source would show it is saying the Polish attitude to Jews was rather more nuanced or complex and indeed paradoxical than merely "hostile". Moreover, I don't see Buidhe's case in saying Pulawy and Deblin/Irena are the "same place" because Buidhe says the two places were in the same county. This article is on the town of Deblin/Irena only, not a county. Deblin and Pulawy are about 14 miles apart, so they are not the same place; this is also why we would not include the excerpt from the next page of Zimmerman that says "local Poles were involved in aid to Jews", because the example he gives is under 30 miles away in Garwolin. I hereby concur with VM's concerns about WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY and confirm my opinion that the second excerpt should be excluded. In general am starting to wonder how familiar everyone here is with how Wikipedia works; for example the sudden hard reverts by the hardly-used account Virus Swatter. This account made its first edit in January 2020 and then slept until September, since when it has slept again only to appear in the middle of this content dispute in the area where special discretionary sanctions apply. In my experience this sort of behavior often indicates WP:SOCK. If anyone here is in breach of that policy, it would be better for them to own up to it now than for a WP:CHECK investigation to prove it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: Two editors (myself and buidhe) have looked at the WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY arguments and believe Zimmerman 361 should be used as a source. I respect that multiple editors disagree with my conclusion. I don't think debating about this on the talk page will not resolve this and will just result in walls of text. This is why I asked here if we should put this RfC on pause and instead open a different RfC on the merits of Zimmerman 361. I've already spent way more time than I expected discussing this issue; I want to hear from new, neutral editors.

I acknowledge that I am biased in this discussion, but my goal is to figure out where there is consensus and, where there is not, to figure out how to resolve the disagreements. I have been doing much of the preparation and management of an RfC, and one way I have tried to manage this discussion is to limit conversation on preparing a draft RfC. If editors do not like my management of the RfC, I encourage them to file a WP:DRN so a neutral editor can help us resolve the numerous disagreements. Editors can also ask me to file at DRN. Furthermore, WP:SPI is where editors should file sock puppetry reports and I don't think accusations of socking will help this discussion. If editors don't want to file at DRN, I still have the question of "Should we put this draft RfC on pause and instead create an RfC on Zimmerman 361's inclusion in the article?" Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a new editor, but no, there should not be a separate RfC on a single source page. Such an RfC would be of little benefit without context. Unless the source is deeply unreliable, the question of its use is inherently linked to its specific utilisation (or not) in the article. The specific utilisation in question is dealt with in the RfC above. CMD (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, I'll say it again - I enormously appreciate your efforts which are obviously motivated by the best intentions. As a matter of fact I have not accused anyone on this Talk page of sock-puppetry. Yes, am well aware of WP:SPI, having worked for 12 years in this battleground WP:ARBEE topic area where special sanctions apply for disruptive editing. Opening a case at SPI is an escalation; I am offering an opportunity for de-escalation through self-disclosure for anyone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works in this regard. There is always space for a first mistake, learning, change and forgiveness. For the record, I am ever closer to WP:DISENGAGE and going back on long Wikibreak and semi-retirement. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CMD, you are entirely right. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Please add the following sentence at the start of the second paragraph (from p. 361 of the source): "In contrast to the sense of extreme alarm and urgency revealed in the letters of Polish Jewish leaders... reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews during this time reflected the eerie distance of mere observers." François Robere (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. It has been added to the beginning of the quote, because that is where it appears in the source. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It has been a couple days since anyone has commented on this draft, so I am going to assume that everyone is OK with the draft's language. If there are no major concerns with the draft's language in the next 24 hours, I will post this to RfC. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

My only concern is that there’s too many choices which can “dilute” the vote or make it hard to judge consensus. Some of the wordings are pretty close so maybe combine a couple of them? Volunteer Marek 01:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(i) As explained before, my position is that there is no justification for the second excerpt. By asking newcomers to comment on how best to represent it with article content, it can give the impression that there is consensus that the second except should be included. There is not consensus on the matter. (ii) Were we to expand the scope of the article to the Holocaust in the wider geographical area, a WP:NPOV of sources including Zimmerman would show the Polish record was more mixed than mere 'hostility' to Jews - it would include both salvation and murder. Chumchum7 (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I agree that there are a lot of choices, but lots of editors have different opinions on the best text. If editors would like to combine any of the texts, please post below.

@Chumchum7: in the above discussion, I asked if we should have a separate RfC on Zimmerman 361, and you agreed with CMD that an RfC was not required. If there is not consensus on Zimmerman 361's inclusion, what would be the best path forward to determine the consensus? Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I had thought you said we could have a separate RfC on including Zimmerman per se, which indeed I think shouldn't be necessary because it's obviously a reliable source. I support inclusion of the citation to Zimmerman page 213, but not page 361. As far as I can see everyone would support p.213 being included, so consensus might be found by cutting p.361 from this RfC. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: you used Zimmerman pg. 361 as a source during its FAC, and included it in your proposal for this text. Chumchum7 has expressed concerns above about its inclusion in this article. Do you consent to remove Zimmerman pg. 361 from the article? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, I do think its relevant, but if you think it's best to run with just the original page, I guess we can do that. (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: My opinion is that the page does refer to the Deblin and Irena region, but it is not crucial for it to be in the article. If consensus on this talk page is to take it out of the article, I will remove it from the RfC and, regardless of the proposal that receives consensus on the talk page, Zimmerman 361 will not be used as a source (but Zimmerman 213 will probably still be used). If some editors still want to include it in the article, we will probably have to do an RfC for Zimmerman 361's inclusion or post on WP:RSN before starting this proposed RfC. I encourage all editors to post their thoughts on Zimmerman 361 below to help determine consensus. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Sorry to ping you again, but do you consent to remove Zimmerman 361, or do you want to have a separate discussion about its inclusion? Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, as I said, please do what you think is best. (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no objection to it, I have struck Zimmerman 361 from the RfC. I will wait at least 24 hours before posting this RfC to see if anyone else would like to make changes or post other concerns before this RfC is opened. I am also mindful of Volunteer Marek's concerns above about the number of proposals; I think my proposed text, Proposal B, is no longer necessary as I have decided to strike it. In the RfC, the proposals will be re-lettered accordingly.

If anyone has any concerns or changes they would like to make, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: One thing that's been nagging me and I've commented on before,[45] is that the quote was taken out of context. This can be addressed with the following changes to the intro:

1. Before the quote, replace The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman with In his book "The Polish Underground and the Jews", while surveying reports from the Polish underground of alleged Jewish-Communist activity, Joshua Zimmerman notes the following:
2. After the quote, add this: This follows several discussions on the anticommunist division's "preoccupation with the Jews and their alleged pro-communist affinity" (pp. 119, 140, 149, 188, 208).

François Robere (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere: I think the footnote at the end of the quote informs the reader of where the quotation is from. In the interest in using as few words as possible in the introduction (as shorter RfCs are more likely to get responses) can I add a footnote to the citation at the end of Zimmerman?

For your second point, there's information on Zimmerman 212-213 that speaks about the Polish Underground's concerns with "the question of Jews and communism". In my opinion, this section is more likely to put the quote in context, rather than sections from various parts of the book. I don't think I can quote it all here, due to copyright concerns (it's a couple paragraphs long). Do you have access to the book and can take a look? Maybe we can summarize the preceding paragraphs into a sentence or two which will give the quote some context. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

They're both the same point, really, but yeah - another footnote will do, and I do have a copy of the book. Would something along the lines of my "for internal use only" summary be sufficient?[46] François Robere (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Restarting old disputes

Re this revert by Gitz6666 - the consensus is summarized in Z1720's comment on talk page from 17:44, 12 June 2021 and 02:44, 19 June 2021 and my comment from 04:27, 19 June 2021. VM - Volunteer Marek 06:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• There was a consensus on I support inclusion of the citation to Zimmerman page 213, but not page 361. As far as I can see everyone would support p.213 being included, so consensus might be found by cutting p.361 from this RfC (Chumchum7 at 12:28, 12 June 202). Buidhe and Z1720 agreed to remove Zimmerman 361. However, if I'm not wrong, Buidhe and Z1720 did not agree on removing Zimmerman, p. 213.

To referesh your memory, this is the quotation from Zimmerman, p. 213:

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.

which suppors the text:

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives

Although the text was covered by consensus, it was never restored until my edit yesterday [47], which VM reverted.

• Moreover, I don't see a consensus for removing the text based on Farkash 2014, 67:

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.

• Finally, I believe that the June 2021 consensus was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning: it was not a real WP:CONSENSUS but rather exhaustion. I read the t/p discussion and don't see any reason why we should drop Zimmerman, p. 361, supporting

The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The previous discussion was an exhausting and stressful affair that I do not want to reread. I am neutral to this source/statement's inclusion because I do not have time to assess the situation. I would only engage if editors agreed to limiting their arguments to one, short response on why something should or should not be included, or if there was a neutral mediator involved to help organise the discussion. I am also mindful that there is currently an Arbitration Committee case about this topic area and I do not have time to get involved with anything prolonged that might be covered in that case. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@User:Gitz6666. First, please discuss content not editors. Specifically your comment that I believe that the June 2021 consensus was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning: it was not a real WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't really matter what you believe as this "tactic" of calling any disagreement with one's POV "bludgeoning" is played out and wasn't much of an argument to begin with. WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, not a policy and anyone can always self-servingly claim that anyone who disagrees with them is "bludgeoning".

Second, if you want to put back the sentence sourced to p. 213 that's fine.

Third, no, there was no consensus for the text which was supposedly based (but not accurately) on p. 361.

There was also, afaict, no consensus on Farkash since that was by a graduate student and hence does not meet the extra sourcing requirements.

User:Z1720 I 100% sympathize with not wanting to go through this again and I think you deserve multiple barnstars for the mediation you did back the first time around. Volunteer Marek 07:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I'm happy that you acknowledge that "the sentence sourced to p. 213", which you have removed from this article at least six times, enjoys consensus.

Second, your claim "no consensus on Farkash" has no basis in prior discussions. As far as I can see, you are the only one who objected to using this essay (which fully meets WP:APLRS since it qualifies as "article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals") as a source:

• Piotrus raised concerns in Dec 2019 (Farkash is a bit problematic ... she was a PhD student when she published this article), which were addressed by rephrasing the text, using attribution ("Survivors recalled...", "According to Farkash") and not calling her a "historian" [48]. Piotrus himself modified the text [49] and Buidhe accepted (here at 04:44, 28 December 2019). Piotrus didn't raise the issue again at FAN [50], so he was probably satisfied with the way his concerns had been met.
• The issue of Farkash's qualification was discussed during the GA review and Harrias said 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 (12:15, 6 March 2020).
• You raised issue on 19 May 2021 by removing the text [51] and on the t/p at 02:07, 24 May 2021 and at 23:14, 24 May 2021, when you didn't provide any argument (The problem with Farkash are different and we can return to that later). Buidhe argued 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. Z1720 said that Farkash is high-quality (04:22, 24 May 2021) and If editors propose removing Farkash, I would like a separate discussion about that (preferably in a new section) (20:55, 26 May 2021). Buidhe also said 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. (23:48, 26 May 2021) and Neither of you have addressed one of Z1720's main concerns at all; that is, the removal of Farkash source without discussion (07:08, 28 May 2021). In fact, no one argued against using Farkash as a source, not even you and certainly not GCB and Chumchum7. During the 19 May-27 May 2001 edit war, you and GizzyCatBella repeatedly removed the text and the source, but you did not provide any argument on the talk page. Chumchum7, however, said I didn't remove Farkash (08:00, 28 May 2021). The possibility of having an RfC on Farkash was mentioned by GCB and Z1720, but eventually no one opened the RfC and there was no community discussion on Farkash either here or at RSN.

So, alongside the text based on Zimmerman p. 213, @Volunteer Marek, you should also restore the text based on Farkash. Since no one objected to Farkash, and the only one who wants to remove it is you (and perhaps GCB), your claim "no consensus on Farkash" is groundless. If you doubt Farkash is reliable, please open a thread at RSN.

Finally, with regard to the sentence based on Zimmerman, p. 361 (The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants), I stand by my opinion: the June 2021 "consensus" was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning, and was not a real WP:CONSENSUS but exhaustion. Unless you feel personally touched by my remark, I don't understand why you accuse me of discuss[ing] content not editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, regarding 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.{{sfn|Zimmerman|2015|pp=213, 361}} . Can someone link those two pages from Google Books or IA or such, so we can double check what's in the source before rehashing this?

As for Farkash, the issue of her credentials is interesting as recently we had a number of discussions about several other PhD students, whose book reviews were removed (and I think remain removed). To be fair, in those discussions I was opposed to their removal, and so from today's perspective, I would not be opposed to restoring Farkash - but only IF someone can explain to me why it's ok to use one PhD student's work here but not another PhD student's work there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The two pages from Zimmerman can be read here.

As far as PhD students in general are concerned, my view is that their reliability depends both on the journal where they publish and on the type of research product they publish. A 20-page essay, citing primary and secondary sources, published in a peer-reviewd, high-quality academic journal is a RS even if its author doesn't have a B.A., let alone a PhD. I'm not an expert in the field, but I understand that "Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust" (now "The Journal of Holocaust Research") is highly regarded, thus I wouldn't doubt that this article is a RS. I'm not in a position to assess the reputation of "Sarmatian Review" (published by the Polish Institute of Houston), but I note that this is a 2-page review of a book - doubting the reliability of the source seems legitimate to me even if, to be honest, in The Forgotten Holocaust the main point seem to me be due weight rather than reliability. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Zimmerman, I would like to point out a compromise wording I suggested a while back, with the note that the word "band", while used by Zimmerman, is not something I endorse (per previous discussions here), and we could use a neutral term groups or such. Perhaps we could simplify it even further. What do you think about: Reports of the Home Army from that time often described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jewish groups which stole food from Polish peasants

As for Farkash, I am ambivalent. If I have time, I will think about this more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we could also simply use "Jews" without specifying either "fugitives" or "groups". Alternatively, and I think this would be better, we could use "Jewish bands" in inverted commas, since this is the expression used by the primary source (HA reports). However, we should add that that hostility was not only reported by the HA but also shared by some of its elements - not all of them, as we know, not the whole force: Zimmerman himself speaks of "reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews ... One example is".

This could perhaps be achieved by rephrasing as follows:

Reports of the Home Army from that time often described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to "Jewish bands" [or Jews] which stole food and resources from Polish peasants, and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews by accusing them of engaging in robbery and embracing communism

(sorry for my defective English; if the concept is shared, please improve the rendering).

Note that this formulation is WP:IMPARTIAL because it is relatively more restrained than Zimmerman's, who uses expressions such as "decidedly hostile", mentions the Jews being labelled as "local elements of little value", and says that "harsh, anti-Jewish sentiment was present in Polish society even to the point of approving the German extermination policies". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd put a full stop after "and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews". The reminder seems repetetive. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you, I removed the "and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews", as you suggested, and published this [52]. I have also restored Farkash, p. 67 [53] - if you don't agree, please revert, but note that the contentious claim (from the source: Wenkart allowed a group of Jewish partisans to enter the camp to seek refuge from persecution by the Armia Krajowa (AK)) is supported by five primary sources (35YVA 0.3/9295, testimony of Topolsky, p. 17; YVA, 0.3/2951, testimony of Eckhaiser, pp. 23–24; Daitsher, pp. 482–483; Perelmuter, p. 502; Wenkart, pp. 60–61) and is not presented by Farkash as uncertain or merely probable. Finally, the content I restored is attributed to the source:

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.

(my emphasis) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 I think that's fine (I remain ambivalent re Farkash in the context of book reviews, but I'd ather restore all content then see it all of it gone). I do think the sentence needs a bit more copyediting, as the part about "and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews" concerns the reports, not the peasans, but the sentence is currently not worded very clearly. How about changing , and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews to ; said reports, according to Zimmerman, therefore can be seen as occasionally lacking sympathy for the Jews? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I like your version better and I'm also fine with attributing the assessment to Zimmerman. Perhaps, since we attribute the assessment, "[decidedly] hostile to" would be closer to Zimmerman's text than "occasionally lacking sympathy for". Please modify the text as you see fit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Please see my recent edit, I decided to follow your advice and used some direct quotation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. And I hope we can remove the npov template that has been plaguing this article for the last two years? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep, if nobody objects we can remove. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Removed, since nobody objected here for 2 days. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Towns?

This article states Thousands of Jews lived in the towns of Dęblin and Irena [pl] in central Poland before World War II and refers to Dęblin and Irena as towns. Hmmm. Perhaps - did you know pl wiki still does not have an article about "town"? It's just not a concept that exists in Polish language and law, which basically differentiates between villages and cities, but doesn't have an intermediate level outside some obscure legal concepts that are not commonly used in everyday life (unlike the word 'town' in English).

pl:Dęblin states that it received city rights in 1954 (ref). Before that it was, I think, techically a village. Possibly a large one that would be called a town in English?

With regards to pl:Irena (Dęblin), this seems a bit more complicated, legally speaking, but TL;DR it probably could be called a town in English. It was a separate administrative entity until it was merged into Dęblin after WWII (we have a ref for 1953); before that, that article states about Irena that (translating from pl wiki): "It never received city rights, but had the status of a city settlement and was morphologically built on the model of a city (with a central market square and streets)." So I think it's ok to call Irena a town, but I am unsure about Dęblin. More about the relevant terminology: "osada miejska" which translates as a city settlement refers to pl:Osady w Królestwie Polskim. I'd translate "osada" as settlement, but settlement is a disambig and the interwiki from pl:Osada is hamlet. So the usage of the term town to Irena seems arguably more colloquial then legally correct, but it's not like I have a great solution.

In either case, I'd ask User:Buidhe if they could look into the Background section, which refers several times to "the town". What town? Irena? Or Dęblin? And to avoid problems with administrative terminology and/or confusion with regards to which place we are referring to, I'd suggest we clarify each instance of "the town" used the article to either Dęblin or Irena. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. To be clear, since this is English Wikipedia, it's probably ok to use the term "town". But we should clarify which of the two towns any instance of "the town" in the body of our text refers to. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)