Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel Brand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Joel Brand

This is the story of a man at the center of a bizarre proposal during the Holocaust: that the Western Allies should buy one million Hungarian Jews from Adolf Eichmann, the SS officer who was arranging for them to be deported to Auschwitz. It's a complex story with many different players, and the Brand story is just one aspect of it, but a central one. The sources used are regarded as the main authorities on the story. Self-nomination. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:RudolfKastner1.gif and Image:Eichmann3.jpg are missing either source or licensing information. Jkelly 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the Eichmann one; it was just that the wrong link had been given, but it is definitely PD, released by the Israeli government. The Kastner one is also almost certainly PD, as he was an Israeli civil servant in the 50s, and I believe this photograph of him was released, but I can't find definite source information anywhere, so I've tagged it fair use. I can write to the Israeli government press office to ask if they know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we think that the government of Israel releases all of its photography into the public domain? Jkelly 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but anything connected to the Holocaust tends to be released, and Kastner was connected. He was assassinated because it was believed (wrongly, in my view) that he had collaborated with the Nazis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything anywhere that we can point to in order to provide some reason behind our assertion that this image is in the public domain? Sorry about all this image stuff, I will actually give the article a thorough read-through as well. Jkelly 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We have nothing at the moment, so I'm claiming fair use. I can remove it if you prefer, and in the meantime, I can write to the Israeli government press office, and I'll also take a look around on Holocaust websites to see if I can find one that's clearly labelled PD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it until I can find out more about it, or find another one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest the lead needs expanding to tell our readers at least somthing about who Brand was apart from the deal (summarise some of the Background section) and specify something about what his role actually was. Do we know what led to him becoming either a communist or a Zionist? "Grosz, who was low level enough to provide plausible deniability for the Germans in case anything went wrong" needs citing. Is this our main article on the deal itself? Jkelly 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The deal and everything that happened around it is very complex and would be an enormous article that would have to branch off into examining the roles of the various players. Jayjg and I have been working on a few articles related to it e.g. apart from Joel Brand, also Rudolf Vrba, Kastner train, Rudolf Kastner, Kurt Becher. Once they're all in good shape (and a few more have to be written), we're going to try to write a summarizing article on the complexities of the deal overall. This is an issue that historians are still grappling with, and the main authorities disagree about essential points, so writing about it is like trying to wrestle with a giant octopus.

I'll try to add something to the lead that says a bit more about Brand himself. I don't know why he became a communist or Zionist, but I'll try to find out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I asked was because of the "Himmler's involvement" section. It wasn't crystal-clear to me that this section should live in Brand's biography. Jkelly 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that section could probably be left out. I added it because one of the issues for historians is how high-level the meeting between Brand and Eichmann was. Although Eichmann himself was senior, he was not senior enough to negotiate peace treaties with the Allies. Himmler was, with or without Hitler's knowledge. So the presence at the Brand-Eichmann meeting of three people who reported directly to Himmler (Eichmann, Kurt Becher, and Gerhard Clages) is regarded as highly significant by historians, and lends credence to the theory that the blood-for-trucks proposal was just a ploy to strike up contact between Himmler's people and Allied intelligence so that Himmler could negotiate for peace. Perhaps I could rewrite the section to make that clearer, and also shorten it, then it might not seem so out of place.

I've rewritten the intro so it says more about Brand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jkelly; some parts of the article seem to be more about the proposal than about Brand himself. While some of the points made in these sections are relevant, they should be eliminated, and the points relevant to Mr. Brand's story included in the article, rather than giving such a detailed view of things that, while they may have affected the deal, did not directly influence Mr. Brand.

Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

The problem with that is that Brand is known only for this. That story is his story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment—Some fixing required throughout. Here are examples at the top.

• • Usually no spaces around an en dash for ranges (see dash).
  • "Shortly after the invasion, Brand was asked by SS officer Adolf Eichmann to help broker a deal between the SS and the United States or Britain, to secure the release of up to one million Hungarian Jews, [2] [3] who were otherwise destined for Auschwitz, in exchange for trucks, soap, tea, and coffee to be supplied to the Nazis"—A snake that needs chopping into two. And no comma after "Britain".
  • "Historians speculate as to whether Eichmann's offer was genuine; or a trick intended to pacify the Jewish community in order to prevent an uprising, so that they would quietly board the trains to Auschwitz thinking they were being resettled; or even a cover for the SS to negotiate a secret peace deal with the United States and Britain, but not the Soviet Union." It's a very long sentence, and the last little clause raises unanswered questions. Rather than breaking it up with semicolons, why not make it two sentences: "... genuine. There are suspicions that it may have been a trick ..." Is a reference required? Remove "in order" as totally redundant. Tony 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, done. You're right; those sentences were too long, which is why I was struggling to control them with semi-colons. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I'm somewhat biased, of course, as I've assisted SlimVirgin on some related articles, but this one she's written pretty much by herself, and it's very good. It gives a nuanced understanding of a complex and still debated series of incidents during the war, and the life of a man who was at the center of them. The writing is clear and compelling, and with almost 200 references from over a dozen strong sources, it's one of the best referenced biography articles on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose A good article, very informative, but there is too much information that is not directly relative to Mr. Brand. Until that changes, I oppose. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

  The story of the deal is Joel Brand's story. It's the reason he's notable, and the part of the deal described in this article is the Joel Brand part. There are many others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good article. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Fascinating article. Well documented and formatted. In response to the oppose above, the peripheral details not directly related to Brand still seem to me essential to Brand's story. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. JFW | T@lk 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support. Fascinating, provocative article and meticulously sourced. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. I might say pretty much the same as Briangotts, had he not said it already. A very good article. Picaroon9288 22:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - though I think some fine-tuning might clarify what is a very bizarre and confusing story. --Leifern 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Interesting article, and evidence of some very professional work on it. AnnH ♫ 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)