Talk:Jacob Gens

Couple of questions
Hello, Ealdgyth, thank you for the article. I made some substantial changes to the article - I hope you don't mind. I think it made it easier to navigate and has a better logical flow. But I do have some questions: Thank you! Renata (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) He persuaded the Gestapo man in charge of the roundup to let the Jewish police do the actual rounding up of deportees - is there a name for the man? In general, can some responsible Germans be named? The article has names of a couple Jews, two Lithuanians (who are not really involved), and zero Germans.
 * 2) The Judenrat employed over 1500 people in September 1942 conflicts with 10 July 1942, the Judenrat of the Vilna Ghetto was dissolved. Can this be clarified?
 * 3) Gens also took responsibility for carrying out the death sentence imposed on five men - when?
 * 4) Wittenberg was tortured to death by the Gestapo and that he was given a cyanide pill by Gens' second-in-command - if tortured to death then why give the pill? Can this be clarified?
 * 5) running that part of the ghetto administration like a military operation - can this be expanded upon? Like, how do you run a hospital like a military operation?
 * 6) One of Ephraim's also survived the Holocaust - one of Ephraim's what?
 * 7) I want to add this article to Holocaust Lithuania and I am thinking that the "Perpetrators" row would be most appropriate as he did round up the Jews in Oct-Dec 1941 and fall 1942 - March 1943. Agree?
 * While you've certainly made some improvements, some changes also managed to disconnect sources from the information that they source. When you moved "Officially, the duties of Gens and his policemen were to carry out German and Judenrat's orders and provide law enforcement functions for the inhabitants of the ghetto. Included in the first duty, and considered by the Germans as the single most important task, was the uncovering of any anti-German activity on the part of the inhabitants of the ghetto." you removed it from the sourcing Three Tragic Heroes pp. 112-113 and stuck it in front of a set of sentences sourced to the same book, but to page 114. Source/text integrity is very important - when you move stuff around you have to make sure that you move the sourcing with the information.
 * Another problem is that the "In late October 1941 the ghetto was subject to an "aktion" which selected a portion of the ghetto for deportation. Gens, backed by the Jewish police force, was responsible for deciding who was sent to resettlement (and death) and who remained in the ghetto. This brought him into conflict with the ghetto's rabbis, who told Gens he was acting against Jewish law. Gens disagreed, arguing that it was lawful to give up some people to enable others to live." bit describes one single event - but it's been rewritten to imply that it applied to all of the aktions in October through December. The rabbis, however, objected to one specific deportation in October.
 * As for putting him in the perpetrators - that's not borne out by the sources - very few Holocaust scholars would consider any Jewish person a perpetrator because they didn't have the power to actually resist German orders. None of the works consulted for this article call Gens a perpetrator - they may not think he chose correctly when he went along with the Germans, but there's a reason he's included in a book entitled Three Tragic Heroes. My suggestion would be to have a victims line, a resistance line, and keep the perpetrators for the Germans or the locals who collaborated. Gens would fit on the victims line. (It's also missing Wittenberg, who is very clearly an important figure in the resistance.
 * 1. Most of the sources don't give names - the description in the source implies that it wasn't the head of the local Gestapo, but doesn't give a name.
 * 2. Judenrat here is shorthand for "Jewish government".
 * 3. Sources are not clear on when this occurred.
 * 4. The exact circumstances of Wittenberg's death are unclear - it's not known exactly what happened after the Gestapo took him.
 * 5. The source doesn't explicate this, unfortunately.
 * 6. I'll check this, but I believe it's a daughter.
 * I'll try to sort out the sourcing in a bit, I just got up. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Aktion
Aktion in German means Operation in this context. In German, nouns are always capitalised. The plural is Aktionen. So, should the article talk about "Aktion/Aktionen", or "operation/operations"? I don't like "aktion/aktions. --John (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Aktion is a widely accepted term in the Holocaust literature. The plural, based on a quick search in Google books, is pretty evenly split between Aktions (2410) and Aktionen (2830). Renata (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Aktion if most times it's capitalized. I generally leave the capitalizing or not capitalizing to the MOS-geeks. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

AmEng v BritEng
Which are we adopting here? Throughout the article, especially around dates, we use BrEng date format, while elsewhere, we use an AmEng comma after the start of sentences and AmEng spelling of words, such as "theater" and others...  Cassianto Talk   09:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I learned to use British date formats in college so it's ingrained at this point... I'm surprised I didn't spell "centre" and "theatre" after all these years on Wikipedia working on British articles. We can switch the dates, since I'm more tied to the spellings than the dates ... but ideally we'd keep both Brit dates and Yank spellings... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to the idea of mixing American dates with British spellings, if I'm perfectly honest. It's very "tabloidesque" what with The Sun doing it on a daily basis. I would pick one style and keep to it. This, of course, benefits from the fact that the subject matter is neither British nor American, but Lithuanian, so it is entirely up to you which style you use.   Cassianto Talk   13:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer British dates with American spellings, actually. If that's unacceptable to others, then American dates with American spellings, as those are a bit easier for me to remember to do "correctly". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're writing it, so it's up to you. Personally, I couldn't care less about the MOS, but bear in mind that some think it's the Holy Grail, so they may bring up MOS:ARTCON, when you get to FAC.   Cassianto Talk   15:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency of dates is fine with me. If y'all could give an example or two of what you consider to be "British dates" here that would be really useful for me.  And whatever we go with, we should drop an editing template to let folks know. Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * dd/mm/yyyy or 11 June 2017 would be BrEng; mm/dd/yyyy or June 11 2017 would be AmEng.   Cassianto Talk   15:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I do like the "11 June 2017" format as opposed to using numerals.  I'm with Ealdgyth on this - Brit dates & American spellings. Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions
It's a great article. I think it is almost ready for FAC.


 * Jacob Gens[a] (1 April 1903 – 14 September 1943) was a Lithuanian Jewish army officer and head of the Vilnius Ghetto police force who became the head of the Jewish self-government instead of the disbanded Judenrat. Why "instead"? I figured this one out. Are these edits ok?
 * There was something else. It will come to me! --John (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Harvard citations
Any objections to using harvnb? Renata (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally am not fond of the Harvard cite style. In my opinion the harvnb complexity presents a barrier to less-experienced editors wanting to contribute (especially since Wikipedia presents the various Cite ref templates as the general example to work from).  But that's just me - if the editorial consensus is to convert the present refs to Harvard, I'm ok with that. Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I dislike them which is why I didn't use them when I started the article. I'm opposed to switching. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sobol's Ghetto
Current text reads: It depicts him as an inhumane lackey of the SS. This straight-forward description conflicts with both our own article on the play (Ghetto_(play)) and with a lengthy discussion in Holocaust Literature ("Gens emerges as a deeply complex character"). Renata (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From the source: "The destruction of European Jewry is here reduced to a morality play at best, a piece of agit-prop, at worst, which pits power against powerlessness; the former is represented by SS officer Kittel and his Zionist-Revisionist lackey Jacob Gens, while the anti-Zionist chronicler of the ghetto, Herman Kruk (erroneously called Herschel in the play), represents the humane alternative to the exercise of raw power. Small wonder that Sobol recasts the Vilna ghetto into a Brechtian cabaret."
 * "Inhumane lackey of the SS" is a wholly inadequate summary of the above. Another source on moral complexities in Gens' character. And another. That's three quite lengthy discussions on the play that discuss complexity, moral ambiguity, and tragedy of Gens' character (which mirror academic debate discussed in our article). Renata (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine if you want to summarize and add. I recognize I'm not a literary critic or even much interested in the concept. I don't get my nose out of joint over the addition of sourced information. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of ghetto
On the bit on "Gens went to Major Narušis, an acquaintance from the Lithuanian Army and in late 1941..." I am not comfortable with including this information here. Any passionate feelings for keeping the info? Renata (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The map of Vilnius Ghetto shows expansion in September 1942. Detailed Chronicle of the Ghetto has an entry for enlargement on 9 Sept. 1942 (entry copied from diary of Herman Kruk - page 352). Arad has the same info on page 331. I found no other references to any other enlargements of the ghetto (and I searched deep for that).
 * 2) The story seems to come from Gens' daughter's interview (page 94) and she is not a reliable source for that. (The way she describes the expansion "to the left of the gates along Pylimo street" is not where maps show the expansion was).
 * 3) Timing does not make sense - in "late 1941" Germans were killing the Jews in Ponary by the thousands...
 * 4) I can't find this Major Narušis. It could be Simas (later commander of a Litauische Bau-Bataillon), but that's just a guess.
 * 5) The story is not repeated in other books, most notably Kruk and Arad.
 * Not really. Feel free to remove ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Query
Query: Jacob Gens does not have a biography tag on the talk page; I think it should have one… however, the other tags are FA-class. I'm hesitant to assign FA to the bio tag without the article being looked at for featured article status for that particular tag. What is the protocol in this kind of situation? thanks, FeanorStar7 16:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sledgehammer. Nut. Why the need for an RfC?  Cassianto Talk  17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * when I went to edit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies
 * it told me to use the Rfc template... "This list is updated by Legobot; your edits will be overwritten if you edit this page.
 * To get listed on this page: Add Rfc|bio at the beginning of the talk page section where the RfC is taking place. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment"... --FeanorStar7 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FA status is granted by a wikipedia-wide process. There is no specific requirements for the various wikiprojects. If the article has FA status - it automatically means any wikiproject considers it an FA. The same thing happens with GAs. There is no need for this RfC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Template added. Thanks for pointing out that it was missing. Renata (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks very much; I wasn't sure that it was the case that since other projects used FA that it would extend to a tag that wasn't there. that's why I used the RfC.--FeanorStar7 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ...or you could've been bold and added it and seen where it had got you. At the very worst, you'd have been reverted, and a discussion could've followed after that, per WP:BRD.   Cassianto Talk  21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. A speedy close of this RfC can take place then.   Cassianto Talk  20:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * is all that was needed. Absolutely no need for a WP:RFC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Just for future reference...
See DE Wiki for the film Ghetto for where the supposed image that keeps trying to be put in here comes from. It's an artist's impression of the actor protraying Gens in the film doing an event in the film which we have no idea if it ever happened or not. here is the google translation of hte page, making it pretty clear it's not an accurate image of Gens. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could be put to "Legacy" section? With appropriate caption that this is "artistic interpretation"? Renata (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a great idea here, honestly. There isn't really any support for the idea that Gens contemplated suicide when confronted with commands from the Germans. It might work well in the article on the play, though... I feel like it would be too much out there. I should look into doing a fair use on one of the actual photographs of Gens that are out there, I've been busy moving and just haven't had the time.