Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maria Stromberger/archive1

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2024 [1].

Maria Stromberger

edit
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Stromberger went to Auschwitz by choice. A nurse from Austria, she heard of the horrors that took place in the camp and took a job as its head nurse so she could see for herself. It was far worse than she had feared. Stromberger did what she could to help those who were held there, risking her life to steal food and medicine for them.

When the underground resistance movement reached out to her, she grew even bolder. Stromberger smuggled information and supplies into the camp, delivered some of the outside world's earliest evidence of the Holocaust, and even acquired weapons to be used in a possible uprising. When the war ended and Stromberger returned home, she was arrested with the other employees of Auschwitz. This prompted outrage in Poland, which led to her release. She returned to testify against Rudolf Höss in 1947 but otherwise lived the remainder of her years quietly in Austria.

Special thanks to Per exemplum for a helpful GA review, BorgQueen for assistance in finding sources, and Toadspike for helping with some of the German-language sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee

Early life

  • "Maria Lapeiner and Franz Seraphin Stromberger" - Do you know her parents' lifespans?
    • Added.
  • "she had eight elder siblings, five of whom survived infancy"- I assume she was the youngest child. If so, I'd suggest making that clearer.
    • Changed to "she was the youngest of nine children, including three who died in infancy."
  • The first education that is mentioned is the teacher training. Is any information available about if or for how long she went to school?
  • "her cousin and her cousin's husband" I'd suggest mentioning their names if available.
    • Added.
  • "Stromberger stayed in Bregenz for a time in the 1920s with her sister, Karoline Gräbnerm" - Is any more information available about this period between 1917 and 1926?
    • The source says that 1921–1926 is unclear, which I've added. I added a few small details for 1920–1921.

Nursing Career

  • "Feeling compelled by her religious beliefs to help," - This is the first time we hear about her political views. Do we know what her attitudes to the Nazis were before this point?
    • We do not. We know that she had little interest in politics after she leaves Auschwitz, but not enough to extrapolate to before.
  • Even if no information about her previous political views is available, I think it would be useful to briefly introduce the political situation. Perhaps mention the German annexation of Austria in 1938, the Invasion of Poland and the start of World War II in 1939.
    • Added a mention of the annexation. It mentions Nazi-occupied Poland shortly after, is it important that the exact time of the invasion is included?
  • "She requested a transfer" - the "she" should have a lower case "s" as it follows an apostrophe
    • Fixed.
  • "at an infectious disease hospital" - Was this a civilian hospital? What was its name?
    • All of the sources call it an infectious disease hospital without more info.
  • "When the men said that there were nurses with the same uniform as her own" - I assume this can't be literally true given the difference of sex. Is it a metaphor for members of the same organisation?
    • Clarified "nurses at Auschwitz".
  • "The administration believed" - Could you clarify what this means (e.g The German authorities in Poland believed...)?
    • Clarified "The nursing administration" with a different source.

Stopping here for now, will do the rest of the article tomorrow--Llewee (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "including its ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people,"- I think this could be worded more bluntly.
    • Not sure what change you're suggesting. I've never heard of a Wikipedia article being written "bluntly".
  • "The affair nearly caused her to leave." - this could be made more clear, why did she consider leaving?
    • The source says the same thing as the article. He threatened to kill her if she stepped out of line, and she considered leaving because of it.
  • "she had authority over the nurses and over the inmates who were forced to work there" - Was she responsible for the inmate staff who were caring for sick inmates or just those that were caring for sick Germans?
    • The article specifies that she works in the SS infirmary.
  • "There were approximately one dozen nurses working in the infirmary." - Are these just the professional nurses excluding the inmates?
    • The source only says "about a dozen nurses". I've added "besides the inmates".
  • "why so many inmates committed suicide" - "committed suicide" is a sensitive term on Wikipedia. I would suggest changing it to one of the terms that are given in MOS:SUICIDE.
    • Switched to "killed themselves", as that's the only one in the list that could apply here. Seems like a more sensationalized way to say it, but if that's what the community wants.
  • "but the SS officer Geiger discovered an inmate with the milk" - I don't think "but" is needed here.
    • Changed to "and when"
  • "and the owner of the milk" - I would suggest making this clearer (e.g "and the inmate found with the milk").
    • Changed.
  • "Stromberger told them that Kaulfuss" I assume them is Wirths? If so, clarify.
    • I tried to clarify the situation a little bit. Both Kaulfuss and Wirths were present. It now reads "Kaulfuss pressed the issue with Wirths, so Stromberger requested that she be present to hear accusations made against her. When this took place, she told Kaulfuss and Wirths that Kaulfuss had once drunkenly torn up a photograph of the SS commander Heinrich Himmler." Is it still unclear?
  • "Pys offered to take abuse from her to avoid suspicion, but she refused." - This sentence seems a bit out of the blue at the end of the paragraph. When did the offer happen?
    • The source doesn't elaborate beyond saying that Pys offered. I debated where to put this sentence, and I'm open to other suggestions.
  • " Pys asked her if she was willing to assist in more dangerous ways" - when did this happen
    • The source doesn't say when specifically she was recruited, and the other sources covering this area don't seem to either. I was able to find one that said she began doing work for them in early 1943, so I've added that to the following section where it details what work she was doing.
  • "within the Auschwitz facility" - "facility" feels like an odd term to use in this context
    • Swapped with "complex", which is what's used in the lead of the Auschwitz article.
  • "She also carried information detailing more sensitive information about the camp" - Could you give any examples?
    • Added that she carried lists of those killed.
  • "a nearby town to hand it off" - It might be a difference in variety of English but I would suggest "over" rather than "off".
    • To me, "hand over" implies some sort of confrontation or obligation while "hand off" implies it was done clandestinely.
  • "Collaborators outside of the camp" - I would suggest not using the term "collaborator". It's a term associated with people who cooperated with the Germans in occupied countries.
    • Switched to "resistance members"
  • "as "Sister" and "S"" - Assuming they would have used Polish, I would suggest writing the original word and a translation
    • The German-language source gives them in German, so I figure enwiki should give them in English.
  • "the weapons ultimately went unused, as the camp was liberated before an uprising could take place."- the article says there was an uprising in 1944.
    • Clarified that this was a smaller operation with just a few inmates.
  • "Jews and Communists who did not celebrate the holiday" - Did the communists not celebrate Christmas? I would assume that most of them had a Christian background.
  • "She gave Pys his choice between the two." - This doesn't seem like an important detail to include.
    • The idea behind including this is that she showed favoritism to Pys, placing his safety above that of anyone else involved in the resistance. Would you suggest rewording it, or should it be omitted entirely?
  • " the nursery in Rajsko on trips to obtain flowers for the infirmary" - clarify plant nursery
    • Done.
  • "When the inmates planned an uprising on 27 October 1944, Stromberger was one of the few non-inmates aware of their intentions." - Is any more information available about this?
    • As specified above, the article overstated the importance of this and I've clarified that it was a smaller situation.
  • "She left Prague on 31 January,[83] arriving home in Bregenz on 3 February.[84]" - Were these places still controlled by Germany at this point?
    • I reworked this section a little bit so it chronologically mentions the French taking Bregenz from the Germans in May.
  • "After Auschwitz"- I feel this section could have a more specific name e.g "arrest and exoneration".
    • Yeah, I had some trouble with the headings in this article. That's a good suggestion!
  • "the chaos in Austria and Poland that came after the war" - Could any additional information added here?
    • The source doesn't elaborate except to say that correspondence was unreliable.

Will leave it here for now--Llewee (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, I've replied to everything so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thebiguglyalien, I'd rather the concerns about sourcing are dealt with before I carry on with this. Perhaps message when Buldhe's concerns have been addressed.--Llewee (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe

edit

I simply cannot support an article on a topic like this that relies almost exclusively on a single source by a non-notable historian. Although I haven't looked extensively into the author or publisher, the number of Holocaust related exaggerations, misconceptions, and outright hoaxes requires a higher standard of sourcing—unless, at a bare minimum, there is evidence that other historians have examined the book and supported its accuracy (in academic journals, not newspaper articles, which lack expertise on the subject matter). (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Buidhe! I'd given the sourcing some consideration and briefly raised it at the FAC talk page. I then did minor rewrites to make some of the sections less dependent on it prior to nominating.
I'm confident that Harald Walser is a subject-matter expert. In 1982, he wrote his doctoral dissertation, "Die Hintermänner. Vorarlberger Industrielle und die NSDAP 1933-1934", on early Nazi activity. He expanded it into a book, "Die illegale NSDAP in Tirol und Vorarlberg 1933-1938", the following year with Europa Verlag. In 1985, he contributed to Von Herren und Menschen: Verfolgung und Widerstand in Vorarlberg 1933-1945, published by Fink's Verlag (now part of Brill Publishers), with the articles "Anpassung und Widerstand: Vorarlbergs Kirche im NS-Staat" and "Die Zeugen Jehovas". He published his initial article on Maria Stromberger, "'Der Engel von Auschwitz' – Zum Wirken der Krankenschwester Maria Stromberger" in Montfort in 1988. He also wrote or co-wrote several books and articles through the Vorarlberger Authors Society in the '80s and '90s with the Vorarlberg historical society that he co-founded. His output declined in the 2000s when he became a school principal and a member of the national legislature, but he's writing again since his retirement from politics. At some point I might write his enwiki article along with a few other red links on this article.
What parts of the article are you concerned about regarding exaggerations, misconceptions, and hoaxes? Most of the Holocaust-related content is about her own personal interactions and thoughts, so I'm curious where it crosses that threshold. Where those cases exist, I'm willing to deviate from one of my personal rules on sourcing to double-ref some of these with academic sources unrelated to Stromberger, if that's what you feel is necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as the article is about her own personal interactions and thoughts, based on a single source written from personal papers, I'm inclined to think it is UNDUE. Insofar as it's about facts that could be independently verified (other than a limited amount of basic information that is genuinely uncontroversial), I would expect another source backing it up. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a biography. If a full length biography about a person isn't appropriate as the most prominent source for their article, then I honestly don't know what is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedia biographies are about the person's accomplishments, not thoughts or feelings. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect independent confirmation when the claims made are substantially controversial and sometimes verging on wp:redflag. (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I don't have an issue with that. What sort of changes are you recommending? What WP:REDFLAGs did you spot when you read the article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, any claims regarding participation in resistance activities. This seems especially prone to exaggeration. If Wikipedia existed in 1980 I would hate for us to have promoted Raoul Wallenberg to FA while claiming that he rescued 100,000 people, which turned out to be wrong. There are some mistakes in the article: including its ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people (is ethnic cleansing the word used in the source? the Holocaust is not generally considered an instance of ethnic cleansing, plus it is rather euphemistic in this case). Some of the people that your article says she worked with published their own books (for example, Langbein) so if the claims are true you should be able to find support for them elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I should find and use more primary sources written by the resistance members themselves? I have Langbein's in the article of course, but I can definitely go through the writings of the others (hopefully the Internet Archive will come back online within the next few days like they said it would, but I imagine I can find a good number of them elsewhere). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Langbein's book is OK to back up other sources, but I would expect there to be secondary sources about the resistance movement in general which should mention Stromberger if she was significant to it. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw the nomination for now. After doing some digging, I've come up with some ideas where to find more sources and want to avoid rushing things. On a related note, if there are any Wikipedians who have expressed an openness to help translate or check Polish language sources, that would be really helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: nom has withdrawn. To be pedantic, he is wiki-notable and has a dewiki article, but because he was a member of the Austrian parliament, not because he's a historian. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maria_Stromberger/archive1&oldid=1252138548"