Talk:Leon Felhendler

Death

Please note that:

1) It is impossible for Feldhandler to have been accidentally shot by an Armia Krajowa partisan during an execution in April 1945. That is because the Armia Krajowa disbanded in January 1945. 2) Nobody named Hersh Blank escaped from Sobibor. 3) Googling the name "Hersh Blank" produces two results: both are from this article. There is no other trace of the name. 4) If you would like to make statements regarding the death of Feldhandler, please provide links to sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:04, January 22, 2009 (talk) 62.190.36.11

Your "anti-sEmetic" Poles are just in violation of NPOV. Hersh Blank was a collaborant of UB and NKVD like majority of Jews who survived horror German occupation in Poland. Do some research, if you base your knowledge on what Google shows you, you are in trouble. Try to kee your bias towards Poles to your personal life. Being a bigot in XXI century is really strange. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.78.192 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to have any sources which support your claims? Or do you just expect us to blindly believe your outlandish fantasies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.196.107 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Polish counterpart to this article asserts a different cause of death, and sources are cited. Those sources, as well as at least some of the sources inserted here, should be reviewed for reliabilty. If there is well-sourced support for a different cause of death than that now stated in this article, it should be represented, and all sources should be vetted under the criteria of WP:RS. This article should not be a battleground, but an objective restatement of the facts, or what is known of them, and if histories differ, the differences should be mentioned. Kablammo (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources in Polish article are antisemitic. I did however found one source from museum about Holocaust that calls his death causes unclear. Additionally there is a scholary work dedicated to his death and its circumstances but I couldn't find what it writes Leon Felhendler, zapomniany bohater, „Biuletyn Gminy Wyznaniowej Żydowskiej w Warszawie” 2003, nr 18-19(21). . --Molobo (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know the sources in Polish version are antisemitic if you could not find what the scholarly work writes ? Are you able to read "antisemitic" Polish, but not scientific Polish ?

As is now, article shows possible causes of his killing and cites sources connected with Feldhandler. It does not contain previously inserted references to articles about so called Polish Antisemitism which did not mention Feldhandler at all. This article is not about Antisemitism and we do not know if they killed him because they did not like his yarmulke or because he was there with collaborator Blank. 200.193.129.125 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nine sources say that Feldhandler was killed by antisemites, and one source says he was killed by a Home Army partisan. I've edited the article to reflect what the sources say. If you have any questions, please read WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the books listed as sources all state that Feldhendler was killed by Polish anti-semites. All of them are available on google books and thus the content regarding Feldhendler can be easily checked.62.190.36.11 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense and bias. I will report socketpuppetry for Malik Shabbaz. 200.193.129.125 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Death: references

I've attempted to improve the sourcing on the matter of who killed Feldhendler. Here is a summary of the changes:

• Reformatted existing references, giving fuller bibliographical details
• Added sources that specifically state that:

• Feldhendler was killed by the NSZ
• The NSZ was a right-wing, anti-semitic organization

• Removed sources that don't specifically mention who killed Feldhendler -- except those that are from books whose contents I've been unable to verify. If in fact these sources don't relate to the issue of who the perpetrators were, feel free to remove the references.
• Removed an EL to an MS-Word doc off a discussion board. Please see Wikipedia:External links:Links normally to be avoided:

• 10. Links to... chat or discussion forums/groups.

If this is a legitimate published source that would meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, please restore it along with its publication information. A translation would also be helpful.

--Rrburke^(talk) 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent references

Seeing the controversy in this article, I will use the discussion page before editing. Here is some translation from a recent (January 17, 2008) Gazeta Wyborcza article that has some new information on the death of Feldhendler. Follow this link to see the article in Polish. I paraphrase key passages below.

When human life lost its value

First the article states that between the summer of 1944 and fall of 1946 at least 118 Jews were killed in the Lublin district, mostly in robberies or antisemitic killings. The subject was studied by Dr Adam Kopciowski. He explains about the murder of Leon Feldhendler: "I tried to explain mysterious murder of Leon Feldhendler in Lublin, one of the leaders of the revolt in Sobibor. I realised that there were more cases like that. Hence my publication"

In the spring 1945 Feldhendler lived with his wife in Number 6 building on Zlota street. He rented a room there. On April 2 he was shot and wounded by unknown perpetrators. The shot was fired through the doors of the flat. He died three days later in hospital. The only official document related to this event, found by the Lublin historian, is the admissions list of the "Wincenty a Paulo" hospital listing the wounded man. Dr Kopciowski does not exclude that the murder may have been a robbery - from testimony of a friend of Feldhendler it emerges that he traded in gold. However, nothing was missing from the flat.

The historian states that right after the war the Lublin district was one of the most dangerous regions of Poland for Jews.

What follows from this is interesting. Was there a wave of antisemitic murders in Lublin in those years? Yes. Could Leon Feldhendler been a victim of such a murder? Certainly, and even likely. Nevertheless, it is not known who killed him, so the exact motive will never be known. It will be tricky to rewrite the article to reflect this, but we must try. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bit more info. The newspaper article refers to the article by Adam Kopciowski entitled Zajścia antyżydowskie na Lubelszczyźnie w pierwszych latach po drugiej wojnie światowej (Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II) that was published in Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały (The Holocaust of the Jews, Studies and Materials). Kopciowski's credentials are given as historian, assistant prof. in the Department of Culture and History of the Jews , Lublin University This scholarly publication also has an English edition, and the article abstract in English can be accessed here.

Overall, this looks like a reputable scholarly publication that at this point should be used as our primary source for the circumstances of Feldhendler's death. It would be good to have the original article in the long run, but for now the information from the article and the interview with Kopciowski in reputable and reliable Gazeta Wyborcza, a major Polish newspaper, should be sufficient. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good news, I have managed to get my hands on the original article by Kopciowski, through www.ceeol.com site. I will translate key passages below.70.48.217.40 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kopciowski article

First, I will paste the Polish text here. Then I will translate. Start quote:

Podejmowane czasem wysiłki zmierzające do ustalenia rzeczywistych motywów zajść antyżydowskich zwykle kończą się fiaskiem, a dysponującym ograniczoną liczbą źródeł historykom pozostaje budowanie bardziej lub mniej słusznych hipotez. Bardzo wyraźną egzemplifikacją tego problemu badawczego jest chociażby sprawa zamordowania w Lublinie jednego z przywódców powstania w Sobiborze Leona (Lejba) Felhendlera. Jak dotychczas sprawa ta nie doczekała się poważniejszego i wyczerpującego opracowania historycznego.

Felhendler70 przybył do Lublina latem 1944 roku po wyparciu Niemców z Lubelszczyzny. Zamieszkał wraz z innymi uciekinierami z Sobiboru w kamienicy przy ulicy Kowalskiej 4. Zaczął prowadzić różne interesy, handlował, a po pewnym czasie uruchomił w dzielnicy Kalinowszczyzna garbarnię, w której znaleźli zatrudnienie Żydzi ocaleli z pożogi wojennej.

Jakiś czas później Felhendler ożenił się z wdową po zamordowanym Herszu Blanku, Żydówką pochodzącą z Krasnegostawu71. Dążąc zapewne do życiowej stabilizacji wyprowadził się z przepełnionego mieszkania przy ulicy Kowalskiej i przeniósł na ulicę Złotą 672. Tragedia wydarzyła się na początku kwietnia 1945 roku. Jak relacjonowa- ła żona Felhendlera:

Drugiego kwietnia, o godzinie przed siódmą wieczór, siedzieliśmy w naszym pokoju. Był to ostatni pokój, mieszkaliśmy w sublokatorstwie. Usłyszałam ruch w pokoju gospodarzy. Leżałam na tapczanie czytając książkę. On coś pisał. Coś mnie tknęło. Powiedziałam tylko „Leon, to oni”. Doszedł do drzwi. Ujął za klamkę. Padł strzał. Jeden strzał przez drzwi. Stał blady. Zerwałam się, nie rozumiejąc. „Uciekajmy drugimi drzwiami”, powiedziałam. „Nie mogę”. „Bo co?”. „Mam kulę, o tu”. [...] Ciągnąc go za rękę, uciekliśmy na ulicę. Złapałam dorożkę. Po- jechaliśmy do szpitala. Za kilka godzin operowali go. Operacja udała się, lecz doktorzy ani przez chwilę nie wierzyli w możliwość wyzdrowienia. [...] Męczył się jeszcze trzy dni, nie chciałam mu dawać wody, nie pozwolili. I tak skończył się jeszcze jeden rozdział Sobiboru73.

Według księgi przyjęć szpitala im. Wincentego a Paulo, Leona Felhendlera przyjęto na oddział chirurgiczny 3 kwietnia 1945 roku z rozpoznaniem „przestrzał przez dolną część klatki piersiowej, jelita, żołądek”74. Pacjent zmarł trzy dni później, 6 kwietnia. Ten zapis jest jedynym znalezionym przez autora dokumentem archiwalnym pośred- nio dotyczącym zabójstwa Felhendlera75. Nic nie wskazuje, aby po morderstwie wszczęto w tej sprawie dochodzenie. W raportach sytuacyjnych lubelskiego MO za rok 1945, przechowywanych w Archiwum IPN w Lublinie, nie ma żadnego śladu relacjonujące- go to wydarzenie, choć przypadki morderstw popełnionych na obszarze miasta były w nich skrupulatnie odnotowywane. Co ciekawe, w raporcie z 5 kwietnia figuruje zapis o zabójstwie dokonanym w mieszkaniu przy ulicy Złotej 6/4 (czyli lokalu zajmo- wanym przez małżeństwo Felhendlerów), jednak ofiarą jest niejaka Hanna Gil76.

Ponieważ nie wykryto sprawców, motywy zabójstwa Leona Felhendlera pozostają tajemnicą. Według relacji przedwojennego mieszkańca Żółkiewki, Jerzego Kołodziejczyka, mógł to być mord na tle rabunkowym.

W 1944 r. czy też na początku 1945 r. spotkałem L. Felhendlera w Lublinie. Zaprosił mnie do kawiarni i opowiedział o swoich przeżyciach związanych z ucieczką z obozu zagłady. Mieszkał wówczas w Lublinie i zajmował się nielegalnie handlem złotem. Był bardzo nieostrożny, gdyż podczas spotkania ze mną chełpił się posiadaniem złota, pokazując mi w pełnej ludzi kawiarni pełną garść złotych monet. [...] według wersji, jaką słyszałem w Lublinie, Felhendler został zamordowany przez bandytów na tle rabunkowym, a zatem przypuszczam, że jego morderstwo nie było związane z antysemityzmem77. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.217.40 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

---

And now my translation, sometimes very literal, as some Polish terms are difficult to render adequately.

---

Efforts undertaken sometimes aiming at establishing real motives for anti-jewish incidents often end in fiasco, and historians having at their disposal limited number of sources are left with building more or less plausible hypothetical explanations. A very clear example of this research problem is for one the case of the murder in Lublin of one of the leaders of the Sobibor revolt Leon (Lejb) Feldendler. To this day the case has not received a serious and exhaustive study from a historian.

Felhendler arrived in Lublin in the summer of 1944 after the Germans were expelled from the Lublin region. He moved in with other escapees from Sobibor to a #4 house on Kowalska street. He started to run various business ventures, traded, and after some time started a tannery in Kalinowszczyzna district, which employed Jews that survived the war calamity.

A short time later Felhendler married a widow of murdered Hersz Blank, a Jewish woman from Krasnystaw. In search of stability in his life he moved out of the overfull flat on Kowalska Street and went to live on #6 Zlota street. The tragedy happened at the beginning of April 1945. As related by the wife of Felhendler:

On April 2nd, at 7 o'clock in the evening, we were sitting in our room. This was the furthest room (my comment:from the main door to flat?), and we were subletting. I heard some movement in the room of our landlords. I was laying down on a couch reading a book. He was writing something. Something startled me. I said "Leon, it's them". He went to the door. Took hold of the doorhandle. A single shot rang out, through the door. He stood there ashen faced. I stood up, not understanding. "Let's escape through the second door", I said. "I can't". "Why?" "I took a bullet, right here". [...] Tugging his hand, we fled to the street. I hailed a horse taxi. We went to the hosptal. A few hours later he was operated on. The operation was successful, but the doctors not for a moment believed in the possibility of recovery. [...] He suffered for three days, I did not want to give him water, the doctors forbade it. And so ended one more chapter of Sobibor.

According to the admissions book in the Wincenty a Paulo hospital, Leon Felhendler was admitted to the surgery ward on April 3 1945 with diagnosis "shot through lower chest, intestines, stomach". The Patient died 3 days later, on April 6. This record is the only archival document found by the author related to the murder of Felhendler. There is no indication that after the murder any investigation was carried out. In the reports of the Lublin police for the year 1945, stored in the IPN Archive in Lublin, there is no trace related to this event, even though the cases of murders committed in the city were routinely, meticulously noted. What is interesting, in a report from April 5 there is a record of a murder carried out in a flat on Zlota street 6/4 (in other words in the flat where Felhenlers lived), but the victim is given as Hanna Gil.

Because the perpetrators were never found, the motives for the murder of Leon Felhendler remain a mystery. According to the testimony of a prewar inhabitant of Żółkiewka, Jerzy Kołodziejczyk, it could have been a murder motivated by robbery. He states:

In 1944 or at the start of 1945 I met L. Felhendler in Lublin. He invited me to a cafe and related his experiences during the escape from the death camp. He lived at that time in Lublin and was trading gold illegally. He was sloppy, for during the meeting with me he gloated that he had gold, showing me in the filled cafe a full handful of gold coins. [...] According to a version that I heard in Lublin, Felhendler was killed by bandits for motives related to robbery, so I assume that the murder was not connected to anti-semitism.

---

Sorry for the long text, but this complex matter should receive adequate treatment in Wikipedia. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is really interesting information.--Jacurek (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very interesting and it should now be the main basis for describing the circumstances of Feldhendler's murder, as it is the most recent scholarly study with the best access to the few sources that are available in Lublin. The date of death has to be changed in the first sentence as well.

As is made clear in the article, nobody knows who killed him. His fellow Sobibor survivors must have assumed the worst, that he was killed for anti-semitic reasons, and that is the version they give in their testimony and memoirs. Under the circumstances, that is actually quite probable, so their assumption was reasonable. Anti-semitism must be given as a possible motive for his murder, given the anti-Jewish violence prevalent in the city at the time. But the article should not state that it is certain this was so. And the specific mention of NSZ should not be there, as there is no strong indication at all that they were involved, and not some other underground organisation. Personally, I don't think he was killed by the underground because he was not involved in the Communist apparatus, so there would have been no motive for the underground to kill him (as happened to other Communist functionaries) 70.48.217.40 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you do some editing into an article itself ? Hopefully other editors will soon comment. Thanks again.--Jacurek (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To the IP: Thank you for the interesting information. Could you provide more detailed information about the article so we can properly cite it: a direct link to the article (even if it's only available by subscription), the author's name, the title, the date, and the name of the publication. Thank you very much.

Jacurek, the IP can't edit the article because it's been semi-protected. Only registered users can edit it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it looks like we have the source information here. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not allowed to edit. Also, I want a lengthy discussion to happen first before any changes are made, so any further edit warring is avoided.

I should also correct something I said above. Further in his article, the author states that of the 118 murdered Jews he has clearly identified for the 1944-1946, most of them were killed in the countryside of the Lublin district, and only 7 were murdered in the city of Lublin itself (at the time it had about 100,000 inhabitants, a very rough estimate). Thus the murder of Feldhendler was probably somewhat notorious, but to say that murders of Jews were prevalent in the city, as I said above, is probably too strong. The rather low number is rather unsurprising, as the Communist authorities had a rather strong grip on a large city such as Lublin and could maintain law and order.

On the other hand, Kopciowski states that of the 118 murdered Jews on his list, at most 24 (about 20%) were killed for political, and not racial reasons. Those 24 included 9 soldiers, 8 policemen, 3 suspected informers, 3 security guards and 1 prosecutor. In other words the motives for the murder of 80% of the Jews were anti-semitic or robbery related (or of course both, as one could have antisemitic robbers).

From this one may conclude (without too much OR) that the chances that Feldhendler was killed by an underground operation are rather low, as he was not a member of the Communist regime apparatus. Hence the chances that NSZ targeted him are low, and our article at present is incorrect. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the Thomas Blatt source does not say that Feldhendler was killed by NSZ but rather by "anti-semitic Poles". The source right before it, by Mushkat and Swiatkowski links to a short Google Books excerpt and there it does say NSZ but it's got an asterisk on it indicating a footnote or something of that sort which means that that statement could be qualified. Anyone have the actual book? The Arad source says "right wing Poles" not NSZ but I guess that's probably what he means.radek (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kopciowski published his work in 2007, the books that says NSZ was responsible in 1948 and 1952. More recent scholarship should take precedence here, for fairly obvious reasons. To give just one, consider the bias of Communist publications at the time against anti-communist underground.

Let me be clear. In my personal opinion NSZ was a very nasty, anti-semitic organisation, but blaming them in this case is just not correct. The perpetrators were unidentified. It may have been any one of the underground groups operating at the time, or just random (possibly antisemitic) robbers. We will probably never know. Our article makes it sound almost certain that NSZ was involved. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To be even more clear, I would have no problem with the article noting that there was a wave of anti-semitic violence in the region during that period, and that even if the perpetrators of the murder were not identified, it is probable that anti-semitism was the motive. That is what Kopciowski article essentially implies as a whole. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the date of death should really be corrected. Feldhendler died 3 days after being wounded. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point about the more recent scholarship, but personally I'd feel more comfortable hearing from more editors before I change the article. I won't revert it if some:body else wants to change the article, but somebody else might, which is why I'd like to get other editors' thoughts. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I think going slow here is the best way. Let all interested look things over.

Another suggestion. The hospital is named in Polish after Wincenty à Paulo, but that is simply Vincent de Paul in English. So Vincent de Paul Hospital would sound less cryptic. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your time here and really good inputs. As far as NSZ goes I think that the last sentence could be changed to Because the perpetrators were never found, the motives for the murder and who killed him remain a mystery--Jacurek (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To get things rolling, let me propose my own, rough version. Please improve it! I divided things so that paragraph one has undisputed facts, and paragraph two has various attempts at explanations.

Feldhendler hid in Lublin until the end of German occupation in July 1944 but was shot on 2 April 1945 at his apartment at 6 Zlota street, and died from his wounds in the Vincent de Paul Hospital four days later. According to his widow who was with him during the shooting, he was shot through the door of the room they were renting by unknown assailants. The perpetrators were never identified, and so the motives for the murder cannot be determined with certainty. There is no record of the murder in the police archives in Lublin, which suggests that no investigation of it was conducted.

According to a 2007 paper by Prof. Adam Kopciowski, the scarcity of facts available makes it difficult for a historian to construct an explanation of why the murder occurred. In the years between 1944 and 1946 there was a wave of violence against Jews in the Lublin district, with at least 118 Jews killed (and at least 7 in the city of Lublin itself). In about 80% of cases the motive for the murder was anti-semitism, robbery, or some combination of the two. Thus it is quite likely that Feldhendler fell victim to an anti-semitic attack, but the murder could also have been committed as part of a robbery. Reflecting this uncertainty, a number of sources based on the testimony of fellow Jewish survivors present somewhat contradictory accounts, variously stating that Feldhendler was killed by "right-wing Poles", "anti-semitic Poles", or even members of the nationalist, anti-semitic NSZ underground organisation, though the sources give no explanation why that particular organization was to blame. The truth will probably never be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.217.40 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, except that "The truth will probably never be known" is not necessary and a bit unencyclopedic. Maybe it will be known. What's "probable"? Etc. So I'd just drop that but otherwise it's good.radek (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon, why don't you just register yourself? Editing will be easier then. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I endorse this suggestion. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Weighting sources

Many thanks to User:70.48.217.40 for tracking down and translating the Kopciowski article. Unfortunately the revised version of Leon Feldhendler is unsatisfactory because it fails to observe the principle known at Wikipedia as undue weight, which forms part of the core policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I invite editors who are unfamiliar with WP:Undue weight to review the policy to consider having a look at the essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight -- which, to be clear, is, unlike WP:Undue weight, not policy. The relevant part of the policy reads as follows:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that articles must:

fairly represent[] all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

The crux of the problem is this: the overwhelming majority of the sources -- those published in English, at any rate -- state unequivocally that Feldhendler was murdered for some combination of political and racist reasons by Polish antimsemites: some sources mention the NSZ explicitly; others say "Polish fascists", while still others name "right-wing Poles", "Polish antisemites" etc. etc. But the view that he was killed from political motives is nearly unanimous. That he was killed for antisemitic reasons is a strong majority opinion. That he was killed by the NSZ is a prominent viewpoint that cannot be discounted. Indeed, for all we know, when the sources say "Polish fascists" or "right-wing Poles," perhaps the writers understand themselves to be referring to the NSZ. Against this view is the lone article by Kopciowski. WP:Undue weight therefore requires that it should be clear that this is a minority view. And it should be equally clear both what the majority view is and that it is the majority view.

It was suggested that more recent scholarship ought to be given pride of place. Perhaps, but it is also possible to argue that in some cases older sources might be preferred, especially on questions of eyewitness testimony regarding who-did-what-to-whom, because they are closer in time to the event. Assigning weight to sources is tricky.

So how to weigh the relative merits of sources? Obviously the matter can't be decided by a mere tally of sources: those sources must also be assessed for quality. The Kopciowski article, for example, appears to me to be a high-quality (albeit single) source: a research paper written by a professional historian and published in an academic journal. Academic monographs and peer-reviewed scholarly articles of this kind by professional historians constitute Class-A sources, if you like. Popular histories or trade paperbacks on the topic might be considered, say, B class. Internet-only sources of unclear authorship and uncertain capacity for fact-checking should be treated with caution and should be replaced where there are better options. There are a few such references in this article, and in my opinion they could be dispensed with. Unpublished papers like http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2713 -- if I understand correctly what this source is -- are not suitable as references at all and should be removed -- as should any claim which bases itself on such a source.

The sentence, "Because the perpetrators were never found, the motives for the murder remain a mystery" is wholly unacceptable, because this is the view expressed (verbatim) in a single source, and it's presented here as if it were generally agreed-upon. It isn't: it's a minority view expressed in a single source. Saying the sources disagree on some point is not the same as saying they are confused or "unclear" about it. In fact, the claim that the circumstances of Feldhendler's death are "unclear" is an unrepresentative, minority view. The bulk of the published material on the death of Feldhendler is quite clear and fairly matter-of-fact about who killed him and from what sorts of motives. Those sources may well be wrong, but that's not something we're in a position to judge: our job is to "fairly represent[] all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." From the point of view of the majority of sources, there isn't much confusion at all: Feldhendler was killed by right-wing Poles, quite likely the NSZ, motivated by antisemitism. What matters to us as encyclopedia-contributors is the fact that most reliable, published sources do indeed say this -- not whether those sources are correct. To quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." When the balance of published opinion tips towards Kopciowski's view, it'll be time to rewrite the article.

I'm afraid the statement that "the chances that Feldhendler was killed by an underground operation are rather low" strikes me as pure OR. To quote from WP:OR, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." From WP:RS: "[W]e only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Drawing one's own conclusions by interpreting the primary sources cited in a secondary source looks like WP:SYNTH to me.

--Rrburke^(talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kopciowski quotes the only eyewitness to the murder. I don't think it's undue weight to provide her account of Feldhendler's death before discussing who shot him. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the eyewitness testimony is silent on the question of who shot him and why. I'd be curious, though, to know whom she thought she was referring to when she said, "it's them" [italics mine]. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup to Malik Shabazz: I actually hadn't read the change you were referring to above. I don't wish to split hairs, but Feldhendler's wife doesn't say the assailants were unknown; she just doesn't say anything about their identity at all, which is a different matter. You've attributed the assertion that the assailant(s) were unknown to Mrs. Feldhendler ("According to his widow... he was shot... by unknown assailants"), but in the excerpt from her statement quoted in Kopciowski she made no such assertion. There is a difference, in other words, between saying "I don't know who they were" and not saying anything about their identity.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the statement of Feldhendler's widow, we only have access to excerpts in secondary sources. The testimony is in the Yad Vashem archives, filed under the control number 0-16/464. I presume it is in Polish. It would be helpful if anyone could locate a text in which her testimony is published in full. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think for a moment that my version is adequate, and I am open to changes. I made an attempt to include the viewpoints that consider "anti-semitic Poles" to be the perpetrators. Still, I think we all agree that the 2007 source and its interpretation of events should be given more prominence. After all, more recent research can access new facts. Obviously Kopciowski was able to have access to hospital records and police archives (though the second admittedly contained nothing), something the Jewish survivors had no accesss to previously. Also, it is interesting that the sources for the "anti-semitic Poles" version seem to contain no evidence for the claim, and no analysis of how that claim was arrived at. Kopciowski, on the other hand, lays out the evidence available to him and makes his case.

In general, there is such a thing as progress in historical research (just like there is progress in physics or biology), and more recent scholarly work in the field is usually closer to the truth than older works (assuming of course the modern historian has adequate professional qualifications). Older works can be analylsed by the modern historian and compared with newly available facts (thus, for example, Kopciowski cites Thomas Blatt. "Sobibor: The Forgotten Revolt" as one of his sources, and that is one of our sources for the "anti-semitic Poles" claim). Thus, our article should definitely mention the older interpretations, but also make clear that conclusions of modern historical research are more reliable. 70.48.217.40 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I made few minor changes to address some concerns. Can you guys revue them? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is ok now. Far from perfect, but it is probably not worth spending time on further debates concerning this rather obscure article. I would still prefer to see some separation between conclusions from recent research by a professional historian (more reliable) and conclusions reached by survivors in their memoirs (less reliable), but I understand how it might be hard to convince some here to make such a separation.

Also, the rather childish seeming practice of having a fact backed by eight references (as if this makes it seem more reliable) hurts the article, but that is just a cosmetic thing. The better way of course would be to use just one reference citing the most reliable work, or else combine the references into one long note listing and discussing them all. Still, that is a minor problem. 76.64.218.156 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

One possible door

Another example with fogged glass

This is just pure speculation on my part, but we should keep in mind that the door could have been a glass door of some kind permitting some visibility through it. If Feldhandler was really shot through an opaque door through which he could not be seen, this would have been manslaughter for most justice systems , not murder (plus it would have been really bad luck). It is really too bad that a police report apparently was not made for this case (or at least it went missing). Anyway, stating that his wife "did not see the assailants" may be a bit too strong. She just says "he was shot through the door", that's it. So that is all we can say. 76.64.218.156 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, would it not be best to simply quote a paragraph of her translated testimony directly? That way we don't have to engage in any questionable interpretation of it. 76.64.218.156 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:76.64.218.156 wrote:

"would it not be best to simply quote... her translated testimony directly?"

That's fine, but please bear in mind the policy on the use of primary sources at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and on the translation of non-English sources at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading you correctly, we cannot include her testimony because of those policies. Fine. Still, if we were to follow the spirit of those policies, should we not remove our NSZ claim, which is directly supported only by source 1 and 2, the first one from 1952, the second from 1948, so by the virtue of being close to the events they are actually more like primary sources (hence inferior to later secondary sources which can provide better analysis of evidence). Even worse, both of them are viewable by us only as a snippet and provide almost no justification or evidence for their claim. Meanwhile, later works by more reputable historians (such as one by Yitzhak Arad for example) do not mention NSZ specifically. Why is it that we took the least reliable of our sources to back the strongest claim that we are making? (Strongest due to the long string of references sitting right next to it, implying immense reliability) It's just strange. Not only strange, it is actually misleading, and the fact that it remains in the article is unfortunate. Until this basic problem is corrected, I have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. 70.48.216.16 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine to use primary sources -- with adequate caution. Quoting or paraphrasing them (with due attention to accuracy) is not a problem. Drawing inferences from their contents is original research. To use the example above, drawing the conclusion that Feldhendler's wife didn't know who the assailants were because she doesn't name them is WP:OR. She must say explicitly, "I don't know who they were" for us to be able to say "Feldhendler's wife did not know who the assailants were."

And secondary sources are secondary sources, no matter their date. --Rrburke^(talk) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. We should take great care that we use only exactly what the sources say, and we don't extrapolate or interpret. In that light, since it was you that added the first explicit reference to the NSZ in this edit, could you please personally make sure that all the sources next to the NSZ allegation are very specific in stating that NSZ was involved? And please don't make extrapolations like "by referring to anti-semitic Poles or right wing Poles the author must have meant NSZ" since NSZ obviously did not have the monopoly on anti-semitism in Poland in that time. Since this is such a contentious issue, let's make sure we only use citations which actually back the claim. This is not anything against you personally, this article has been a mess and various citations have been cut and pasted all over the place, leading to a loss of accuracy. Let's now fix that. 70.48.216.16 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The references I actually added with that edit were ones that explicitly mentioned the NSZ; a pair of others were to sources that characterized the NSZ as right-wing and anti-Semitic. With the others, I merely reformatted them using the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} and take no position on their contents.

I would not draw the conclusion that anyone referring to right-wing or anti-Semitic Poles means the NSZ -- and I don't believe I said that. I'm reluctant to remove these references immediately because tracking them down cost another editor work and summarily deleting because I haven't personally verified them seems to me bad manners. If you like, you could go through the edit history to see who added these references and ask those editors what the text they've cited actually says.

I agree that multiple references for each small point is undesirable. I would be happy with one for each point. The problem is that Holocaust-related articles often attract editors with dubious agendas who challenge every minute point in the attempt to obstruct the progress of composing the article. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not challenging the multiple references, I am challenging the fact that they are now all next to the NSZ claim, explicitly justifying it. Since you are now admitting that you have introduced the NSZ claim and backed it with some references which may not in fact support it at all (since you have not seen them yourself), the least you can do is track down when those references were introduced and what they were initially justifying, and then put them in their right place in the article. The current impression given is that NSZ responsibility is verified by six independent sources. That is obviously wrong and misleading.

Also, the events we are discussing happened after the Holocaust, so even hinting that some people involved in this discussion may be Holocaust deniers is completely unjustified. Sorry but that is how I perceived your comments. Furthermore, your attitude introduces an atmosphere of mistrust right from the start and generates unnecessary tension. No one here is out to deny that anti-semitism existed in Poland after the war (it did, and how!) I certainly want to make clear that Feldhendler was likely killed at least in part for anti-semitism reasons. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must report up to date knowledge about historical research, that is its purpose after all. Sorry to get worked up about this, but the fight we have been having over this article is a little dispiriting. 70.48.216.16 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I mentioned the multiple references because I presumed, because you both have the same ISP and are located in the same city, that you were also 76.64.218.156, who objected to the use of multiple reference as "childish". If you are not also 76.64.218.156 (or 70.48.217.40), that is my error, but I find it difficult to have discussions with IP users because their IPs often change, and I have trouble keeping track of who I'm conversing with. You're under no obligation, but this problem could be solved if you would consider signing up for an account.

I didn't say, did not intend to imply and do not believe that anyone participating in this discussion is a Holocaust denier. But I can nearly guarantee you that once we agree on an acceptable version of this passage and have packed up and left, shortly afterwards some person of dubious motives will breeze in and lay waste to that consensus version on some specious pretext: this is the reason for multiple references. This happens with a dreary consistency to Holocaust-related articles -- which Leon Feldhendler is because its subject is known for his role in the Sobibor revolt. Allow me to prophesy that when it does happen, as it very likely will, if you were to examine the editor's contributions you would discover, for example, that he also edits articles about Jewish criminals to highlight the fact that they are Jewish and so forth. This sort of editor is extremely reliable.

I'm a little dismayed that anyone would characterize this discussion as a "fight". For my part, I don't consider myself to be fighting with anyone. I am having a cordial and collegial discussion with an undetermined number of other editors about how to arrive at an acceptable version of the article that accords with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Because you edit from an IP, I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that you are a new editor and may not be familiar with those policies and guidelines, so I have attempted where appropriate to point them out. I have no dog in this race, and am only attempting to improve the article.

I agree that placing references not explicitly mentioning the NSZ next to a claim that they were responsible has created a problem, but a small one that could be solved with some minor rephrasing. If we agree to treat "Polish antisemites" and "right-wing Poles" more-or-less as synonyms, then for instance we could say, "Feldhendler was killed by right-wing Poles ''[references to sources that mention "Polish antisemites" and "right-wing Poles" but do not mention the NSZ]'', possibly the NSZ ''[sources that explicitly mention the NSZ]'', an anti-communist, anti-Semitic paramilitary organization which formed part of the Polish resistance..." -- this would largely solve the problem. The problem with that version is that no source says "possibly the NSZ" -- they either say "by the NSZ" or "by right-wing Poles" etc., so "possibly" is a well-intended but inaccurate way of solving the problem by sawing the point in half. But I'm sure this could be easily overcome.

But this leaves the problem of how best to incorporate the Kopciowski material. I don't know if you are also 70.48.217.40, but if you are, I'd want to begin by saying that I don't necessarily agree that there is in general progress in historical research such as would allow us simply on that basis to prefer recent scholarship as more reliable or to feature it more prominently. Certainly where the writer has access to primary sources not available to earlier writers, that is valuable. But the simple fact of being more recent doesn't in itself imply that scholarship is more reliable -- I think that's something that needs to be evaluated case-by-case. And certainly no single source outweighs a substantial number of others simply by virtue of its being more recent.

As a scholarly paper by a professional historian, the Kopciowski article appears to be a high-quality, valuable source whose inclusion improves the article by complicating an issue that previously appeared settled. So I agree it ought to be included. The question is one of proportion. The article must "fairly represent... all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view" (WP:V), and it is clear that Kopciowski's view remains for now a minority one and needs to be treated as such.

I would propose that the passage might read something to the effect of:

According to most accounts, Feldhendler was killed by [alternatives: right-wing Poles / Polish anti-Semites] [non-NSZ references here], sometimes identified as the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne [NSZ-specific references here], an anti-communist, anti-Semitic [references identifying the NSZ as anti-Semitic and right-wing here] paramilitary organization which formed part of the Polish resistance, but [alternatives: more recent scholarship / one recent paper or the like], pointing to the lack of documentary evidence, has [alternatives: raised doubts about / called into question] [alternatives: this version of events / the killers' motives / the killers' identity or something similar] [Kopciowski reference here].

I note, by the way, an intriguing passage from Arad: "On Feldhendler's death, see Nathan Eck, "Sho'at ha-Am ha-Yehudi be-Eropa," Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, 1976, p. 255." This is a Hebrew-only source, it appears. It would be useful if someone could locate and translate it.

--Rrburke^(talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, that is certainly an improvement over what we have now. Still, this is a very short description indeed. Since this is an article devoted to Feldhendler, there is no harm in having a larger section about the issue. Once the article gets unlocked and things settle down, I may find the time to add something. The evidence uncovered by the recent searches of records in Lublin, sparse though it is, should be mentioned in the article. Including the statistics for anti-Jewish violence in the region in 1944-1946 would also be useful to illustrate the circumstances when the murder occured.74.14.11.254 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that saying that where sources say 'antisemitic Poles' they mean the 'NSZ' is pretty much OR and saying that 'antisemitic Poles' is synonymous to NSZ is just wrong. 'Synonymous' means the same as, but there were plenty of antisemitic Poles who were not members of the NSZ (Piasecki and Moczar for example). Likewise, while probably a sufficiently high portion of its leadership and even membership was antisemitic to qualify it as a 'antisemitic organization' that doesn't mean that everyone in the NSZ (and here I'm just assuming that throughout we mean the NSZ-ZJ faction when saying NSZ) was antisemitic. Particularly after the Soviet take over and the resulting repressions some people joined it based solely on anti-Soviet, not antisemitic, motives. This is why the claim that NSZ was responsible or suspected of being responsible needs to be properly and precisely sourced.radek (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, anon and I have agreed, I think, only to treat "right-wing Poles" and "Polish anti-Semites" (some sources use "Polish fascists") as synonyms, and to place the NSZ in a subordinate clause, attaching references that mention the NSZ as the perpetrators. Wider participation by other editors would be helpful. As for characterizing the NSZ as antisemitic, two references are attached: Leon_Feldhendler#cite_note-12,Leon_Feldhendler#cite_note-13.

I also found another recent source on the topic. It is in Polish, so the assistance of Polish-speaking editors would be helpful. The work appears to be a scholarly monograph, but I can't read it and so can't discover if the author is a professional historian or if the work it was published by a university press and so forth, details which are helpful in assessing a source's reliability. Polish-speaking editors, please have a look at http://alija.4me.pl/pdf/PK_Zaglada_Zydow_s_1_426_A-5.pdf , especially pages 203-204, and let us know what it says and what kind of work this is. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Author refers to Blatt T., Z popiołów Sobiboru, tłum. D. Szczygieł, Włodawa 2003. I think his Polish edition has been extended a little... thanks for great link to tons of reading material. This is great.--Jacurek (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Julian Grzesik, the author of the text at alija.4me.pl has no academic credentials whatsoever. His work appears to be self-published. To give you the flavour, in the introduction one of the themes is squaring Jewish history with biblical prophecy. Most of the book appears to be a compilation of passages and information from other sources. I don't think we can cite it as a source. It is an intriguing read nevertheless. Some references in it may be to valid sources. 76.64.217.223 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about pages 203-204 and tons of references but his work is also worth reading.--Jacurek (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alas -- it looked promising to a non-Polish-speaker. Appearances can be deceiving Thanks for checking it out. As Jacurek suggests, its footnotes could still be mined for usable sources. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What's missing

Two questions:

• I read somewhere that he was shot by NSZ as a Soviet/UB collaborator. Is this confirmed by some reliable sources?
• "Feldhendler hid in Lublin until the end of German occupation in July 1944." Hid how? There are very few examples of Jews hiding in Polish cities by themselves; usually they were aided by some Poles. This should be expanded upon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that he was a collaborator. Kopciowski says nothing about this. I have come across some fringe Polish sources that suggested it, but they had no evidence. 74.14.11.254 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything on this either and from all indications he was not collaborating with UB at the time. The only relevant aspect was some mention of the fact that the anti-communist underground killed some OTHER person who was a UB collaborator in the same neighborhood. I think one of the sources from the Polish wiki version of the article mention it.radek (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the source appears to be an unpublished article, http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2713 . This is given as a reference in the English version as well: I have removed it once, as it doesn't meet WP:RS: it is an attachment to a message in a discussion forum. Unless someone can establish where it has been published, who the author is and what his/her credentials are, it should be removed from both the English and Polish Wikipedia versions of the article. As there is an active discussion about sources going on on Talk:Leon Feldhendler, I have elected for the moment not to remove it again until a consensus emerges on how the passage on Feldhendler's death should be rewritten, but any other editor would be well within their rights to remove this reference (and the claim it supports) immediately as not meeting the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. I will remove it myself in the next rewrite if no one can explain why it ought to be considered reliable. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of work by amateur historians floating around on this controversial topic. It would be best if we stick to reputable academics or notable newspapers as our sources. A forum such as "historycy.org" is definitely out. 76.64.217.223 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll pull it out in the next rewrite unless somebody beats me to it. I note that historycy.org is cited on English Wikipedia in eleven other articles. These citations also need removing. Anyone removing them should consider citing Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and/or Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided as their rationale for removing these references -- either in the edit summary or on the talk page -- in case the removal is challenged. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good rewrite, just one mistake. The home town (village actually) is Żółkiewka, Lublin Voivodeship, so please correct the link. Żółkiew/Zhovkva is in Ukraine. 76.64.219.92 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake -- but Jacurek appears to have corrected it. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sobibor film

It so happens that the film is available online via YouTube. The last part is here. At the end of the film there is a long sequence with a narrator describing what happened to the escapees after the war. About Feldhendler this is said, and I quote:

Leon Felhendler fought his way back to Lublin in Poland where he remained safe until the liberation. There he ran a small business employing and helping many Jews who had survived the camps, including Sobibor. Fourteen months after the escape, in a confrontation with a group of anti-semites, Leon was murdered, by his countrymen, because he was a Jew.

Now obviously a film is not a source, but we may include the quote verbatim, since after all it is through this film that Feldhendler is known in popular culture. 76.64.219.92 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking on YouTube, there are some fascinating things about Sobibor. For example, 2007 talk of Thomas Blatt (in Polish, 5 parts) part 1. There are also two interview in English, though much less informative [1], [2]. All this is only tangentially related, but still interesting. 76.64.219.92 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Update to Infobox + Photo

I adding an Infobox to the page as well as a photo. Meishern (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks it looks great.--Jacurek (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leon Feldhendler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lublin.gazeta.pl/lublin/1,48724,13628717,Lublin_tuz_po_wojnie__Anarchia__bieda__dostepnosc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://miasta.gazeta.pl/lublin/1,35638,4846043.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wyborcza.pl/1,75517,2752691.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leon Feldhendler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915160327/http://kpk-toronto.org/archives/TangledWeb3.doc to http://www.kpk-toronto.org/archives/TangledWeb3.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of name

The Man’s last name was Feldhendler. With a D and an E. I know because I am married to one of his cousins who is the daughter of a Survivor. 2601:586:C700:97DE:815E:CD59:3CF1:40ED (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)