Talk:Rudolf Vrba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation This page was cited by Paul Lungen in The Canadian Jewish News, April 12, 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudolf Vrba article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Rudolf Vrba is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Rudolf Vrba appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Rudolf Vrba is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II Wikify: Category:Jewish Encyclopedia inline citations should be changed to footnotes and edited for comprehensibility. Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

• Archive 1

Contents 1 Featured article 2 Vandalism of this page - should we do something about it? 3 Book title 4 Good article 5 Only five escaped? 6 A milstone 7 Redundant article The Vrba-Wetzler report 8 First two sentences 9 Circumstances of death 10 Can someone fix ... = 11 Possible vandal? 12 Improved source needed for sentence

[edit] Featured article

Has anyone considered nominating this article for featured article status? Looking it over, I think it would almost definitely pass inspection. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And so it is! Congrats to the editors involved.--Mantanmoreland 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I only noticed when I saw this post, so you were the one to pass on the good news, Mantan. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of this page - should we do something about it?

I recently noticed that someone with IP 137.158.128.105 modified Vrba's page, inserting the following:

"Vrba escaped by flying away in the time machine that he made from the human soap and ashes that he found in the gas chambers, which explains the remains of any human remains actually being found atAuschwitz after the war. He also wrote "Sergeant Pepper" in 1943 whilst at Auschwitz, which was later passed on to John Lennon, who basically copied it note-for-note in the 1960s. He never received due credit for having basically invented the psychedelic music genre, and his heirs should be backpaid for "Pepper"'s royalties from the 60's! Accusations that Vrba was schizophrenic and suffered from hallucinations and delusions are just anti-semitic lies made by Neo-Nazis and terrorists."

Thankfully, Kingboyk noticed this vandalism and reverted to the previous version within less than 2 hours (thanks Kingboyk!). I looked at the list of edits that came from IP 137.158.128.105 and it seems that this guy has edited several Holocaust related entries and inserted this sort of vandalism in those entries as well. I'm new to Wikipedia but since we're fortunate here to have some very experienced users editing this page, allow me to ask: should we report this? to whom? how? Guidance from experienced Wikipedia users would be appreciated.

Escamoso 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All you can do is grit your teeth and revert. I'm surprised there isn't more vandalism, given the nature of the subject matter.--Mantanmoreland 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What's going on with the first sentence of this article? I am very new to editing Wikipedia, but I can't seen to remove it when I go to edit. Help!--Teamla 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone got it. Thanks!--Teamla 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book title

I just stumbled upon this excellent article, and I had a question. Vrba's memoir, which I read years ago and still have somewhere, was entitled "I Cannot Forgive" when it was published years ago and still has that title in US editions. It stuck out in my mind not just because the book was so memorable but because it was not a very good title. I see here that it is listed in the footnotes with a different title, "I escaped from Auschwitz." Shouldn't it be referred to by its original title? Note the listing on Amazon.[1]. Someone points out in a "product Wiki" at the bottom of the Amazon page, correctly, that the book was originally entitled "I cannot forgive." I think use of the newer title is a bit confusing.--Mantanmoreland 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been republished, along with some very useful appendices (e.g. the full Vrba-Wetzler report), so the new edition is the one we're using as a reference. However, we should make a note in the References section that it was originally called I cannot forgive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and we do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I think the "I cannot forgive" part may have come first in the original title, but I'd have to haul out the book and it is buried somewhere.--Mantanmoreland 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

It is really a good article. But should not we restrict size to the recommended level! FAs going well beyond the size recommended does not look nice, though I am not sure of the same. --Bhadani 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Bhadani. I don't think there is a recommended level. I saw a discussion about length recently on the FA page, and people were saying articles should be as long as they need to be (with the stress on need, of course). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SV. Now, a doubt has been cleared. The page is really nice and I learnt a lot - though I had heard the name before. --Bhadani 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am growing older. I forgotr to congratulate your and Jayjg, and all others on the nice work. Congrats. --Bhadani 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We the bankers say this as Need based contents. --Bhadani 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the congrats, which are much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only five escaped?

I think something needs to be reworded, because I don't fully understand.

The article states he was one of 5 who escaped Auschwitz concentration camp but the article states that nearly 300 escaped.

I don't think I understand, maybe someone could word the article more accurately.

But otherwise, it is a very good job. Congrats. The0208 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly I was confused by this. I think the opening para is unclear in that either they were the 1st two of 5 who escaped and gave credible reports or simply 2 of 5 who escaped and that they also gave credible reports. And, experimenting, does the tag ^{[[[Ambiguous]]]} work? Paul Beardsell 07:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The second footnote explains it. Overall, 667 prisoners are known to have tried to escape, 270 of whom were caught and killed; the fate of the others is unknown. Of the 667, 76 Jews succeeded, five of whom managed to pass information about the camp to the Allies. Vrba and Wetzler were the second and third of those five. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But the point is simply this: The sentence is ambiguous. It is always better that this is not the case. And if there isn't an ^{[[[Ambiguous]]]} tag there could usefully be one. Paul Beardsell 11:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's best not to put tags on featured articles. I don't find the sentence ambiguous myself, but perhaps you could suggest a way to make it less so, but retain its accuracy. Here it is:

"In April 1944, Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler became the second and third of only five Jews to escape successfully from the German death camp at Auschwitz and pass information to the Allies about the mass murder that was taking place there."

I read it to mean that they were the second and third Jews to escape and pass details to the Allies i.e. there was one Jew before them who managed to escape and pass details, and two after them. (The reason Vrba's information is regarded as important is that it was the first to be taken seriously, not the first overall, as the article and footnotes say.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A milstone

A milestone! Really a great job. --Bhadani 02:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant article The Vrba-Wetzler report

The article The Vrba-Wetzler report appears to be redundant. Can certain portions be merged?

"Redundant" in what sense of the word? Paul Beardsell 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First two sentences

Should the second sentence be the first? Per inverted pyramid, its more important that he escaped from Auschwitz and passed info to the allies than that he was a professor of pharmacology. Marskell 08:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marskell, my reasoning was to first of all say who he was i.e. when he died, what his position in life was. And then to say what he was known for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps: "Walter Rosenberg (September 11, 1924 – March 27, 2006), was an escapee of the German death camp at Auschwitz, Holocaust documentarian, and later Professor Emeritus in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of British Columbia in Canada." Nothing else would need to change, except there'd be no need to repeat "German death camp" in the next sentence.

done.Sfahey 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Great article BTW. Marskell 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I'm really not keen on the first sentence saying he was an escapee, and particularly not a "Holocaust documentarian." He was a professor of pharmacology. Escaping Auschwitz was something he did, not something he was. And others documented it; he just told them what had happened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand at all. He is notable because of his escape. The article details his documentarian work. He was an important Auschwitz escapee. That's broadly why this article exists. Per any existing stylistic standard you want, the lead sentence should note this. I have absolutely no desire to revert something you've worked on so greatly (and particularly with Jayjg editing) but...I don't understand at all. Marskell 20:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I'm not sure I can explain it clearly. It's that escaping from Auschwitz isn't something he was, but something he did. He became known because he did X, not because he was an X-er. So you're right: that has to be very near the top. But first you want to answer the question: Who is this person? The answer is: Name, a professor of pharmacology. And the reason we're telling you his story is? He escaped from Auschwitz.

That intuitively feels like the best flow to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On a kind of ontological level, I do understand your second sentence...but then I'd quibble (of course I would :). That profession is "is-ness" is debatable, personally and in terms of writing a Wiki page. He was man. He was a husband. He was a Jew. He was (maybe) an optimist or a pessimist, a Cancer or a Virgo. If you could ask him, I'm sure some of those would occur before "Holocaust escapee". But the primary question here is: why are you reading this? Answer: because he escaped Auschwitz and passed info to the allies. This shouldn't be near the top, it should be at the top. And, presentation-wise, order of primacy in the lead should reflect order of primacy in the body. We have "50 papers" in the first sentence now, but this doesn't occur in the body until after half the article is done. One or the other should be changed.

Now then! I've had one article on the main page and it's a very stressful day. I don't want to be too pedantic, picking apart 0.25k when you've done up the other 84.75 so well. The first sentence does matter, and I don't agree with it as it stands, but perhaps tomorrow will provide a compromise. Cheers, Marskell 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding about today! Tomorrow would be great. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circumstances of death

Usually in a biographical article where the subject is deceased, the circumstances of the death are given. Icemuon 13:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was in an earlier version then was moved during a series of edits, and not put back. It's there now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone fix ... =

... the tortuous second paragraph of "Vrba's accusations". There's a long, meaningless sentence in there that smacks of "too many cooks". I don't know the story well enough to do it. Sfahey 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is the sentence you don't like? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandal?

The mention of sexual orientation in this sentence doesn't look quite kosher, but I don't know enough about the subject to rip it out myself: "He decided to return to Slovakia, but was caught by homosexual Hungarian border guards while crossing back over the Hungary-Slovakia border." --Robertb-dc 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. Not quite kosher is right. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page, after Further Reading, this appears.

    [[he:רודולף ורבה nigger fuck shit
    ]]

I don't know what the Hebrew says, but I'm positive that the English is offensive. Bobbit bob 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. The Hebrew is just his name; the other stuff has gone, I think — at least for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improved source needed for sentence

Hi, This note is regarding the sentence that reads: "It is regarded as one of the most important documents of the 20th century[5][6] because it was the first detailed information about the camp to reach the Allies that they accepted as credible.[7]"

• The sentence uses a "weasel word" formulation "it is regarded" ("Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles:"...is widely regarded as..."...From Weasel words wiki-page). The wiki-page on "weasel words" goes on to say "It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." An editor has pointed out that this sentence is footnoted. However, the footnoted sources (BC bookworld author bank, from abcbookword.com, and Jewish News Weekly of Northern California) are not sources that would normally be used in an academic context. Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. As such, it would help if we could find a more scholarly source (e.g., a journal article, encyclopedia article, etc).Nazamo 02:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)