Talk:Joel Brand/Archive 1

Fontsizes with CSS

I would like to ask if it would be ok to do the following changes:

1. In the Notes section, exchanging <div style="font-size:95%;"><references/></div> with <references/>. 95% is nearly 100% so I see not much gained by reducing it to 95%. Hardcoding fontsizes in article text should be avoided if possible.
2. In the References and Further Reading sections replace <div style="font-size:90%;"> with <div class="references-small">. The CSS class "references-small" is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css to be 90%. So this wouldn't change the rendering of these parts of the article.

Using CSS for fontsizes is better than hardcoding them in articles. --Ligulem 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Already responded to elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Where? --Ligulem 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We've already had this exchange on our talk pages. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No. You haven't answered my questions above. Please reread my talk and your talk page. --Ligulem 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I answered. 90 per cent was making it hard to read so it was increased to 95. There's no policy that says we have to do it in a certain way, so that's the way we've done it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you please carefully reread my proposal above? I'm proposing 100% for the Notes section (by removing the 95% there) and 90% for the References and Further Reading sections by using <div class="references-small">. --Ligulem 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. The footnotes should be smaller than the body of the text, but because they're so long and contain proper notes, not just citations, they were becoming hard to read at 90, so I increased them slightly to 95. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. You want 95% for The Notes sections. I have proposed 100% for that. But I accept your choice, as long as it is on that article here only. My next question is (as asked above): do you accept the 90% on the References and Further Reading sections by doing it with CSS instead of specifiying it as it is? --Ligulem 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there some policy that these footnotes are violating? Have you contributed anything to this lengthy and informative article besides a dispute about font sizes in references? Is there any reason why lengthy footnotes should be so small as to be unreadable? Please move on to another article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your problem? Could you please reply to my proposal and point out where there is a dispute? --Ligulem 22:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The footnotes contain lengthy comments which are too hard to read at 90%. There is no policy against footnotes being 95%, as they should be in this case. If you have no meaningful content to contribute to this article, please help out somewhere else. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. I'm concerned about the style of articles. Also this one here. Could you please assume good faith and try to read what I am trying to achieve? I'm proposing to use CSS instead of hard coded percentages. My problem is, do you oppose the use of CSS on this article here only or on all articles on wikipedia? I'm concerned about hard coding percentages in articles. Could you please try to think for a second about that? Please, we do not need to invoke policies here. There is no dispute here. So please don't make one out of it. --Ligulem 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion by SlimVirgin at 02:48, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert [1] this of my edits [2]? I do not agree with this revert. Question: Do you oppose the use of CSS only on this article here or on wikipedia as a whole? Note: as I wrote in the edit summary: the font size is not changed by this of my edits, but with CSS I get the possibility to override the site wide setting with my own, something that cannot be done if you hard code the font size into the article. I can benefit from the ability to override the font size for me because I have problems reading such small font. Again: What is the problem for you specifying the 90% by using CSS? --Ligulem 07:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOS#Formatting issues, which states (emphasis added):

"Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be dealt with in articles except in special cases. If you absolutely must specify a font size, use a relative size, that is, font-size: 80%; not an absolute size, for example, font-size: 4pt."

Could you please explain why this is a special case here? We have a class for the small references in MediaWiki:Common.css. Why do you insist on using hard coded 90% font size if there is a CSS class which does exactly the same? --Ligulem 08:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a large dispute over this, but it seems that the consensus is that 90% is a good general size for article references if there are a lot. Wikipedia policy also suggests using official CSS classes over manual style attributes, although it's not a policy to adhere to the consensus in all cases. —Michiel Sikma, 06:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My argument "hardcoded 90% is the same as CSS references-small" is now moot as SlimVirgin in the mean time changed the remaining 90% settings to 95% with this edit [3]. So we now have all "smaller" references fonts in this article here at 95%, which is a new phenomenon I have not seen in other articles (editors that favor smaller references choosed in the range 70..92% with a majority at 90%). As 95% is not that illegible as 90% is (for me), I can accept that, so there is no need for me personnally to override the (for me illegible 90%) with my private CSS setting. As for those that believe I am on a stupid crusade on this article here, I would like to say, that it is the good articles from good writers that are copied by other editors in style. As long as this is at 95% it's not that bad. But when it's 90% or smaller my hurting limit for small font illegibility is crossed and I want to have it with CSS so that I can override it. I'll promise to leave all hardcoded 95% untouched in all articles for now. I would also hope that people like me who do smaller tweaks to a lot of articles are treated with a little bit more respect (AGF etc.). Not everone is a great writer. But this does not mean, people who do things like I do are not useful to wikipedia. There is no need to significantly contribute to an article in order to be allowed to edit an article. --Ligulem 09:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for translation to other languages? (e.g. Hebrew)

I discovered your article listed among the Jewish History WikiProject's list of new articles. Congratulations and thanks for writing so comprehesively on this important and sensitive topic!

Seeing no interwiki link to other languages (later found in Yiddish; interwiki link added), I searched for Joel Brand in the Hebrew Wikipedia. To my dismay, I found not even an article stub, and in pertinent related articles his name appears as a "redlink". As soon as I can take the time to learn how, I'll create the stub (including the :en: interwiki link) and also highlight the article for en>he translation. Deborahjay 12:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust - where to add?

In Yad Vashem's Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust (1990) there's a 3 column article on Joel Brand in the Hebrew edition; tomorrow at the library, I'll check the parallel English edition. Should this be added under the section: Further reading rather than References, as apparently no editor used it in writing the Wikipedia article? Thanks, Deborahjay 05:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deborah, I'm sorry, I didn't see your comments before today. Yes, if it wasn't used as a source, it goes under Further reading. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Trial papers at LoC

Is this helpful? The LoC scanned images of the trial papers. Jkelly 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Extremely helpful, and very, very interesting. Thank you! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarify status

The top of the talk page says this article is featured, but the star is not displayed on the article page. Is it featured or not? Sandy 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, yes it's featured, but I don't know anything about the star. Perhaps it's not been added yet; it only made featured article status a couple of days ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I noticed that. Maybe you should drop a line to Raul, and see if he forgot to add your star? Or put a question on the FAC talk page? Sandy 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just found out how to add it, but I think I should wait because perhaps Raul is the one to do it. I may drop him a line soon. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the others from that batch already have their stars, which is why I asked: I was surprised you didn't have one. Sandy 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You can do it. I did it on the last FAC I'd been involved in. Sam 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Brand, Moyne, and the "one million Jews"

The following appears on page 169 of Yehuda Bauer, The Holocaust in Historical Perspective (Australian National University Press, 1978):

Much has been made in popular literature of the remark Moyne is supposed to have made to Brand, regarding the Jews to be saved: "What shall I do with one million Jews? Where shall I put them?" Brand mentioned this in his testimony at the "Kastner trial" (T124,p.66). In his book [Bishlichut Nidonim Lamavet, ed. Alex Weissberg (Tel-Aviv 1957), 155-156; English edition Weissberg, Advocate for the dead : the story of Joel Brand] he tells the story in the text, but then adds a footnote that he found out that the person he alleges made the remark to him was not Lord Moyne at all. This denial did not prevent Brand from spreading the story later as well. Moreover, the remark itself must be seen in context. The exit of one million Jews from Europe at the time of the Normandy invasion must have seemed to the British utter utopia. At worst, it looked like a desperate ploy of the Nazis to clog up all Allied transport and other resources in the name of a false humanitarianism in order to prevent the allies from pursuing the war.

I have not checked if this footnote appears in the English edition of Brand's book; it is odd that it is regularly cited as a source for the Moyne remark if in fact it denies it. The British reaction is expanded on in Tuvia Friling, Nazi-Jewish Negotiations in Istanbul in Mid-1944, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, V13 N3, Winter 1999, pp. 405-436; I'll add something to the article. Another source on the "million Jews" remark is a book by Ben-Yehuda: "Wasserstein (1982) argues that the 'account' supposedly given by Moyne to Brand was a propaganda fabrication by Lehi, and that Moyne and Brand probably never met." (I'll report on this with refs when Wasserstein's paper arrives.) --Zero^talk 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources are Ben Hecht and Brand's testimony during Eichmann's trial. Hecht writes that Brand was asked by a Jewish Agency official to say in his book that it was someone other than Moyne who had said this, but Brand repeated that it was Moyne during the trial. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but that just emphasises how thin the story is. Brand was a member of Lehi when they killed Moyne, so he shared Lehi's obvious motive to paint Moyne as black as possible. Then there is Ehud Avriel who (according to Ben Hecht) claimed it wasn't Moyne who said it. That seems to be the entire body of evidence. It's not much. Btw, any idea what this book is about? --Zero^talk 11:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd. If you type the publisher, Americans for a Secure Israel of Illinois, into the Google search field, it resolves to this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

this statement is repeated in numberous other sources. See L. Poliakov , G. Reitlinger.... Amoruso 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What counts in history is investigation, not repetition. --Zero^talk 11:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

what counts is verifiability, not the truth you think . Also you're wrong. Brand was asked not to repeat Moyne's name for political reason, not because it wasn't what happened. There's no doubt that it is Moyne who said. Nor is there any doubt that Brand obviously found the Lehi way after being betrayed by both the british and the haganah in the quest to save hungarian jews. Amoruso 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to do history, Zero, but to repeat what historians have said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NYT

Zero, I've moved your edit here temporarily. Could you say exactly what the NYT says? The mixture of quotes and paraphrasing and ellipses makes it hard to see what Brand is saying, what the NYT is saying, and what you are saying. Also, what did the NYT say about when he died? You imply they give a date but that you haven't seen it, even though you've read the article. Finally, do you have a full citation (byline, headline)? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Two months before his death he testified at the trial in Germany of Eichmann's deputies Hermann Krumey and Otto Hunsche. He told the court that "though the deal was suggested by Eichmann" it must have originated in the mind of Himmler as one of his desperate attempts at driving a wedge between the Allies. "I made a terrible mistake in passing this on to the British. ... It is now clear to me that Himmler sought to sow suspicion among the Allies as a preparation for his much desired Nazi-Western coalition against Moscow.

Zero also put this off-quoted quote in the discussion of moyne's page. He's known for using quotes off context with no research behind them. Amoruso 07:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You have never looked at the source so you don't have a clue whether I reported it correctly. And for a Kahanist who uses Neo-Nazi documents as sources, your accusation is rather funny. --Zero^talk 11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

and you try to use the word "libel" in your defense ROTFL. Look at your sewer langauge. Of course I have a clue, you're a known fraud. Amoruso 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I sent you the article by email. --Zero^talk 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation 52

Citation 52 is missing. LuciferMorgan 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks LM, it's fixed now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Himmler Photo

Just a minor point, but the photo of Himmler, said to show him in 1945, looks much earlier to me. Most wartime photos show him in the field grey version of the SS uniform rather than the traditional black. Tyler's Boy (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:JoelBrand.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JoelBrand.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MosheSharett.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MosheSharett.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 23 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement over a sentence

"... the proposal was thwarted by the British government. They arrested Brand in Turkey, ..."

This sentence was in the first paragraph of the article, and Slimvirgin seems to like it this way - to him "They" refers to the "British government" quoted in the preceding sentence. To me it does not, "government" is singular" and "They" is plural. Since the arrest happened in Turkey, I see also a few practical problems with british agents arresting someone there. So I prefer something like this:

"... the proposal was thwarted by the British government. Brand was arrested in Turkey, ..."

Any suggestion on how to get out of this impasse?

Ngebendi (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it as it was. It's a common WP:ENGVAR issue; in British English the collective is treated as plural unlike American English. My issue with the fix to this sentence as it stands now, is who does "and put an end to it by leaking details to the media," refer to, if not "they". The antecedent for "they" is in the proceeding sentence, so it seems to make sense. Anyway, not a huge issue, but worth being aware that different forms of English take different verb forms. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ngebendi, he went to Turkey to make the proposal and was persuaded to travel to an area on the Turkish-Syrian border that was then under British control. As Victoria says, "they" refers to the British government. Your edits left the sentence making no sense, because by starting with "he was arrested," it not only became unclear who had arrested him, but it left "put an end to it" dangling. By the way, you've now changed this four times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Victoria for explaining; you never did, Virgin. I would have changed it four thousand times, for all the sense it made to _me_. Ngebendi (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bratislava Working Group Spring 1942 and Fall 1942 (Europa Plan) ransom negotiations with the SS

Puzzling why "SlimVirgin" reverted my edits, all of which were sourced.

Reason for changes is that some of the information on the current page is inaccurate and in some cases not precise - even according to information presented by Yad Vashem at its museum about the Spring 1942 ransom payments to the SS and the Europa Plan. Yad Vashem's previous chief historian, Dr. Yehuda Bauer, appears in a 2014 film (cited in my edit) by Natasha Dudinsky about Gisi Fleischmann and states that the ransom down payment for the Europa Plan was not paid by Swiss JOINT representative Sally Mayer because that was against allied currency regulations. The well known and cited Abraham Fuchs (Unheeded Cry) and David Kranzler (Thy Brother's Blood) historical works also discuss the SS required 10% down payment and the JOINT unwilling to provide it for the above reason.

Some other inaccuracies. "Jewish rescue workers made several attempts to exploit SS corruption.". It was not "Jewish rescue workers", but the Bratislava Working Group and the date was missing. It was in Spring 1942. The statement "SS corruption" is inaccurate. As far as it is known the funds were a ransom to the SS and not a bribe which Wisliceny pocketed. If someone can prove otherwise they need to provide references. Regarding "corruption" some of the ransom funds sent by the Working Group to the SS as part of the agreement were stolen by a corrupt Jewish traitor (Karl Hochberg) who was later taken care of. (Ref. Fuchs and Kranzler books). Yad Vashem's Web site describes Hochberg as a traitor with various crimes against Slovak Jews who was beaten and later executed by Jewish partisans.

"Fleischmann and Weissmandl's rescue group, the Working Group, devised a more ambitious proposal in November that year" is not precise. Even according to the Yad Vashem museum poster the initiative was Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl's and Rabbi Abba Frieder's. The cited Fuchs, Kranzler and other history books discuss this. They also credit Rabbi Weissmandl for the Spring 1942 ransom initiative.

All of the above can be easily checked by looking in the index of the Dr. Fuchs and Dr. Kranzler books, visiting Yad Vashem museum chamber on rescue and seeing the film "Gisi" - although the two cited history books and the Yad Vashem exhibit should suffice.Emesz (talk)Emesz — Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Emesz, thanks for leaving this note. Part of the problem is that the edit wasn't properly sourced (Abraham Fuchs, The Unheeded Cry; David Kranzler, Thy Brother's Blood and Yehuda Bauer, Film: Gisi). We would need page numbers so that everything can be checked. But bear in mind that this article is about Brand, not the Europa Plan. The latter is mentioned only for brief background, so I wonder whether it's worth going into extra detail. Is the summary of it in the article inaccurate, in your view (rather than not precise enough), and if yes, could you say how? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. (a) If this is is meant to be an exemplary (featured) article I am sure you agree that it needs to be factual about major issues, which it is not. Else it sets the example that accuracy is unimportant and facts may be distorted. (b) if the Europa Plan and prior Spring 1942 ransom negotiations are "just background" then that should either be accurate in main points or dropped since it is very misleading. The Europa Plan is not a minor manner which can be presented falsely. My initial Talk page post noted the inaccuracies/distortions. (c) Bauer explains why the JOINT (via Sally Mayer in Switzerland) refused to provide the down payment for the Europa Plan. This is an extremely important issue. Why is his statement in the 2014 film Gisi not a sufficient reference for my associated points? (d) I tried not to change other very problematic issues in the article. For example that Brand was warned still in Europe by Jewish religious rescue activists that the Jewish Agency betrayed him to the British and he would be arrested. Also that after he was free Chaim Weizmann declined meeting him. I tried not to open up these and other issues. (e) You ask if the article's presentation (summary) of the Spring and Fall 1942 negotiations is inaccurate and how. It is inaccurate and distorted about major issues. Please see my initial Talk page post. (f) If te reference page numbers is the issue I will look them up and will include them in my changes. (g) Please note that EMESZ (or in modern Hebrew pronounced as EMETH) means TRUTH. For me truth is always important - especially in very important matters such as these.Emesz (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Emesz

Hi Emesz, I wanted to leave this note to let you know that I'm not ignoring your posts. I have limited time online at the moment, and I'd like to think more about your posts and read the sources. Would it be okay if I got back to you with some thoughts in a few days? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I really appreciate it that you wish to think about the issues raised in my note and will also carefully think over this matter. Truthful presentation of this subject is very important in my view - assuming there is "truth" in historical narrative, without group, political etc. bias. Unfortunately presentations are not always motivated only by the desire to be truthful. I accept Yad Vashem's slogan: "Remembering the Past - Shaping the Future" and George Santayana's "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." For this reason articles such as this need to be as truthful as possible. At least to be able to learn from the great tragedy and not to repeat past mistakes.Emesz (talk)Emesz

Hi SlimVirgin, What do you think about (a) removing all details about the Spring and Fall (Europa Plan) 1942 Bratislava Working Group negotiations and (b) simply including in the article a link to related Wikipedia pages?Emesz (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Emesz

Place of birth

Brand and the other RS write that he was born in Naszód, Siebenbürgen (Transylvania), then part of Austria-Hungary. This is how he knew it, so that's what we say, while adding the current name (Năsăud, Romania). I can't see any reason to remove part of it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The first thing it would be advisable to do would be to stick to a single language. Naszód is Hungarian, while Siebenbürgen is German, and together, they look absurd.

Second, as far as the infobox is concerned, let's have a look at Template:Infobox person. Under "birth_place", it reads: "Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state. Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth". So we agree the city was Naszód in 1906. As for "administrative region", Transylvania/Siebenbürgen lost its administrative status in 1867 (see Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) for that). The only administrative region of which was a part in 1906 was Beszterce-Naszód County. As for the state, while the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen had some state-like features, they were ultimately part of Austria-Hungary.

Thus, if we are to go by the instructions, and there's no reason not to, the line should read: Naszód, Beszterce-Naszód County, Austria-Hungary (now Năsăud, Bistrița-Năsăud County, Romania).

As for the body of the article, from what I can tell about WP:NCGN and its application to biographies, we generally give foreign-language equivalents of cities only, not states, subdivisions, regions. (E.g., we don't write that a Spanish individual is from España (Spain), or that a German is from Deutschland (Germany), or even from Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate).) To me, the most logical phrasing is something like this:

"Brand was born to a Jewish family in Naszód, a town in the Transylvania region of Austria-Hungary that today is Năsăud in Romania."

Thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will check Brand's autobiography so that we reproduce where he says he was born. As I recall he said Naszod, Siebenbuergen, but perhaps he used the German name for Naszod too. I'll post back here once I've checked it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to check, but since when is it either policy or practice to render the native-language term for a biographical subject's native region (as opposed to town)?

Do we specify that Joseph Roth came from Galicia (Galizien)?

Or that Antoni Gaudí was from Catalonia (Catalunya)?

Or that Alfonso Daniel Rodríguez Castelao was from Galicia (Galiza)?

Or that Julius Weiss was from Saxony (Sachsen)?

Or that Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa was from Sicily (Sicilia)?

Or that Caravaggio was from Lombardy (Lombardia)?

Or that Bohumil Hrabal was from Moravia (Morava)?

No, we don't, I don't know of any policy indicating we should, and there really is no reason to make an entirely whimsical exception in this one case. There exists a perfectly standard English-language name for Brand's native province, Transylvania, and should readers be interested in other languages' names for this place, they will find them if they click through to that article: Transilvania, Erdély, Siebenbürgen, Sedmohradsko, etc., etc.

Also, when you return, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the infobox, since, as I explained, the stated parameters leave us little choice about what to put down, namely "Naszód, Beszterce-Naszód County, Austria-Hungary (now Năsăud, Bistrița-Năsăud County, Romania)". - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joel Brand. 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://archive.is/20140702115431/http://pcha.ushmm.org/PlunderRestitution.html/html/Home_Contents.html to http://pcha.ushmm.org/PlunderRestitution.html/html/Home_Contents.html

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) 14:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 18#File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 December 18#File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Jewish leadership and the Shoah

Charge at https://www.truetorahjews.org/haaretzholocaust — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC) But see https://dusiznies.blogspot.com/2014/12/minutes-of-jewish-agency-executive.html

Timeline headings

This is to keep words like "Kasztner" and "Nazi Collaborator" out of the left column...right? 184.147.148.9 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)