Talk:Rudolf Vrba/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Rudolf Vrba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Featured criteria

I believe that substantial improvements are necessary in order for the article to meet featured criteria. Here are some of the issues that I noticed.

References

In general, the bulk of the references are to primary sources such as Vrba and Klein or news coverage, only a minority of footnotes reference scholarly sources even when those would be more appropriate. This also raises concerns about due weight.
Views about historical consensus attribute to Klein, who is not a historian, also without a page number, in the lede
No citation : "The committee had organized safe passage for Jews into Hungary before the German invasion, and thereafter sought to help them escape the deportations."
~~Many~~ Some other citations are missing page numbers: Fleming 2014 (which is also in a different format than the others), Conway (1997)
Some citations have too long page ranges. Most citations should only refer to one or two pages for maximum verifiability.

Neutrality

At times, Vrba's alternative facts are not sufficiently challenged. His figure of 1,750,000 murdered should be compared to the number of people historians believe were killed before his escape, around 600,000-700,000.
The sections on Vrba's allegations and "survivor-expert discourse" should be reorganized to directly contrast his claims with historical evidence and the refutations of mainstream historians, in order to avoid false equivalence.
~~That said, the quote from Amir seems unnecessarily polemical, especially since he doesn't seem to be a widely regarded historian, and is probably given undue weight.~~
Ruth Linn is a psychologist, not a historian, and she helped get Vrba awarded an honorary degree, which raises questions about her objectivity. Escaping Auschwitz is given more weight than scholars seem to give it; it has only 20 citations on Google Scholar. For example, in the Survivor-Expert section, it contains a paragraph cited to Linn about how Vrba was allegedly minimized in postwar Israel, but not Bauer or other historians' rationale for why distributing the Vrba-Wetzler report would not have been effective ~~(I think Tuvia Friling may have also covered this subject in Arrows in the Dark, which also discusses Nazi-Jewish negotiations)~~
The Auschwitz Reports and the Holocaust in Hungary is not a scholarly source. It has been cited only 3 times on Google Scholar and a review of it says, "In an edited collection of patchy quality and diverse styles ranging from the philosophical (Robert Jan Van Pelt) through the encyclopedic (Zoltán Tibori Szabó) and polemical (Ruth Linn) to the autobiographical (George Klein), the long-debated question of what Hungarian Jews and the wider world …" [1] (emphasis added) I think that we should avoid such a source in a FA.
Personal correspondence of Bauer is cited to the exclusion of his published statements: "We can rely on Vrba when he reports what he saw and went through himself. But his interpretations have to be the subject of an analysis, just like every document and every testimony." (Bauer 2002, p. 235-236) is probably more appropriate to cite than "not a memoir in the traditional sense" comment.
The statement that "Kastner's reasons for not making the document public are unknown" is, in my opinion, somewhat misleading, because censorship restrictions limited his ability to make the report public. According to Braham, Kastner did not do everything in his power to disseminate the report. But Braham has more questions about Kastner's reasons for not publicizing what he knew about the Final Solution before the occupation, as early as 1942. (Braham 2000, p. 93-95) Also, Kastner aided and abetted the youth movements, who did bring copies of the report to the transit ghettos, but the local Jewish leadership banned them. (Bauer 2002, p. 236, also discussed in Asher Cohen, The Halutz Resistance in Hungary 1942- 1944; Munkácsi, Hogyan történt, p. 82; Leni Yahil, The Holocaust. The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 642-643). Although I'm wary of adding too much detail to this section, which belongs in the Vrba-Wetzler report article and Kastner's article, I think this section could be rewritten to be more neutral.

Coverage

The article does not discuss Vrba's allegations about the deportations from Slovakia, which are probably more farfetched than the ones that he made about Kastner. These allegations are discussed in Bauer 1994, pp. 70-74, and Bauer 2002, pp. 234-237 who, by the way, has a more nuanced perspective on resistance to deportation than is represented in this article.
The article sometimes goes into unnecessary detail. Does it really enhance the reader's understanding to know the numbers of Arnost Rosin and Czesław Mordowicz, or that they were arrested for a currency violation while getting drunk after learning about Normandy? Or that the translator was "Neumann's aide, Oscar Krasniansky, an engineer and stenographer who later took the name Oskar Isaiah Karmiel?" This is especially concerning given that most of such details are cited to Vrba, and Vrba's testimony is known to be unreliable.
Missing important details. Vrba communicated with Fredy Hirsch, a leader of the Theresienstadt family camp, repeatedly warning him (correctly) that parts of the family camp was going to be liquidated on 8 March 1944 and the remainder in June. Thousands of the inhabitants of the family camp were gassed on 8 March; saving the remainder was said to be one of the motivators for Vrba's escape.[2]. The inclusion of the family camp in the Vrba-Wetzler report[3] sparked diplomatic protests from the Czech embassy.[4](also Gilbert 1981 p. 233) The incident is also mentioned in his autobiography. The family camp is discussed in an essay in this German-language book: [5]
While at Auschwitz, Vrba and Wetzler were approached by SS guard Viktor Pestek [cs; de] who offered to help them escape, but they refused, fearing that it was a trick.[6]

~~Factual errors~~

Dr. Oskar Neumann was not the chairman of the Jewish Council. He was an operative of the Working Group and in charge of the Bratislava Jewish Council's retraining department (Bauer 1994, p. 70) (edit: according to Bauer 2002, p. 182, he became the leader of the Jewish Council in 1943. However, in interviewing Vrba he was acting in his capacity as a representative of the Working Group, since this was strictly an illegal activity). (a possible indication of this article's over-reliance on Vrba's account)

I hope that these issues can be addressed so that the article can keep its featured status. Catrìona (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, GizzyCatBella, Rms125a@hotmail.com, and DHeyward: You've been active in editing this article recently, any thoughts? Catrìona (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The article tries to steer a course through the pro- and anti-Vrba positions. Re: sources, you say there are a lack of scholarly sources, but you're choosing to define at least two as non-scholarly: Linn (Cornell University Press) and Braham and vanden Heuvel (Columbia University Press). See Works cited for others. Which scholarly sources are missing?

Klein has no page number in the lead because the point is supported by the whole article. Which other refs are missing page numbers? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: My concern is exactly that: "steering a course through the pro- and anti-Vrba positions" has led to false equivalence between Vrba's alternative facts and the historically accepted view (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance). I'd like to reiterate that it's not me who's raising concerns about the sources: it's scholars who are doing so. This review of Escaping Auschwitz [7] describes Linn's arguments as out of date and missing the post-Arendt scholarship on the issue. This review [8] describes the book as "provocative"; unfortunately, I don't have access to the rest of the review.

I'm not sure where the "Hungarian Jews would have resisted" is discussed in the article, unless it's Bauer discussing "internalization." By the way, Bauer's remarks are actually part of his discussion of Vrba's accusations against the Bratislava Working Group and the Jewish council in Bratislava, and are not related to the Hungarian issue (see this diff). This needs to be made clear in the article, or we risk misrepresenting Bauer. Catrìona (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the article makes clear that scholars regard certain of Vbra's claims as inaccurate. Where in the article is there doubt on that point, in your view? I'd appreciate a reply to my previous questions about which scholarly sources are missing and which refs are missing page numbers. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said that scholarly sources are missing. In this article, anecdotes (see the Klein material which you restored) and minority viewpoints are given too much weight (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)#Reliable sources for weighting and article structure—balance and due weight is governed by scholarly sources). If the Klein material had been described in a secondary source, it would be reasonable to include it, but as Klein's autobiography, it should not be included here. Also, I think that describing Ladislaus Löb as a "scholar" makes it sound as if he is a historian, rather than a professor of German, and hopefully another scholar can be found so that the plural is accurate. You're right that the Klein cite appears to be the only one missing a page number, but that's still one bad cite too many for a FA. And he should not be cited for "historical consensus," because he is not a historian. Catrìona (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You wrote: "Many other citations are missing page numbers". As you now acknowledge that this isn't true, I'd appreciate if you would strike it. The Klein cite is not a "bad cite"; as I said, it refers to the whole article, and cites aren't needed in leads anyway. You also wrote: "only a minority of footnotes reference scholarly sources". This also isn't true. If you believe that some sources are missing or underused, please be more specific. As for Ruth Linn, this is a biography and her book Escaping Auschwitz: A Culture of Forgetting (Cornell University Press, 2004), is about the biography subject, so it's appropriate to use it. And Klein's paper is interesting because it illustrates Vrba's point (that people would have fled had they known) and Bauer's (that they would not have fled because they would not have believed it). In Klein we have both. I don't know what you mean about citing him for "historical consensus". SarahSV ^(talk) 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If the Klein anecdote were really as important as our article has it, we would expect it to be repeated in secondary sources, which it isn't. It certainly doesn't illustrate Bauer's point, since he was discussing Vrba's allegations that the Working Group and the Jewish Center in Bratislava withheld information about the Final Solution:

We must differentiate between information and its internalization, or"knowledge"; and in this case there is absolutely no proof that information on planned mass murder, as opposed to pogromlike shootings and other persecutions, was received during the early months of deportation. Internalization—that is, acceptance of information as correct and thinking in accordance with that information, and later possibly action—is a complicated process. During the Holocaust countless individuals received information and rejected it, suppressed it, or rationalized about it, were thrown into despair without any possibility of acting on it, or seemingly internalized it and then behaved as though it had never reached them. This is true not only of people who were outside the kingdom of death but also of people within it.

When Vrba was deported in June, the UZ [Jewish Center in Bratislava] had information about pogroms, suffering, and starvation, not about the "Final Solution." In addition, Vrba claims that five months after he was deported, he still saw, in Auschwitz, transports of Slovak Jews who were unaware of what was awaiting them. If he was deported on June 30, five months thereafter was November. But there were no transports in November. The transport of September 23—most likely before Vrba reached Auschwitz—had to be put together by the security groups chasing and hunting Jews; by that time the Jews knew what was awaiting them in a general way. They were, in fact, explicitly warned by the UZ, which is why the authorities had to fill the transport quota with inmates of the labor camps, who had been promised immunity from deportation.(Bauer 1994, p. 72)

I haven't yet read what Bauer said about the Hungary deportations, but I find the confusion between 1942 Slovakia and 1944 Hungary to be problematic because it misrepresents Bauer, and his position on Jewish resistance to deportation. Also, the Slovakia deportations probably deserves more coverage than is given in this article.

According to WP:CITELEAD, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation... editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Since the statement in the lede is a) contentious and b) not directly repeated in the article, it should be cited—to the "Holocaust historians" who think that a warning would have not been effective.

Again, I repeat that my concerns are not about "missing" sources but rather about weight, neutrality, and sourcing. Addressing these concerns may involve removing some material from the article, rather than adding it. Catrìona (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please assume that I'm familiar with the policies; there's no need to keep quoting them. What is contentious about the lead paragraph you're discussing?

There was a delay of several weeks before the report was distributed widely enough to gain the attention of governments. Mass transports of Hungary's Jews to Auschwitz began on 15 May 1944 at a rate of 12,000 people a day. Most went straight to the gas chambers. Vrba argued until the end of his life that the deportees would have refused to board the trains had the report been distributed wider and publicized sooner, a position generally not accepted by Holocaust historians.

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It is contentious because it doesn't make it clear who the "historians" are and what their actual statements on the possible impact of earlier dissemination of the report were. In my opinion the entire issue is contentious because it relates to Kastner's alleged collaborationism. In fact, it doesn't need to be contentious; the material has now been challenged (by me). I suggest that the best way to resolve the dispute is to cite the actual historians who have put forth this argument. Catrìona (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: "the actual historians who have put forth this argument", which argument exactly? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Historians who contradicted Vrba's claim that "deportees would have refused to board the trains had the report been distributed more widely and publicized sooner" Catrìona (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Two comments. (1) Friling's "Arrows in the Dark" mentions Vrba extremely briefly and doesn't deserve mention. (2) Ruth Linn's book is not a history book about the Holocaust but a study of the reception and dissemination of ideas. She is clearly qualified for that, and the article also makes clear her personal involvement. I am completely sure that she belongs in the article; details can always be negotiated. Zero^talk 01:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Catriona, I added Bauer 2002 to that bundle, but this is an argument lots of historians make; it isn't a contentious point. I removed the long Bauer quote you added because the section directly after that in Bauer would be more appropriate; if you feel a quote is needed there, I'm willing to type it up. I've restored the material you removed. I'd appreciate it if you would respect WP:BRD and gain consensus for these edits. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, BRD recommends 1) making changes 2) discussing changes if they prove controversial. I've already put forward my argument that the quote from Amir doesn't belong. Perhaps I missed your argument to the contrary? Catrìona (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Per MOS:MULTINAMES, the subject should be referred to as "Walter Rosenberg" previous to his escape and assumption of an identity as Rudolf Vrba. I'm not sure if this is covered in the FA criteria, though.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrìona (talk • contribs) 10:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Break

Please propose edits here, explain why they're improvements, and wait for consensus to form. You're trying to make extensive edits to an FA in a rush. I can't suddenly devote myself full-time to this, especially not at the moment, as I'm recovering from flu or something. I'd appreciate it if you would slow down, explain the point of each edit, and wait for a response (which may not be immediate). SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Then I'll quote remarks I made in my ongoing listing of significant issues with the article above: "the quote from Amir seems unnecessarily polemical, especially since he doesn't seem to be a widely regarded historian, and is probably given undue weight." For some reason, the introductions to academic history books are often written by little known authors and frequently include sensational claims that the main authors don't necessarily agree with. If that quote is kept, I would be concerned about the translation. I don't speak Hebrew, so I can't check it. The book was published when Vrba was still alive; wouldn't the authors be worried about libel claims for what is clearly a personal attack on him? Not to mention the extreme tastelessness of the statement. Catrìona (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Amir has been removed. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Vrba's "figure of 1,750,000 murdered should be compared to the number of people historians believe were killed before his escape, around 600,000-700,000." Catrìona (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added the USHMM figures for 1940–1945. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't address my concern. I can understand that there isn't a scholarly figure of deaths from the time that Vrba was there, but I still think that we should, in fewer words, state the overall number killed, and also the number of Hungarian Jews killed on arrival after Vrba left (320,000, according to the same source that you cited.) Otherwise, we're comparing the number killed in the entire operation of the camp versus the limited period that Vrba was there and based his estimates on. (edit: perhaps something like "Scholars agree that 1.1 million people died at Auschwitz, including at least 320,000 Hungarian Jews who arrived after Vrba's escape." I don't think it's necessary to state exactly who died. We should also challenge Vrba's figure that 90 per cent of Jews arriving at Birkenau were being killed, because the actual figure was about 75% according to the USHMM.)

Regarding the Klein section, not only is it anecdotal and given excessive weight, I don't think that it helps elucidate anything, as you claimed earlier. It creates a false impression that

1) there was no credible, available information about the Final Solution before the Vrba-Wetzler report (see Bauer 2002, p. 223-224, 233, 235, etc.: "This information, as we have seen, was very widespread; those who were ready to accept it as true did not need the protocols to convince them; everyone else rejected it")

2) that a significant number of Jews, who chose to believe the news of the Final Solution, could have individually escaped. (see Bauer 2002 p. 235)

First, Klein would have had privileged access to information due to his job with the Jewish Council, which enabled him to receive the report—the fact that a few individuals received copies is mostly irrelevant, since the distribution of the report to Jews did not affect the situation as a whole—and second, Klein's job presumably exempted him from the ghettoization process, which would have prevented his escape. Showing this anecdote without the hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews who were not so lucky, were ghettoized, had no access to information, and no opportunity to escape boarding the trains (Bauer 2002 p. 235), leaves a false impression of events. I think it should be completely removed. Catrìona (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about Klein. For example, he "would have had privileged access". He did have privileged access; that's the point of his paper; it's why he's in the article; and it's arguably why he's alive.

Are you saying he is wrong when he writes the following, after reading the report? "I could now clearly see what had happened to my grandmother and to my uncles after they were deported from their village. I could also see what fate was being prepared for me and our remaining family as well. Intellectual satisfaction—because I knew that this had to be the truth. I immediately believed the report because it made sense. Nothing else made sense." Is your argument that he in fact already knew at that point (as did all or most Hungarian Jews), and he later pretended that he hadn't known? SarahSV ^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not question the accuracy of Klein's recollection. What I said was that his experience was unrepresentative of the overall experiences of Hungarian Jews at the time, and therefore leaves a false impression of the possibility of taking action based on the report. Catrìona (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Was it unrepresentative with reference to what he knew before he saw the report? Your argument seems to be that they all knew (in some sense) anyway. But Wiesel also talks about not having known. I'd appreciate it if you would list some sources that support your position, apart from Bauer, so that it's clearer what your argument is. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Bauer certainly did not say that every single Hungarian Jew knew about what had happened to Jews in other countries. Usually, a single RS is sufficient for a claim, unless it's an extraordinary claim, but since you asked, see Judit Molnár, The Foundation and Activities of the Hungarian Jewish Council, March 20-July 7, 1944 Yad Vashem Studies 30, 93-123, 2002:

'Members of the Jewish Council admit that they were aware of the fate Eichmann’s unit intended for them. As Samu Stern wrote in 1945, “...I knew what they had done in all the occupied countries of Central Europe, and I knew their operation was a long series of murders and looting.” His deputy, Ernö Pető, also said in 1945: “We knew about the fate of the Jews abroad, in Poland and Slovakia."' According to Molnár and other historians (see Robert Rozett, The Relationship between Rescue and Revolt: Jewish Rescue and Revolt in Slovakia and Hungary During the Holocaust, Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1987, pp. 75- 80.), the average Hungarian Jew had plenty of access to information via radio broadcasts, rumors of massacres in the east, refugees from Slovakia and Poland, etc. but refused to believe them.

The knowledge was only a small part of Bauer's argument. Mainly, he claimed that because the Jews were already shut up in ghettos (see Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary), and gentile Hungarians were hostile, escape was impossible for the vast majority. Also, the youth movements smuggled warnings into ghettos, but people refused to believe them (see Asher Cohen, The Halutz Resistance in Hungary 1942- 1944; Munkácsi, Hogyan történt, p. 82; Leni Yahil, The Holocaust. The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 642-643.).

I noticed that you found some secondary sources for the Klein anecdote. I had assumed based on your previous comments that such sources did not exist. I wouldn't be opposed to retaining the anecdote if it were condensed, made less prominent in the text, the image removed, and it made clear that this was the exception, not the rule, to have an opportunity to escape. Catrìona (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

In this edit, I changed a reference of crossing the "Polish-Slovakian border" to "crossing the border into Slovakia" because "consistency needs to be maintained between Slovak and 'Slovakian,' as well as needing to be clear which German occupation area they were in." (Poland was partitioned into three occupation areas—see Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)—so any reference to a Polish border during German occupation is dubious.) I note that I have provided an explanation for why it should be be changed on multiple occasions, but SlimVirgin has not yet provided a rationale for their reverts. Catrìona (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that we should respect Hitler's view of European borders. As a matter of interest, why did you recategorize Night as a novel? [9] SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

All I am arguing is that, like it or not, those were the borders that existed and were enforced at the time. Catrìona (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would explain why you recategorized Night as a novel. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have a concern about a different article, it should be brought up on that article's talk page. Catrìona (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Friedlander perspective on knowledge

@SlimVirgin: I don't believe it's appropriate to put Friedlander's perspective next to that of Bauer as if they are equally mainstream opinions. Friedlander's 2014 book has only 11 citations on Google Scholar, while Bauer makes the same argument presented here in Jews for Sale (180 citations) and Rethinking the Holocaust (over 600 citations). Per due weight, I think it would be more appropriate to contrast Bauer's views with those of Braham (The Holocaust in Hungary, 400+ cits). Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean Fleming. It appears to be a very detailed and well-argued book, published by Cambridge University Press, and it's recent. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What revisionists have to say about Vrba

Back in 1985 I was very interested in the Zundel trials and fortunately our University had three Canadian newspapers to read about it; I clipped the articles (before the papers were thrown away) and put them into a folder, which I still have. The articles I have make Vrba look like an unreliable witness. I have also read Arthur Butz's book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which on page 135, gives a good summary of Vrba's reliability as a witness. See also pages 488ff from Butz's book about the War Refugee Report. Not sure if you want to include revisionist opinion to this article but am willing to write a paragraph or so. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If by "revisionism" you mean Holocaust denial, that is the definition of WP:FRINGE. But anything covered in mainstream, reliable sources might be included, if it is important and relevant enough. Catrìona (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, Butz is not a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Raquel, are you suggesting that we rely on Holocaust-denial sources? Vrba has indeed been attacked by Holocaust deniers, but he was able to handle them. See the article:

Zündel's lawyer, Doug Christie, accused Vrba of lying about Auschwitz and asked whether he had seen anyone gassed. Vrba replied that he had watched people being taken into the buildings and had seen SS officers throw in gas canisters after them: "Therefore, I concluded it was not a kitchen or a bakery, but it was a gas chamber. It is possible they are still there or that there is a tunnel and they are now in China. Otherwise, they were gassed."^[1]

^ "Witness lying to help Holocaust 'hoax' Zundel lawyer says", The Montreal Gazette (Canadian Press), 25 January 1985.

I intend to add more from George Klein about Vrba's personality. He was very precise and upright, and, as several sources observed, he seemed to have survived Auschwitz with his personality and sense of self intact, which was unusual. He faced down the Holocaust deniers with sarcasm and contempt, as he did the historians who contradicted him. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Restored text

@SlimVirgin: Could you please explain why you restored the text in this edit which you previously agreed to delete? As I previously stated, I don't think the introduction is an accurate reflection of the viewpoint of the historians who contributed to the collection of essays. For instance, in this paper, Bauer referrs to Conway as an "expert" and does not describe Linn as a pseudo historian or any similar language. I'm not sure what the relevance is, since as far as I can tell it represents only the views of the (non-notable) writer. Catrìona (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It serves to highlight the tension, and there's no indication that it's Conway or Linn who's being described. As for it not being an accurate reflection of the contributors' views, they published it with that introduction. I intend to check that the translation is appropriate; perhaps in Hebrew a less provocative phrase than "mockers" was used. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just noticed that I expressed myself poorly above. I meant that the introduction doesn't name Conway or Linn (so far as I know). As I said, the other authors chose to publish it, so I don't really understand your objection. Bauer made it clear that he was torn when it came to Vrba: admiration on the one hand, frustration on the other. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that Bauer, Fatran et al agreed to publish in the book means that they endorse the wording in the introduction. Although I don't know how this book was compiled, I doubt that the introduction was written before the various scholars had already made (binding?) agreements to contribute. Gila Fatran wrote in her thesis (supervised by Bauer) that the Bratislava Jewish Council had collaborated with the Nazis, but later changed her mind. (This was interpreted by Linn as the pressure of the hegemonic Israeli establishment). And there are examples of academic books where contributers explicitly disavow what is written in the introduction; see The Black Book of Communism for perhaps the most notorious example. It's an oversimplification to claim that this represents the scholar's views; they should be represented by their own words alone, and what's been written on them. As for "highlighting the tension", we're not here to highlight tension, we're here to fairly represent what's been written in reliable sources—and there's no evidence that this particular writer is significant enough to merit inclusion. Catrìona (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're focusing on it so much. I didn't say it represented their views, but Bauer is a powerful historian; I can't see him being the lead author of a book on the Holocaust and not checking out the introduction before publication or at least being told that there's something provocative in it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources

@SlimVirgin: I commend your attempts to make the article more complete. However, I'm still concerned about the over reliance on Vrba's own testimony. I would expect that there is an abundance of secondary sources on the Judenrampe, for example, which would help put Vrba's testimony into context. Langbein has some information on Vrba's imprisonment on Auschwitz. Levine gives a detailed account of his escape and the subsequent escape of Rosin and Mordowicz. I have access to Levine through my university library and would be willing to send you the relevant pages. According to Levine, the escape plan came from a Soviet prisoner of war who had been recaptured. Catrìona (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Langbein, Hermann (2005) [First published in German in 1972]. People in Auschwitz. Translated by Zohn, Harry. University of North Carolina Press in connection with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ISBN 9780807863633. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Levine, Alan J. (2000). Captivity, Flight, and Survival in World War II. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 213–219. ISBN 9780275969554. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I can't find that in Levine; do you have a page number? Vrba does mention in the book taking advice (or not taking it, I forget) from one or more Russian prisoners, so I'll try to find it. As I recall, it had to do with sprinkling Russian tobacco to fool the dogs.

The problem with Vrba's book is that there's a lot of reconstructed dialogue and no index, so it can be annoying to read; it started life as a series of newspaper articles. It means that locating facts in the book is very time-consuming. As you can see, I often use Vrba 1998 instead, which is a paper from Braham's The Nazis' Last Victims: The Holocaust in Hungary, even though I'd prefer to use the 2002 book because it's closer (I assume) to his 1963 text.

As for putting his experience in context, I've been doing that only where he deviates from a mainstream view. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)